Tag Archives: vaccine injury

Of Clots, Nanoparticles, Graphene, and mRNA “Vaccines”

Posted on by

KOREAN DOCTORS DISCOVER SELF-ASSEMBLING NANOPARTICLES IN THE …

August 14, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell / 

Do you remember back during the Planscamdemic when Dr. Charles Lieber of Harvard University’s chemistry department was arrested for not disclosing financial relationships with…(cough)… laboratories in China? Do you also remember when it was revealed that his “specialty” was revealed to be how to use nano-particles and how they might in turn be used to carry drugs into the brain past the blood-brain barrier? And do you remember who that touched off an internet scramble to investigate all the implications of nano-particles and covid mRNA injections, and how people quickly found patents by Baal Gates who wanted to create an “updatable” quackcine technology that you wore in your body, and updated like those never-welcome-take-forever Windows updates? Remember how some people speculated that to make such a technology work, it would have to be via nano-particles being implanted somehow in the body (hmmm…. I wonder how?), particles which in turn would respond to certain types of electromagnetic signals contituting the “update” from the quackcine company? (For convenience’s sake, let’s call that company Microcrud-Nanoshinola LLC).  Do you remember when some started drawing connections between all of this and the quackcines and the adverse reactions? Remember how The Science and The Media said that making connections between all of this – the planscamdemic, the arrest of Lieber, the patents and quackcine schemes of Baal Gates – were all kooky conspiracy theorists/

Well… two doctors in Korea are confirming at least part of this scenario according to the following article shared by V.T. (with our thanks):

Korean scientists claim Pfizer, Moderna mRNA vaccine vials contain self-assembling nanoparticles that can form into clots

Note the following:

Confirming what many suspected to be the case, two Korean scientists have found that the mRNA vaccine vials from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna contain self-assembling nanoparticles that form into the white clots that many embalmers are discovering inside the bodies of the “fully vaccinated.”

The findings of these two scientists closely resemble what Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, found when he reported on these embalmer clots back in January 2022. (Be sure to check out this report highlighting the footlong clots found in some fully vaccinated dead bodies.)

What Adams apparently found concerning these clots is that they are not composed of actual human tissue, nor do they contain amyloid proteins, according to Dr. Ruby – so what are they, exactly?

If that’s the case, then what of the mechanism for the update from Microcrud-Nanoshinola LLC?  What is interesting to me is that this article actually goes there; what was “conspiracy theory” a few short years ago is now a possibility that is being considered:

The clots in question apparently contain magnetic graphene that grows in both arteries and veins. In some cases, the resulting clot is upwards of three feet in length and could be used as an antenna system for WiFi signals to connect the fully jabbed to “the borg.”

“Can you hear a high pitch frequency that increases in amplitude at night?” the X account that reiterated all of this asked of Dr. Ruby, who confirmed that she is aware of this having “broke the worldwide story of La Quinta Columna and the graphene oxide as well as the first embalmer report.”

The real question left unanswered by the article’s high octane speculation is why would one want to inject such nano-particles into someone for the purposes of Wifi signal reception, when the injection only causes the people receiving them to die? What use is a dead antenna? Is it, as the appended video in the article suggests, to somehow create “zombies”, a “fake general resurrection” by creating massive nervous reactions in dead people via strong electromagnetic pulse? (It sounds crazy, I know, but then again, these people are bat-shinola crazy.) Perhaps, perhaps not. What is intriguing here is the apparent discovery of graphene and other metals in some of the injections, which can act as antenna.

I find all this intriguing because I have a friend with Morgellon’s disease, remember that one? This was a strange disease that some people began to report during the 1990s and early 2000s. We were assured by The Science and The Media that there was no such disease and that it was just all some sort of mass hypercondria.  But what many of these people reported was a sensation of tingling, like ants crawling under their skin. They reported lesions, and these in turn would be focuses for the feeling that insects were crawling under their skin. Some reported being particularly sensitive to increased electromagnetic background noise.  Then in my friend’s and a few other people’s cases, a physician, Dr. Hildegard Stavanger, stepped forward to actually investigate – that’s called science, folks, as distinct from The Science – and what she discovered was nothing less than amazing: tiny “plastic” nano-fibers, many of them growing in the lesions of her patients. These in turn acted like tiny nano-antennae, and when electromagnetic background radiation increased, sure enough, the Morgellon’s victims’ pain increased.  Many, as a result of these early findings, speculated that the nano-fibers were entering the bodies of the victims through the so-called “chemtrail” spraying that many alleged was going on. Others looked to genetically modified foods. The latter may seem an even more unlikely candidate, but it should be remembered that in the wake of quackcine skepticism during the planscamdemic, it was alleged that members of the Technokookracy including Baal Gates advocated putting the quackcines into the GMOs, and with that, the nano-particles, GMO foods, and whatever sick and twisted agenda was behind all of this, linked up again. The story about Gates, so we’re told, was false:

Tweet suggesting vaccines in food is fabricated

What’s interesting, however, is that the basic conceptual point is not denied by the “fact check” in that vaccine-via-food is an admitted research goal:

Researchers have studied edible vaccines for years, but no such program is active in the United States.

Uh huh. Just like no program of nano-particles was being studied here by Dr. Lieber, either.  And as for genes crossing into other species, check this out:

ANOTHER ONE FOR THE GMO-TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: DNA TRANSFERENCE FROM …

My point here is that all of this high octane dot-connecting is not implausible.

All of this brings us to the real question squatting like a big fat ugly toad in the middle of all this swirling cloud of disconnected dots: who is poisoning us, and why? It seems evident to anyone with a real brain who is not leaping onto the propaganda bandwagon of The Science and The Media, that someone very much wants us dead; our food supply is poison, our drugs are poison, our “vaccines” have been redefined so that hugely experimental injections can be called vaccines and tested on human populations under the guise of a “health emergency”, and many people taking those “safe and effective” injections are suffering, or have died, in cruel fashions.   And The Media and The Science are silent (and The Science is enjoying a well-paid retirement, apparently). So… again… who wants us dead so badly, and why?  I have a few ideas, but I’d like to hear yours.

But whatever we make of it, some doctors in some countries haven’t entirely lost their minds, and are willing to say what needs to be said. Shame on all the big networks of the American propataintment media for not even bothering with the story.

See you on the flip side…

(If you enjoyed today’s blog, please share it with your friends.)

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2024/08/korean-doctors-discoer-slef-assembling-nanoparticles-in-the-quacines/

Autopsy Reports Reveal…..

Posted on by

Study: 74% of Post-Jab Deaths Caused by the Shot

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked 

VIDEO LINK;

https://rumble.com/v2ykrv8-doctors-censored-by-lancet-in-paper-that-found-74-mrna-vaccine-related-caus.html

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server
  • The autopsy review found that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection
  • Preprints with The Lancet pulled the study in less than 24 hours
  • The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) also rejected the paper, as did the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it
  • Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death. Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs

July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and several other colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server.1

Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, they concluded that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection. Previous autopsy reviews have also concluded that the mRNA COVID jabs are a causative factor in sudden cardiac deaths.2

Nearly Three-Quarters of Post-Jab Deaths Caused by the Shot

As explained by the authors:3

“The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis … We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023.

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.

The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination …

Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of vaccination causing or contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%). The one necropsy case was judged to be linked to vaccination with complete agreement …

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.”

The Lancet Censors Paper

As has so often been the case over these past three years, the journal didn’t waste time censoring the paper. Preprints with The Lancet pulled it within 24 hours,4 stating “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”5 In what way? They don’t say. As noted by McCullough, the methodology is as standard as it gets. Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic adds:6

“A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line …

Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist and co-Chair of the HART pandemic advisory group, says that in her view the approach taken in the study is sound. She told the Daily Sceptic:

‘The VAERS system … is designed to alert to potential harms without necessarily being the best way of measuring the extent of those harms. Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country.

However, this is imperfect as a deficit of deaths would be expected after a period of excess deaths, making the accuracy of any baseline dubious. An alternative approach of auditing such deaths through autopsy is sound.

There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias. For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.

Nevertheless, it is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.”

Prior to this, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) had also rejected the paper, as had the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). NEJM rejected it within a few days, and JAMA within about an hour of submission. The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it.

In the video above, Naomi Wolf with Daily Clout interviewed McCullough about the censoring of his paper. According to McCullough, overnight, while the paper was still on the Preprint server, downloads of the paper were in the hundreds per minute, demonstrating there’s a clear demand for this information.

The paper is currently only available for download on the preprint server Zenodo.7 Ironically, by pulling the paper off the server, The Lancet magnified its existence, as news of the censorship went viral on social media.

Mechanisms of Action

In the featured Daily Clout interview, McCullough explains the jab’s mechanisms of action that appear to be responsible for a majority of post-jab heart-related deaths. The first is myocarditis (heart inflammation). The other is progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In myocarditis, the electrical current can no longer conduct smoothly through the heart muscle, causing an abnormal heart rhythm. This abnormal heart rhythm can then lead to sudden cardiac death. This is one of the primary reasons behind many athletic deaths, where players have died on the field.

In a letter to the editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology published in late 2022,8,9 McCullough compared the pre- and post-COVID jab cardiac death rates among athletes, finding that before the jab, there were an average of 29 cardiac-related deaths among pro athletes per year.

After the rollout of the jab, which was mandated on players, it shot up to 283 per year — a 10-fold increase. And, in many cases, players have no prior symptoms. Wolf points out that lipid nanoparticles have been found to damage electrical conduction in the myelin sheath, so why would it not also damage electrical conduction in the heart? It makes sense that it would.

McCullough adds that when lipid nanoparticles are taken up by human somatic cells — nonreproductive cells, found in the heart and other internal organs — it causes syncytia formation where cell membranes fuse together.

And, because the heart prefers lipids over glucose for fuel, it may preferentially take up lipid nanoparticles, more so than other tissues. On top of that, exercise increases blood flow, which draws more lipid nanoparticles to the heart.

He also cites research showing there are two primary periods of sudden cardiac death: during exercise and between 3 AM and 6 AM. The common factor between these two is adrenaline. Adrenaline surges during exercise and in the natural waking process. If you have myocarditis, this adrenaline surge can be enough to trigger sudden cardiac death.

Shining a Light on Possible Treatments

As noted by Wolf, by clearly identifying how the COVID jab is killing people, McCullough’s paper also helps shed light on potential treatments. The spike protein produced by your body in response to the mRNA shot is the primary culprit that needs to be degraded and eliminated.

The enzymes in your body that would normally do this job are unable to degrade the synthetic spike protein, but there are products that can get the job done. McCullough refers to Japanese research that found nattokinase can be very helpful in this regard. However, lumbrokinase is a much stronger fibrinolytic enzyme and would likely work better.

Bromelain, an enzyme derived from pineapple stems, also works, McCullough says, as does curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric. We also know that both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin aid in the elimination of spike protein.

As noted by McCullough, it’s interesting that while the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the spike protein produced by the mRNA jab are synthetic and wholly unnatural, most of the best remedies are turning out to be all-natural compounds.

Reprehensible Medical Censorship

At the end of the interview, McCullough says that if the current censorship trend continues, medical history may well state that the COVID shots are perfectly safe, even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary — evidence that was never allowed to be seen.

In a three-part series for TrialSite News, published in 2021, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah reviewed how scientific journals were censoring the science on COVID. July 7, 2023, she published a follow-up based on the most recent censoring of McCullough’s paper:10

“This is just another example of a paper with findings, not fitting in with the ‘very good safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines,’ being expelled from a prominent journal,” she writes. “Dr. McCullough commented exclusively for TrialSite about this highly concerning issue. This is what he said:

‘This act of medical censorship occurred after the paper met all the criteria for listing on the Lancet PrePrint Server and appears to be triggered by very heavy worldwide interest and rapid downloading of the paper.

This speaks to the importance of our findings as the largest summary of autopsies after COVID-19 vaccination. Elsevier and Lancet are trying to suppress critical scientific observations on COVID-19 vaccine safety. Their actions are reprehensible.’

My own research11 in analyzing the Periodic Safety Update Reports compiled by Pfizer for the European Medicines Agency revealed damning data. As of June 2022, 161 children have died shortly after taking the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

What is even more shocking is that an overwhelming majority of autopsies were not performed or followed up by the pharmaceutical behemoth … This is why McCullough et al.’s study is so key because there is an incredible lack of laboratory data and post-mortem information on these post-vaccine deaths …

This begs the all-important question — has this scarcity been carefully orchestrated to prevent sufficient evidence of a causal association of COVID-19 vaccines with the reported deaths?”

Case Report of mRNA Jab-Induced Turbo Cancers

In related news, Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death.

Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs. The case report, published in Frontiers in Oncology May 1, 2023, noted:12

“Two days following booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), at only 14 weeks of age, our animal suffered spontaneous death with marked organomegaly and diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm.

Immunohistochemical examination revealed organ sections positive for CD19, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, and c-MYC, compatible with a B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma immunophenotyped …

Given the paucity of data on the long-term safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, it is vital that clinicians and scientists report any adverse event to establish potential correlations.

Our case adds to previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Interestingly, we are the first to report a B-LBL subtype …

Although strong evidence proving or refuting a causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and lymphoma development or progression is lacking, vigilance is required, with conscientious reporting of similar cases and a further investigation of the mechanisms of action that could explain the aforementioned association.”

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

Aside from autopsy assessments, case reports of harms and various other studies, things like job statistics, disability claims, life insurance claims and all-cause mortality statistics also tell us that the COVID jabs are having a devastating effect.13 All have skyrocketed since the introduction of these COVID jabs.

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body.

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

As mentioned earlier, eliminating the spike protein is a primary task to prevent and/or address post-jab injuries. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine bind to and facilitate the removal of spike protein. According to McCullough, nattokinase, bromelain and curcumin also help degrade the spike protein.

For a comprehensive treatment plan, see the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) I-RECOVER protocol. It’s continuously updated as more data become available, so be sure to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com.14

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/18/post-covid-vaccination-deaths.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230718_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1435273&rid=1858959125

Get Your Vax, Get the Virus?

Posted on by

New Study: The Flu Vaccine Is “Significantly Associated” With An Increased Risk of Coronavirus

By   CE Staff Writer

In Brief

  • The Facts:    A new study published in the journal Vaccine found a significantly greater risk of contracting coronavirus among individuals in the study who received the influenza vaccine.
  • Reflect On:     Are vaccines completely and 100 percent safe for everybody? Is there a large minority who are more susceptible to vaccine injury and complications compared to others?

On March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson encouraged the audience to get a flu shot, suggesting that it may help with the coronavirus. Is this true?

Greg. G Wolff, an Epidemiologist with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch recently published a study in the Journal Vaccine titled,  Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season. The study examined virus interference in a Department of Defense population, this refers to the increased risk of other respiratory viruses as a result of, in this case, the influenza vaccine. The study found that virus interference varied among vaccinated individuals for individual respiratory viruses, and found that for coronavirus in particular, in this study, those who had been vaccinated with the flu vaccine had a 36 percent higher risk  of contracting it

The study compared the vaccination status of more than two thousand people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to more than three thousand people with pan-negative results. The vaccination status of more than three thousand cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups, and appropriate adjustments were made.

The study points out that recently published studies have “described the phenomenon of vaccine-associated virus interference; that is, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk for other respiratory viruses because they do not receive the non-specific immunity associated with natural infection.” The study goes on to emphasize that “There has been limited evidence that the influenza vaccine may actually be associated with the virus interference process. Other studies have found no association between influenza vaccination and increased respiratory virus risk.”

Other studies have found no association between the flu vaccine and an increased risk for other respiratory viruses, but when looking specifically at coronavirus, Wolff’s study found that “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.”

Metapneumovirus causes both upper and lower respiratory disease in all ages.

Out of the 6120 people in the study with respiratory viruses other than influenza, those who received an influenza vaccine actually had a decreased risk of having other respiratory pathogens compared to the unvaccinated group. Again, it’s important to be specific with what respiratory pathogens one may have an increased risk of contracting as a result of being vaccinated against influenza. This is why for some pathogens, no increased risk was observed, and in some cases a decreased risk was observed. But again, specifically for coronavirus, a significant increased risk was observed.

With regards to the coronavirus and human metapneumovirus,  the data in this study showed an increased risk of contraction within vaccinated individuals to be 36 percent greater.

The laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination…In our disease specific investigation, virus interference trends were noticed for coronavirus and human metapneumovirus…Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)

The study concluded that:

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

But overall, the results showed “little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination.”

Furthermore, a study published in the same journal, Vaccine, found that“Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI (acute respiratory illness) caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period…Patient perceptions of illness following influenza vaccination may be supported.”

The Department of Defense has a Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRS), it’s a DoD-wide program established by the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS).  This is how Wolff was able to gather all of his data with regards to who had been vaccinated with the influenza virus, and what other illnesses they experienced.  The Defense Health Agency/Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch – Air Force Satellite Cell (DHA/AFHSB – AF) and United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) also provided access to the data.

Further Thoughts About Flu Vaccination

According to the study above, “significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.” So, it does point out the benefits of influenza and suggests it’s effective. It also sites multiple studies that show it’s effective as well.

But there is conflicting research on the the flu vaccine and its effectiveness against influenza. For example, Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy,  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

He goes on to state:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature…the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence. They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source)

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Something to think about. The information in this article shows that’s it’s ok to question, and that the science on vaccine safety is not ‘settled.’ We must ask ourselves, why are there terms like ‘anti-vax’ and why does big media constantly try to ridicule any information that paints vaccines in a concerning light? Surely the questioning of vaccine safety is in the best interest of all parties involved?

At the end of the day, it’s not about who is right and who is wrong, and it’s not about one side or the other. It’s about coming together in a peaceful manner and understanding the concerns that are being raised, and dealing with them, addressing, and responding to them appropriately. We cannot hold hate in our own being if we want to rid the world of it, and we cannot use ridicule and judgement against, otherwise we are simply perpetuating what we are trying to get rid of. Operating from a place of peace is essential, it helps to see things in a clearer way, and it’s something that needs to become a necessity for all parties involved, whether you support vaccination or do not.

from:    https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/04/16/new-study-the-flu-vaccine-is-significantly-associated-with-an-increased-risk-of-coronavirus/