54/55 subgroup analyses show harm. It’s not random. It follows a perfect dose-response gradient (antigens/aluminum). Critics have all failed to explain how this is consistent with a safe vaccine.
Steve: I have been thinking about this post for some time. I would like to offer one suggestion of a necessary adjustment to your FRAMING. Your headline positions the frame: "US Childhood Vaccines Are Increasing Infant Mortality." Period.
I believe you should modify that slightly. Narrow the claim. Or state your aim more . . . ummm . . . graciously and in line with the evidence. I believe you have not quite proven the claim as you have stated it.
Specifically: Hooker has NOT demonstrated that US childhood vaccines are increasing mortality (i.e., decreasing lifespans) FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION. I believe that is probably what Professor Niazi was trying to get at. Similar to the argument you made "way back when" about the COVID injections. We needed to look at ALL-CAUSE mortality. "Just because" more two- to three-month-old infants die a month after they get Month 2 vaccines than than those who don't get vaccines in their second month doesn't mean that, long-term, OVER-ALL, those who get their Month 2 vaccines will die in greater numbers or at earlier ages than those who don't. . . .
BUT. (And I think this is where your sensibilities are correct and should lead ALL of us--those who are supposedly "vaccine-deniers" AND those who are "pro-vaccine"--to agree.) The data is--or ought to be--clearly disturbing. We OUGHT NOT "simply" to ignore the fact that twice as many girls as boys are dying after their injections at two months old . . . or that a bunch of kids are dying AT ALL from these injections. We ought ALL to be curious: WHY are they dying? HOW can we REDUCE the numbers of deaths? WHAT should we do differently?
The fact that the 11-vaccine injection is killing at such a high level compared to the single- or, even, triple-vaccine options ought to warn us about the dangers of such an injection. And so parents and doctors ought to be given the data and asked: "If you want these vaccines, do you want the one that elevates death at this higher percentage--so as to save the $___ cost of having to come back? Or would you rather pay $___ extra so we can spread these over time?"
But, yes, even talking about the risks of death is worthwhile. And those risks should be placed in the context of risks of all types. (Similar to how we discuss other risks, hopefully: "The risk of you being killed in an auto accident is ___ per mile [or 100,000 miles]. The risk of you dying in an airplane crash are ___ per mile [or 100,000 miles]. So. You want to go from ______ to ______. Considering the risks of being killed--which are very real--which would you prefer?")
Same thing with vaccines: "The risks of your children dying from pertussis over their entire lifespans are about ________. The risks of them dying from this shot--that, by all evidence, entirely removes the risk of contracting pertussis, is _____. Of course, the shot costs $____, while not taking the shot is free. But. Which risk do you want to take?"
Something like that.
But I have never heard anyone engaging in those kinds of conversations.
This is the classical palliative reality, in politics/business/science, endless fear, control fetishism to cover up weakness, helplessness and anxiety.
In other words, a system that endlessly uses fear, control, restrictions, and rhetoric as superficial "treatments" to mask deeper problems like weakness, plunder, insecurity, incompetence, or a lack of real solutions. Instead of fixing root issues, politicians/science apply band-aid measures that manage appearances and maintain control and power.
The top end is still owned by Big Pharma. They will ignore this. The new top doc in Canada says she wants to decrease "vaccine hesitancy". They pushed the useless covid injections and are still doing it. I think a factory in Quebec is making them now. I quit flu shots over 5 years ago and have not had the flu while those around me are getting it.
I really dislike defining a certain group which didn't receive vaccines in a given time period, but did receive some at some point, as "unvaccinated". I get how that could be a convenient shorthand, but it smacks of the sleight of hand used in pro-vax studies. They do things like count people who received a shot less than 2 weeks prior as unvaccinated, but then casual readers of the abstract think it truly refers to unvaccinated people.
If the shots were safe and effective, then we'd see the opposite outcome. It would be all those unvaxxed children dying earlier, since they would (allegedly) be more subject to early death from all those deadly vaccine-preventable diseases.
Maybe flip the story and ask vax-pusher Grok what the outcome would be. "Imagine I had death records. What would I see for the poor unvaxxed children in terms of death related to the vaxxed children? Which ones would die more rapidly? And why.
The data s clear and I cannot understand why it is so hard for people to admit that. They would rather continue to kill children to avoid being wrong? I cannot fathom how educated people are so blindly clinging to the “safe and effective” narrative so passionately, are they all making money off these vaccines? Or are they seriously suffering from some mental illness. So they are wrong, it happens just admit it and move on. This issue should have been put to rest decades ago when the vaccine industry needed liability protection for their so called safe and effective products. They should have just pulled the plug then and yet people want to fight the obvious like their own lives are at stake.
Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum, "that which was to be demonstrated". As I said in my comment the other day = Steve is like a dog with a bone. He won't let it go until he solves the issue.
What I find absolutely incredible is the fact that grown men with supposedly advanced medical degrees and experience ignore the very real fact that the immune system in toddlers is not the same as the immune systems in fully grown adults. Indeed, in babies the immune systems are in active formation for many years, and so a vaccine that works as advertised for an adult could have drastically different performance in a toddler or newborn. It was known from the start that the COVID vaccines were completely unnecessary for minor children because they seemed to handle the COVID virus and put it down without difficulty. But the "It can't hurt," people in the CDC, who weren't even sure the vaccine would work in adults (turns out it didn't), won the day and lots of children in America paid dearly for what can only be described as a money grab. The federal government must never be allowed to come between doctors and their patients again.
My mom never had me vaccinated *cough cough* and I *WHEEZE* am doing just (hey I'm feeling light headed) fineeee *collapses*
I am now on an iron lung, but at least I stuck it to those mean old doctors and their "research!"
Steve: I have been thinking about this post for some time. I would like to offer one suggestion of a necessary adjustment to your FRAMING. Your headline positions the frame: "US Childhood Vaccines Are Increasing Infant Mortality." Period.
I believe you should modify that slightly. Narrow the claim. Or state your aim more . . . ummm . . . graciously and in line with the evidence. I believe you have not quite proven the claim as you have stated it.
Specifically: Hooker has NOT demonstrated that US childhood vaccines are increasing mortality (i.e., decreasing lifespans) FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION. I believe that is probably what Professor Niazi was trying to get at. Similar to the argument you made "way back when" about the COVID injections. We needed to look at ALL-CAUSE mortality. "Just because" more two- to three-month-old infants die a month after they get Month 2 vaccines than than those who don't get vaccines in their second month doesn't mean that, long-term, OVER-ALL, those who get their Month 2 vaccines will die in greater numbers or at earlier ages than those who don't. . . .
BUT. (And I think this is where your sensibilities are correct and should lead ALL of us--those who are supposedly "vaccine-deniers" AND those who are "pro-vaccine"--to agree.) The data is--or ought to be--clearly disturbing. We OUGHT NOT "simply" to ignore the fact that twice as many girls as boys are dying after their injections at two months old . . . or that a bunch of kids are dying AT ALL from these injections. We ought ALL to be curious: WHY are they dying? HOW can we REDUCE the numbers of deaths? WHAT should we do differently?
The fact that the 11-vaccine injection is killing at such a high level compared to the single- or, even, triple-vaccine options ought to warn us about the dangers of such an injection. And so parents and doctors ought to be given the data and asked: "If you want these vaccines, do you want the one that elevates death at this higher percentage--so as to save the $___ cost of having to come back? Or would you rather pay $___ extra so we can spread these over time?"
But, yes, even talking about the risks of death is worthwhile. And those risks should be placed in the context of risks of all types. (Similar to how we discuss other risks, hopefully: "The risk of you being killed in an auto accident is ___ per mile [or 100,000 miles]. The risk of you dying in an airplane crash are ___ per mile [or 100,000 miles]. So. You want to go from ______ to ______. Considering the risks of being killed--which are very real--which would you prefer?")
Same thing with vaccines: "The risks of your children dying from pertussis over their entire lifespans are about ________. The risks of them dying from this shot--that, by all evidence, entirely removes the risk of contracting pertussis, is _____. Of course, the shot costs $____, while not taking the shot is free. But. Which risk do you want to take?"
Something like that.
But I have never heard anyone engaging in those kinds of conversations.
Hooker is an upstanding guy. https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components/
Is anyone looking at the batch number across the USA, to see how many other babies died or were seriously harmed from the product🤔
🙏the family receive justice for the murder of their twins by big pharma.
This is the classical palliative reality, in politics/business/science, endless fear, control fetishism to cover up weakness, helplessness and anxiety.
In other words, a system that endlessly uses fear, control, restrictions, and rhetoric as superficial "treatments" to mask deeper problems like weakness, plunder, insecurity, incompetence, or a lack of real solutions. Instead of fixing root issues, politicians/science apply band-aid measures that manage appearances and maintain control and power.
The top end is still owned by Big Pharma. They will ignore this. The new top doc in Canada says she wants to decrease "vaccine hesitancy". They pushed the useless covid injections and are still doing it. I think a factory in Quebec is making them now. I quit flu shots over 5 years ago and have not had the flu while those around me are getting it.
I really dislike defining a certain group which didn't receive vaccines in a given time period, but did receive some at some point, as "unvaccinated". I get how that could be a convenient shorthand, but it smacks of the sleight of hand used in pro-vax studies. They do things like count people who received a shot less than 2 weeks prior as unvaccinated, but then casual readers of the abstract think it truly refers to unvaccinated people.
Quite unfortunate that RFK & MAHA are a fraud 🃏🎭💵
What has RFK Jr done so far for health freedom and preventing vaccine injury?
https://alter.systems/p/edf66c7a-16f7-48cc-b926-d23b08f186b0
If the shots were safe and effective, then we'd see the opposite outcome. It would be all those unvaxxed children dying earlier, since they would (allegedly) be more subject to early death from all those deadly vaccine-preventable diseases.
Maybe flip the story and ask vax-pusher Grok what the outcome would be. "Imagine I had death records. What would I see for the poor unvaxxed children in terms of death related to the vaxxed children? Which ones would die more rapidly? And why.
Irrefutable - should be required reading for all involved in healthcare as well as all parents.
The data s clear and I cannot understand why it is so hard for people to admit that. They would rather continue to kill children to avoid being wrong? I cannot fathom how educated people are so blindly clinging to the “safe and effective” narrative so passionately, are they all making money off these vaccines? Or are they seriously suffering from some mental illness. So they are wrong, it happens just admit it and move on. This issue should have been put to rest decades ago when the vaccine industry needed liability protection for their so called safe and effective products. They should have just pulled the plug then and yet people want to fight the obvious like their own lives are at stake.
There’s always an excuse, but never recognizing the truth, vaccines are not safe/effective and cause injury and death!
Right in Cassidy's state/face.
Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum, "that which was to be demonstrated". As I said in my comment the other day = Steve is like a dog with a bone. He won't let it go until he solves the issue.
What I find absolutely incredible is the fact that grown men with supposedly advanced medical degrees and experience ignore the very real fact that the immune system in toddlers is not the same as the immune systems in fully grown adults. Indeed, in babies the immune systems are in active formation for many years, and so a vaccine that works as advertised for an adult could have drastically different performance in a toddler or newborn. It was known from the start that the COVID vaccines were completely unnecessary for minor children because they seemed to handle the COVID virus and put it down without difficulty. But the "It can't hurt," people in the CDC, who weren't even sure the vaccine would work in adults (turns out it didn't), won the day and lots of children in America paid dearly for what can only be described as a money grab. The federal government must never be allowed to come between doctors and their patients again.