Tag Archives: Vaccine risks

An Interesting Disparity, by Eric Peters

Kill one person with a defective airbag and the auto manufacturer recalls 500,000 cars. Kill tens of thousands with a vaccine and the government wants to give it to kids. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Volvo has just announced it will recall about a half-million cars because of the safety threat suggested by the death of a single person, the result of a defective airbag. This is not a criticism of Volvo. It is a means of criticizing the adamant refusal of the drug-pushers to recall their far-more-dangerous products.

Hardly a day goes by without a credible report of someone who was pushed to take the drugs – styled “vaccines,” even though they do not vaccinate against anything but merely (supposedly) reduce the severity of the symptoms of the sickness supposedly being “vaccinated” against  – suffering what is styled an “adverse event.”

These include death and disabling problems that end life.

Imagine a car company describing the death of someone by defective air bag an “adverse event.” Imagine the hue and cry hat would ensue if a car company deliberately downplayed or even hid its knowledge of such an “adverse event.”

Of course, this doesn’t happen with cars – because the government dislikes them.

It wants to find a reason to get them off the road and to get people to dislike (or at least, be wary of) cars.

For this reason, the least little risk is always cause for “action,” as it is usually framed. Think of the “action” that resulted when a handful of careless drivers backed over a child in the driveway. All new cars were quickly required to be made with back-up cameras.

But when a child – when children – die or are horribly crippled by the drugs the government wants pushed, it’s no problem. Right now, the government is champing at the bit to force more kids – even babies – to have drugs pushed into their bodies.

Continue reading→

Covid Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease, by Joseph Mercola

A lot of this article is mights and maybes, but they raise substantial doubts about the covid vaccines, and especially about a regulatory regime that didn’t look too hard at the mights and maybes before the vaccines were released on the public via an emergency use authorization. From Joseph Mercola at lewrockwell.com:

In this interview, return guest Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, discusses the COVID-19 vaccines. Since 2008, her primary focus has been glyphosate and sulfur, but in the last year, she took a deep-dive into the science of these novel injections and recently published an excellent paper1 on this topic.

“To have developed this incredibly new technology so quickly, and to skip so many steps in the process of evaluating [its safety], it’s an insanely reckless thing that they’ve done,” she says. “My instinct was that this is bad, and I needed to know [the truth].

So, I really dug into the research literature by the people who’ve developed these vaccines, and then more extensive research literature around those topics. And I don’t see how these vaccines can possibly be doing anything good. When you weigh the good against the bad, I can’t see how they could possibly be winning, from what I’ve seen.”

Significant Death Toll Will Rise in Months and Years to Come

Five months into the vaccination campaign, statistics tell a frightening story. Seneff cites research2 showing deaths are 14.6 times more frequent during the first 14 days after the first COVID injection among people over the age of 60, compared to those who aren’t vaccinated. That is extraordinary. You can read the full paper here.

Continue reading→

Shocking Report On COVID Vaccine Adverse Effects: The Roll-Out Continues Anyway, by Jon Rappoport

I believe I’ll pass, but if you want the vaccine, go ahead. Make sure, though, that you’re well informed about it. From Jon Rappoport at lewrockwell.com:

From the UK, The Guardian has the story: “People with a history of significant allergic reactions should not receive the Covid vaccine, the medicines regulator has said, after two NHS workers experienced symptoms on Wednesday.”

They just figured this out? Now?

The Guardian is referring to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, which has just been approved in the US.

Two people experiencing significant adverse effects may not sound important, particularly since they already a history of allergic reactions, but the following quote in the Guardian article raises major red flags a mile high:

“The MHRA [UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] advice states: ‘Any person with a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food (such as previous history of anaphylactoid reaction or those who have been advised to carry an adrenaline autoinjector) should not receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine. Resuscitation facilities should be available at all times for all vaccinations. Vaccination should only be carried out in facilities where resuscitation measures are available’.”

Continue reading→

Here’s Why I Wouldn’t Take the Vaccine, Dr. Tam, by Karen Selick

Vaccines are not without risks, and they may far greater than the risks of contracting a serious or deadly case of Covid-19. From Karen Selick at westernstandardonline.com:

Karen Selick makes the case for abstaining from a potential COVID-19 vaccine.

EDITORS NOTE: The Western Standard Editorial Board encourages open debate by its columnists. The column below reflects the views of its author, however the WS Editorial Board takes no position on vaccines.

Statistics Canada recently released a survey designed to gauge the likely response of Canadians to a COVID-19 vaccine when (or if) one becomes available.

The results showed that only 57.5 percent of those surveyed said they were “very likely” to get the vaccine. The remaining respondents said they were either somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to get the vaccine, while 9.4 percent of individuals responded that they “didn’t know.”

A reasonable headline for an article reporting on this information would have been: “As many as 42.5 percent of Canadians have some doubts about getting COVID-19 vaccine.”

However, the National Post chose to use the headline: “One in ten Canadians would refuse COVID vaccine.” Published on August 26, the article dealt briefly with the survey, then concluded by saying that Dr. Theresa Tam (the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada) says “authorities need more information about those who are worried about or opposed to a vaccine to ensure they have the proper information about how vaccines are approved.”

As someone who would have responded “very unlikely”, I’d be happy to provide that info.

For starters, Dr. Tam, my name is Karen, and I would not only like to speak to the so-called management, I’d like to fire you.

In the five years since I retired from my law career, I’ve found time to read nine books dealing with vaccines—including two written by Dr. Paul Offit, one of the most vocal proponents of vaccines in the U.S. I gave Dr. Offit a fair chance to persuade me, but his research and arguments didn’t hold a candle against the opposition.

I’m two years younger than Dr. Offit. In my youth I believed (as he still seems to) that vaccines are safe and effective. Maybe the difference between our perspectives is that Dr. Offit holds several vaccine patents, while I hold none. There is no financial incentive tugging at me to continue believing that everything is hunky-dory.

Continue reading→