PfizerGate: Covid-19 Vaccination causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

They told you they needed just three weeks to flatten the curve.

They lied.

They told you if you stayed at home that it would protect the Health Service.

They lied. (Source)

They told you millions around the world were dying of Covid-19.

They lied. (Source)

They told you that if you got the Covid vaccine, you wouldn’t catch Covid-19.

They lied. (Source)

Then you were told the Covid vaccines make you less likely to be infected with or transmit Covid-19.

The lied. (Source)

They told you that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective.

They lied. (Source)

They told you that the contents of the Covid vaccines stay at the injection site.

They lied. (Source)

They told you that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines do not interfere with your DNA.

They lied. (Source)

Now they’re trying to tell you that the Covid-19 vaccines lose effectiveness over time and that you need repeat booster shots.

But they are lying yet again. The Covid-19 vaccines do not lose effectiveness. Instead, we are witnessing the degradation of the immune system of most people who have had more than one dose of the Covid-19 injection. In other words, the Covid-19 injections cause a new form of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. and we can prove it…

To fathom how one could possibly come to the conclusion that the Covid-19 vaccines severely damage the natural immune system and effectively cause Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome, one needs to understand why it is that official government data shows the vaccinated population are more likely to be infected and transmit Covid-19 than the unvaccinated population.

One also needs to understand that once authorities realised the data showed things were getting worse for the vaccinated population by the week, they suspiciously and conveniently decided it was in the public interest to stop publishing the data altogether.

The following table has been stitched together from the case-rate tables found in the Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13 UK Health Security Agency Vaccine Surveillance Reports –

The following chart has been created using the figures contained in the above table:

The above shows a rapid improvement in case rates among the unvaccinated population in every single age group over three months, and a frightening rise in case rates per 100,000 among triple vaccinated individuals in every single age group over a period of three months.

In fact, the difference between the two groups was so significant that by week 12 of 2022, real-world vaccine effectiveness was proving to be as low as minus-391% among 60 to 69-year-olds. This had fallen from an already concerning effectiveness of minus-104.7% among the same age group by week 2 of 2022.

But let us be absolutely clear. Despite a mass media campaign to have you believe getting a booster is essential to “top up your immunity” due to declining effectiveness, it is actually impossible for vaccine effectiveness to wane when it comes to the Covid-19 injections.

The Covid-19 vaccine is supposed to work by injecting mRNA into your body, which then invades your cells and instructs them to make the spike protein found on the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus. Once your body has produced millions of spike proteins, your immune system is supposed to get to work, rid the body of the spike proteins, and then remember to release those same antibodies if you ever encounter the actual alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.

So, when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weaken over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.

The problem we are seeing in the real world data is that the immune system isn’t returning to the natural state seen among most of the unvaccinated population. If it was we would be seeing vaccine effectiveness close to 0%, not a shocking minus-391%.

The week 13 UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report was the final report published containing data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status. UKHSA claimed this was because the UK Government had decided to put an end to free mass Covid-19 testing from April 1st.

But we imagine it was actually because of the horrific case-rate figures among triple vaccinated and the horrific hospitalisation and death rate figures among the fully vaccinated.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 hospitalisation rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of hospitalisations provided on page 41 of the same report –

The rates per 100,000 were highest among the fully vaccinated in every age group except for the 18-29-year-olds. This data proved that all double vaccinated people aged 30 and over were more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of deaths provided on page 44 of the same report –

The death-rate per 100,000 was highest among the fully vaccinated in all age groups excluding the 30-39 year olds where the death rate was the same as the unvaccinated, and the 18-29-year-olds where the death rate was lower. This data proved that all double vaccinated people aged 40 and over were more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

Fast forward to the end of May though, and we can actually see that mortality rates per 100,000 are lowest among the unvaccinated in every single age group courtesy of data published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics which can be viewed here.

The following chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status among each age group for Non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022, the figures can be found in table 2 of the recently published dataset –

These are age-standardised figures. There is no other conclusion that can be found for the fact mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated other than that the Covid-19 injections are killing people, and this is because they are causing recipients to develop Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.

But whilst the evidence points to severe immune system degradation and a new form of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, it still doesn’t answer the exact process that is causing this to happen.

One potential scenario could be as follows.

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is a single-stranded molecule of RNA that corresponds to the genetic sequence of a gene, and is read by a ribosome in the process of synthesizing a protein.

Covid-19 injections contain mRNA that invades the body’s cells and instructor them to create the spike protein of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus. Millions of these spike proteins are then released from cells and the immune system allegedly recognises it as a virus/foreign body and believes the body is under attack.

It then fights the spike protein, creating antibodies to “kill” it and remembers to do so if it encounters the spike protein/SARS-CoV-2 virus again.

But what if the process never ends? What if the mRNA that has been injected into the body constantly invades cells and instructs them to create millions of spike proteins?

Authorities claimed that the Covid-19 vaccine remains at the injection site. But they lied, and the science proves otherwise.

It actually accumulates in every single organ of the body according to a study conducted on behalf of Pfizer.

The problem with the study is that after 48 hours they stopped observing the accumulation. So how does anybody know if that accumulation reverses? How do they know it doesn’t go on for months or even years? Until they can prove otherwise they are only guessing.

If the mRNA that has been injected into the body constantly invades cells and instructs them to create millions of spike proteins over a long period of time then this is one more constant thing that the immune system has to do. But then they tell you to get a booster jab, and then a fourth dose. Now the body is constantly creating millions more spike proteins and working the immune system even harder.

Whilst the body is busy battling millions of spike proteins, it’s unable to fight off other opportunist infections or cancer cells. This is similar to what occurs with HIV. HIV infects and destroys immune system cells, making it hard to fight off other diseases.

When HIV has severely weakened the immune system it can lead to Acquired Immunedeficiency Syndrome. But it isn’t the HIV virus that kills people infected with it, it is the opportunistic infections and cancers that the immune system can no longer fight off.

So this theory would make perfect sense as to why official Government data shows the triple vaccinated are more likely to be infected with Covid-19 and transmit Covid-19 than the unvaccinated.

It would make perfect sense as to why the fully vaccinated are more likely to be hospitalised and die of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated.

And it would make perfect sense as to why age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 are lowest among the unvaccinated in all age groups.

By The Exposé

CONTINUED:

Cancer begins when genetic changes interfere with the normal replication and replacement of cells in the body. Cells start to grow uncontrollably and may form a tumour. It is the No. 2 leading cause of death in the United States.

Unfortunately, it appears the disease may be on the rise thanks to the experimental Covid-19 injections. Because official U.S. Government data confirms the risk of developing cancer following Covid-19 vaccination increases by a shocking 143,233%.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hosts a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which contains historical data on adverse reactions reported against every vaccine that has been administered in the United States of America.

A quick search of the CDC VAERS database on the number of cancer cases reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections since they were first rolled out in the USA, reveals that from December 2020 up to 5th August 2022, a total of 2,579 adverse events related to cancer were made in just 1 year and 8 months.

But performing a similar search of the VAERS database on the number of cancer cases reported as adverse events to all other available vaccines between 2008 and 2020, a period of 13 years, reveals there were just 791 adverse events related to cancer.

Many would simply argue without backing their claim up with any evidence, that this is just because of the volume of Covid-19 injections administered compared to all other vaccines. But unfortunately, anyone who argues this is wrong.

We can see this by looking at the number of doses administered.

The following chart shows the total number of flu vaccine doses administered in 13 full flu seasons all the way from the 2008/2009 flu season to the 2019-2020 flu season. The data has been extracted from the CDC info found here.

In all between the 08/09 flu season and the 19/20 flu season, there were a total of 1,720,400,000 (1.7204 billion) doses of the flu jab administered in the USA.

The CDC also confirms that between 2008 and 2020, a period of 13 years, there were just 64 events related to cancer reported as adverse reactions to the influenza vaccines.

Based on the number of adverse events related to cancer alone, we can see that there have been 40.3x as many cancer cases related to Covid-19 vaccination than there have been related to flu vaccination.

But whilst shocking, this statistic doesn’t properly represent the severity of the situation. To do that we need to know the number of cancer cases per 100,000 doses administered.

Based on the above numbers provided by the CDC, the number of adverse events related to cancer reported per 100,000 doses of flu vaccine administered equates to just 0.0003 per 100,000 doses.

According to ‘Our World in Data’, as of 9th August 2022, 606 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccines have been administered in the USA. This means there have been actually nearly 3x as many flu vaccines administered between 2008-2020 than Covid-19 injections since the end of 2020, let alone all of the other vaccines that have been administered.

Therefore, the number of adverse events related to cancer reported per 100,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccine administered equates to 0.43 per 100,000 doses.

This means Covid-19 vaccination is 1433.33x / 143,233.33% more likely to cause cancer than flu vaccination. It can be argued that because the numbers are so extraordinarily low for the flu vaccine, that flu vaccination does not cause cancer. Therefore, it can be argued that the risk of developing cancer following Covid-19 vaccination is 1433x greater than the background risk.

This should however not come as much of a surprise considering we already have scientific proof that the Covid-19 mRNA injections can cause cancer of the ovaries, pancreas and breast.

The homologous recombination DNA repair pathway is one of the mechanisms that the body uses to stop your cells from turning cancerous in response to environmental stress.

And in October 2021, two revered scientists, called Jiang and Mei, had a paper published, after peer review, in MDPI, showing that the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes.

The viral spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. If the whole spike protein got into the nucleus (in the ovaries), and enough of it was produced and hung around long enough before the body was able to get rid of it all, it would cause cancer.

Fortunately, in the case of natural infection, this is unlikely to occur. But the experimental mRNA “vaccines” induce spike protein to be produced in and around the cell nucleus and this occurs for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer.

This is probably why cases of ovarian cancer are now at an all-time high.

Official UK data published by Public Health Scotland, which can be found here, reveal the number of women suffering ovarian cancer from the introduction of the Covid-19 injection to the general population. Unfortunately, the known trend in 2021 was significantly higher than 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.

The above chart shows up to June 2021, but the charts found on Public Health Scotland’s dashboard now show figures all the way up to December 2021 and unfortunately reveal that the gap has widened even further with the number of women suffering from Ovarian cancer increasing significantly.

If you still wish to get a jab that doesn’t stop you from getting Covid-19, doesn’t stop you from spreading Covid-19, increases your risk of mortality significantly (see here), and increases your risk of suffering cancer by 143,233% then that’s up to you. But perhaps you can now be a little more understanding of why many others simply refuse to do so.

By The Exposé

CONTINUED:

The world is at a crossroads, and the elite has two choices. They sustain millions or even billions of people with financial support and help to ensure they survive and live quality lives. Or, they set about to depopulate the world.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests they chose the depopulation route a while ago, and their plan to do so is already in motion.

Here is that sinister and alarming evidence.

Excess Deaths

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes weekly figures on deaths registered in England and Wales.

The following chart, created by the ONS, shows the number of deaths per week compared to the five-year average up to the 22nd July–

As you can see from the above, from around May 2021 onwards, England and Wales recorded a huge amount of excess deaths that were not attributed to Covid-19 compared to the five-year average. It then appears that excess deaths dropped at the start of 2022.

But appearances can be deceiving, and the only reason they dropped is that the ONS decided to include the 2021 data in the 5-year-average. This makes it all the more concerning that excess deaths have been recorded every week since the end of April 2022 compared to the five-year average (2016 to 2019 + 2021).

In the week ending 22nd July, there were 10,978 deaths in England and Wales, equating to 1,680 excess deaths against the five-year average. Only 745 of those deaths were attributed to Covid-19.

We also see a similar pattern occurring in Scotland.

The following chart is taken from Public Health Scotland’s ‘Covid-19 wider impacts dashboard’ found here, and it shows the percentage change in deaths compared with the 2015-2019 five-year average for the corresponding time –

Scotland has recorded excess deaths among all age groups since the beginning of 2021. But what’s notable here is the same pattern we’ve seen in England and Wales. In January 2021, a lot of deaths were attributed to Covid-19. But then by around May 2021 excess deaths began to pick up again, however, this time they could not all be attributed to Covid-19.

There has then been a slight fall at the beginning of 2022 before they again picked up around May 2022, just like in England and Wales.

The question is why.

One could argue that perhaps the population of the United Kingdom is extremely unhealthy compared to the rest of the world and therefore more people are dying. But this unfortunately isn’t a situation that is just isolated to the UK.

Most of Europe is still recording a significant amount of excess deaths, as can be seen in the following official chart compiled by Eurostat showing excess mortality across Europe in May 2022 –

As you can see, the world is experiencing an extremely serious issue where tens to hundreds of thousands more people are dying than what is expected every single week, and further evidence suggests it’s because of the Covid-19 injections.

Mortality Rates per 100,000 are lowest among the Unvaccinated in all Age Groups

According to a report published on 6th July 2022, by the UK’s Office for National Statistics, just hours before Boris Johnson announced he was resigning as Prime Minister of the UK, the mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated population in all age groups.

The report is titled ‘Deaths by Vaccination Status, England, 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022‘, and it can be accessed on the ONS site here, and downloaded here.

Table 2 of the report contains the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status by age group for deaths per 100,000 person-years in England up to May 2022.

Here’s how the ONS present the data for 18 to 39-year-olds in May 2022 –

We took the figures and produced charts for every single age group in a recently published article that can be read here. But here are a few examples to prove the severity of the problem.

The following chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status among 18 to 39-year-olds for Non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022 –

In every single month since the beginning of 2022, partly vaccinated and double vaccinated 18-39-year-olds have been more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds. Triple vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds however have had a mortality rate that has worsened by the month following the mass Booster campaign that occurred in the UK in December 2021.

In January, triple vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds were ever so slightly less likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 29.8 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated and 28.1 per 100,000 among the triple vaccinated.

But this all changed from February onwards. In February, triple vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds were 27% more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 26.7 per 100k among the triple vaccinated and 21 per 100k among the unvaccinated.

Things have unfortunately got even worse for the triple vaccinated by May 2022 though. The data shows that triple vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds were 52% more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds in May, with a mortality rate of 21.4 per 100k among the triple vaccinated and 14.1 among the unvaccinated.

The worst figures so far though are among the partly vaccinated, with May seeing partly vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds 202% more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds.

The following chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status among 60 to 69-year-olds for Non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022 –

The 60 to 69-year-olds show exactly the same pattern as 18 to 39-year-olds. The double and partly vaccinated have been more likely to die than the unvaccinated since the turn of the year, and the triple vaccinated have been more likely to die than the unvaccinated since February.

In January, partly vaccinated 60-69-year-olds were a shocking 256% more likely to die than unvaccinated 60-69-year-olds. Whilst in the same month, double vaccinated 60-69-year-olds were 223% more likely to die than unvaccinated 60-69-year-olds.

By May, triple vaccinated 60-69-year-olds were a troubling 117% more likely to die than unvaccinated 60-69-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 1801.3 per 100k among the triple vaccinated and a mortality rate of just 831.1 among the unvaccinated.

The following chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status among 80 to 89-year-olds for Non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022 –

The unvaccinated have been the least likely to die every month since the turn of the year.

In April, double vaccinated 80-89-year-olds were 213% more likely to die than unvaccinated 80-89-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 7598.9 per 100k among the unvaccinated and a mortality rate of a troubling 23,781.8 per 100k among the double vaccinated.

But in the same month, partly vaccinated 80-89-year-olds were a terrifying 672% more likely to die than unvaccinated 80-89-year-olds, with a shocking mortality rate of 58,668.9 per 100k among the partly vaccinated.

By May 2022, triple vaccinated 80-89-year-olds were 142% more likely to die than unvaccinated 80-89-year-olds, with a mortality rate of 14,002.3 among the triple vaccinated and a mortality rate of 5,789.1 among the unvaccinated.

The following chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for non-Covid-19 deaths in England between January and May 2022 for all age groups –

The official figures quietly published by the UK Government provide indisputable evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are deadly and are killing people in the thousands.

How else do you explain significant excess deaths and the fact that the vaccinated are significantly more likely to die than the unvaccinated in every single age group?

Depopulation occurs when the number of people losing their lives outweighs the number of babies being born. So one saving grace for the fact hundreds of thousands more people are dying every single week than expected would be a massive uplift in new births.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case, and the confidential Pfizer documents explain exactly why.

Newborn Baby Deaths hit critical levels for 2nd time in 7 Months in March 2022

Evidence contained in confidential Pfizer documents, which we will come to shortly, indicates that Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of newborn babies sadly losing their lives. Unfortunately, we are now seeing evidence of this in real-world data and it can be found in the Public Health Scotland ‘Covid-19 Wider Impacts’ dashboard.

Official figures reveal that the rate of neonatal deaths increased to 4.6 per 1000 live births in March 2022, a 119% increase on the expected rate of deaths. This means the neonatal mortality rate breached an upper warning threshold known as the ‘control limit’ for the second time in at least four years.

The last time it breached was in September 2021, when neonatal deaths per 1000 live births climbed to 5.1. Although the rate fluctuates month to month, the figure for both September 2021 and March 2022 is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) did not formally announce they had launched an investigation, but this is what they are supposed to do when the upper warning threshold is reached, and they did so back in 2021.

At the time, PHS said the fact that the upper control limit has been exceeded “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred”.

Birth Rates in Germany have dropped dramatically

The official German birth data was recently released and updated to April 2022 and it continues to show an 11% drop from the average for the last 7 years and a 13% drop from 2021.

This is all occurring because of the Covid-19 injections and the confidential Pfizer documents prove it.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal 90% of Covid Vaccinated Pregnant Women lost their Baby

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1^st August 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Pfizer state in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.

Forty-six percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.

Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.

A total of 4 serious foetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection.

But here’s where things get rather concerning. Pfizer state that of the 270 pregnancies they have absolutely no idea what happened in 238 of them.

But here are the known outcomes of the remaining pregnancies –

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the above playout in the real world and can conclude so thanks to data provided by the U.S Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Covid-19 Vaccination increases risk of suffering Miscarriage by at least 1,517%

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC)) Vaccine Adverse Event Database (VAERS), as of April 2022, a total of 4,113 foetal deaths had been reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections, 3,209 of which were reported against the Pfizer injection.

The CDC has admitted that just 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS therefore the true figure could be many times worse. But to put these numbers into perspective, there were only 2,239 reported foetal deaths to VAERS in the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorisation of the Covid-19 injections in December of 2020. (Source)

And a further study which can be viewed here, found that the risk of suffering a miscarriage following Covid-19 vaccination is 1,517% higher than the risk of suffering a miscarriage following flu vaccination.

The true risk could however actually be much higher because pregnant women are a target group for Flu vaccination, whereas they are only a small demographic in terms of Covid-19 vaccination so far.

Would it shock you to find out that both Pfizer and Medicine Regulators around the world were all fully aware this would happen and instead chose to cover it up?

Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy due to Animal Study finding an increased risk of Birth Defects & Infertility

Medicine Regulators claim that ‘Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy etc.’. But this is an outright lie.

The actual study can be viewed in full here and is titled ‘Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine‘.

Unfortunately, the study found that Covid-19 vaccination significantly increases the risk of birth defects and infertility.

The study was performed on 42 female Wistar Han rats. Twenty-one were given the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and 21 were not.

Here are the results of the study –

The results of the number of foetuses observed to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the control group were 3/3 (2.1). But the results of the number of foetuses to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the vaccinated group were 6/12 (8.3). Therefore on average, the rate of occurrence was 295% higher in the vaccinated group.

Supernumerary ribs also called accessory ribs are an uncommon variant of extra ribs arising most commonly from the cervical or lumbar vertebrae.

So what this study found is evidence of abnormal foetal formation and birth defects caused by the Pfizer Covid-19 injection. But the abnormal findings of the study don’t end there. The ‘pre-implantation loss’ rate in the vaccinated group of rats was double that of the control group.

Pre-implantation loss refers to fertilised ova that fail to implant. Therefore, this study suggests that the Pfizer Covid-19 injection reduces the chances of a woman being able to get pregnant. So, therefore, increases the risk of infertility.

So with this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy”? And how have they managed to state “It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility“?

The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up. We know this thanks to a ‘Freedom of Information (FOI) request made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

You can read the response to that Freedom of Information request here.

FOIA reveals Pfizer & Medicine Regulators hid dangers of COVID Vaccination during Pregnancy after Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility

A ‘Freedom of Information’ request alongside an in-depth dive into the only pregnancy/fertility study performed on the Pfizer Covid-19 injection has revealed that Medicine Regulators an…

The ExposeThe Exposé

You’re probably wondering what process involved in Covid-19 vaccination could possibly lead to infertility, birth defects, pregnancy loss, and stillbirths. Well, you’ll also find the answer to that question in the confidential Pfizer documents that both the FDA and Pfizer attempted to delay realising by 75 years.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal the Covid-19 Vaccine accumulates in the Ovaries

Another study, which can be found in the long list of confidential Pfizer documents that the FDA have been forced to publish via a court order here, was carried out on Wistar Han rats, 21 of which were female and 21 of which were male.

Each rat received a single intramuscular dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and then the content and concentration of total radioactivity in blood, plasma and tissues were determined at pre-defined points following administration.

In other words, the scientists conducting the study measured how much of the Covid-19 injection has spread to other parts of the body such as the skin, liver, spleen, heart etc.

But one of the most concerning findings from the study is the fact that the Pfizer injection accumulates in the ovaries over time.

An ‘ovary’ is one of a pair of female glands in which the eggs form and the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone are made.

In the first 15 minutes following injection of the Pfizer jab, researchers found that the total lipid concentration in the ovaries measured 0.104ml. This then increased to 1.34ml after 1 hour, 2.34ml after 4 hours, and then 12.3ml after 48 hours.

The scientists, however, did not conduct any further research on the accumulation after a period of 48 hours, so we simply don’t know whether that concerning accumulation continued.

But official UK data published by Public Health Scotland, which can be found here, offers some concerning clues as to the consequences of that accumulation on the ovaries.

Cases of Ovarian Cancer are at an all-time high

Official figures for the number of individuals suffering from ovarian cancer show that the known trend in 2021 was significantly higher than 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.

The above chart shows up to June 2021, but the charts found on Public Health Scotland’s dashboard now show figures all the way up to February 2022 and unfortunately reveal that the gap has widened even further with the number of women suffering ovarian cancer increasing significantly.

With –

• The whole world suffering hundreds of thousands of excess deaths on a weekly basis,
• Official Government data showing mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated population in all age groups,
• Official Public Health Scotland data showing new born baby deaths have hit critical levels for the 2nd time in seven months,
• Official Government of Germany data showing birth rates have dropped dramatically in 2021,
• Confidential Pfizer documents showing a miscarriage rate between 82% and 97%,
• CDC VAERS data showing Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of suffering a miscarriage by at least 1,517%,
• The only animal study performed to prove the safety of administering the Pfizer vaccine during pregnancy indicating an increased risk of infertility and birth defects,
• Further confidential Pfizer documents revealing the vaccine accumulates in the ovaries,
• and further data from Public Health Scotland revealing cases of ovarian cancer are at an all-time high,

It looks like we have more than enough evidence to back up the bold claim that Covid-19 vaccination is causing mass depopulation.

By The Exposé

CONTINUED:

Last week, the United Kingdom became the first country to approve Moderna’s reformulated version of its Covid vaccine.  Bivalent Spikevax, which is claimed to target “two strains of the virus,” was approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) with the support of the UK government’s Commission on Human Medicines.

Bivalent Spikevax combines the previously approved Covid injection with a “vaccine candidate” targeting the Omicron variant BA.1. That vaccine candidate has never been previously approved and has not been the subject of independent study. The MHRA approved the vaccine based on a single, incomplete human trial consisting of approximately 800 participants currently being conducted by Moderna. The study has yet to be published in a medical journal or peer-reviewed. No concerns have been raised by any regulatory agency, including the MHRA, regarding Moderna’s past history of engaging in suspect and likely illegal activity in past product trials, including for its original Covid “vaccine.”

Unlike Moderna’s original Covid injection, the genetic material, or messenger RNA (mRNA), for this new “vaccine,” including the newly formulated genetic material meant to protect against the Omicron variant, is being manufactured, not by Moderna, but by a relatively new company – National Resilience – that has received hardly any media attention, despite its overt links to US intelligence.

The following are excerpts from Whitney Webb’s article ‘RNA for Moderna’s Omicron Booster Manufactured by CIA-Linked Company’. You can find this article and more on Unlimited Hangout’s website HERE.

Unlimited Hangout with Whitney Webb

Uncensored Investigative Journalism

Unlimited HangoutbyWhitney Webb

“Reinventing Biomanufacturing”

National Resilience, founded in November 2020, plans to “reinvent biomanufacturing” and “democratise access to medicines,” namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other “medicines of tomorrow.”

In pursuit of those goals, the company announced it would “actively invest in developing powerful new technologies to manufacture complex medicines that are defining the future of therapeutics, including cell and gene therapies, viral vectors, vaccines, and proteins.” It was founded with the reported intention “to build a better system for manufacturing complex medicines to fight deadly diseases” as a way to improve post-Covid “pandemic preparedness.”

In April 2021, National Resilience acquired Ology Bioservices Inc., which had received a $37 million contract from the US military the previous November to develop an advanced anti-Covid-19 monoclonal antibody treatment. This acquisition also provided National Resilience with its first Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory and the ability to manufacture cell and gene therapies, live viral vaccines and vectors and oncolytic viruses.

Despite being in the earliest stages of developing its “revolutionary” manufacturing capabilities, National Resilience entered into a partnership with the Government of Canada in July of last year. Per that agreement, the Canadian government plans to invest CAD 199.2 million (about US$154.9 million) into National Resilience’s Ontario-based subsidiary, Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, asserted at the time that the investment would “build future pandemic preparedness” and help “to grow Canada’s life science ecosystem as an engine for our economic recovery.”

In an interview with The San Francisco Business Times, Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi stated that Resilience is looking to fill its massive manufacturing plants with “technologies and people that can set and apply new standards for manufacturing cell therapies and gene therapies as well as RNA-based treatments.” Before Resilience, Singhvi was CEO of NovaVax and an operating partner at Flagship Pioneering, which played a major role in the creation and rise of Moderna.

Singhvi has further insisted that National Resilience is “not a therapeutics company, not a contractor and not a tools company” and instead aims “to boost production using the new therapeutic modalities” such as RNA-based treatments, which have become normalised in the Covid-19 era. Whereas contract manufacturers “are like kitchens, with pots and pans ready for any recipe,” “what we’re trying to do is fix the recipes,” Singhvi has explained. One member of Resilience’s board of directors, former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer Board member Scott Gottlieb, has described the company as seeking to act as the equivalent of Amazon Web Services for the biotechnology industry.

Essentially, Resilience bills itself as offering solutions that will allow “futuristic” medicines, including mRNA vaccines, to be produced more quickly and more efficiently, with the apparent goal of monopolising certain parts of the biomanufacturing process. It also appears poised to become the manufacturer of choice for mRNA vaccines and experimental therapeutics in the event of a future pandemic.

Given that we now live in a world where government regulatory decisions on the approval of medicines are increasingly influenced by corporate press releases and normal regulatory procedures have fallen by the wayside, there is likely to be little scrutiny of the genetic material that Resilience produces for the “medicines of tomorrow.” This seems to be already true for Moderna’s recently retooled Covid “vaccine,” as there has been no independent examination of the new genetic sequence of mRNA used in the Omicron-specific vaccine candidate or its effects on the human body in the short, medium or long term.

“The Resilience Team”

Resilience was co-founded by Biotech venture capitalist Robert Nelsen, who is currently chairman of the board.  He was one of the earliest investors in Illumina, a California-based gene-sequencing hardware and software giant that is believed to currently dominate the field of genomics.

As mentioned in a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation, Illumina is closely tied to the DARPA-equivalent of the Wellcome Trust known as Wellcome Leap, which is also focused on “futuristic” and transhumanist “medicines.”

Nelsen is also co-founder and managing director of ARCH. ARCH previously funded Nanosys, the company of the controversial scientist Charles Lieber. Harvard University’s Lieber is the second researcher to be tried on accusations of hiding ties to China since 2018 when the US Department of Justice launched its China Initiative to root out threats to national security.

However, while Nelsen has been given much of the credit for creating Resilience, he revealed in one interview that the idea for the company had actually come from someone else – Luciana Borio.

In July of last year, Nelsen revealed that it was while talking to Borio about “her work running pandemic preparedness on the NSC [National Security Council]” that had “helped lead to the launch of Nelsen’s $800 million biologics manufacturing start-up Resilience.” At the time of their conversation, Borio was the vice president of In-Q-tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”).

Borio is currently a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, a consultant to Goldman Sachs, a member of the Bill Gates-funded vaccine alliance CEPI, and a partner at Nelsen’s venture capital firm ARCH Venture Partners, which funds Resilience.

Around the time of her conversation with Nelsen that led to Resilience’s creation, Borio was co-writing a policy paper for the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security that recommended linking Covid vaccination status with food stamp programs and rent assistance as a possible means of coercing certain populations to take the experimental “vaccine.

CEO of In-Q-Tel, Chris Darby, sits on Resilience’s board of directors. He is also on the board of directors of the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation and a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI).

Drew Oetting, another member of Resilience’s board, works for Cerberus Capital Management, the firm headed by Steve Feinberg who previously led the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under the Trump administration.

Cerberus is notably the parent company of DynCorp, a controversial US national security contractor tied to numerous scandals, including scandals related to sex trafficking in conflict zones. Oetting is also part of the CIA-linked Thorn NGO ostensibly focused on tackling child trafficking that was the subject of a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation

Oetting is also the co-founder of 8VC, a venture capital firm that is one of the main investors in Resilience. 8VC’s other co-founder is Joe Lonsdale and Oetting “started his career” as Lonsdale’s chief of staff. Lonsdale is the co-founder, alongside Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, of Palantir, a CIA front company and intelligence contractor that is the successor to DARPA’s controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) mass surveillance and data-mining program. In addition, Oetting previously worked for Bill Gates’ investment fund.

Also worth noting is the presence of Joseph Robert Kerrey, former US Senator for Nebraska and a former member of the conflict-of-interest-ridden 9/11 Commission, on Resilience’s board. Kerrey is currently managing director of Allen & Co., a New York investment banking firm which has hosted an annual “summer camp for billionaires” since 1983.

Allen & Co. has long been a major player in networks where organised crime and intelligence intersect, and is mentioned repeatedly throughout Whitney Webb’s upcoming book One Nation Under Blackmail.

In addition to these intelligence-linked individuals, the rest of Resilience’s board includes the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Susan Desmond-Hellmann; former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb; two former executives at Johnson & Johnson; former president and CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals North American branch, George Barrett; CalTech professor and board member of Alphabet (i.e. Google) and Illumina, Frances Arnold; former executive at Genentech and Merck, Patrick Yang; and Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi.

Would you allow an untested “vaccine” manufactured under the direction of the people above to be injected into you?

By Rhoda Wilson

CONTINUED:

The UK Medicine Regulator has confirmed that over a period of nineteen months the Covid-19 Vaccines have caused at least 5.5x as many deaths as all other available vaccines combined in the past 21 years.

This means, that when compared side by side, the Covid-19 injections are a shocking 7,402%/75x more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.

A Freedom of Information request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021 in which a Mr Anderson asked the MHRA the following questions –

• How many Deaths have there been from all Covid-19 vaccines?
• Are there any other reporting AI system monitoring systems like the Yellow Card scheme?
• Are Covid-19 Vaccines still in trials?
• How many deaths has there been in last 20 years by previous Vaccines without Covid-19 Vaccines?
• What happens if a there is a new vaccine or new drug? What process and monitoring do they go through?
• What cut off point will the MHRA say a vaccine or drug is unsafe for humans?

The MHRA responded with the usual “we do not hold this information”, as seen time and time again from Government departments.

However, they did confirm that they are using other epidemiological studies, anonymised GP-based electronic healthcare records and international experience to proactively monitor safety alongside the spontaneous reports received via the Yellow Card scheme.

The MHRA also confirmed that the current Covid-19 vaccines on offer in the United Kingdom are only under a temporary authorisation and that these authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.

In answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years the MHRA provided the usual robotic response about how great the Covid-19 vaccines are and how they are the “single most effective treatment for preventing serious illness due to Covid-19” but what they did not do is say that they “do not hold this information”.

Instead, they revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

But how does that fare against the number of reported adverse reactions to all temporarily authorised Covid-19 vaccines associated with a fatal outcome?

Well, since the Pfizer injection was rolled out in December 2020 there have been 808 reported deaths as of 13th July 22, meaning that in just 19 months, this “vaccine” alone outnumbers the deaths due to all other vaccines combined in the past 20 years.

However, the AstraZeneca viral vector injection has fared much worse with 1,294 deaths being reported to the MHRA since January 2020, more than three times as many deaths as what has been reported due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years.

There have also been 62 reported deaths due to the Moderna jab since it was first administered in June 2021, and49 deaths where the brand of Covid-19 vaccine was not specified in the report.

Therefore, up to July 13th 2022, there have been a grand total of 2,213 deaths reported to the MHRA as adverse reactions to all available Covid-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom since the beginning of 2021.

Meaning there have officially been 5.5x as many deaths in just 19 months due to the Covid-19 vaccines than there have been due to every other available vaccine combined since the year 2001.

Twenty years and 8 months is a period that is 13.7 x longer than the nineteen-month period where the Covid-19 vaccines have been rolled out.

Therefore, the number of deaths reported to all other vaccines combined in the same time frame of nineteen months equates to 29.5 deaths.

This means the Covid-19 injections are proving to be a shocking 7,402% more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.

By The Exposé

CONTINUED:

The United Kingdom is one of the largest insurance markets in the world, being home to both a very large domestic market and many multinational insurers who provide insurance services around the world. As of 2019, the insurance industry of the United Kingdom was the largest in Europe based on total domestic insurance premiums written (direct premiums and reinsurance ceded). At the same time, the UK was ranked fifth by life and non-life direct premiums written globally – surpassed only by the US, China, Germany, and Japan.

We’ve previously published articles about two US life insurance companies whose claims dramatically increased in 2021, the first year of the Covid “vaccine.”

In the video below, KUSI News discussed this overwhelming and unexplainable increase in all-cause deaths among 18 to 49-year-olds with Dr. Kelly Victory.

If the video above is removed from YouTube you can watch it on Rumble HERE and read the accompanying article HERE.

Also in February, the German health insurance company BKK ProVita analysed data from 10.9 million people insured with BKK. The analysis produced alarming data that proved gross underreporting of Covid vaccine injuries by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (“PEI”): around 217,000 of just under 11 million BKK policyholders had been treated for Covid injection adverse effects while PEI showed only 244,576 adverse effects reported based on 61.4 million vaccinated people.

In July, according to data from Techniker Krankenkasse (“TK”), the largest German medical insurance company, there were a total of 437,593 insurance claims billed under the four diagnostic codes for vaccine injury in 2021. To put those numbers in perspective, the total numbers billed for a vaccine injury code in the two preceding years were 13,777 and 15,044, respectively.

As the Daily Sceptic noted, given that TK insures 11 million people, that means 1 in 23, or 4.3%, had a medical treatment billed for vaccine injury. And that assumes all 11 million were vaccinated. The background vaccination rate in Germany is 78%, although most of the unvaccinated are children, so the rate of injury per vaccinated person is likely even higher (5.1%).

Read more: German insurance claims hint at millions of unreported vaccine injuries, Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, 15 August 2022

In this article, we attempt to gauge whether the life insurance industry in the UK is suffering similar increases year on year.  We’re not attempting to make exact estimations but rather enough of an estimation to raise questions.

Firstly, some definitions.  Life assurance, or whole of life insurance, pays out a guaranteed lump sum when you die, no matter when your death takes place.  Life assurance covers a person’s whole life.  Whereas, life insurance, or term assurance, covers a person for a specific time, for example until a mortgage has been fully paid.

The basis of this article is four articles published by the Association of British Insurers (“ABI”) which is the association of the UK’s insurance and long-term savings industry. ABI represents over 200 member companies making it the largest insurance association in Europe and the fourth largest in the world.

Three of ABI’s articles we refer to are summaries of insurance pay-outs in the UK, one for each of the years 2019, 2020 and 2021.  The fourth relates to claims paid during 2020 specifically relating to Covid.  These four articles are as listed below:

• Record 98.3% of protection claims paid out in 2019, 7 May 2020
• Record amount paid out to help families cope with bereavement, ill health, and injury, 14 May 2021
• Pay-outs for bereavement, illness, and injury claims top £18.6 million a day, 21 May 2022
• £202 million paid by insurers to help the families of those who have died due to Coronavirus, 18 March 2021

How Many People Died Due to Covid In 2020?

In March 2021, ABI reported that insurers paid out £202 million “to support the families of people who tragically died due to Covid in 2020.” There were 11,198 claims received under individual and group life insurance policies:

“Of these, 10,205 were individual policies (whole life, term insurance and critical illness claims) with 993 on group life insurance schemes.”

Some of the 10,205 claims on individual policies related to critical illness. ABI gave the example of a nurse who was diagnosed with Covid which deteriorated and was left with a permanent neurological deficit with severe memory problems. However, for our rough calculation, we’ll assume all the 11,198 claims were made on life policies.

Statista provides extensive statics on the insurance industry however the details are hidden behind a paywall.  Although we are unable to verify the statistics, Marija Petkova has helpfully summarised Statista and others’ data in an article titled ‘Ten Fascinating Life Insurance Statistics About the UK’.  Her first “fascinating statistic” is that “one in three Brits are life insured, or more precisely, 60% have no such insurance.”

So, using the information provided by ABI on the number of Covid claims made and the number of people in the UK who have life insurance, we can make a ballpark estimate of how many people died in the UK due to Covid and compare that to the Covid deaths as publicised in corporate media.

Our first assumption is that ABI is referring to a calendar year.  This is most likely incorrect. However, the start and end month only is only relevant when, after our calculations, making a comparison to the number of Covid deaths recorded by the UK government.

Our second assumption is that the entire population had been exposed to Covid. In March 2020, a study by Oxford’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease group suggested Covid first reached the UK by mid-January 2020 and could have infected as much as 68% of the population and so the population would have reached herd immunity.

Although infection fatality rates (“IFR”) constantly fluctuate, depending on the vulnerability of a particular population, Professor Sunetra Gupta lead author of the March 2020 study hypothesised an IFR for Covid in the UK in the region of 0.1%.  In August 2021, Prof. Gupta said “if, as I suspected at the time, the official death figures were being over-counted by as much as 50%, that figure would reduce further to nearer 5 in 10,000, or 0.05%.”  Adding, that these estimates may be somewhat overly optimistic, but not outrageously so.

According to The World Factbook, produced for US policymakers and coordinated throughout the US Intelligence Community, the population of the UK in 2020 was estimated at 67,791,400, of which 29.12% were below the age of 24.  In our calculation, we are excluding those below the age of 24 as they almost certainly will not have taken out life insurance. Thus, the population of the UK 24+ years old in 2020 was 48,050,544 (67,791,400 x 70.88%).

Petkova stated 60% have no life insurance but more than 30% did – there is 10% missing in her summary.  So, we’ll use a range of 30% (“A”) and 40% (“B”) for our ballpark estimation. Thus, the number of life insurance policyholders in the UK can be calculated as follows:

• 48,050,544 x 30% = 14,415,163 (A)
• 48,050,544 x 40% = 19,220,217 (B)

That means the number of people who died due to Covid represented between 0.078% (11,198 / 14,415,163) and 0.058% (11,198 / 19,220,217) of the life-insured population. As a quick sense check, Prof. Gupta estimated the IFR for Covid was in the region of 0.05% – 0.1%.

According to a response to a Freedom of Information request, during 2020 the average age of those who died due to Covid was 83 years old.  While we don’t know the ages of those who made the insurance claims, we can assume that those aged below 24 can be excluded when extrapolating to the whole of the UK population as if any significant number of younger people had died, the average age at death would have been a lot lower. So, using the population of the UK aged 24+ the total number of people who died due to Covid in the UK during 2020 can be estimated as:

• 48,050,544 x 0.078% = 37,326 (A)
• 48,050,544 x 0.058% = 27,995 (B)

Using life insurance information, our ballpark estimate of the total Covid deaths during 2020 calculates as between 28k and 37k.  And our calculations are a gross overestimation considering the average age at death was 83 while we have used the entire population aged over 24.  However, as of 31 December 2020, the UK government recorded at least twice that number, 76,682, which would seem to agree with what Prof. Gupta suspected in August 2021: that “the official death figures were being over-counted by as much as 50%.”

Covid Related Pay-outs Almost Double in 2021

Pay-outs for Covid-19 related individual claims almost doubled in 2021, to £261 million, despite the number of claims paid remaining almost identical to 2020.

This was due to a 69% increase in term assurance claims, where the average payment was £69,760.Pay-outs for bereavement, illness, and injury claims top £18.6 million a day, ABI, 21 May 2022

Term assurance claims increased by 69%.  Term assurance is life insurance where the sum assured under the policy is only paid out if death occurs within a specified term. If the life assured survives until the end of the term, the policy will expire and there will be no monies payable.  The example we gave at the beginning of this article was life insurance taken throughout mortgage repayments.

In the year of the “vaccine” there are as many claims as in the year of the “pandemic.” And of the claims made, there was a 69% increase relating to people who had died.

It’s not clear if the 69% increase is due to the number of claims or their value.  But looking at a summary of the numbers and average values of claims over the three years may give some indication.

In their article ABI provided details of what insurers paid out to those who tragically died due to Covid in 2020:

• 11,198 claims were received under individual and group life insurance policies. Of these, 10,205 were individual policies (whole life, term insurance and critical illness claims).
• Of the total £202 million paid, £128 million related to individual policies.
• The average pay-out on individual policies was £13,100

In the tables below term assurance or life insurance policies are labelled as “Life” and whole of life insurance or life assurance policies are labelled as “Whole Life.”

Number of new claims paid:

Average value of the claim paid (GBP):

As the average pay-out in 2020 was £13,100 and the average value of the claims for “life” was £79,204, we can assume that a significant number of the Covid claims made in 2020 related to “Whole Life” policies.  Could this be a reflection that the average age of those who died from Covid in 2020 was older, perhaps 83 years old?

In 2021, there was a 69% increase in “life” claims at an average claim of £69,760.  This implies that although there were a similar number of Covid-related claims over all types of policies, the 69% increase in “life” is due to an increase in the value of the claims made rather than an increase in the number of people who died. It also implies that those who died in 2021 were younger than those in 2020 as term assurance covers the assured for a specific period, e.g., over the life of a mortgage.

Also, the total Covid-related claims in 2021 amounted to £261 million. At an average of £69,760 for “life” that would equate to a maximum of 3,741 people who had died.  Far less than than the number stated for 2020 of 11,198. So perhaps a number of the Covid claims paid out in 2021 related to lower values such as income protection.  Both the increase in the value of term assurance claims and the number of income protection claims paid out indicate a shift towards claims made by younger, working-age policyholders.

Considering the increase and shift in claims during the first year of Covid vaccination, we wonder if UK insurance companies have calculated the risk of even, possibly, higher “Covid” pay-outs as more “vaccines” are administered in the future.  In 2021 pay-outs due to “Covid” deaths increased by 69% and Covid-related claims doubled across all individual policy types.  What could that increase be in 2022, 2023 or 2024?

As Yale University epidemiologist Harvey Risch said, insurers’ actuaries estimated Covid vaccinees would live longer than they have based on misrepresentations about all-cause mortality from the original clinical trials:

“[Insurance companies] have a major financial risk that they have to try and figure out how to manage. And they’re the ones who’re going to go back against the vaccine manufacturers saying that the representation about all-cause mortality was misrepresented from the original trials.  That, I think, is going to be a major push back on the vaccine manufacturers.”

At this point, we’re reminded of the coercion, discrimination and bullying those who chose not to be vaccinated have endured as demonstrated in articles such as ‘Will Covid-19 Vaccination Disqualify You from Life Insurance? Here Are the Claims’ published by Forbes in May 2021.  In it, Forbes mocks those who raised the issue with vaccinations and insurance company pay-outs early on:

“What does getting a Covid-19 vaccine have to do with life insurance? Well, neither rhymes with the word “porcupine.” But some on social media are claiming another link between the two.”

Another such article was published in Medscape in August 2021 titled ‘Don’t Want a Vaccine? Be Prepared to Pay More for Insurance’:

“The vaccine resisters offer all kinds of reasons for refusing the free shots and for ignoring efforts to nudge them to get inoculated … There’s logic behind insurers’ waiver rollback: Why should patients be kept financially unharmed from what is now a preventable hospitalisation, thanks to a vaccine that the government paid for and made available free of charge? … A harsher society might impose tough penalties on people who refuse vaccinations and contract the virus … insurers could try to do more, like penalising the unvaccinated.”

By Rhoda Wilson

CONTINUED:

Cancer begins when genetic changes interfere with the normal replication and replacement of cells in the body. Cells start to grow uncontrollably and may form a tumour. It is the No. 2 leading cause of death in the United States.

Unfortunately, it appears the disease may be on the rise thanks to the experimental Covid-19 injections. Because official U.S. Government data confirms the risk of developing cancer following Covid-19 vaccination increases by a shocking 143,233%.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hosts a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which contains historical data on adverse reactions reported against every vaccine that has been administered in the United States of America.

A quick search of the CDC VAERS database on the number of cancer cases reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections since they were first rolled out in the USA, reveals that from December 2020 up to 5th August 2022, a total of 2,579 adverse events related to cancer were made in just 1 year and 8 months.

But performing a similar search of the VAERS database on the number of cancer cases reported as adverse events to all other available vaccines between 2008 and 2020, a period of 13 years, reveals there were just 791 adverse events related to cancer.

Many would simply argue without backing their claim up with any evidence, that this is just because of the volume of Covid-19 injections administered compared to all other vaccines. But unfortunately, anyone who argues this is wrong.

We can see this by looking at the number of doses administered.

The following chart shows the total number of flu vaccine doses administered in 13 full flu seasons all the way from the 2008/2009 flu season to the 2019-2020 flu season. The data has been extracted from the CDC info found here.

In all between the 08/09 flu season and the 19/20 flu season, there were a total of 1,720,400,000 (1.7204 billion) doses of the flu jab administered in the USA.

The CDC also confirms that between 2008 and 2020, a period of 13 years, there were just 64 events related to cancer reported as adverse reactions to the influenza vaccines.

Based on the number of adverse events related to cancer alone, we can see that there have been 40.3x as many cancer cases related to Covid-19 vaccination than there have been related to flu vaccination.

But whilst shocking, this statistic doesn’t properly represent the severity of the situation. To do that we need to know the number of cancer cases per 100,000 doses administered.

Based on the above numbers provided by the CDC, the number of adverse events related to cancer reported per 100,000 doses of flu vaccine administered equates to just 0.0003 per 100,000 doses.

According to ‘Our World in Data’, as of 9th August 2022, 606 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccines have been administered in the USA. This means there have been actually nearly 3x as many flu vaccines administered between 2008-2020 than Covid-19 injections since the end of 2020, let alone all of the other vaccines that have been administered.

Therefore, the number of adverse events related to cancer reported per 100,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccine administered equates to 0.43 per 100,000 doses.

This means Covid-19 vaccination is 1433.33x / 143,233.33% more likely to cause cancer than flu vaccination. It can be argued that because the numbers are so extraordinarily low for the flu vaccine, that flu vaccination does not cause cancer. Therefore, it can be argued that the risk of developing cancer following Covid-19 vaccination is 1433x greater than the background risk.

This should however not come as much of a surprise considering we already have scientific proof that the Covid-19 mRNA injections can cause cancer of the ovaries, pancreas and breast.

The homologous recombination DNA repair pathway is one of the mechanisms that the body uses to stop your cells from turning cancerous in response to environmental stress.

And in October 2021, two revered scientists, called Jiang and Mei, had a paper published, after peer review, in MDPI, showing that the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes.

The viral spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. If the whole spike protein got into the nucleus (in the ovaries), and enough of it was produced and hung around long enough before the body was able to get rid of it all, it would cause cancer.

Fortunately, in the case of naturl infection, this is unlikely to occur. But the experimental mRNA “vaccines” induce spike protein to be produced in and around the cell nucleus and this occurs for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer.

This is probably why cases of ovarian cancer are now at an all-time high.

Official UK data published by Public Health Scotland, which can be found here, reveal the number of women suffering ovarian cancer from the introduction of the Covid-19 injection to the general population. Unfortunately, the known trend in 2021 was significantly higher than 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.

The above chart shows up to June 2021, but the charts found on Public Health Scotland’s dashboard now show figures all the way up to December 2021 and unfortunately reveal that the gap has widened even further with the number of women suffering from Ovarian cancer increasing significantly.

If you still wish to get a jab that doesn’t stop you from getting Covid-19, doesn’t stop you from spreading Covid-19, increases your risk of mortality significantly (see here), and increases your risk of suffering cancer by 143,233% then that’s up to you. But perhaps you can now be a little more understanding of why many others simply refuse to do so.

By The Exposé

CONTINUED:

When the COVID-19 vaccine rollout to the public began in late 2020, medical professionals, public health agencies, and government spokespeople all assured the American public that the novel mRNA vaccines did not cause negative systematic effects to human bodies. They promised the public, many of whom were skeptical about the safety of a drug brought to market at “warp speed,” that the vaccines were “safe and effective.” [“Operation Warp Speed: Accelerated Covid-19 Vaccine Development Status and Efforts to Address Manufacturing Challenges.” Operation Warp Speed: Accelerated COVID-19 Vaccine Development Status and Efforts to Address Manufacturing Challenges | U.S. GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 11 Feb. 2021, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319.] [“Safety of Covid-19 Vaccines.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8 Aug. 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html.]

As we know, those who questioned or challenged the “safe and effective” assurances were dismissed as  “anti-vaxxers” and accused of wanting to kill others, especially the elderly. [Gostin, Lawrence O., and Eric A. Friedman. “This Is the Best Evidence Yet That Anti-Vaxxers Kill.” Yahoo! News, Yahoo!, 23 June 2022, https://news.yahoo.com/best-evidence-yet-anti-vaxxers-225950487.html.]

Due to this pressure, during the push to vaccinate everyone against COVID-19, few medical and public health experts spoke out about the need for long-term studies to protect Americans against possible catastrophic vaccine-related outcomes, including against possible negative impacts on fertility.

This attack on challengers to public health’s all out push, and the resulting censorship of the emerging problem, resulted in catastrophic harms to male fertility.

Pfizer’s own documents and other medical studies show:

1. mRNA vaccine ingredients can be transferred from one person to another via skin-to-skin contact, inhalation and via “sexual intercourse,” through bodily fluids. That is to say, vaccine “shedding” can occur via sexual contact, including via exposure to semen. [“A Phase 1/2/3, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Observer-Blind, Dose-Finding Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” Protocol Amendment 14, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-protocol.pdf, pp. 213, 246, 398, 431, 575, 607, 751, 783, 918, 948, 1073, 1103, 1226, 1255, 1378, 1406, 1522, 1549, 1663, 1688, 1813, 1836, 1949, 1969, 2081, 2100, 2211, 2228, and 2337.] In other words, according to Pfizer’s own internal documents, a vaccinated man can expose his sexual partner to the vaccine ingredients, via ejaculation.

1. Pfizer did not test “male reproductive toxicity”. Male reproductive toxicity is defined as adverse effects (negative impacts) related to sexual function and fertility in adult male [“Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech.” GOV.UK, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine.]

1. Pfizer also did not test for adverse effects from vaccinated men’s semen, on the development of their offspring. [“Reproductive Toxicity March 2017 – SCHC.” org, SCHC-OSHA Alliance GHS/HazCom Information Sheet Workgroup, Mar. 2017, https://www.schc.org/assets/docs/ghs_info_sheets/schc_osha_reproductive_toxicity_4-4-16.pdf.]
2. mRNA vaccine ingredients travel throughout the body and gather in organs, including in the testes. [“A Tissue Distribution Study of a [3H]-Labelled Lipid Nanoparticle-mRNA Formulation Containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 Following Intramuscular Administration in Wistar Han Rats,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf, p. 24.]

1. mRNA vaccines resulting in “anti-sperm antibodies” – that is to say, antibodies that treat sperm as an “invader”, and damage or kill it – is a known adverse event related to this form of vaccination. [“5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf, p. 30.] [Salvador, Zaira, and Sandra Fernández. “What Are Antisperm Antibodies? – Causes & Treatment.” InviTRA, 8 Jan. 2019, https://www.invitra.com/en/antisperm-antibodies/.]

1. mRNA vaccines cause a staggering drop in semen concentration and total motile count. [Gat, Itai, et al. “Covid-19 Vaccination BNT162B2 Temporarily Impairs Semen Concentration and Total Motile Count among Semen Donors.” Wiley Online Library, Andrology, 17 June 2022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209.]

1. By suppressing discussion of this information, public health agencies, medical professionals, and governments globally denied and continue to deny men true informed consent.

Transfer of mRNA Vaccine Ingredients Between Humans

We stated above that Pfizer knew that men can transmit the vaccine ingredients to their partners via sexual intercourse. Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol shows the company suspected that negative fertility impacts may occur in men, from its vaccine. Male trial participants had to follow specific “Male Participant Reproductive Inclusion Criteria.” These were spelled out in all fourteen versions of Pfizer’s protocol:

“Male participants are eligible to participate if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period and for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention, which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of the study intervention(s)”

The inclusion criteria requirements stated that men must:

• Refrain from donating sperm.

In addition, the men in the Pfizer trials must either:

• Abstain from heterosexual intercourse with a female of childbearing potential as their preferred and usual lifestyle. They must be abstinent from heterosexual intercourse with a female of childbearing age on a long-term and persistent basis and they must agree to remain abstinent.

OR the men in the Pfizer trial:

• Must agree to use a male condom when engaging in any activity that allows for passage of ejaculate to another person.

• In addition to male condom use, a highly effective method of contraception may be considered in WOCBP (women of childbearing age) partners of male participants.” [“A Phase 1/2/3, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Observer-Blind, Dose-Finding Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” Protocol Amendment 14, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-protocol.pdf, pp. 213, 246, 398, 431, 575, 607, 751, 783, 918, 948, 1073, 1103, 1226, 1255, 1378, 1406, 1522, 1549, 1663, 1688, 1813, 1836, 1949, 1969, 2081, 2100, 2211, 2228, and 2337.]

In other words, the men in the Pfizer trial agreed to abstain from heterosexual intercourse with childbearing age women or else, if they did have intercourse with women who could bear children, they agreed to use a condom and were advised to add an effective additional method of contraception. Reassuring, right? The Pfizer study constructs regarding total abstinence from sex with women who couod bear children, or else the use of both condoms and other contraception,   suggest that Pfizer suspected that vaccinated men’s ejaculate could affect both women and unborn children conceived during the trial or after.

Pfizer’s protocol documents also explain:

“An EDP (Exposure During Pregnancy) occurs if:

• …A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

• A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:
• …A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.” [Protocol Amendment 14, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-protocol.pdf, pp. 111, 319, 501, 677, 848, 1009, 1162, 1314, 1461, 1603, 1747, 1889, 2023, 2153, 2279, and 2346]

Clearly, Pfizer showed strong concern about and precautions against exposure to the “study intervention”  – that is, the mRNA vaccine – via bodily fluids contact such as exposure to ejaculate, and via skin-to-skin contact.

Yet as recently as July 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assured Americans that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine shedding – “the release or discharge of any of the vaccine components in or outside of the body” – is a “myth.” [“Myths and Facts about Covid-19 Vaccines.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 July 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html.] Indeed a recent FOIA via America First Legal reveals that Carol Crawford of the CDC coordinated with Twitter employees to target tweets (including one by Dr. Naomi Wolf) about “shedding,” as an example, as CDC put it,  of “misinformation.” But it was not, per Pfizer’s own documents, disinformation at all. According to the manufacturer, “shedding” was a real concern.

mRNA Vaccine’s Adverse Effects on Male Reproduction

National Institutes of Health (NIH) boldly stated on February 1, 2022, “COVID-19 vaccination does not reduce chances of conception…” [“Covid-19 Vaccination Does Not Reduce Chances of Conception, Study Suggests.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/covid-19-vaccination-does-not-reduce-chances-conception-study-suggests.] However,  the NIH’s statement was and is false.

Pfizer did not initially evaluate its vaccine’s male “reproductive toxicity” – i.e., adverse effects on fertility in adult males – during clinical trials because the company was in a rush: “The absence of reproductive toxicity data is a reflection of the speed of development to first identify and select COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 for clinical testing and its rapid development to meet the ongoing urgent health need.” [“Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech.” GOV.UK, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine.]

But when Pfizer eventually did look at the mRNA vaccine’s impact on male fertility, the company used “untreated male” rats for its “Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity” studies. The untreated males mated with female rats that had been dosed with BNT162b2, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine. [2.4 Nonclinical Overview, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M2_24_nonclinical-overview.pdf, p. 29.]

In other words, Pfizer tested fertility effects on female mammals dosed with its mRNA product but left the males undosed.

Throughout the Pfizer documents, the issue arises that studies were constructed so that Pfizer (and the FDA) did not find what it chose not to look for.

How do scientists determine a new drug’s adverse effects on male fertility if they give only one-half of the reproducing population – the females – the treatment in question?

That same Pfizer document goes on to say, “Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of male and female reproductive tissues from the repeat-dose toxicity studies with BNT162b2 showed no evidence of toxicity.” [https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M2_24_nonclinical-overview.pdf, p. 30.]

This statement seems to indicate that the study sought to evaluate whether the vaccine was passed through bodily fluids and/or skin contact during intercourse between the treated females and untreated males.

But how convenient – the male rats’ reproductive tissues were declared free of toxicity; but the male rats had never been vaccinated at all.

Since there were no vaccinated male rats at all in the Pfizer reproductive studies during its internal trials, it appears Pfizer, and since the human males in the Pfizer study had to promise to abstain from intercourse with childbrearing age women or else use a condom PLUS another effective contraceptive – it appears that Western public health agencies decided to test the effects of mRNA vaccines on men’s reproduction simply by using the “intervention” – the mRNA vaccine  – on human subjects, male as well as female, during a mass vaccination campaign.

mRNA Vaccine Ingredients Travel Throughout the Body and Gather in Organs

As we have seen in other DailyClout/War Room Pfizer Documents Research Volunteer Reports, medical and public health agency professionals assured the U.S. public that the COVID vaccine ingredients remained in the deltoid muscle when injected and did not disperse throughout the body. [Chandler, Robert W. “Pfizer Used Dangerous Assumptions, Rather than Research, to Guess at Outcomes.” DailyClout, DailyClout, 9 Aug. 2022, https://dailyclout.io/pfizer-used-dangerous-assumptions-rather-than-research-to-guess-at-outcomes/.]

However, the FDA received the Pfizer document,” A Tissue Distribution Study of a [3H]-Labelled Lipid Nanoparticle-mRNA Formulation Containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 Following Intramuscular Administration in Wistar Han Rats,” on November 9, 2020, over a month before Pfizer’s vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and began to be injected into humans worldwide. The document shows shocking biodistribution results.  [“A Tissue Distribution Study of a [3H]-Labelled Lipid Nanoparticle-mRNA Formulation Containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 Following Intramuscular Administration in Wistar Han Rats,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf, p. 24.]

“Biodistribution” is a method of tracking where given ingredients travel in the body of an experimental animal or a human subject.The document clearly demonstrates that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine contents – including lipid nanoparticles – enter the bloodstream, travel throughout the body, and accumulate in organs, including in the testes. Reference Table 1, “Mean (Sexes-Combined) Concentration of Total Radioactivity in Whole Blood, Plasma and (Continued) Tissues Following Single Intramuscular Administration of [3H]-08-A01-C01 to Wistar Han Rats – Target Dose Level: 50 µg mRNA/Animal; 1.29 mg Total Lipid/Animal – Results expressed as total lipid concentration (µg lipid equiv/g (mL)) and % of administered dose,” shown below. [“A Tissue Distribution Study of a [3H]-Labelled Lipid Nanoparticle-mRNA Formulation Containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 Following Intramuscular Administration in Wistar Han Rats,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf, p. 24.]

How did medical and public health leaders remain so staunchly firm in their position that mRNA vaccination did not impact male fertility, even as they had access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study?

These experts who were swearing that the mRNA vaccine  ingredients did not leave the injection site also had access to a 2018 NIH-published paper that clearly shows that nanoparticles — of which lipid nanoparticles are subtype [Murthy, Shashi K. “Nanoparticles in Modern Medicine: State of the Art and Future Challenges.” International Journal of Nanomedicine, Dove Medical Press, June 2007, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673971/.] — could pass into the testes from the blood and cause male reproductive harm. The 2018 study showed that NPs accumulate in the testes to damage sperm quality and amount, as well as their “motility”, or ability to move effectively, a requirement of conception:

“NPs [nanoparticles] can pass through the blood-testis barrier…then accumulate in reproductive organs. NP accumulation damages organs (testis, epididymis…) by destroying Sertoli cells, Leydig cells, and germ cells, causing reproductive organ dysfunction that adversely affects sperm quality, quantity, morphology, and motility…”? [Wang, Ruolan, et al. “Potential Adverse Effects of Nanoparticles on the Reproductive System.” International Journal of Nanomedicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 11 Dec. 2018, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30587973/.]

To appreciate fully how NPs harm key components of healthy male sexual development and function, one must understand the roles of the damaged organs and cells, all crucial to male sexual health and even to male sexual development, mentioned above.

• The “epididymis” is involved in transporting sperm from the testes. [Boskey , Elizabeth. “Anatomy and Function of the Epididymis.” Verywell Health, Verywell Health, 30 June 2022, https://www.verywellhealth.com/epididymis-anatomy-4774615.]

• “Sertoli cells” are vital to the development of the testes. “Sertoli cells are of critical importance for testis development…[and] are the master regulators of testis development…” [Pelosi, Emanuele, and Peter Koopman. “Development of the Testis.” Sertoli Cell – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, Science Direct, 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/sertoli-cell.] “During [the sperm developmental process], developing sperm cells are closely linked with the Sertoli cells.” [Carlson, Bruce. “Gametogenesis.” Sertoli Cell – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, Science Direct, 2014, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/sertoli-cell.]

• “Leydig cells” are present in the testicular interstitial tissue. Their main function is to produce testosterone for the maintenance of sperm creation and development and male body development. [Huhtaniemi, Ilpo, and Katja Teerds. “Leydig Cell.” Leydig Cell – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, Science Direct, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/leydig-cell.] Thus, when Leydig cells are damaged, one could say that physical masculinity itself is damaged. This is especially urgent to consider when we reflect on the fact that small boys and teenagers, who have not reached or completed puberty, are being injected with mRNA vaccines containing lipid nanoparticles.

• “Germ cells” “are…precursors of…sperm cells. [“Germ Cells – Definition, Embryonic to Gametes, vs Somatic Cells.” MicroscopeMaster, MicroscopeMaster.com, https://www.microscopemaster.com/germ-cells.html.]

Thus, these excerpts and citations show that:

1. lipid nanoparticles gather in human organs including the testes,
2. nanoparticles are detrimental to normal male reproduction, and
3. Big Pharma and public health agencies knowingly gambled with harms to boys’ and male teens’  sexual development, and with all ages of males’ testosterone levels, older males’ sperm counts, and male fertility.

A Sperm-Related mRNA Vaccine Adverse Event That Causes Male Infertility

An alarming mRNA vaccine-induced reproductive Adverse Event of Special Interest (AESI) came to light at the end of February 2021. Pfizer’s own document lists “anti-sperm antibody positive” among its 1,290 AESIs. [“5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf, p. 30.]

What is an “ASA”?

According to inviTRA, a certified medical magazine created by doctors and fertility experts, “The presence of antisperm antibodies (ASA) in the ejaculate is an immune cause of male infertility. The adhesion of antibodies to sperm affects their motility, making the sperm’s journey to the egg highly difficult or even impossible.” [Salvador, Zaira, and Sandra Fernández. “What Are Antisperm Antibodies? – Causes & Treatment.” InviTRA, 8 Jan. 2019, https://www.invitra.com/en/antisperm-antibodies/.]

This late February 2021 Pfizer document confirming anti-sperm antibodies is the first documented indication I found within the Pfizer records that Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine negatively impacts male fertility.

Note that Pfizer knew about this male infertility AESI almost 12 months prior to the clearly false NIH statement from February of 2022: “COVID-19 vaccination does not reduce chances of conception…” [“Covid-19 Vaccination Does Not Reduce Chances of Conception, Study Suggests,” 1 Feb. 2022.] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew about this AESI by April 30, 2021.  [“5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021,” https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf]

For nearly a year, then, the FDA, public health agencies, and medical organizations ignored this “cause of male infertility” contained in the Pfizer documents – all of which were sent to the FDA. Then they lied about it.

They kept silent for a year and then misled the public, rather than alerting the public. The mass vaccination campaign continued, without even a brief pause, and again, men were denied informed consent.

The Suspension of  Informed Consent for Men Continues

Contrary to established medical ethics, Pfizer and public health agencies did not disclose the true impacts of mRNA gene therapy vaccines on male fertility and, thus, as noted above, denied men informed consent. [“Informed Consent – Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes.” Legal Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, 7 Dec. 2015, https://legaldictionary.net/informed-consent/.]

In fact, the medical establishment, governments, public health agencies worldwide, Big Pharma, and Big Tech colluded to suppress COVID vaccine facts, risks, and alternatives. [Tucker, Jeffrey A, and Debbie Lerman. “Besties: Twitter, Facebook, Google, CDC, NIH, WHO.” Brownstone Institute, Brownstone Institute, 3 Aug. 2022, https://brownstone.org/articles/besties-twitter-facebook-google-cdc-nih-who/.]

In January of 2021, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine posted the “Joint Statement Regarding COVID-19 Vaccine in Men Desiring Fertility from the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology (SMRU) and the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction (SSMR)” encouraging COVID vaccination for men, including for male fertility treatment patients, despite their having no data about its impact on male reproductive health:

“As of January 9, 2021, there are no data about the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine on male…fertility. […] the American Society for Reproductive Medicine does not recommend withholding the vaccine from patients who are planning to conceive, and emphasizes that patients undergoing fertility treatment and pregnant patients should be encouraged to receive vaccination based on eligibility criteria.” [“Update No. 11 Covid-19 Vaccination December 16, 2020 – ASRM.” American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 9 Jan. 2021, https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/news-and-publications/covid-19/covidtaskforceupdate11.pdf.]

Additionally, for men, SMRU and SSMR recommended:

• The COVID-19 vaccine should not be withheld from men desiring fertility who meet criteria for vaccination.

• COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to men desiring fertility, similar to men not desiring fertility, when they meet criteria for vaccination.

The organization went on to blame declines in sperm production on COVID-19 vaccine-related fevers. [“Joint Statement Regarding Covid-19 Vaccine in Men Desiring Fertility from the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology (SMRU) and the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction (SSMR).” ASRM, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 9 Jan. 2021, https://www.asrm.org/news-and-publications/covid-19/statements/joint-statement-regarding-covid-19-vaccine-in-men-desiring-fertility-from-the-society-for-male-reproduction-and-urology-smru-and-the-society-for-the-study-of-male-reproduction-ssmr/.]

The ASRM, SMRU, and SSMR – all reproductive societies – stated in unison in 2021 that there were no data about fertility impacts and that men “desiring fertility” should take the drug for which fertility impacts are unknown.

But how could they advise that men take the vaccine if there were no data proving that it would not affect fertility?

The slanted messaging continued when the “Semen Analysis Parameters Following Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine” clinical study said, “Unfounded claims in the popular media linked a possible correlation between the COVID-19 vaccine and potential…male infertility. Currently, there is no information in the medical literature which examined semen analysis parameters following the COVD-19 vaccine.” [“Semen Analysis Parameters Following Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine.” Full Text View – ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, 2 Mar. 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04778033.]

Again, how exactly could public speculation about potential mRNA vaccine-induced infertility be “unfounded” when those leading the study admit that, as of February 2021, there were no data to show that such a concern was invalid?

The push to brush off fertility concerns continued throughout 2021.

In September 2021, Fertility and Sterility journal published a study which concluded, “After receiving the two doses of the vaccines, we did not observe a clinically significant sperm parameter decline within the cohort, suggesting the vaccines do not negatively impact male fertility potential.”

However, the study was flawed. It went on to admit: “The limitations of the study include the small number of men enrolled; limited generalizability beyond young, healthy men; short follow-up; and lack of a control group.” [Gonzalez, Daniel C., et al. “Sperm Parameters before and after COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination.” JAMA, JAMA Network, 20 July 2021, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781360.] [Gonzalez, Daniel, et al. “Effect of COVID-19 Mrna Vaccines on Sperm Quality.” Fertility and Sterility, Published by Elsevier Inc., 17 Sep. 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8446925/.]

True experiments always include at least one control group that does not receive the experimental treatment. Without a control group, a study’s outcome cannot be certain. Yet, despite long-established scientific norms being cast aside, “the science” told men in this case that COVID vaccines would not negatively affect their fertility.

At the end of 2021, a Chinese study published truths that previous Western studies had refused to acknowledge. The study validated fertility-related vaccine concerns: “Although several fertility societies have announced that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are unlikely to affect fertility, there is no denying that the current evidence is very limited, which is one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy…” The Chinese study went on to say, “…given the potential damage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the reproductive system, some individuals suspect that the vaccine which mimics the virus (mRNA vaccine) may also affect fertility via the same mechanism.” It even addressed the fact that COVID vaccines were rushed to market: “Admittedly, data on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are incomplete when compared with traditional vaccines based on long-term studies with large samples.” [Chen, Fei, et al. “Effects of COVID-19 and Mrna Vaccines on Human Fertility.” Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), Oxford University Press, 27 Dec. 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8689912/.]

Finally, cracks were appearing in mRNA vaccine and fertility information dam, and those cracks prefaced a stunning revelation that was about to drop.

Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Fact Cause an Astonishing Drop in Male Fertility

On June 22, 2022, Andrology published a bombshell study, “Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.” The study, which did not even include the effects of additional booster injections, showed a staggering drop in male fertility, with an average decrease of 22.1% across the study group, from the initial injections alone. The study concluded, “Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC (total motile count) decline.” [Gat, Itai, et al. “Covid-19 Vaccination BNT162B2 Temporarily Impairs Semen Concentration and Total Motile Count among Semen Donors.” Wiley Online Library, Andrology, 17 June 2022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209.]

Each study participant provided multiple semen samples throughout the study’s duration as follows:

• T0 = pre-vaccination baseline
• T1 = 15-45 days post-vaccination
• T2 = 75-120 days post-vaccination
• T3 = 150+ days post-vaccination

The investigators studied participants for five months (T1-T3 above) after they received Pfizer’s vaccine. Table 2 below demonstrates the troubling results, which have a 95% confidence interval. T3 collection averaged a time frame of 174 (+/- 26.8) days.

So, at close to six months post-vaccination, sperm concentration, motility, and total motile count were all still in significant states of decline versus pre-vaccination levels. Sperm concentration had not recovered at all and was, in fact, at its lowest point yet.

Despite these alarming outcomes, the published study went on to encourage vaccination: “Since misinformation about health-related subjects represents a public health threat our findings should support vaccinations programs. Further studies concentrating on different vaccines and populations (ex. subfertile patients) are urgently required.” [Gat, Itai, et al., 17 June 2022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209, p. 6.]

Alarmingly, men continue to receive incomprehensibly contradictory messages, being told to keep injecting the mRNA vaccines even when the study that contains these exhortations, clearly demonstrates adverse fertility results – to men.

The Public Is Left with More Questions Than Answers

This review of documents and studies, culminating with one that shows shocking data about mRNA vaccines conclusively reducing men’s fertility, gives rise to important questions:

• When, if at all, do men’s fertility fully recover from such a drastic decline after a two-dose vaccination course?

• Do boosters, which twenty-nine percent of the world’s population have received as of July 31, 2021, have an even stronger negative impact on men’s fertility? [Holder, Josh. “Tracking Coronavirus Vaccinations around the World.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Jan. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html.]

• Does giving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to pre-pubescent and adolescent males affect their normal sexual development and ability to reproduce, as the implication of the study on NPs in testes suggest it may?

• Is the decline in birth rates being seen in highly vaccinated countries [Chudov, Igor. “Igor’s Newsletter.” Substack, Igor Chudov, https://igorchudov.substack.com/.] at least in part due to how mRNA vaccines have conclusively affected male fertility?

• What factors in the well-documented “baby die-off” being seen around the globe may come from the effects of men being vaccinated with mRNA vaccines? [Wolf, Naomi. “Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide.” Substack, Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf, 30 May 2022, https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-friends-sorry-to-announce-a.]

• Why did pharmaceutical companies, public health officials, medical professionals, and governments tell the public that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not affect men’s fertility when they had no data to support such a conclusion?

• Why, when health officials, doctors, and governments received data confirming mRNA vaccines negatively impact men’s fertility, did they not raise the alarm and fight to give men informed consent?

The public must demand answers to these questions from pharmaceutical companies, world governments, public health agencies, and the medical establishment. Those entities blocked men from having the ability to give informed consent and made them unwitting participants in an ongoing clinical trial of a novel gene therapy.

Such assaults on humanity and its ability to reproduce, and especially, the potential harms to boys, youths, and unborn babies, must be challenged. Those responsible for human experimentation that demonstrably harmed male fertility, must be held accountable.

By Amy Kelly

CONTINUED:

The Pfizer documents demonstrate a strong signal that women have far more adverse events than males, particularly when considering reproductive organs and function. Primary source material from Pfizer shows a strong, sex-linked Adverse Event (AE) difference. Two major data collections, Reissue of Pfizer’s “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021” and “APPENDIX 2.1 Cumulative Number of Case Reports (Serious and Non-Serious, Medically Confirmed and Non Medically-Confirmed) from Post-Marketing Data Sources, Overall, by Sex, Country, Age Groups and in Special Populations and Summary Tabulation by Preferred Term and MedDRA System Organ Class,” show substantially greater numbers of Adverse Events in women contrasted with men. This signal is particularly strong for the reproductive organs and their functions. Women have approximately three times the risk of Adverse Events than do males, and the specific risk to the reproductive organs and their functions is even stronger.

Two large data sets in the Pfizer confidential document collection, released pursuant to a court order, report consistent sex differences in the absolute number and percentage of Adverse Events (AEs) and Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI). This report will examine primary source documents that collect Adverse Events at two points in time – February 28, 2021, the end of first two and a half months following widespread inoculation with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and then at a second time ending on March 15, 2022.

Most AEs appear to have been spontaneously reported through a mechanism the public is still waiting to learn about, which means they were not part of a well-regulated and proactive surveillance program and may underestimate the actual frequency of such events.

Many people having a complication related to Pfizer’s Lipid Nanoparticle Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (LNP/mRNA) prodrug, BNT162b2 (the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine), are not aware of how to report or are unable to report in cases of a severe complication. Alternatively, reporting may be being actively suppressed.

As a review of the entries in Appendix 2.1, the 170-page registry of 4,563,770 Adverse Events logged in by April 15, 2022, shows that over-reporting and, in some cases, questionable relevance of the reporting in some disease categories is a possibility.

Sex Differences Example 1:

Reissue of Pfizer’s 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021

The FDA reissued Pfizer’s 5.3.6 Adverse Events document on April 1, 2022, and it offers a summary of Adverse Events and Adverse Events of Special Interest after injection of BNT162b2, Pfizer’s LNP/mRNA vaccine.

This data set comprises 42,086 subjects from the first two and a half months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 11, 2020.

Table 1 below shows a tally of Adverse Events and Adverse Events of Special Interest by organ system from the 5.3.6 Reissue document, although it must be pointed out that some cases were reassigned to organ categories by the author.

For instance, myopericarditis was moved from Pfizer’s Autoimmunity assignment to Cardiac based on the organ involved rather than the assumed disease process.

Table 1: AEs and ASEIs up to 2/28/2021

In every category, females substantially outnumber males. Charts 1 and 2 are graphical representations of this data.

Chart 1 illustrates this finding with 29,914 females with AEs compared with only 9,182 for males. (i.e., p < 0.001).

It should be noted that “p,” as shown in p < 0.001 above, indicates the level of significance. Commonly, p < 0.05 is the minimal level of acceptance, meaning there is a 95% chance that the number is the true number with a certain confidence interval. Therefore, p < 0.001 indicates a 99.999% probability that the number did not occur by chance. “p” values this low are rarely seen in clinical medical studies.

Chart 1: Female/Male Ratio in 39,096 Subjects

This trend follows through Table 7 (AESI), from 5.3.6 Reissue. Chart 2 shows the female-to-male ratio as percentages for each organ system as reported. Note that females substantially outnumber males in all categories and by more than a factor of three overall.

There is no category in which the number of cases for males outnumber females. Statistical significance exists at p < 0.05 in comparison of the rates of particular types of AEs in females versus males. Hematologic, Dermatologic, Other (Pyrexia and Herpes), Renal and Vasculitis all appear as exceptions with p values > 0.05. Note: Dermatologic was evaluated using Fisher exact test due to small sample size, p = 0.093.

Chart 2: Organ System Detail

Sex Differences Example 2: Appendix 2.1

A second large series of Adverse Events associated with Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine document trove, Appendix 2.1, recently surfaced following a FOIA request from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and consists of a 170-page document that tallies Adverse Events by diagnosis in 1,348,079 subjects (i.e., patients). The sex was known in 1,282,113 cases – 923,194 women (72% of those with known sex and 68% of total series including unknown sex) and 358,919 men. Data capture ended on April 15, 2022.

The total number of Adverse Events reported in this document is 4,563,770 for an average of 3.4 AEs per case. The disproportionate representation of AEs in females presents again strongly here, as it did in Pfizer’s 5.3.6 Reissue document.

Table 2: Female:Male Difference in 1,282,113 Cases of Adverse Events

Chart 3: Female:Male Comparison in AEs Subjects

Adverse Events occur two and a half times more in women than men as shown in Chart 3 above. This is the same pattern seen in the earlier reporting of a smaller series from Document 5.3.6, p < 0.001.

Chart 4 illustrates this same disparity in the specific data referable to female and male reproductive organ and organ function disorders with much higher absolute numbers for women as well as in terms of percent of adverse events.

A striking difference is shown here with 148,874 women reporting Reproductive System AEs contrasted with only 1,745 males, p < 0.001.

Chart 4: Reproductive Organ and Function Sex Differences

As seen in Chart 5, below left, females appear to have fewer diagnostic categories than males but only because there are so many for women that a charting of them is too busy if all are plotted.

For comparison of the sexes see Appendix 2 (females) and Appendix 3 (males) that list the reported reproductive organ and organ function disorders by sex following injection of Pfizer’s BNT162b2. This tally lists diagnoses with reporting frequency of ten or more.

Chart 5 shows the numbers of the just the top ten menstrual dysfunctions contrasted with the much smaller number of reproductive issues in men.

Chart 5:  Menstrual Disorders compared with Male Reproductive Disorders

Why do Women Have So Many More Adverse Events than Males?

No immediate answer to this question exists. However, the signal is strong.

Is there some distortion in the reporting mechanism that might explain such a wide difference? Perhaps. Is there some kind of systematic reporting bias? We can only speculate at present.

Alternatively, are there true sex differences in reaction to Pfizer’s LNP/mRNA injections? Are women more prone to having complications after receiving Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine? Perhaps. Is there something about the LNP/mRNA concentration in ovaries that leads to production of more mRNA transcribed Spike or Spike-related proteins that have been shown to be toxic in multiple studies.

We have seen from the preclinical animal studies, Chart 6 following, that ovaries are one of the top four organs as far as concentration of LNP/mRNA is concerned. But, unfortunately, this study in Wistar Han Rats only ran for two days and no longer-term studies were performed. Furthermore, the ovaries – like liver, spleen and adrenal glands – had LNP/mRNA concentrations that were steeply rising at the time of animal sacrifice.

Had autopsies had been performed in a systematic manner following widespread human inoculation in individuals dying in the weeks following injection of Pfizer’s BNT162b2, we may have had the answer by now and would certainly know more about gross and microscopic changes occurring in organs following the injection. Spike and related protein levels in the various organ systems would be of great interest.

Chart 6 illustrates deposition of LNP/mRNA at the injection site, left chart, followed by rapid dissemination throughout the body with concentration in four organs, liver, spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries, right chart.

Chart 6: Distribution of LNP/mRNA in Wistar Han Rats

LNP/mRNA concentrates in ovaries as shown in Chart 6 illustrating data from preclinical studies performed in Wistar Han Rats. Note: The X-axis is nonlinear in Charts 6 and 7. Interpret the data accordingly.

Caution is needed here as animal studies may be misleading. There is such a thing as species-specific reactions, and humans may have different findings.

Chart 7 illustrates the disparity between ovaries and testes with respect to LNP/BNT162b2 uptake showing more than 38 times more concentration in ovaries than testes, as shown in these animal studies.

Chart 7: Tissue Concentration of LNP/mRNA Ovaries vs. Testes

Why do ovaries concentrate lipid nanoparticles and mRNA contained therein so much more effectively than testes?

And does this account for the large disparity in the incidence of Adverse Events and Adverse Events of Special Interest following injection of BNT162b2 in women as opposed to men?

Or are these differences in AEs overall and with respect to the dysfunction in the Reproductive Systems specifically a result of some methodological quirk?

We cannot definitively answer that question at present. For now, we must interpret these data as showing women are at increased risk for Adverse Events from Pfizer’s LNP/mRNA product than are men, both in terms of many or all organ systems but especially with respect to reproductive organ systems and their functions.

Assuming this differential is caused by the disproportionate impact of BNT162b2 on women and their reproductive systems and organs, the implications could be profound.

Appendix 1: Female Reproductive AEs Following Inoculation with BNT162b2

148,874 reproductive organ AEs occurred in women which represents ~16% of the total number of Adverse Events in women. The list below gives the diagnoses reported 10 or more times.

Appendix 2: Male Reproductive Disorders Following Inoculation with BNT162b2

1,745 reproductive organ AEs were reported in men which represents 0.49% of the total number of Adverse Events in men. AEs list occurred 10 or more times.

By Robert W. Chandler, MD, MBA

CONTINUED:

We have been sold an antivaccine as a vaccine.

Official Government and Pfizer statistics prove that the “old” Pfizer COVID injection destroys the immune system at a rate greater than 1% per day.

Now, the newly published study for Pfizer’s new bivalent COVID vaccine, to combat both the original strain and Omicron, prove the old Covid-19 vaccine had a minus-44% negative efficacy after just 30 days.

The same study also, unfortunately, proves the destruction of the immune system is only going to get worse, not better.

By a concerned reader

According to Pfizer –

“Pfizer and BioNTech’s bivalent vaccine contains 15-µg of mRNA encoding the wild-type spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is present in the Original Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and 15-µg of mRNA encoding the spike protein of the Omicron | BA.4/BA.5 subvariants.

“Because the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants contain identical spike protein amino acid sequences, both can be targeted at once with a single mRNA strand.

“Apart from the addition of the mRNA sequence of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein, all other components of the vaccine remain unchanged.”

“One month after administration, a booster dose of the Omicron-adapted monovalent candidates (30 µg and 60 µg) increased neutralizing (antibody) geometric mean titers (GMT) against Omicron BA.1 13.5 and 19.6-fold above pre-booster dose levels, while a booster dose of the Omicron-adapted bivalent candidates conferred a 9.1 and 10.9-fold increase in neutralizing (antibody) GMTs against Omicron BA.1.

“Both Omicron-adapted vaccine candidates were well-tolerated in participants who received one or the other Omicron-adapted vaccine” –SOURCES:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-granted-fda-emergency-use-authorization
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-omicron-adapted-covid-19 .

From this information, we shall now prove that the original vaccine shots destroy the immune system at a rate of 44% per month.

We have known that the vaccines in effect cause VAIDS. But we had not realised how quickly they do that until now…

Putting these results into a tabular form we get –

Looking at the table above we see that adding 30 ug of the original Pfizer vaccine against Wuhan Hu1 (that everybody has taken for the 1st and 2nd shots and the boosters up until September 2022), to 30ug of the new Omicron BA4/5 vaccine component decreases its effectiveness after one month from 19.6x to 10.9x a reduction of 44%.

Likewise adding 15ug of the old Wuhan Hu1 vaccine decreases the effectiveness of 15ug of the new Omicron BA4/5 vaccine component from 13.5x to 9.1x, a reduction of 33%.

Tabulating these results for Omicron BA1 neutralising antibody increase after one month we get the following –

These results lay bare what the Exposé has been demonstrating from government infection hospitalisation and death figures all over the world, many of which have now stopped publishing the relevant figures because they were worsening by the week and clearly displaying how lethal the vaccines are.

The original Pfizer vaccine not only had no efficacy against Omicron. It also progressively destroyed your immune system at the rate displayed above. It was an anti-vaccine against Omicron. It never had any positive effect on Omicron antibody levels.

Furthermore, 30 days after your Pfizer booster shot (30 ug of vaccine against Wuhan Hu1) you would have had 44% fewer antibodies against Omicron than you had before you took the booster according to Pfizer’s own figures.

It was NEVER an immunity booster.

It was always an immunity disruptor, an immunity compromiser, an immunity nullifier, an immunity degrader, an immunity reducer. It was an incredibly effective immunity destroyer.

Within 30 days of taking your Pfizer booster, you lost 44% of your first level (antibody) immune response against the original Omicron variant BA1. That is why the infection rates in the vaccinated were so much worse than the infection rates in the unvaccinated for Omicron.

We no longer need government figures to see this. Because Pfizer has gone and done it for us. Their figures clearly show that the original vaccine causes a new form of Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS) at an alarmingly fast rate of over 1% per day.

They were so keen to show the world how effective their new shots were, that they overlooked the fact that their data also proved how anti-effective their old shots were.

THE BIG REVELATION

I need to state this again clearly because it is so important.

Pfizer’s figures for the new vax versus the old vax prove that the old vax did not work against Omicron.

Pfizer’s bivalent versus monovalent trial results shows that one shot (30ug) of the old vaccine destroys 44% of your Covid19 antibodies in 30 days.

Since one is not considered boosted until 14 days after the shot, it follows that the old boosters were never vaccines, they were always anti-vaccines, having a negative efficacy by day 14.

Most Pfizer vaccinations taken by the majority of humans on the planet prior to September 2022, have systematically destroyed their immune response at an initial rate greater than 1% per day (44% in 30 days).

Most Pfizer-vaccinated people now have VAIDS, and winter is coming.

I remember when I wrote an article analysing German government figures out of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. They showed that vaccinated Germans were 8.1x more likely to be infected with Omicron than unvaccinated Germans.

I then looked at the official figures for Australia, and they showed that vaccinated people were more than 10x likely to be infected than the unvaxxed.

The German government immediately changed their figures and claimed: “Oh we made a mistake”.

They found another 911 unvaccinated people who had allegedly caught Omicron.

Are we really to believe that Germans, the best mechanical engineers in the world, routinely make mistakes with numbers?

This was no mistake. The Australian figures confirmed it back then. And Pfizer’s results above confirm it today.

There are half a million people in the UK with compromised immune systems. Many of them have absolutely zero antibodies to Omicron.

Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 actually did a reasonable documentary on them on Thursday September 1 from 12:00 – 14:00. These people are condemned to spend the rest of their lives in total isolation having had 5 or 6 Covid vaccinations to no good end.

Their immune system can no longer produce ANY antibodies to Omicron. Jeremy interviewed several of them who confirmed that the COVID vaccines are useless for them. The government did not pay for them to discover that they had zero antibodies after 5 or 6 vaccinations. They had to have private testing done, which they paid for themselves, in order to find that out.

The solution for them is a drug called Evushield, which is a monoclonal antibody concoction. It literally gives them the antibodies that their immune system can no longer make. It is the Covid equivalent to antiretrovirals for AIDS.

The MHRA authorised the drug in March for immuno-compromised people. But you cannot get it on the NHS and you need 2 shots at £800 per shot. Many cannot afford it. So much for the NHS caring about the health of this country.

Obviously, if you cannot interact with anybody face to face, your earning capacity will be seriously reduced and the taxes you pay every year will likewise be significantly reduced. The idea that such a person is not worth £1600 to the economy over the rest of their lives is absurd.

An investment of £1600 would most likely be repaid within a year by the overall improvement to the economy from having another fit and healthy working person. And that is just the economic argument.

The social argument need not even be mentioned. Liz Truss is about to spend 200 Billion on energy apparently. We could fix every immuno-compromised person in the land for less than 1 billion. But that would not get any computer-generated Wuhan Hu1 spike proteins into them now, would it?

These immuno-compromised people had weak immunity to begin with, and now have absolutely zero immunity in many cases. That is where we will all end up if we continue taking any vaccination containing the genetic code for Covid spike proteins or taking the spike proteins themselves as is the case with the Novavax vaccine.

One woman interviewed on the radio said that she had not had a hug in 2½ years. Jeremy Vine suggested that the government paid for Covid tested huggers to go and visit people like her. At least that gave her a laugh.

The tragic thing about these immune-deficient people is that they are the ones least able to tolerate the immune system destruction mediated by the vaccines and yet they were always the first to be recommended to take the next shot.

They are the victims of the grossest medical negligence. They should all be given Evushield for that reason alone.

Pfizer has demonstrated a 44% immune degradation in 30 days at 30ug of the original Pfizer vaccine (the standard vaccine dose). I wonder if they will ever publish the 60 and 90-day figures?

There is no commercial need so to do, now that they have approval from all the regulators after a 30-day clinical trial. They stopped the 3½-year clinical trial number NCT04368728 from 2020 July 27 to 2024 February 8 of the original vaccine after 6 months, when they permitted the placebo group to become vaccinated.

A 30-day clinical trial is not a completed clinical trial. It is a joke. Fauci himself said recently that we don’t have time to finish the clinical trials of the bivalent booster.

They could have made an omicron booster 8 months ago, in which case they would have had time. They could have made a delta booster a year ago. But they plainly have no interest in providing an up-to-date booster. They just want an excuse to fill the public full of the original computer-generated spike proteins.

The FDA Authorised the Wrong Vaccine

30ug of the new monovalent Pfizer vaccine increased neutralising antibodies by 19.6x after 30 days.

15ug + 15ug of the bivalent Pfizer vaccine increased neutralising antibodies by 9.1x after 30 days.

So the monovalent vaccine, the fully updated vaccine, was 2.15x better (19.6/9.1) than the bivalent vaccine.

It produced actually 115% more antibodies against Omicron than the bivalent vax, because it was fully updated rather than partially updated. The only disadvantage to the monovalent vaccine for the authorities is that it does not fill you up with computer-generated Wuhan Hu1 spike proteins.

So which one did the FDA authorise?  https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-bivalent-vaccine-boosters

They authorised the bivalent one of course. They did not authorise the monovalent one.

What’s happening here is that the old vaccine, designed against Wuhan Hu1 (which was never isolated and was computer generated and I doubt was ever in circulation) has zero efficacy against Omicron. All it does is progressively damage your immune system.

Whereas the new vaccine, being designed against Omicron, does have good initial efficacy against it as the figures above demonstrate. But all Covid variant spike proteins are anti-vaccines to the entire immune system and cause Vaccine Mediated AIDS progressively as more and more spike proteins infect your T cells.

This is true for both the new and old vaccines.

Conclusion

We have been sold an anti-vaccine for Omicron as a vaccine for Omicron and Pfizer’s own figures now show it.

The reason the reduction in efficacy after 30 days is 11% higher with the 30ug + 30ug shot than it is with the 15ug + 15ug shot is that the larger the dose, the more spike proteins your body makes and the more damage they do to your immune system in 30 days.

If you want to cause no damage to your immune system then do not put any spike proteins or spike protein-producing vaccines into your body.

There is a great new study from Harvard, John’s Hopkins, Oxford, Edinburgh, California and other Universities showing that for every 1 person whom the vaccines saved from hospitalisation (according to government figures), 18-98 people suffered serious life-altering adverse reactions.

It is an amazing world wherein such prestigious universities are 6 months behind writers for the Exposé.

There was a fascinating comment by a switched-on woman in the Telegraph. She asked:

‘Is this whole Covid thing some kind of intelligence test?’

A brainwashing test from the globalist demons and a wisdom test from the nationalist God of freedom, who forced us into nations at Babel in order to prevent a global political monopoly such as the WEF, would be my answer.

Extrapolation of Results (for Mathematicians)

We can project forward the antibody levels post-vaccination in the bivalent vaccinated compared to the monovalent vaccinated month by month by continuing to reduce them by 44.4% and 32.6% respectively every 30 days as follows

This analysis projects only the extra reduction in antibody levels caused by adding an equal quantity of the old vax to the new vax. It does not include the reduction in antibodies caused by the new vax spike proteins themselves. It also fails to take into account the fact that your immune system is gradually wiping out vaccinated cells, So that spike protein production will fall off progressively throughout the extrapolated period which will reduce the rate of attrition of antibodies. These two omitted factors are opposite in effect.

We know how much damage 30ug of spike protein (either new or old) does in the first month. It is 32.6%. So we should reduce all the figures above by an extra 32.6% per month.

We also know that spike protein production tails off reasonably quickly at more or less the same rate. So we shall assume that these two effects more or less cancel each other out.

The fascinating thing about the extrapolation is that the lower dose does much better than the higher dose from month 2 onwards (being less destructive to the immune system). This supports something I have been saying from the start of the vaccination program, namely that the doses are way too high. They are gene therapy doses, not vaccination doses.

The 60 ug shot fails to provide any extra protection and starts to go negative at 5 months.
The 30 ug shot fails to provide any extra protection and starts to go negative at 7 months.

A 1 ug shot would have provided extra protection for the entire pandemic and would not have caused nearly as many adverse reactions and would have killed almost nobody because most immune systems would have been able to deal with the 30x smaller number of spikes.

So here is what the new shots should have been if you are going to permit mRNA shots. Of course, nobody will implement this because the shots are not about health. But I am entitled to use hindsight here because the bivalent shots were both made and approved with hindsight available.

1. Use the 87½% of non-spike viral proteins rather than the 12½% of viral spike proteins
2. Reduce the dose from 30ug to 1ug
3. Regularly update the vaccination to include non-spike protein parts only from variants actually in circulation as we do with flu shots
4, Do not substitute Uracil for N1 Methyl Pseudouridine in the mRNA coding for the viral parts. That is a lethal gene hack that should never be approved by any regulator with any understanding of genetics.

But giving anybody a gene therapy shot for which no clinical studies have ever been permitted to continue for more than 6 months is extreme medical fraud (any act OR OMISSION intended to deceive).

And giving people a gene therapy shot for which no clinical studies have lasted more than 30 days is likewise criminal.

Any doctor who vaccinates people with these bivalent jabs knowing the Pfizer results above or knowing that we presently have only 30 days of clinical trial data to support them should be suspended. He has broken the Hippocratic oath. Indeed the administrations of the CDC, the FDA and the MHRA should be sacked for recommending and approving them.

The Novavax approach applied to the above would have been the best and most benign vaccination answer (indeed that is precisely what we presently do with flu shots and Covid19 is just another type of flu). But vitamin D3, direct sunlight, mouthwashes containing Cetyl Pyridinium Chloride and spending an hour breathing chlorinated air in an indoor pool facility, Ivermectin, Hydroxy Chloroquine and monoclonal antibodies are all more effective and less dangerous.

I am a supporter of Trump simply because he is not a politician. But his ‘Operation Warp Speed’ was and continues to be the worst medical intervention in the history of healthcare. And the sooner he recognises it the better. I suspect that he does recognise it but cannot publicly declare his position politically.

With regard to the extrapolation above, the performance of the new vaccinations is better than that of the old ones because they actually code for a variant in circulation (to some extent), rather than a computer-generated artefact that has never been isolated and was never in circulation IMHO. So they produce more directly focused protection.

But they are just as lethal to the immune system, the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system and to all body organs.

So they start from a higher point and their protection against the alleged Omicron variant lasts longer (7 months rather than 0 months).

But the spikes and the fake uracil are just as destructive to your general health as the old vaccine was. So their VAERS results will be equally as bad. So they are in effect just a greater fool’s paradise than their predecessors.

By The Exposé