.
Original data screenshot from the New South Wales (Australia) government website, data for the period ending 31 Dec 2022..
"Association Between Vaccines and EXCESS MORTALITY Getting Stronger -- and is Discussed in UK Parliament", by Igor Chudov, 6-Now-2022This is Counterintuitive and Concerning!
Please take a minute to understand that increasing the strength of association, as time passes after the event causing the association (vaccination), is very unusual very worrisome
What is going on? The clock is ticking; unvaccinated people are not really getting vaccinated anymore. And yet, as time goes on, more and more excess deaths are explained by vaccination rate (49% in weeks 20-44, instead of 27% 10 weeks prior). Vaccination rate, for the most part, refers to vaccinations that happened in the relatively distant past, a year ago or so. Something is happening in the bodies of people who were mostly vaccinated over a year ago that increases the degree of that association of vaccines vs. deaths as time goes on!
Stop. This is NOT normal.
Consider a typical poison like rat poison. Let’s say that a careless cook accidentally sprinkled varying amounts of rat poison over the salads of restaurant visitors. Some received more, some less, so some would die of rat poison. It would be understandable to expect that “restaurant visit” was associated with “excess mortality” of unfortunate diners within the first week or two after the visit. A year later, though, we would not be expecting any such relationship as the effects of poison wear off. However, the association of vaccination (distant past event) with mortality (present event) is increasing as time goes on!
What could explain it? To be honest, I am not certain. I can offer two explanations:
Vaccination has a delayed effect that causes excess mortality to increase. Regular poisons do not do that. Carcinogens do exactly that. They set a chain of biological processes in motion that lead to increased mortality down the road.
Vaccination had negative AND positive effects on mortality, and the positive effects are wearing out. Covid vaccines did, a while ago, provide some protection from Covid deaths. However, as time went on, that protection dwindled. So, as protective effects dwindle and negative effects continue, the explanatory power of vaccinations may be increasing.
.
.The data is not fully verified. I used the reference links and borrowed some words from this post Comment by Captain Sunset on Hyperlipid
.
Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
.
It is interesting to note that "The Age Standardised Mortality Rate per 100,000" figures given in Table 18 (i.e. 8.38, 4.93, 1.93 for the unv., 1-va and 2-va, for the 11-17 of September) are inconsistent with the population va rates and the number of deaths in each category. These rates are probably adjusted and corrected for other factors. Unfortunately they did not explain (or I missed it) how exactly they were adjusted and corrected. |
| Table 18 (from the above-report) |
 |
| Age-Standardised Mortality Rate referenced in Table 18. |
.
In 2005, Drs. Weissman and Kariko discovered a way to protect foreign mRNA from the body’s immune system. That scientific milestone would be key to the advancement of the mRNA vaccines in 2020.
Recently, the University of Pennsylvania Tweeted a picture of the Drs. Weissman and Kariko receiving their Covid vaccination, and reminding us of that milestone. One tweet commenting that they should receive the Nobel prize for their discovery.
The fundamental change discovered by Weissman and Kariko was that nucleoside modification could protect mRNA from the body’s immune defences:
[picture]
Their key discovery, that by modifying the RNA code (modifying the nucleoside uridine), resulted in ablating the innate immune response, involved toll-like receptors (TLR).
This discovery was adopted in the mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines, in order that the foreign vaccine mRNA could enter cells without being destroyed.
...
By modifying the Uridine in the Pfizer vaccine mRNA code, the foreign mRNA is able to bypass part of the body’s first line of defence — the Innate Immune System.
The body possesses two broad parts to its immune system: innate and specific. The innate is the first to go into action against foreign invaders, including foreign mRNA from a vaccine.
How does that simple removal of one letter of code from mRNA achieve that? It does so by affecting Toll Like Receptors (TLR): the alarm signal of the Innate Immune System.
The key TLRs affected are TLR 3, TLR 7 and TLR 8. They act as sentries, whose job is to recognise foreign invaders by way of their form or patterns;
...
Dominguez-Andres et al addressed that question May 6th 2021. They state: ...
...
BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination.
...
We observed a significant reduction in the production if IFN-α secreted after stimulation with poly I:C and R848 after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1H, 1I). This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus, as defects in TLR7 have been shown to result in and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males (Van Der Made et al., 2020). These results collectively demonstrate that the effects of the BNT162b2 vaccine go beyond the adaptive immune system and can also modulate innate immune responses.
Three concerns are raised by the above.
- The ability of the immune system to fight viruses has been diminished; specifically, the ability to fight SARS-CoV-2 may be affected;
- Vaccine-induced innate immune tolerance may affect other vaccines; and finally
- What other parts of the immune system may be affected.
...
Dr Ryan Cole, a Pathologist, in a recent presentation, stated that he is observing a 20 x uptick in endometrial cancer, and increases in other cancers post SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
...
The toll-like receptors 7 & 8 are described in the literature as important in eliciting the vital CD8 T cell response. With that in mind, let us remind ourselves what Drs. Weissman and Kariko wrote in 2005 in Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA:
We show that RNA signals through human TLR3, TLR7, and TLR8, but incorporation of modified nucleosides m5C, m6A, m5U, s2U, or pseudouridine ablates activity.
That very technology is being used in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: It switches off TLR 7 & 8 signalling, that the immune system needs to fight infection and cancer.
Summary
Changes to key parts of the mRNA code in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be causal in changing the innate immune response via toll-like receptors. Toll-like receptors are important components in defence against infection and downstream effects may also include inhibition of CD8 T cell response. CD8 is a vital part of the immune system’s ability to eradicate infection and cancer. Those changes may be reflected in recent reactivated Varicella Zoster infections although specific mechanisms are unclear at the moment. Anecdotal reports of significant uptick in cancer presenting to medical consultants may be consistent with aberrant toll-like receptor and dendritic cell changes leading to an inhibition of the anti-cancer CD8 effector response. Further data are required but the prospect of an altered CD8 response to infection and cancer is very concerning and should prompt urgent investigation.
...
.
"Why ''Natural Immunity'' Is A Political Problem For The Regime", by CD Media StaffSeptember 24, 2021Both the Mayo Clinic website and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, for example, insist that “research has not yet shown” that people who have recovered from covid have any sort of reliable protection. Moreover, the CDC page points to a single study from Kentucky claiming that people with natural immunity are more than twice as likely to contract covid again, compared to people who have been vaccinated.
More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.
The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:
The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention position about vaccinating children also dismisses the benefits of natural immunity. The Los Angeles County School District recently mandated vaccines for students ages 12 and up who want to learn in person. But young people are less likely to suffer severe or long-lasting symptoms from covid-19 than adults, and have experienced rare heart complications from the vaccines. In Israel, heart inflammation has been observed in between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 males age 16 to 24; the CDC has confirmed 854 reports nationally in people age 30 and younger who got the vaccine. ...
... For comparison, the CDC has long recommended that kids do not get the chickenpox vaccine if they had chickenpox infection in the past.
The nonscientific, ideology-induced blind spot for natural immunity also prompted The BMJ (the journal of the British Medical Association) to note that “[w]hen the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2…. As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18–59.”
And yet, the authors note this fact doesn’t appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all:
The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.
SARS-CoV-2 has some unexplained pathogenic features that might be related to the table of putative pathogenic priming peptides. Exposure to these specific peptides - via either infection or vaccination - might prime patients for increased risk of enhanced pathogenicity during future exposure due either to future pandemic or outbreaks or via universal vaccination programs. While the mechanisms pathogenesis of COVID-19 are still poorly understood, the morbidity and mortality of SARS has been extensively studied. Thus, the involvement of pathogenic priming in re-infection by COVID-19 is a theoretical possibility; of course no vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has yet been tested in animals and therefore we do not yet know if pathogenic priming is in fact expected. Such studies should be undertaken before use of any vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is used in humans.
"In English this says, the Covid 19 virus has only one sequence that does not have links to human proteins. Thus any part of the virus used in a vaccine could potentially make the vaccine fatal to the humans injected with it."
The immunity you get from the actual disease is much more enduring, robust, durable and broader spectrum than the immunity you get from vaccines. So there is more protection with immunity derived from the actual disease. There are two types of antibodies produced in an immune response: neutralizing antibodies and binding antibodies. The danger with Coronavirus vaccines is a phenomenon called 'pathogenic priming'.
Neutralizing antibodies are good. Binding antibodies however, are produced when you try to vaccinate against a Coronavirus. These binding antibodies act like Velcro on your cells' receptors. So the virus sticks to the cells and makes you much more sick.
If you get exposed to Coronavirus through the vaccine, it actually 'primes' your system. So you get much sicker the next time the virus comes around. For example, in the 1960's a MERS (Coronavirus) vaccine was tested on children. But when they were actually challenged by disease itself, they all became horrendously sick and two of them died.
In 2014 Sanofi worked with the NIH to develop a Dengue vaccine. And they saw some of those same pathogenic priming signals during the clinical trials. But ignored them. They gave that vaccine to hundreds of thousands of kids in the Philippines and they all got an immune response. But when the Dengue came back around, the kids who were vaccinated were devastated and 600 of them died. There are criminal charges right now in the Philippines trying public health officials, who were involved in that decision.
Additionally, vaccine manufacturers are free from liability. So they can't be sued, even if things go dreadfully wrong. And there is no adequate safety testing done. Because it's costly and manufacturers don't do it, bcz they are not required to. This 'pathogenic priming' effect is the single most important and dangerous issue when it comes to a Coronavirus vaccine. As no one knows how devastating it can turn out to be.
To begin with, it is unscientific and perilously misleading for anyone to assert that “vaccines and autism” have been studied and that no link has been found. That’s because the 16 or so studies constantly cited by critics of the hypothesis have examined just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient.
And, the population studies themselves have had critical design flaws and limitations.
The current US childhood immunization schedule calls for 28 injections with 11 different vaccines against 15 different diseases by two years of age. Of those 11 vaccines, only the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) shot has been studied in association with autism, (although a CDC study of an MMR-plus-chickenpox vaccine did show that the risk for febrile seizures in infants was doubled.) Meanwhile, those 11 vaccines contain scores of ingredients, only one of which, thimerosal, has ever been tested in association with autism.
 |
| Wiki Vaccine |
These adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.
...
Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Concentrates (For Further Manufacturing Use) are produced by The Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases of Osaka University (BIKEN), Osaka, Japan, under United States (US) license, and are combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Tripedia vaccine is filled, labeled, packaged, and released by Sanofi Pasteur Inc.
.
Duterte vows to get to the bottom of dengue vaccine 'health scam'MANILA - The office of the Philippine president on Sunday vowed to hold accountable those responsible for a suspended dengue immunization program, which it said placed thousands of lives at risk.
The Department of Health (DOH) halted on Friday the use of a dengue vaccine made by Sanofi after the company said its use must be strictly limited due to evidence it can worsen the disease in people who have not previously been exposed to the infection.
 |
| From http://www.shssa.hss.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/pages/130/immunization.jpg |
While the Brazilian government rushes to blame the Zika virus for this huge rise in abnormal birth defects, causation remains unclear. Only a small number of babies with birth defects, who died, had the virus in their brain or in the mother’s placenta. This means a large number of the babies who died had no Zika virus in their brain. Hard to blame Zika then, which has been around since before 1948 and has never been known to cause birth defects and/or death. In fact, Zika makes only one in five people get “mildly” sick with flu-like symptoms, with no symptoms at all in 4 out of 5 people. So why are they quick to blame a generally benign Zika virus?
In late 2014, the Brazilian minister of health announced that a new Tdap shot would be mandatory for all expectant mothers starting in 2015. Since it’s mandatory, mothers with birth defect babies received this newly formulated vaccine while pregnant. The timeliness of the Tdap vaccine and the sudden rise in birth defects is more than just a little coincidental. The consequences of this untested vaccine is being swept under the rug.
The truth is that the Tdap shot has never been proven safe for use during pregnancy. In fact, Tdap is classified by the FDA as a Class C drug.
The definition of a Class C drug which is how the Tdap shot is classified:
Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.
--USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS----
Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been established in pregnant women. (8.1)
* from Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report February 23-24, 2011 minutes (p. 34-35)
"From January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010, of 10,350 reports after Tdap vaccines, 129 involved pregnant women who submitted a report to VAERS. Although there were reports of 20 spontaneous abortions, 2 stillbirths, and 2 congenital anomalies, VAERS is not designed to assess whether a vaccine caused an adverse event. A review of VAERS reports in pregnant women who received Tdap vaccines revealed no elevated frequency or unusual patterns. Both GSK and sanofi pasteur maintain vaccination pregnancy registries to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status outcomes following vaccination. Both were kind enough to allow Dr. Liang to present on their behalf. The work group reviewed their data in detail, and she provided the summary points. Boostrix® was licensed in 2005 for 10 through 18 year olds, and in 2008 for adults. GSK maintains a registry to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status outcomes following vaccination. From its U.S. market launch in 2005 through August 2, 2010, 33 pregnancies were prospectively registered. Of these pregnancies, 18 were lost to follow-up. Outcomes were reported for seven pregnancies, and consisted of six live infants born without birth defects and one spontaneous abortion at seven weeks gestation. The remaining eight pregnancies were on-going at the time of last contact. In addition to the prospective reports of pregnancy received to the pregnancy registry from the U.S., GSK has received 13 reports from other countries. Just over half of these reported normal outcomes. The rest are on-going or were lost to follow-up. There have been no birth defects after Boostrix® vaccination reported to GSK."
