329 Deaths and 9,516 “Other Injuries” in U.S. Reported Following COVID Vaccine

 

329 Deaths and 9,516 “Other Injuries” in U.S. Reported Following COVID Vaccine

Latest CDC Data

The numbers reflect the latest data available as of Jan. 22 from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website. Of the 329 reported deaths, 285 were from the U.S., and 44 were from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5.

As of Jan. 22, 329 deaths — a subset of 9,845 total adverse events — had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccinations. VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that an adverse event was linked to a vaccine.

The reports, filed on the VAERS website between Dec. 14, 2020 and Jan. 22, describe outcomes ranging from “foaming at the mouth” to “massive heart attacks” to “did not recover.”

According to the Washington Post, as of Jan. 29, 22 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. So far, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By the FDA’s own definition, the vaccines are still considered experimental until fully licensed.

Even with the updated injury numbers released today, the CDC said Thursday that safety data shows “everything is going well.” According to USA TODAY:

“Early safety data from the first month of COVID-19 vaccination finds the shots are as safe as the studies suggested they’d be.

“Everyone who experienced an allergic response has been treated successfully, and no other serious problems have turned up among the first 22 million people vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

According to the VAERS data, of the 329 reported deaths, 285 were from the U.S., and 44 were from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5.

States reporting the most deaths were: California (22), Florida (16), Ohio (18), New York (15) and KY (13). Most of the reports were from, or filed on behalf of people who had received only the first dose. About half of the people reporting had the Pfizer vaccine, the other half Moderna.

The Moderna vaccine lot numbers associated with the highest number of deaths were: 025L20A (13 deaths), 037K20A (11 deaths) and 011J2A (10 deaths). For Pfizer, the lot numbers were: EK5730 (10 deaths), EJ1685 (11 deaths), EL0140 (15 deaths), EK 9231 (12 deaths) and EL1284 (11 deaths).

Several deaths and multiple severe allergic reactions are under investigation in the U.S. and Europe.

Last week, California health officials temporarily paused a large batch of Moderna vaccines due to a high number of allergic reactions, but reversed that decision a few days later.

Anyone suffering from a serious injury will have little legal recourse because they will be directed to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program which has rejected 90% of vaccine-injury claims over the past decade.

On Jan. 3, Miami obstetrician Dr. Gregory Michael died after he suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. Michael died about two weeks after receiving Pfizer-BioNtech’s COVID vaccine. Although he became ill just three days after he got the shot, Pfizer said it didn’t think there was any direct connection to the vaccine. The New York Times quoted Dr. Jerry Spivak, a blood disorder expert at Johns Hopkins University, saying “I think it’s a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”

Officials in Orange County, California, are investigating the death of a 60-year-old healthcare worker who died Jan. 9, four days after receiving his second injection of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine. Tim Zook, an x-ray technologist at South Coast Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, was hospitalized on Jan. 5, several hours after being vaccinated. Zook’s wife, Rochelle Zook, told the Orange County Register that her husband’s health rapidly deteriorated over the next few days. She said she didn’t blame any pharmaceutical company and that people should still “take the vaccine — but the officials need to do more research. We need to know the cause.”

Data about deaths following receipt of the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are also emerging from Israel, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. Norway launched an investigation into the vaccines after the Norwegian Medicines Agency received reports of 33 suspected adverse drug reactions with fatal outcomes following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Pharma and federal agencies attributed the majority of these cases to “coincidence.”

“Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “If the clinical trials are good predictors, the rate of coincidence is likely to increase dramatically after the second shot.”

The clinical trials suggested that almost all the benefits of COVID vaccination and the vast majority of injuries were associated with the second dose.

While the VAERS database numbers are sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals and professionals to submit reports voluntarily.

In December, CHD and Kennedy wrote to former FDA director, Dr. David  Kessler, co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed. Kennedy told Kessler that VAERS has been an abject failure, with fewer than 1% of adverse events ever reported.

A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail and anyone with comorbidities.

CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events and deaths from COVID vaccines.

The PCR Test does not Identify the Virus: Covid “False Positives” Used to Justify the Lockdown and Closure of the National Economy.

 

The PCR Test does not Identify the Virus: Covid “False Positives” Used to Justify the Lockdown and Closure of the National Economy.

We are led to believe that the corona epidemic has entered into a Second Wave and then a Third Wave, and that the virus is spreading relentlessly. That’s a lie. 

The PCR test used to estimate covid positive cases is flawed. There was no second wave and there´s not a third wave.

The test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to justifying the lockdown with devastating social and economic consequences including the engineered bankruptcy of the urban services economy, tourism and air travel. 

Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Covid-19 is a public health concern but it is NOT a dangerous virus.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. 

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

Flawed Estimates

Nothing in the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test and the resulting “estimates” justifies closing down the national economy with a view to resolving a public health crisis.

Moreover, recent scientific reports including a January 20th, 2021 “Retraction” by the WHO confirm that the PCR test yields invalid estimates.

Read carefully: According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra , Michael Yeadon , Clare Craig, et al.   

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a [amplification] threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Review Report of Corman-Drosten et al)

The following text is part of Chapter II of the author’s E-Book entitled. (click here to access full text consisting of 9 chapters)

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Identification of the Virus

The RT-PCR test does not identify/ detect the virus. What it detects are fragments of viri. According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

The Question is Positive for What?? The PCR test does not detect the identity of the virus, According to Dr. Pascal Sacré,

these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.

In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination.

Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability]

The media frighten everyone with new positive PCR tests, without any nuance or context, wrongly assimilating this information with a second wave of COVID-19. 

While the RT-PCR test was never intended to identify the virus, it nonetheless constitutes from the very outset the cornerstone of the official estimates of Covid-19 “positives”. Moreover, these PCR tests were not accompanied by medical diagnosis of the patients being tested. 

WHY then was the RT-PCR adopted??

The Controversial Drosten RT-PCR Study

F. William Engdahl in a recent article documents how the RT-PCR Test was instated by the WHO at the outset, despite its obvious shortcomings in identifying the 2019-nCoV. The scandal takes its roots in Germany involving “a professor at the heart of Angela Merkel’s corona advisory group”:

On January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, of the EU Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital, [together]  with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study entitled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance January 23, 2020).

While Drosten et al’s Eurosurveillance article (undertaken in liaison with the WHO) confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, however, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … “:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4]. 

We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”  (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this (erroneous) statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”

The recommendations of the Drosten study (supported by the Gates Foundation) pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test applied to detecting 2019-nCoV were then transmitted to the WHO. They were subsequently endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom. The identity of the virus was not required.  

The above also explains the subsequent renaming by the WHO of the 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV-2.

The Drosten et al article pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test Worldwide (under WHO guidance) was challenged in a November 27, 2020 study by a  group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists et al. “Their careful analysis of the original [Drosten] piece is damning. …They accuse Drosten and cohorts of “fatal” scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test” (Engdahl, December, 2020).

According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al 

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication [Drosten] in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field. 

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.  We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws. (November 27, 2020 Critique of Drosten article, emphasis added)

The results of the PCR Test applied to SARS-2 are blatantly flawed. Drosten et al had recommended the use of a 45 amplification cycle threshold, which was endorsed by the WHO in January 2020. 

According to Pieter Borger,  et al

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)

The WHO’s RT-PCR “Retraction” (January 20, 2021)

The RT-PCR test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020, following the recommendations of  the Drosten study quoted above. It had been commissioned and financed by the Gates Foundation.  The Drosten study had recommended a maximum amplification cycle threshold of 45, which was widely applied by national health authorities. 

WHO Mea Culpa

One year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO came out with the admission that the PCR test will yield biased results if they are conducted above a certain cycle threshold used for amplification. Below is the text of the WHO’s “retraction”:  

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information. (emphasis added)

What this admission by the WHO confirms is that most of the covid positive estimates currently conducted under the so-called “Second Wave” (with amplification cycles in excess of 35) are invalid.

According to Pieter Borger, et al (quoted above)  “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Critique of Drosten Study

The above quote confirms unequivocally that the tests adopted by the governments to justify the destabilization of their national economy are flawed.  

Destructive Lockdowns. How the Pandemic Ruined American Businesses: Hail the Reopening of the US Economy?

 

Destructive Lockdowns. How the Pandemic Ruined American Businesses: Hail the Reopening of the US Economy?

What a glorious thing the reopening is! After nearly a year of darkening times, the light has begun to dawn, at least in the US. 

Given how incredibly political this pandemic has been from the beginning, many people smell a rat. Is it really the case that the reopening of the American economy, particularly in blue states, is so perfectly timed? Do the science and politics really line up so well?

These are questions for another day. And for the record, my own opinion is that the loosening of restrictions is timed well with the relaxing of public disease fear, from whatever source, political or through exhaustion or through a shift in the media narrative. In any case, it doesn’t matter for now. What matters right now is that the astonishing destructiveness of lockdowns might be coming to an end.

For those of us inveighing against lockdowns for a full year, it’s truly been a remarkable week. Restrictions are being loosened or are going away. We are finally getting some truth about the carnage. And we are even starting to see some elected officials being honest with us.

Let’s start in the most locked down state on the mainland: Massachusetts. Governor Charles Baker, whose pandemic management has wrecked so many businesses in his state, has decided it’s time to open up restaurants and businesses.

A hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center admits that the lockdowns didn’t achieve their goal. Shira Dorn said: “Businesses and restaurants have not been shown to be a significant source of spread of infection, and it’s not clear that the additional measures that were instituted in November and December actually helped.”

So sorry we ruined your holidays and lives.

The egregious limits on gatherings will persist for a few more weeks, but the tone of the argument here has shifted. It is the most significant change in state policy in a very long time. Perhaps people can begin soon to get their human rights back?

The same is happening in other states.

Washington, D.C. will resume indoor dining.

Maryland’s governor has decided that the state needs to reopen schools now and no later than March 1.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan says Michigan restaurants can reopen for indoor dining on February 1. Her health adviser decided to resign. Let us hope it is the beginning of many.

Chicago’s mayor is now demanding an immediate opening of restaurants and bars. Chicago is also threatening teachers unions that they must return to work.

New York Governor Cuomo has dramatically reversed his rhetorical course and demanded a reopening of the city. More announcements are expected in the coming days.

Governor Gavin Newsom, incredibly, has lifted all stay-at-home orders across the state and is permitting dining to open up. Many restaurants have defied orders for months now, and good for them. This new announcement shows that their defiance had an influence.

Montana’s new governor has lifted some Covid restrictions.

National Public Radio has decided to announce that the virus has peaked.

The WHO is insisting that the PCR cycle threshold must change. If nations adjust, it should make a big difference in the case trend.

And perhaps in the most honest statement uttered by any elected official in twelve months, Joseph Biden said the following: “There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” He didn’t need to qualify that statement. He could have stopped after pandemic.

CNN has removed the death tracker from its main page, while the New York Times has reported a 33% decline in new cases in the past two weeks. Plus, the Times, which arguably made the most profound contribution to the public panic over the virus, is finally reporting on the terrible carnage.

In an incredibly heartbreaking article, the Times chronicles the unspeakable deaths of despair from young children denied schooling over the past year. It’s an absolutely shocking article, one that should echo unto the ages, given what happened this last year. It’s worth a read.

As for the astonishingly anti-scientific blather dished out by the media over the last year, even that is starting to change. The Washington Post has published a helpful introduction to immunological basics, as written by JHU Professor Marty Makary:

Having the infection activates both antibodies as well as memory B- and T-cells, which teach your immune system to recognize the same virus in the future to swiftly eradicate it.

Natural immunity after covid-19 infection appears to last for at least the one year in which the virus has been circulating at large. Extrapolating from research on the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, it could be much longer. In one study of 176 people infected with SARS, immunity lasted for an average of two years. Another long-term analysis of health-care workers previously infected with SARS found antibodies up to 12 years later. Protective antibodies for the MERS coronavirus have similarly been documented to last for at least three years. And while the 1918 pandemic was caused by an influenza virus, the immune systems of those infected were able to make antibodies to the virus nearly nine decades later, a 2008 Nature study found.

Even mild infections appear to elicit a persistent and functional immune response. One recent European study found that people who had mild or asymptomatic covid-19 mounted a “robust T-cell immunity” afterward. A separate French study affirmed this, noting that some people who lived with a confirmed covid-infected person developed T-cell immunity even when they did not test positive for covid.

The article goes even further to openly admit what many of us have noticed since March: “Many medical experts have been dismissive of natural immunity due to prior infection, but there is overwhelming data showing that covid-19 reinfections are rare, and when they do occur, the infection is often mild.”

These basic facts fundamentally change the rationale for locking down. We’ve evolved with viruses without locking down. Starting in the late 19th century, once we got smarter about viruses, we realized that protection of the vulnerable and exposure among the non-vulnerable, in the framework of a functioning society, was the best approach to dealing with pandemics. We pursued that policy for a full century until last year. The unprecedented experiment with lockdowns will end up causing more death than if we had maintained a functioning society while treating disease as a medical and not a political problem.

We are also getting some truth telling on track-and-trace, courtesy of Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:

Top of the list is magic solution X, a national test and trace program. I won’t mince words. A 9-year-old could see the math didn’t work. Covid spreads more easily than the flu. An overwhelming share of cases are asymptomatic or indistinguishable from ailments that millions of Americans suffer every day. In a country as big, mobile and open as the U.S., there was zero chance of catching and isolating enough spreaders to matter.

Many experts said so at the time, but quietly. Anthony Fauci eventually said so, but quietly. All implicitly knew not to get between the media and its imperative that every big misfortune be played as a failure of inadequate government.

Even when the testing data shouted the truth, the press couldn’t hear it. Our testing misses 70% to 90% of Covid cases and yet 91% of the people being tested for Covid tested negative and were suffering from something else. We were never going to make a dent in the epidemic this way. It was a distraction.

Finally, we have actual experiments in openness right here in the US. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all been open since the spring of last year, with life continuing on more or less as normal. The results have been no worse and most often better than what we see in lockdown states. It’s almost as if the virus doesn’t care about your political solutions.

One final data point. I watched the AFC Championship football game last night. Gone were the dreary ads of 2020 that all began “In these challenging times.” Instead we were treated to pictures of happy parties, friends socializing, people living life normally and happily. Even the masks are going away. True the stadium was only half full due to preposterous regulations but it felt much more normal.

Are our governments getting wise? Doubtful but many are feeling pressure to start recognizing the rights of human beings again. The new variant (viruses naturally mutate and the NYT is trying to bring calm) might frighten them again. Biden has already imposed new international travel restrictions. We aren’t out of the woods yet.

Will they admit error and apologize? That will take longer if it happens at all. At this point, right now, other things matter more. The priority must be to emancipate us from bad science and destructive policy so we can put our lives back together again.