Was Ivermectin Unfairly Torpedoed as Treatment for COVID-19? Medication has become the poster child for conflicted scientific, regulatory issues that surround COVID-19 BY JENNIFER MARGULIS

Controversy seems to surround virtually everything connected with COVID-19: masking, social distancing, vaccines. Amid this quagmire of controversy, one of the most fraught questions has been whether the medication ivermectin is nothing more than dangerous snake oil or is actually a safe and effective treatment for the virus.

‘Horse De-Wormer’

The mainstream media and conventional medical doctors have generally derided ivermectin, referring to it as a “horse de-wormer.” Patients are cautioned against taking it, doctors who are willing to prescribe it report being investigated by their licensing boards and even fired from their jobs. Patients are warned that ivermectin is “dangerous” and “ineffective.”

According to the FDA, it “has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.”

Safe Antiparasitic

At the same time, ivermectin is a well-known antiparasitic that hundreds of millions of people, mostly in Africa and Asia, have taken since it first became available in 1981, according to research published in the Proceedings of the Japan Academy. It has been especially effective at combating a disease called river blindness, which is caused by Onchocerca volvulus worms and transmitted via blackfly bites.

In fact, ivermectin is considered so safe that it’s sold over-the-counter in many countries, or even distributed free. The two scientists who developed the drug, Drs. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura, shared the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine with another scientist who developed an effective way to fight malaria.

When the COVID pandemic was raging, scientists naturally sought drugs that could be repurposed to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Ivermectin made the list of potential treatments because it exhibited antiviral capabilities, and some doctors in developing countries had noticed that patients on preventative ivermectin for parasites fared better with COVID.

Positive In-Vitro Results

One particularly promising study, published by a team of researchers in Australia in June of 2020, found that a single dose of ivermectin was able to reduce replication of SARS-Co-V-2 by 5,000-fold in vitro (that is, in test-tube experiments).

However, it was initially thought that very high doses would be required for the drug to be effective against viral infection in humans.

Yet small clinical trials began reporting surprisingly good results. Indeed, some of these early trials reported effective treatment for both mild cases of COVID-19 and more severe, hospitalized patients. It seemed that the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects might be more important than its antiviral capacities when it came to treating people with COVID-19.

In an article dated May 1, 2021, award-winning journalist Michael Capuzzo reported that President Donald Trump was treated with ivermectin when he contracted COVID. (When I contacted him to confirm this information, Capuzzo wrote me back that he couldn’t reveal his source but that it was someone close to the president.)

When popular podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan tested positive for COVID in September of 2021, he threw “the kitchen sink” at it. Among other treatments, he took ivermectin, which he has since credited with helping him recover from the virus in just a couple of days.

A Controversial Cochrane Review

All the positive buzz about ivermectin abruptly ended, however, with a Cochrane review published in July 2021 that was categorically critical of the drug. Making headlines around the world, the review concluded that, “Current evidence does not support using ivermectin for treating or preventing of COVID-19 unless they are part of well-designed randomized trials.”

A closer look at this research reveals, however, that the conclusion makes claims beyond the data amassed by the study itself. The language of the review studiously avoids any determination about ivermectin’s effects, repeating the words “We are uncertain whether” and underscoring the “uncertainty” that ivermectin can do what some of the trials argued it could do a whopping 38 times.

The Cochrane review was a meta-analysis: a study that combines and examines data from other studies to essentially act as one overarching study. The analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with a total of only 1,678 participants. N = 1,678 is a very low number.

Despite that, several of the included studies indicated very good results from using ivermectin (including a reduction of all-cause mortality of 40 percent compared to that of the placebo group and a reduction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation of 45 percent) to combat COVID-19.

The reviewers dismissed these promising results with the claim that they were “very low certainty” because of potential bias and that the number of participants, 185, in the trial was so low. It’s true that the results didn’t reach statistical significance, but that alone is not an adequate reason to discard the results.

Biased Unbiased Research?

Cochrane has long been considered the gold standard in international unbiased research. However, in recent years, their research has often been sponsored by entities with conflicts of interest.

In 2016, Cochrane received $1.15 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, prompting concerns among Cochrane’s board that taking the money would compromise Cochrane’s mission. The furor resulted in the firing of one board member and the resignation of four others, and many believe the Gates funding significantly affected the quality of Cochrane’s subsequent reviews, most notably of the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine.

In 2018 article, “Cochrane—A sinking ship?” published in the British Medical Journal, science reporter and a researcher Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., lamented Cochrane’s shift towards a commercial business model approach and “away from its roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.”

The ivermectin review was funded by the United Kingdom, but was carried out by members of the German research project CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence-Ecosystem). Both are government entities that, like the U.S.’s Centers for Disease Control, have staked public health—and their credibility—on a vaccine solution.

What may be most important in the Cochrane review was what was left out. Their review didn’t include an analysis of at least 49 other studies that could shed light on this issue. According to the authors: “We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.”

At the same time, another meta-analysis, published four months earlier, in March of 2021, included 18 randomized controlled trials that showed very positive results for ivermectin intervention. But many of the studies were not yet published, and this meta-analysis included one retracted trial. However, the scientists address the difficulty of combining disparate study designs into something that can justify a cohesive conclusion, mentioning the fact that meta-analyses “are prone to confounding issues.”

Indeed, they are.

While it’s generally accepted that meta-analyses, such as Cochrane routinely performs, are the “gold standard” in data-driven research, many critics point out that they are actually quite easy to manipulate as well as prone to compounding the errors of the underlying studies.

In their 544-page book, “Introduction to Meta-Analysis,” statistician Michael Borenstein, Ph.D., and his team outline some of the more significant problems associated with meta-analyses:

“The goal of a meta-analysis should be to synthesize the effect sizes, and not simply (or necessarily) to report a summary effect,” they explained. “If the effects are consistent, then the analysis shows that the effect is robust across the range of included studies …. If there is substantial dispersion, then the focus should shift from the summary effect to the dispersion itself.”

The studies included in Cochrane’s meta-analysis were by no means consistent, yet that fact was largely ignored in the analysis when it should have been the main topic of discussion.

Clinician Views on Ivermectin

“I have treated hundreds of COVID patients successfully with Ivermectin as part of a larger treatment protocol,” wrote Jeffrey Barke, a medical doctor based in southern California, in an email. “I have not seen a single adverse reaction to ivermectin. It’s a safe drug. And when used early in the course of COVID-19, ivermectin … works.”

However, Barke continued, it is difficult to procure.

“Unfortunately, many brand-name pharmacies are refusing to dispense this safe, potentially life-saving medication. It’s easier for me to prescribe oxycontin than ivermectin,” he wrote.

Barke is not alone. Many doctors all over the world have anecdotally reported getting good results using ivermectin, especially when administered at the first signs of infection.

Getting accurate data on ivermectin’s efficacy (or lack thereof) is tricky, however, because many places where it is being used to seemingly good effect, including Mexico City (where nearly 200,000 kits with ivermectin were distributed) and Delhi, haven’t been running placebo-controlled trials.

According to Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized physician and biochemist and one of the original inventors of mRNA vaccination technology, who has worked as a vaccine developer and government public health insider for more than 40 years, “prophylactic use of ivermectin saves lives.”

Analyzing data from a controlled study done in Brazil of over 223,000 people in an article on Substack, Malone concludes: “The results of this study clearly demonstrate that prophylactic use of ivermectin must be initiated immediately for people in high risk categories in the United States and worldwide.”

Confounding Factors

At the same time, results from two recent clinical trials, one in Malaysia and one in Italy, found that adding ivermectin to the normal course of therapy seemed to show no benefit and also no harm.

Yet another meta-analysis, just published on March 21 of 2022, examined studies done on ivermectin and COVID-19 to analyze why some showed that patients receiving ivermectin did better than controls, while other studies showed no benefit. According to these authors, the difference in how COVID-19 patients on ivermectin did varied depending on whether the patients lived in an area in which a certain type of worm was prevalent or not.

It may seem counterintuitive, but this study found that people in areas with widespread infection from nematode worms of the genus Strongyloides didn’t get as sick from COVID-19. Perhaps because their immune systems, busy fighting parasitic worms, did not overwhelm them with cytokine storms.

We don’t think of worm infections as beneficial. But this research dovetails with results of a recent study from Ethiopia published in the Lancet. Of the 751 patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2, those who had intestinal parasites (either worms or protists) tended not to progress to severe disease. Eleven patients in this cohort died. But none of deaths occurred in people who had parasites.

Juan Chamie, senior data analyst for the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a non-profit organization founded by medical doctors that is dedicated to developing effective treatment protocols to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and to improve outcomes for sick patients, has been tracking the use of ivermectin to combat COVID across the globe since May of 2020.

Chamie has compiled all the data into a striking series of charts, published on the FLCCC website, that show that localities that introduced ivermectin as a part of their treatment protocols saw significant drops in their COVID rates, perhaps as a result. 

If Chamie’s analysis is correct—and that’s a very big if—the outright dismissal of a low-risk, inexpensive, potentially preventive treatment with a long record of safety could be the single most deadly, not to mention unethical, policy error of this pandemic.

Rare Vulvar Ulcers Reported in Adolescent Girls Following Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccination BY MEILING LEE

Cases of rare vulvar ulcers have been diagnosed in adolescent girls after receiving a second dose of the Pfizer messenger RNA (mRNA) shot, according to the April edition of the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology.

Six cases of adolescent girls ages 12 to 16 developing painful genital ulcers within four days of their second vaccine dose were reported in the medical journal, including two cases occurring after infection with COVID-19.

This is the first time that cases of vulvar ulcers in adolescents and young women are being addressed and discussed in the medical literature.

Doctors in these cases say it’s “important to identify and explain possible adverse effects to help dispel the hesitancy some patients might feel about receiving a novel vaccine.”

The vulvar ulcers—known as vulvar aphthous ulcers, lipschütz ulcers, or acute genital ulcerations—are nonsexually acquired painful lesions formed on the external structures of the female genitalia, or the vulva. The condition mainly affects adolescents and young women, but cases of older women have also been reported.

Unlike mouth sores, which are an established adverse reaction of certain vaccines, including the COVID-19 injections administered in the United States, vulvar ulcers are not.

A simple search on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for aphthous ulcer, vaginal ulceration, vulval ulceration, and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, resulted in 282 total events as of April 14.

Of those, over 40 reports were related to genital ulcers in adolescents and young women several days after the second Pfizer shot, while the rest were reports of mouth ulcers. Several cases have also occurred following the first and third dose.

The youngest to experience the vulvar ulcers was a 10-year-old girl from North Carolina, who developed several painful lesions 24 hours after her second Pfizer injection on Jan. 29, 2022 (VAERS ID number: 2087752-1). She tested negative for the herpes simplex virus. The report didn’t mention whether a COVID-19 test was administered.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cautions that reports made to VAERS don’t necessarily prove causation.

“While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,” the CDC wrote.

Syringes and vials of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on a work surface during a drive-through clinic at St. Lawrence College in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 18, 2021. (The Canadian Press/Lars Hagberg)

Case Reports

The first case report to describe a potential association between the development of vulvar ulcers and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination was of a 16-year-old patient from Minnesota. She experienced fever, body pain, fatigue, and vaginal lesions within 24 hours of getting a second dose of the mRNA COVID-19 shot. The ulcers became extremely painful and the patient had difficulty with walking, urination, and defecation when she was seen at the pediatric gynecology clinic six days after her vaccination.

The patient was tested for COVID-19, sexually transmitted diseases, and two common viruses—Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV). Every test was negative except for the EBV test, which indicated she had a prior infection.

Nonsexually acquired vulvar ulcers have been associated with several viral infections, including EBV, influenza, and most recently, COVID-19. However, based on the patient’s clinical presentation, the doctors concluded that the ulcers were associated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

With no standard treatment protocol for these types of ulcers, treatment usually involves administering oral and topical medications for pain control. Sitz baths are also prescribed to relieve pain, swelling, and other symptoms.

The second case report (pdf) involved a 14-year-old girl from Nebraska who reported vulvar pain and lesions two days after she received her second Pfizer vaccine. Prior to experiencing vulvar pain, the patient had “transient but severe symptoms of fatigue, body aches, and insomnia” 12 hours following the mRNA injection. All of her tests, including for COVID-19 were negative.

“We believe this case demonstrates a possible novel association between the Pfizer vaccine and development of a vulvar aphthous ulcer in an adolescent patient,” the authors of the report wrote.

At Children’s Mercy Hospital in Missouri, three female patients aged 12 to 15 were diagnosed with genital ulcers between June to September 2021. All three presented to the emergency room with pain and multiple vulva ulcers within 24 to 48 hours after their second Pfizer vaccine dose. They tested negative for cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, and none had been recently exposed to COVID-19. Their condition resolved spontaneously by week three.

The sixth report was of a 16-year-old from Massachusetts who developed painful urination, vulvar itching and discharge, and labial swelling four days following her second dose of Pfizer vaccine. The following day, she presented to the gynecological clinic with vulva ulcers. She tested negative for herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, Epstein-Barr, cytomegalovirus, and mycoplasma, a bacteria.

“In this time of pandemic, testing for COVID-19 infection or inquiring about recent COVID-19 vaccination should be considered in all young women presenting with acute genital ulcerations,” the authors of the case report said.

All six patients had no adverse reaction to their first Pfizer injection. The time needed to resolve the ulcers and pain varied for each patient, ranging from one week to three weeks with medications and other supportive care.

Pfizer officials didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

More Than 1 Million COVID Vaccine Injuries, Nearly 27,000 Deaths Reported to VAERS, CDC Data Show BY MEGAN REDSHAW

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,226,314 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 26,976 deaths and 219,865 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 8, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,226,314 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 8, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 26,976 reports of deaths — an increase of 277 over the previous week — and 219,865 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 2,564 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 805,921 adverse events, including 12,471 deaths and 79,811 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 8, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 12,471 U.S. deaths reported as of April 8, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 21% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 564 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of April 8, including 334 million doses of Pfizer, 212 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

Woman Develops Fatal Brain Disease After Second Moderna Dose

Carol Beauchine died from sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), a rapidly evolving, fatal degenerative brain disorder she developed after her second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Carol’s son, Jeffrey Beauchine, said it was excruciating to watch his 70-year-old mother — who was healthy until she got the vaccine — die from a disease he believes the vaccine caused.

Beauchine said Carol received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.” She developed numbness that spread throughout the entire left side of her body, blindness and hearing loss. She lost the ability to walk and communicate, and her brain degenerated until she passed away on Aug. 2, 2021 — just five months after receiving her second dose of Moderna.

The family submitted a report to VAERS, but the CDC has not followed up on Carol’s death. The Defender has received numerous reports of people who died from sporadic CJD after receiving a COVID vaccine — all women who were between the ages of 60 and 70, including Cheryl Cohen and Jennifer Deason Sprague.

Biden Administration Extends COVID Public Health Emergency Needed to Keep Vaccines Under EUA

The Biden administration on Wednesday extended the COVID public health emergency, now two years old, for an additional 90 days — allowing vaccines and other drugs to remain under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Keeping COVID vaccines and other countermeasures under EUA shields pharmaceutical companies from liability for the harms caused by their products.

According to Reuters, a public health emergency was initially announced in January 2020, when the COVID pandemic began. It has been renewed each quarter since and was due to expire on April 16.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a statement it was extending the public health emergency and will give states 60 days’ notice prior to termination or expiration. This may be the last time HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra extends it, according to policy experts.

Pfizer to Seek Authorization From FDA for COVID Booster Shot for Kids 5 to 11 Years Old

Pfizer and BioNTech Thursday said they plan to apply for EUA of a COVID booster dose for healthy 5- to 11-year-olds based on the results of a small study that has not been published or analyzed by independent experts.

Pfizer said in a press release the third dose of its vaccine produced significant protection against the Omicron variant in children 5 to 11 in a small Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The study was based on data from only 140 children 5 through 11 years old who received a booster dose six months after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine as part of the primary series.

Pfizer claimed a closer look at 30 children showed a 36-fold increase in virus-fighting antibodies — levels high enough to fight the Omicron variant, and that a third dose was “well tolerated with no new safety signals observed.”

Although Pfizer said more than 10,000 children under the age of 12 have participated in clinical trials investigating Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, only 140 were selected for the study forming the basis for the company’s EUA request.

CDC Launches Internal Review Over Failed COVID Response

The CDC announced Monday it was launching a month-long comprehensive agency-wide review following widespread criticism of the agency’s response to the COVID pandemic.

The agency plans to evaluate its structure, systems and processes, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told staff in an email obtained by The Washington Post. Walensky said the goal of the review is to “modernize” the agency and “to position CDC, and the public health community, for greatest success in the future.”

The review will be conducted by Jim Mcrae, associate administrator for primary healthcare at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The HRSA and the CDC are part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Last month, the CDC’s decision to remove from its data tracker website tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID — including nearly a quarter of the deaths the agency said had occurred among children — eroded public trust in the CDC’s handling of case counts.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

Originally published on Children’s Health Defense

Masks fail their latest test by Steve Kirsch

Masks do not work to protect anyone from SARS-CoV-2. It's all based on sloppy science. We asked the senior author of the Bangladesh mask study to defend his study. He failed. Badly. Very badly.

Steve Kirsch

Summary

The CDC just decided to continue the transportation mask mandate for another two weeks. Dr. Bob Wachter, Chair of the Department of Medicine at UCSF, concurs with the CDC decision. This doesn’t prove that masks work. Instead, it proves that the CDC, Wachter, and most mainstream scientists (who claim masks work) are incapable of differentiating solid science from a sloppy study.

There have been only two randomized trials to test whether public policy using masks to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 can reduce the spread.

The first one, in Denmark, failed to show that masks made a difference. However, they were forced to re-write their paper to claim masks worked in order to get their study published. This is known as “scientific corruption to match the political narrative.”

But the second one, in Bangladesh, claimed that masks worked.

Nature called it a “rigorous study” and Stanford and Yale promoted it as definitive in a press release.

But was it really? We challenged Yale Professor Jason Abaluck, the first author of that study, to defend their study. To his credit (and our utter amazement), he agreed but with one condition: we were only allowed one person to challenge him (because that’s how science works of course). We instantly agreed.

The discussion happened on April 3, 2022. The result: Abaluck failed. Badly. Very badly. One of our experts who viewed the interview said that it was worse than just sloppy work. He wrote, “This is bordering on fraud.”

In short, the Bangladesh mask study again failed to prove that masks make a difference. It was all statistical noise.

For example, here’s the graph for purple cloth masks. If masks worked, it would be highly unlikely for these curves to be on top of each other. For some strange reason, graphs such as these were omitted from the paper. Can you guess why??? Yes, it’s because the study was designed to fit the narrative. Subgroup analysis that goes against the narrative is not shown in the paper. That would cause people to ask questions.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/masks-fail-their-latest-test?s=r

Florida "Vaccine Hesitancy" REDUCED Infant Mortality in 2021 Does Childhood Vaccination Cause Half of Infant Deaths? Igor Chudov

This is a kind of a shocking finding to me and I want to be fact checked on what I wrote below. I would like to be proven wrong.

In 2021, vaccination of infants massively decreased in Florida due to “vaccine hesitancy”. Along with decrease in childhood vaccinations, all cause infant mortality ALSO MASSIVELY DECREASED, in a perfect lockstep!

The changes are very significant and can be considered an unintended experiment.

Say what?

What I found is that in 2021, parents of newborns in Florida were much more “vaccine hesitant”, for reasons obvious to my readers, and therefore childhood vaccinations decreased from 93.4% previously to only 79.3% in 2021. During the same time, all cause infant mortality under 1 year of age in Florida also DECREASED by 8.93%.

Both changes are huge.

Subscribe

Details

This comes as a result of a Twitter conversation about an interesting article about SIDS and childhood vaccines. I posted a link to that article and received a reply, and also replied:

Since nobody looked up the numbers, I decided to look them up by myself.

After an hour of duckduckgo-ing, I found two webpages with relevant numbers:

The first document states that immunization coverage for childhood vaccines (not Covid vaccine) decreased by 14.1 points, from 93.4% to 79.4% statewide. It is, strictly speaking, for under-two-year-olds, but, obviously, the same thing happened to under-one-year-olds.

The second page shows corresponding decrease in childhood mortality in 2021:

Please note that “Infant Mortality Rate” is defined as the number of deaths of all infants, from 0 to 365 days of age, from ANY causes, per 1,000 infants. (visit that page and click on “?”)

So, what do we have?

  • Infant Vaccination decreased by 14.1% in 2021.

  • All cause infant mortality decreased by 8.93% in 2021

  • Decrease in infant mortality happened as deaths of other age groups increased significantly

This is very puzzling. I have to admit that I, a parent of two fine young men, agreed to give my children all “required shots” without even a second thought. I always supposed that “shots” are done to protect them and it was not a big deal. The only exception was flu shots, which we skipped, just to be completely forthright.

And yet, here we have a very strong alarm signal. Why does a massive decrease in childhood vaccination rate coincide with a massive decline in infant mortality?

Can we think of Florida in 2021 as one big experiment? In 2021, parents who were alarmed by general social developments, randomly decided to NOT give their babies the “scheduled shots”. Coincidentally, mortality among precious Florida babies actually DECREASED very significantly.

14 percent decrease in vaccination coverage, is associated with 9 percent decrease in infant mortality.

In plain language, it means that ABOUT HALF THE INFANT DEATHS IN FLORIDA MAY BE CAUSED BY VACCINATIONS.

For example, in 2020, 1,356 infants died in Florida. If the hypothesis is true and about half of these deaths were caused by vaccination, it means that 678 Florida infants died due to childhood vaccination in 2020.

Share

Note that Florida is a new hotbed of “vaccine hesitancy” and other states are not nearly so affected. Not surprisingly, in the entire US, infant mortality in 2021 only declined by modest 1.18%, in line with a long term healthful trend.

Additionally, whereas in 2021, infant mortality in Florida decreased by 8.93%, in 2020 it increased by a modest 0.67%. So 2021 was a truly remarkable year that “broke the trend”.

Disclaimers

The most obvious objection is that coincidence is not causation. There could be another reason to cause a massive -9% decline in infant mortality in Florida. For example, perhaps Floridian mothers paid much more attention to their babies in 2021 compared to 2020, or there were less car crashes in 2021 that killed infants, compared to 2020?

All of the above mentioned “alternative explanations” make little sense. Still, remember that I only found an “alarm signal”, but not a definite proof.

The definite proof would be the gold standard of medical evidence, which is a randomized controlled trial. While some infants would be given childhood vaccines, other would not, on a random basis. A year later, mortality could be compared. All medical authorities, for decades, steadfastly refused to do so.

Since this post discusses dangers to infants, PLEASE SHARE IT WIDELY!

Dr. David Martin: COVID vaccines are bioweapons designed for genocide 03/30/2022 / By Mary Villareal

Dr. David Martin has warned the public that a genocide is currently going on in the guise of mass vaccination.

“This is a pandemic of the bio weaponization of the human organism. This is not public health. And Anthony Fauci is the architect of this genocide,” Martin said when he appeared in the March 24 episode of “The Stew Peters Show.” During the course of the program, Martin talked about the chimeric model of spike proteins and how this is affecting the body.

Mainstream science has come up with the news that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines persist in the human body for an indeterminate period, and will survive up to eight weeks in the lymphatic system, where it will continually produce the spike protein. Scientists see evidence that spike proteins are showing up in waste streams at alarmingly high rates.

This is what happens when you inject the body with a chimeric model of a synthetic spike protein, and when this type of gene therapy has not been tested properly. It turns out that no one knows how long each vaccinated individual injected would manufacture the pathogens in their body.

Why are there such high concentrations of spike protein showing up in waste streams?

“The reason is really simple,” Martin said. “The human organism is now being modified and it is being modified to perpetually produce a toxic protein known and scheduled to harm humanity.” (Related: Karen Kingston tells Michele Swinick: Purpose of COVID-19 vaccine is to be a tool for genetic editing – Brighteon.TV.)

Martin added that these proteins are known to be damaging and are subject to the biological and chemical weapons, treaties and laws that have been enforced in the United States. These chimeric viruses resulted from the deliberate manipulation of SARS-CoV-2, to incorporate nucleic acids into the virus, which is illegal.

With the fourth COVID-19 shot now underway in the U.S., Fauci is talking about possibly doing another round of lockdowns, and it seems that plenty of Americans will participate because many have been brainwashed by the so-called experts.

SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses a result of deliberate manipulation

SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses are a result of any deliberate manipulation of the virus to incorporate nucleic acids for SARS-CoV-2 virulence factors. This actually shows up in three sections of the Code of Federal Regulations subjected to the biologic and toxin agent program defined under Chapter 18 U.S. Code Section 178.

As a biological agent, it is also subjected to 18 U.S. Code Section 175, or the prohibition of biological weapons. The statute says that what Big Pharma is doing under the direction of Fauci is a felony punishable up to 99 years in prison and up to $100 million per count.

The statement of the “authorities” are so egregious in the matter that there is no need to make up a conspiracy because everything they did was recorded and published. According to Martin, they are also in violation of criminal conspiracy and racketeering laws and have admitted to it.

According to filings by vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, “there is no current precedent for an mRNA based immunotherapy, such as the type we are developing, being approved for sale by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the European Commission or any other regulatory agency elsewhere in the world.”

“This is not a public health vaccine. This is a computer-generated synthetic chimeric alternative to the virulence factor of SARS-CoV-2,” Martin insisted.

“This is the reality that says we are being subjected to a perpetual addiction to a known pathogen and toxic agent. And the reason why Anthony Fauci is now advocating for the next round of boosters.” (Related: Drs. Peter Daszak and Anthony Fauci must be ARRESTED, as new intel emerges documenting planned coronavirus enhancement and deployment.)

Meanwhile, documents revealed that zoologist Peter Daszak and his collaborators have planned to release nanoparticles that could penetrate the skin. These particles contain “novel chimeric spike proteins” from bat coronaviruses, that can penetrate the skin when enhanced. The documents further revealed that COVID-19 is more than a virus. It is a biological weapon that was strategically developed and slated for deployment.

They also planned to create chimeric viruses, genetically enhanced to infect humans more easily, and requested $14m from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to fund the work. DARPA turned down the application.

Daszak is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that received funding from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to study bat coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Follow Vaccines.news for more news related to coronavirus vaccines.

Watch the video below to know how a human body has now become a bioweapons factory itself.

This video is from the FalconsCAFE Sharing is caring channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Dr. David Martin exposes the ‘the great reset and COVID-19 vaccines’ agenda.

Karen Kingston and Dr. Eric Nepute denounce COVID vaccinations for kids – Brighteon.TV.

Pfizer CEO pushes for more boosters just as studies show vaccines actually make people MORE likely to catch Omicron after 90 days.

Former Pfizer VP Mike Yeadon declares covid vaccines are “toxic by design” – they’re weapons to reduce global population.

Pfizer admits in confidential document that COVID-19 vaccine causes Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (same thing as Antibody Dependent Enhancement).

COVID-19 vaccines used to kill people in what is shaping to be the largest genocide in history 04/01/2022 / By Mary Villareal

Numerous intel briefings from military and scientific experts showed that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are bioweapons that deliver payloads for mass genocide and dehumanization. CRISPR technology is being used to alter human genes, and they have graphene oxide as hardware to get inside the body.

In a clip from the “Dr. Jane Ruby Show,” the host said people are being injected with hardware and repeated injections are bringing software under the guise of helping people avoid what is essentially the flu.

A German researcher said his team is working on a transporter system to deliver payloads supposedly for targeting and delivering medications to difficult places in the body. Graphene microbubbles are used as transporters, but the payload could be anything else. It could be drugs, gene signals through modified RNA synthetic strands or unknown chemicals and entities that are likely designed to be deployed later.

Numerous scientists behind the scenes are also concerned that some of the entities can be programed for later: in months, even years. Vaccine manufacturers are also testing to see how people are tolerating them physically, maybe even mentally.

Ruby also said there had been people emailing her about the effect of the vaccines, making them more aggressive and short-tempered. While Ruby noted that she didn’t really have a response to these observations as they are not scientific, she did mention that the number of queries she received has been more frequent.

She also mentioned the presence of carbon nanotubes that engage with people’s brains and short-circuit them.

“It’s all boiling down to three focal points. Mass genocide, building and controlling hybrid people from within and thirdly, inserting and testing circuitry in humans,” Ruby said.

She also shared that there is a particular theory emerging that indicates there are many different components to this bioweapon that must be injected at different time points in an effort to mimic biochemical reaction, to make the weapon as close to what the body would normally do.

Essentially, what is happening in the body is that there are multiple programs going on at once. First is distributing graphene intra-body for future circuitry. The graphene flagship project has been given billions of dollars worldwide to develop all kinds of sub-technology. (Related: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warns that Fauci, Gates are committing mass genocide against humanity.)

It plays a role in circuitry, in possibly one of the components, or part of the components in the lipid nano transporter that moves the synthetic mRNA into different cells in the human body. The second program that is happening is the use of multiple HIV proteins. It is being postulated to disarm a person’s immune system and weaken it. The third program is the use of COVID boosters, which are being forced on people.

Genocidal globalist

Dr. Mylo Canderian recently became popular on social media because of his genocidal views. It is still not clear if he’s a true person or just a fictional character, but many call him the “genocidal globalist” because he’s supposedly very supportive of Klaus Schwab and the “Great Reset.”

Canderian follows the Precept Ten of the Georgia Guidestones that posits there should only be half a billion people on the planet.

The Georgia Guidestones are granite monuments erected over four decades ago in Elbert County, Georgia. It sets ten guidelines, the first of which states: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

It is Canderian’s opinion that 95 percent of the world’s population are “useless eaters” who need to be euthanized as quickly as possible. He is confident that the vaccines will put an end to the “human cancer upon the earth.”

The graphene oxide in vaccines plays a huge role in that.

Any hematologist could see within seconds under a microscope the percentage of blood affected or contaminated by graphene oxide, which shows the end of cycle calculation.

To illustrate, a vaccinated person who has 20 percent graphene oxide deterioration in their blood will live for eight years (10 years less 20 percent). A person with 70 percent graphene oxide deterioration, meanwhile, will not live more than three years.

In Canderian’s viewpoint, it is easy. Let them all die. (Related: As covid injections spread autoimmune disease and “VAIDS,” media pivots to incoming AIDS “vaccine” that will only accelerate the vaccine genocide.)

“The more shots and boosters the imbeciles get, the worse their blood will look under a microscope, and the quicker they will turn to fertilizer,” he said.