July 1 – A preprint study is published at ResearchGate titled, “Trends in death rates from Neurological diseases in the US for all ages and detailed analysis for 15-44.” The abstract reads in part, “For individuals aged 15 to 44 we show a rise in excess mortality from neurological diseases reported as the underlying cause of death, with a 4.4% increase in 2020, 10.0% in 2021, 9.9% in 2022 and 8.1% in 2023, with Z-Scores of 4.9, 11.1, 11.0 and 9.0 in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively, indicating highly statistically significant changes, particularly in 2021, 2022 and 2023. When looking at excess neurological disease deaths reported as multiple cause of death, we observe that these track all-cause mortality rises, registering excess mortality of 11.2% in 2020, 20.6% in 2021, 14.7% in 2022 and 7.1% in 2023, which were also highly statistically significant. However, for excess neurological disease deaths reported as multiple cause of death, once deaths where COVID-19 was also reported are removed, we observe that these follow a very similar pattern of excess deaths to that observed for neurological deaths when reported as underlying cause. We also show that excess deaths from neurological diseases as underlying cause occurred for most age groups, with the strongest effect in ages 15-44. For individuals 65 and older there appears to be no statistically significant rise in excess mortality… The results indicate that from 2020 a novel phenomenon leading to increased neurological deaths appears to be present particularly in younger, working age individuals aged 15 to 44, which requires further investigation.” Many healthy individuals in the 15 to 44 age group, who were never that susceptible to COVID to begin with, were forced to take experimental drugs they didn’t want or need and are now forced to deal with physical and neurological impairments they likely would have not faced otherwise.
Graph taken from the linked study.
August 3 – A study out of Japan is published at PubMed titled, “SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis: An analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.” Despite the data used in the study showing a 9.6% fatality rate for those who developed myocarditis or pericarditis following COVID vaccination, the authors concluded in part, “SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was significantly associated with the onset of myocarditis/pericarditis… although most adverse events occurred early after vaccination [and] overall outcomes were good.” Fatality rates were highest in males under the age of 30, who were advised by the authors of the study to “promptly seek medical assistance for inspection and treatment upon experiencing chest symptoms after vaccination.” While this may sound like sound and obvious advice, a separate study published back in January found in some cases the symptoms most commonly associated with heart inflammation do not always manifest before a resulting cardiac event takes place. Sadly, as Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out in his analysis of the data, there is no mention at all on the CDC’s “Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adolescents and Young Adults” web page about these conditions being potentially fatal. Also see this.
August 16 – A study is published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research titled, “COVID-19 Modified mRNA ‘Vaccines’: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 2.” The study found the supposed benefits associated with the COVID “vaccines” are far outweighed by the risks, including heart inflammation, which mainly occurs after vaccination – not after infection as Big Pharma and their lackeys in media and government would have you believe. According to the researchers, “systematic reviews, by comprehensively aggregating and critically evaluating all relevant studies, can play a useful role in assessing COVID-19 modmRNA adverse events and increasing the reliability of conclusions concerning specific groupings of those events. Such reviews help minimize bias and provide a robust overview of the existing research. Nevertheless, these systematic reviews are never bulletproof. This is largely because many of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ trials included in these reviews were fundamentally flawed (lacking in internal validity), while the observational studies were riddled with numerous biases and systematic errors…” The study grouped the most common serious adverse events following COVID vaccination into six categories (cardiovascular, neurological, hematologic, immunological, oncological and reproductive) which helps readers understand how these gene therapy injections negatively impact the different systems that make the human body function properly. The authors also rightfully point out how, “the reclassification of these gene therapy products as ‘vaccines’ meant that none of their components were thoroughly evaluated for safety in a manner consistent with the testing of genetic products…” and that this led to “millions of severe and life-threatening events associated with the COVID-19 modmRNA products.” One such event, for example, is heart inflammation. While we’re led to believe this risk is associated more with COVID infections, the researchers found myocarditis was 37 times more likely to occur among those who were “vaccinated” than the placebo group that participated in Pfizer’s pre-market trial. The same data also showed a 45% increase in cardiac deaths among the vaccinated study participants, yet these products were rushed to market anyway. The study gets into many other problems associated with the clot shots including gene contamination, reverse transcription, the rapid onset of various cancers and the presence of SV40. The 70-page paper reads fast and offers a detailed synopsis of how we ended up in this mRNA hell. Part 1 can be read here.
August 19 – A study is published at the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) titled, “Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 [Pfizer] mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden.” The study was conducted as a follow-up to previous research that indicated batches of placebos may have been distributed to various places throughout the European Union in lieu of the COVID “vaccine” during the 2021 rollout. German scientists – the same scientists who conducted the study published today – made the discovery while analyzing how adverse events following the COVID shot were tightly confined to specific batches (the study was published in March of 2023, and I wrote about it on June 28, 2023). This new study compared the original data out of Denmark with data out of Sweden, and unsurprisingly the same pattern was revealed. The researchers wrote in part, “Both countries had high-SAE-rate batches in the early phase of vaccine roll-out, followed by declining rates of batch-dependent SAE [suspected adverse events] rates over time, and summary demographic data did not provide any obvious explanation for these observations. Also, a positive correlation was observed between the two countries regarding the severities of SAEs from the batches that they shared. Notably, however, Danish batch-dependent SAE rates per 1000 doses exhibited somewhat more pronounced heterogeneity than the Swedish data, especially in the early phase of the vaccination campaign and with regard to mild SAEs, where markedly lower SAE rates were reported in Sweden for batches shared between the two countries. Retrospective and independent analyses have enabled a reappraisal of the risk/benefit ratio of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which has become subject to increasing debate. For example, excess risk of adverse events in BNT162b2 clinical trials has been suggested, and alterations in the vaccine product during upscaling of the manufacturing process may have occurred… Along this line, the established system for the quality control of vaccines has been questioned, reinforcing calls for unconstrained, precise, and timely pharmacovigilance of vaccines from the point of production to the point of care, including both reactive and preventive measures with the use of SAE data on individual doses. The current findings of a batch-dependent safety signal, in both Denmark and Sweden, are corroborated by the observed correlation between batch-dependent mild and severe SAEs for vaccine batches administered in both countries… A commercial vaccine product should be identical in all batches including those shared between countries, and it is surmised that vaccinated individuals in Denmark and Sweden objectively encountered the same rates of SAEs and had similar means and opportunity to report SAEs. Therefore, our data suggest that mild SAEs were markedly under-reported in Sweden during the early phase of vaccine roll-out. The factors that modulate the spontaneous reporting of SAEs on a population scale are multifactorial, but it is notable that the governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic differed considerably in Denmark and Sweden, with a high hierarchical command and control governance in Denmark (including societal lockdown and selective engagement with healthcare expertise) and a network-based approach with extensive regional and local autonomy in Sweden… The current validation by Swedish data of the batch-dependent safety signal reported from Denmark adds weight to the hypothesis that early commercial BNT162b2 vaccine batches may have differed from the latter batches and that batch-level product quality surveillance and pharmacovigilance may have been suboptimal during the BNT162b2 vaccine roll-out.” “Suboptimal” is certainly a generous way to describe these findings.
September 4 – A preprint study is published at Authorea titled, “A systematic review of lymphoma secondary to COVID-19 vaccination.” Using data from several databases (PubMed, BMJ, CDC, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library), researchers set out to discover whether the COVID “vaccines” increase the risk of lymphoma. After identifying 143 cases, they found the “most commonly implicated COVID-19 vaccines were mRNA vaccines, with Pfizer-BioNTech accounting for 51.7% and Moderna for 42.7%. Adenovirus vector vaccines, including ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (0.7%) and vAd26.COV2.S (4.2%), were the next most prevalent. Approximately 45.7% of patients developed lymphoma within 30 days of vaccine administration, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma making up the majority of pathological types (71.3%). The study’s conclusion reads, “The administration of the COVID-19 vaccine may potentially elevate the associated risk of lymphoma incidence.”
September 7 – A study is published at ScienceDirect titled, “Association of SARS-CoV-2 immunoserology and vaccination status with myocardial infarction severity and outcome.” The conclusion reads, “[t]he combination of vaccination and natural SARS-CoV2 infection was associated with the development of severe heart failure and cardiogenic shock in patients with STEMI, possibly related to an increased serological response.” According to a short breakdown by Dr. Peter McCullough, “Blasco et al reported on [nearly 1,000] heart attacks occurring from March, 2020 to March, 2023. The unvaccinated must have come from 2020 before the advent of COVID-19 vaccines on the Spanish market. Antibodies were much higher in those who took one or more COVID-19 vaccines and they were associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) such as recurrent infarction and cardiac death. The time from vaccination to heart attack was 142 days on average. Of note, only the vaccinated with elevated anti-Spike levels were independently associated with this outcome. The shortcomings of this paper are detailed information on when the subjects contracted COVID-19, how many times, and the combined exposure of vaccination after previous infection and COVID-19 illness upon vaccine failure. Nevertheless, the Spike antibody level appeared to be prognostic.” Also see this breakdown by Alex Berenson.
September 10 – An interesting study is published at MDPI titled, “Trust Us – We Are the (COVID-19 Misinformation) Experts: A Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of ‘Misinformation’ in the Covid Era.” The study reads in part, “Across the body of data, the theme that MDM [mis-, dis- and malinformation] involved claims that challenge the assertions of ‘recognised epistemic authorities’ – recognised, that is, by the establishment – was salient, regardless of the source, institutional affiliation, timing in the crisis, or country location of the lead author. These authorities were also presented as agreeing on a ‘consensus’ on Covid-relevant matters, with challenges to this consensus framed as existential threats to civilised society. We were unable to identify any evidentiary criteria – databases, government records, or documents retrieved through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – external to the assertions of the authorities and proposed as independent standards of verification that would help to separate truth from MDM. It followed from this assumption that individuals were ‘misinformed’ not because of the substance of their beliefs… but because these beliefs were at odds with those of a community of experts officially sanctioned to determine what counts as MDM. Alternatives to this ‘consensus’ were framed not only as scientifically unfounded and morally wrong, but simply unimaginable… The across-the-board pressure to conform to an alleged scientific consensus translated into calls to set boundaries, virtual and physical, to permissible cognitions, attitudes, behaviours, and discourse for the sake of protecting democracy and human rights. These rights were construed almost entirely as the rights of the collective to implement policies deemed by the establishment’s institutions and actors to promote the good of this collective. This was the case, regardless of whether the rights of the collective may trample those of minorities, the protection of whose rights has historically been considered critical to a functioning democracy… While a full examination of all the scientific evidence relevant to settling the question of what counts as Covid MDM is beyond the scope of this review, a few challenges to the presumed consensus are worth noting. These include the admission that Covid mortality among young adults in the pre-vaccine era was exceedingly low… hardly warranting the unprecedented policy response; that individuals with comorbidities or from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds are, as has generally been the case with most health conditions, at a significantly higher risk of poor Covid outcomes; and that Covid vaccines had, since the outset, failed to prevent infection or transmission, which removed any scientific rationale for mandated vaccination… The alleged consensus has also been challenged by evidence that natural immunity is durable, comprehensive, and strong as compared with the faster-waning vaccine immunity; that multiple safe and effective alternatives have been available all along when treatment was needed; and that adverse events post-vaccination include serious illness and death – not to mention major evidence for the negative social, emotional, and health impacts of the panoply of official Covid policies, such as enforced lockdowns, mass quarantining of healthy people, and mass masking, especially of children and youth, or the lack of scientific evidence for the much touted ‘6-foot-social distance’ rule. This brief and, of necessity, incomplete account should call into question claims that there is, or ever was, anything other than an ‘illusion of consensus,’ even though this consensus has been held as the sole standard against which knowledge claims should be assessed. Challenges to the consensus were, however, all but absent from the literature we reviewed.”
September 12 – Scientists from England’s Oxford University publish a study in PLOS Medicine titled, “Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.” The author summary reads in part, “We found that CQ and HCQ were well tolerated and safe in prophylaxis. There was some evidence for protection against symptomatic COVID-19, and a reduction in [work days] lost to illness. Our updated meta-analysis of all chemoprevention studies in COVID-19 confirms that chemoprophylaxis with CQ or HCQ is well tolerated, safe, and provides a moderate beneficial effect in preventing COVID-19… Although CQ or HCQ are unlikely to be used in COVID-19 prevention at this stage, they could have been deployed with benefit earlier, and they might have value in future pandemics.”
September 19 – A peer-reviewed study is published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine titled, “Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment: A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol.” The study discusses the use of vitamins, drugs (including ivermectin), and dietary interventions to successfully prevent and treat cancer through the targeting of the mitochondrial-stem cell connection. The introduction reads in part, “Many theories exist regarding the origin of cancer, namely the metabolic theory… the somatic mutation theory (SMT)… the cancer stem cell theory… and the tissue organization theory… In a recently published study, a new concept was introduced: the mitochondrial-stem cell connection (MSCC) (Martinez, et al., 2024). This concept combines the cancer stem cell theory and the metabolic theory. The MSCC theory suggests that cancer arises from impaired oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) in one or more stem cells, potentially leading to the formation of cancer stem cells (CSCs) and, consequently, tumorigenesis. This connection between CSCs and mitochondria appears to be crucial at all stages of cancer… The MSCC aligns with the metabolic theory of cancer but specifically focuses on the crucial role of CSCs in every stage of the disease. However, the MSCC differs from the CSCs theory, which typically presents cancer as a genetic disease. Thus, many standard cancer therapies are based on the SMT and generally target the DNA of cancer cells… These therapies do not restore OxPhos and sometimes even alter it… Furthermore, standard therapies only target bulk cells but cannot target CSCs… whereas it is CSCs that have the strongest tumorigenic potential… and are involved in metastasis. This information could partially explain the outcomes observed with the new anticancer therapies… Thus, after reviewing the literature on various therapies capable of targeting the MSCC, we selected, based on in vitro and in vivo studies, several orthomolecules, drugs, and additional therapies that have demonstrated an ability to enhance OxPhos, reduce fermentable fuels, and target CSCs and metastasis… From this combination, we developed a hybrid orthomolecular protocol, which is proposed as a new therapeutic strategy for cancer… In order to grow and survive, cancer cells require the primary fuels glucose and glutamine to compensate for OxPhos insufficiency. The respiratory impairment induces overexpression of oncogenes and inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes, which contribute to abnormal energy metabolism in cancer. To date, no evidence has demonstrated the growth of any tumor cells, including CSCs, occurs with the deprivation of fermentable fuels… These principles are applicable to all types of cancer.” Dr. William Makis and Dr. Paul Marik, both of whom came under attack because of their approach to COVID and belief in ivermectin as an effective COVID treatment, contributed to the study.
September 25 – A study is published in JAMA titled, “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Resistance After Antiviral Treatment.” Looking at the health outcomes of the 156 participants (79 of whom were treated with Paxlovid), researchers found 11% of those given the drug developed “resistance mutations” – particularly among older individuals. While the study’s authors conclude “these mutations were generally present at low frequencies and were transient in nature,” and that this suggested “a low risk for the spread of nirmatrelvir resistance in the community with the current variants and drug usage patterns,” common sense would suggest the frequency of these mutations will only increase with continued use of this garbage drug.