The Pfizer genetic vaccine is being forced onto New Zealanders, but many questions remain about the wisdom of doing this.
In particular, it is still experimental – the vaccine trial will not be completed unto 2024 – and many of the side effects are particularly disturbing, especially since the long term consequences are unknown.
The pressure the government is putting on people to force them into vaccination with the “No jab, No job” threat is completely unacceptable - as Michael Kowalik says in his article on the ethical case for vaccine refusal, published on 26 Feb 2021in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics:
“There is neither a moral obligation to vaccinate nor a sound ethical basis to mandate vaccination under any circumstances, even for hypothetical vaccines that are medically risk free. Agent autonomy with respect to self-constitution has absolute normative priority over reduction or elimination of the associated risks to life. In practical terms, mandatory vaccination amounts to discrimination against healthy, innate biological characteristics, which goes against the established ethical norms and is also defeasible a priori.
“It is often overlooked in [the] normative context [of obligating all to vaccinate] that mandatory vaccination violates bodily autonomy and thus constitutes actual harm (not merely risk of harm) to any person made to accept vaccination under duress. This type of harm is not negated by any positive health effect of the procedure but constitutes a distinct category; it affects the ontological dimension of personhood. A prospective benefit to public health does not of itself entail a reasonable necessity to infringe on personal body autonomy, which is one of the necessary conditions of a life worth living.
“Since body autonomy is a constitutive condition of our existence as conscious rational agents and is also a necessary condition of a life worth living, it is as valuable as life.”
In spite of such concerns, the Government is pushing ahead as it strives for 90 percent of the population to be double-vaccinated. And while many New Zealanders have been happy to comply with this directive, concerns are mounting not only about the issue of whether to take a third shot as a booster, but also whether children as young as five should be given the vaccine.
Since most of the medical concerns that are now arising about the potential long term impact of the vaccine and being published in reputable journals around the world, are not being shared by the New Zealand media I would like to share some here.
However, before we start, it is important to note that whether someone is vaccinated or not, the chances are high that everything will be OK - they will get through Covid-19 well and through the vaccination process with no evident adverse effects.
So let’s look at the decision-making over whether vaccines should be given to children. The numbers of children included by Pfizer in their trials included two cohorts, the first of which had only 1518 vaccine recipients and 750 placebo controls.
They were followed for TWO months, to assess safety, and this safety assessment was basic “solicited” information (that is, they only recorded what these 5 to 11 year olds or their parents noticed and mentioned, ie what was clinically apparent) and superficial clinical examination only.
No troponin, CRP, D-dimer or other biomarkers were obtained apart from a simple full blood count. A later subgroup added included 1591 children and 788 controls and this group was followed for a median duration of 2.4 WEEKS.
It is patently obvious that mRNA vaccine safety, let alone even medium term efficacy, cannot be adequately assessed given these numbers. The study is underpowered to detect myocarditis at the rates at which we know it occurs in older children. With a total intervention group of 3109 children, ie around only 1500 boys, it would have been impossible to pick up signals of even overt myocarditis at levels as high as 50 per 100,000 boys. And inexplicably, despite drawing blood for antibody testing, the Pfizer researchers did not blood test for troponins, important early biomarkers of heart injury, particularly, knowing as they do, that subclinical myocarditis is related to Covid-19 vaccination.
The safety data supplied in this study is manifestly inadequate.
For a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding Covid 19 vaccination in children read Kostoff et al (August 21), in Elsevier’s Toxicology Report: “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”
Their conclusion in a nutshell?
“Where is the data justifying inoculation for children, much less most people under forty?”
There are two aspects to vaccine assessment; Efficacy and Safety. In the past month concerning research regarding the dramatic decline in vaccine efficacy, particularly with regard to transmissibility of Covid 19 despite being vaccinated, is being published but I am not addressing that here.
The latest information regarding the safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines should be readily available, so that anyone who is vaccinated and being urged to take boosters is in a position to be able to give informed consent.
Some sites, that provide information not reported by the mainstream media are:
A few months ago Israel suddenly and dramatically introduced, then rapidly mandated third shots of Covid-19 mRNA, calling them “boosters”. If you fail to get your third shot within 6 months of your second, in Israel you are considered “un-vaccinated” and your green pass is withdrawn.
Only last week Australia announced both the “encouragement” to get boosters and the purchase of 150 million doses of vaccine. Given the Australian population is 26 million one can predict this process in Australia at least, will not be stopping at a third shot.
Yes, we take flu vaccines every year, but this is an inactivated, well known vaccine and every year it is created afresh to best match current influenza strains in circulation. The vaccines being used around the world for covid are already many strains behind. Using them now is like pulling out from the back of the fridge the unused influenza vaccines from a few years ago and hoping for the best.
Severe adverse effects from the mRNA vaccines do occur in a minority of cases. When signals first arise they are “anecdotal”, then they become “case reports”. Finally, they become “evidenced” through “case controlled trials”.
This process takes a long time however and time is the factor stripped from the process of pre-release assessment of this new mRNA technology.
There is also no doubt - in fact it has been openly stated - that cheap and simple alternatives or additions to vaccination for Covid-19 are being suppressed by governments in order to drive people to accept vaccination as the only way forward.
There are two medical terms that are central to any in-depth discussion about vaccination.
LGE - Late Gadolinium Enhancement
DES - Diethylstilbestrol
Bear with me while I explain…
LGE – Late Gadolinium Enhancement
Gadolinium based contrasts are used in MRI studies of the heart because they are sensitive at picking up early heart muscle injury and scar formation.
An MRI scan 20 minutes after an injection of gadolinium contrast will show damaged heart areas undetectable by any other means, including ECHO, ECG/EKG or blood test. This extremely sensitive damage signal is called Late Gadolinium Enhancement, or LGE.
Inflammation damages the heart muscle. Damaged heart muscle cannot repair itself. Instead of regenerating, dead muscle is repaired with weak scar tissue, which stretches easily under the constant pressure of the beating heart. Slowly, imperceptibly, the heart dilates and its ability to pump effectively declines. The heart is now failing and this condition is called “dilated cardiomyopathy”.
The ONLY treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy is a heart transplant.
The heart is a muscle, made up of millions of individual muscle cells.
Inflammation of the heart is known as myocarditis.
By now, we all know that myocarditis is a recognised complication of the Covid-19 vaccine but you are told
Myocarditis is MILD
Myocarditis is EXTREMELY RARE
Both of these carefully crafted messages are misleading:
a) “Post Covid-19 vaccination myocarditis is MILD.”
Heart inflammation can be so subtle its presence causes no, or minimal symptoms. This is called “sub-clinical” myocarditis. When there are few or no symptoms, and particularly if the inflamed heart is strong and able to keep beating well in the early days, the presentation is described as MILD.
But here’s the rub; although the symptoms and signs may be mild, MYOCARDITIS IS ALWAYS A SERIOUS DISEASE.
This is why myocarditis sufferers are immediately hospitalized and then spend months to years restricting their activities and rehabilitating.
The reason rheumatic fever is so feared by New Zealand health professionals is not because it causes fevers and sore joints, but because it causes myocarditis, which is often subclinical, but which they know has a high chance of causing severe heart damage.
For the unlucky, and their devastated families, myocarditis presents as sudden death. Even minimal inflammation irritates the heart to the point where it can suddenly stop. This is called a cardiac arrest and seems to happen more if those with inflamed hearts are physically active, even though they may be unaware their heart is, in fact, compromised.
When your heart arrests, it stops, and so does your life.
So how does the Pfizer vaccine cause myocarditis?
No one is quite sure. In medical parlance, these are very early days.
It may be that spike proteins generated elsewhere in the body enter the circulation and attach to the heart’s cells as they pass through. It may be that circulating nanoparticles of mRNA reach the heart, enter the heart muscle cells, and start printing out spike proteins which then migrate to the surface of the cells. The body’s immune cells recognize them as foreign - and so attack, damaging the heart muscle cells and inflaming the heart in the process.
This is called an “auto-immune” reaction because the body has been tricked into attacking itself.
We know that up to 30% of auto immune myocarditis from recognized causes, eventually results in dilated cardiomyopathy.
We also know that even mild rheumatic fever causes devastating heart damage that manifests only years later, with heart failure, but we know nothing of the long-term outcome of Covid-19 vaccine induced myocarditis.
How do we resolve this? Of course, the BEST way to predict future course is to follow those who have already manifest Covid-19 vaccine induced myocarditis, before submitting any further participants to what is as yet an incomplete vaccine trial. We have NO IDEA of how those young people afflicted by this serious adverse event are going to fare long term – NONE.
Anyone who says otherwise is partaking of wishful thinking. But, incomprehensibly, no one with the authority to do so is demanding we call time and collect proper, long term safety data before submitting any more of our young people to this increasingly dangerous experiment.
Given this total lack of caution, the best we can do is to scrutinize everything we do know and appeal to common sense.
So, what do we know?
An uncertain, but definite, proportion of myocarditis presents as sudden death.
Rod Donald, former co-leader of the New Zealand Green Party, died of a cardiac arrest in the early hours of November 6th, 2005. He was a fit, 48 years old. His family doctor assessed him on 2 November and found nothing concerning. This is how it is with “mild” myocarditis. Notably, until corrected by autopsy findings, Mr Donald was considered to have died of a “heart attack”. This is a common misattribution in cases of myocarditis, especially in older people. Unless an autopsy is done, myocarditis will be missed.
(When a coronary artery, a blood vessel supplying the heart muscle with its energy, suddenly clots off, this is called a “heart attack”. In up to a third of cases, the sudden shock to the heart is so great that it stops, or “arrests”.)
Myocarditis and heart attacks can both occur concurrently in the same person.
In a sane world, all cases of sudden death, particularly in apparently fit younger people (out skiing, swimming, surfing or just doing what young people do), must be investigated via autopsy for subclinical myocarditis.
If you don’t look for it, you won’t find it.
We still have NO information on the proportion of sudden deaths post Covid-19 vaccination that have been caused by subclinical myocarditis, despite there being over 16000 deaths in the days and weeks post vaccination now registered on the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system (VAERS) with conservative estimates, after applying known under-reporting modifiers, that this number may be as high as 150,000.
So what can LGE research tell us about apparently “mild” myocarditis?
LGE is a marker of potentially poor prognosis despite the heart seeming to have returned to normal after a bout of myocarditis.
A study published in the Journal of Paediatrics by Bibhuti et al looked at 25 children aged 12 to 18 years diagnosed with probable myopericarditis (inflammation of the heart and/or of the fibrous sac that surrounds the heart – the pericardium) after covid 19 mRNA vaccination between May 10 and June 20, 2021.
Of the two thirds who underwent cardiac MRI “all revealed evidence of myocardial inflammation despite a lack of echocardiographic abnormalities” and 15 of these 16 showed Late Gadolinium Enhancement.
Interestingly, the children presented most commonly with chest pain and only “a few” had other symptoms such as fever, shortness of breath, fatigue, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain.
16% had a normal ECG.
92% had a normal ECHO.
The authors go on to note that “All afflicted adolescents made a complete clinical recovery in 1 week and were doing well at the most recent follow up.”
Their discussion is remarkable for their lack of exploration of the significance of the extremely high incidence of LGE despite the children’s “mild” clinical manifestations.
Worryingly, on 10 August 2021, JAMA Cardiology published a report into the cardiac imaging results of 15 children hospitalized with myocarditis secondary to covid vaccination (2). [“Association of Myocarditis with BNT162b2 [Pfizer] Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Case Series of Children”.] They found that 80% of these children had Late Gadolinium Enhancement on cardiac MRI.
Their conclusions? That although patients were only “mildly affected”, “the long term risks associated with post vaccination myocarditis remain unknown” [my emphasis] and that “larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to inform recommendations for Covid-19 vaccination in this population.”
The authors reference one paper in particular in order to emphasise the significance of finding LGE on cardiac MRI in these vaccine injured children.
It was a meta-analysis published in European Radiology in May 2020. Its Authors Yang et al were unequivocal in their conclusions, stating:
“Positive LGE is a powerful prognosticator of adverse outcome in myocarditis and clinically suspected myocarditis, irrespective of Left ventricular ejection fraction. [ie, how well the heart appears to be working].”
“Adverse outcomes” included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart transplantation, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, rehospitalisation following a cardiac event and recurrent acute myocarditis.”
In this meta-analysis the odds ratio of experiencing these outcomes if you were found to have LGE was 5.85 with a p <0.001!
b) Post Covid-19 vaccination myocarditis is “EXTREMELY RARE”:
“Extremely rare” is subjective. We must anchor this term’s validity by comparing it with how other, similar diseases are presented publicly.
Let’s look at Rheumatic Fever (RF) in children and young people in New Zealand. Rheumatic Fever is described as “common” in New Zealand. The NZ Ministry of Health’s Reducing Rheumatic Fever campaign aims to “reduce rheumatic fever by two-thirds to 1.4 cases per 100,000 people.” And notes that “Rheumatic Fever prevention will continue to be a focus.” The highest rate of RF is in Counties Manukau at 7 per 100,000 in 2020.
The rate of rheumatic fever for all NZ is 3.8 per 100,000.
The government has allocated $58 million per year to eliminating RF.
In the JAMA Cardiology report referred to above, the authors noted that among boys aged 12 to 17 years the rate of myocarditis post vaccination is about 6.3 per 100,000.
Hogg et al in a study pre published in MedRxiv [SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A stratified National Database Analysis] found the following rates of post vaccination myocarditis:
Boys 12-15: 16.22 per 100,000.
Boys 16-17: 9.40 per 100,000.
Girls 12-15: 1.30 per 100,000.
Girls 16-17:1.34 per 100,000.
They also note that for the boys aged 12 to 15 this risk is around 6 times HIGHER than their risk of hospitalization from Covid itself.
There is evidence coming out of Israel that the rates in young men there are between 1 in 3000 and 1 in 6000 and speculation that even these rates are underestimates because myocarditis is frequently subclinical, and diagnosis and reporting is sub-optimal.
1 in 3000 is equivalent to a rate of 33 per 100,000
How can it be that our government calls rheumatic fever, occurring at a rate of 3.8 per 100,000 “common” and in need of massive and urgent intervention and yet tells us that post vaccination myocarditis which may well be around 33 per 100,000 in young men is “extremely rare”?
Remember, to be even moderately effective covid vaccines now appear to need to be injected every 6 months. We know that the incidence of post vaccine myocarditis increases with repeated shots. It is almost guaranteed that these rates will INCREASE every time a new jab is required.
Because of the dawning realisation that heart inflammation is a serious worry post Covid-19 vaccination, Israel and the United States now recommend the avoidance of ALL physical activity beyond light walking, stretches and housework (!!), for one week, and this includes, for children, the avoidance of school PE classes. Singapore has recently increased this recommendation to two weeks’ avoidance.
Singapore media noted that “The updated guidelines were based on reports of young men experiencing heart problems after receiving the shot. Most recently, a 16 year old boy suffered from cardiac arrest while lifting weights on July 3, days after receiving his first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine”.
For those who are pregnant, while we know the influenza vaccine is safe during pregnancy, the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have no long term human safety data.
Concerningly, as of April 26 2021, although more than 100,000 pregnant women in the USA had been reported as having received a Covid-19 vaccination only a small fraction (4.7%) had enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry. As the NEJM editors concluded, “This situation underscores the urgent need not only to include pregnant women in clinical trials, but also to invest in public health surveillance systems for pregnancy, involving much larger numbers of women.”
One of the main studies used in order to reassure women that mRNA vaccines are safe in pregnancy was that of Shimabukuro et al, published in the NEJM on 17 June 2021. Despite being published in this esteemed journal and being the editorial focus for that month, the study data was presented with a glaring error; the authors implied that the rates of first trimester miscarriage were known to be far smaller than they potentially were – 12.6%, (ie within the normal range) vs potentially 82%. This was only corrected after being brought to the attention of the authors by an independent physician from Belgium. The authors then reluctantly agreed that their chosen denominator “is not an appropriate denominator for the calculation of a risk estimate or rate.” The denominator was subsequently deleted by the NEJM.
No new denominator was supplied because it “wasn’t yet available”.
It is unacceptable for a world-renowned medical journal to allow such basic, yet profoundly significant errors to slip through in their reporting of risks of Covid-19 vaccinations to pregnant women.
It is important to retain perspective when assessing the risk of covid-19 in pregnant women. There is certainly evidence that risk is increased, for instance, Zembrano et al in late 2020 in the Nov 6th Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showed that per 1000 women infected with covid, 10 who were pregnant would be admitted to ICU vs 4 who were not pregnant at the time of infection.
We can however take comfort from the 28 October 2021 updated NHS guidelines to pregnant women regarding their risks from Covid-19. The NHS is the National Health Service of England. The following is taken from their website. They state:
“If you’re pregnant your chance of getting Covid-19 is not higher than anyone else and it’s very unlikely you’ll get seriously ill with it.
Pregnant women are in the moderate risk (clinically vulnerable) group as a precaution. This is because you can sometimes be at more risk from viruses like flu if you’re pregnant.
It’s not clear if this happens with Covid-19. But because it’s a new virus, it’s safer to include pregnant women in the moderate risk group.”
They go on:
“Although it’s very rare for pregnant women to become seriously ill if they get Covid-19, it may be more likely later in pregnancy. If this happens there’s a small chance your baby may be born early or you may be advised to give birth earlier than your due date.”
They then advise that “you can get vaccinated for Covid-19 if you are pregnant because no safety concerns have yet been detected.”
This issue of what has and has not yet been discovered with regard to Covid-19 vaccines is the subject of the final part of this article.
It is, of necessity, hypothetical, because we don’t know what we don’t know. All we can do is use the knowledge that we have to predict potential future outcomes.
If long term adverse effects from Covid-19 vaccination do materialize in our children in years to come, sticking our heads in the sand and pretending they don’t exist is the worst thing we can do.
Some argue that vaccinating children will protect them from the risk of Long Covid. But little is known about the incidence of long-covid in children in part because so many infected children remain asymptomatic, however an article in the NEJM published on Oct 14 2021 [Infections in vaccinated Health Care Workers] gives us some insight.
Authors, Bergwerk et al, in Israel found that although cases of covid infection in previously vaccinated people tended to be milder, almost 20% of them went on to develop Long Covid (ie had symptoms for greater than six weeks). 85% of these cases were the covid alpha variant. One can assume these rates will be greater for delta breakthrough infections after vaccination because covid-19 vaccines are less effective against delta than they are against alpha.
Has Hannah Martin, Stuff Media’s “The Whole Truth” Health Reporter familiarised herself with the history of DES?
In her world, “Long-term side-effects of Covid vaccination are not a thing.” She reassures the “unsure and hesitant” that there will be no “unknown side effects popping up in the long term”.
Popping up? Really?
With breathtaking confidence Martin assures her audience that although “new side effects can sometimes take months to emerge in the general population… this isn’t because the adverse events themselves take a long time to occur after vaccination – they don’t”
She quotes vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris: “Vaccine history shows there are “no effects that suddenly spring up years and years down the track” and that there is “no mechanism for this to happen: the vaccine itself is gone from the body within hours to days…”
Thank you Helen.
So what is DES and why is its history in medicine so relevant now?
DES is a devastating cautionary tale that illustrates the importance of following the precautionary principle when assessing potential long term risks from new medicines, including from Covid-19 mRNA injections.
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is an artificial hormone prescribed to over 10 million pregnant women worldwide between 1938 and 1971. Doctors were told by drug companies that it prevented miscarriage and “ensured a healthy baby”.
Despite being gone from the body within hours to days DES produced horrific long term, unforeseen adverse effects which were only detected YEARS after the affected children were born.
In the year 2000 DES was finally classified as a human carcinogen.
In 1971 the NEJM published an article highlighting a cluster of unusual vaginal cancers in 15 to 22 year old women. This led to the discovery that DES taken by their mothers during pregnancy with them, and by hundreds and thousands of other pregnant women over more than 30 years, caused not only these serious, difficult to treat malignant tumors, but many other previously unsuspected abnormalities including structural abnormalities of the cervix, uterus and fallopian tubes leading to infertility when these DES in utero exposed children reached adulthood, or for others, difficult pregnancies including spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery and stillbirth.
DES affected women were also found to have an increased risk of breast, ovarian and uterine cancer as they aged.
In boys exposed in the womb, penile and testicular abnormalities occurred, including a three-fold increase in the development of testicular cancer.
It has now been established that unexpected epigenetic changes induced in children whilst exposed to DES in utero have led to the granddaughters and grandsons of women who took DES during pregnancy showing features suggestive of ongoing intergenerational impact.
Who would have known?
One study from 2016 reported an increase in facial clefts, esophageal abnormalities, musculoskeletal and heart defects and cerebral palsy associated with increased premature births in DES grandchildren.
In her October 2021 article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health “Are the Effects of DES over? A Tragic Lesson from the Past” author Zamora-Leon commented that even now, 50 years later, although “studies have been performed to understand the modifications in signalling pathways induced by prenatal DES exposure, the molecular mechanisms that lead to an increased risk of cancer and other physiological alterations remain unclear.”
In her conclusion however she is clear:
“The absence of immediate toxicity is not enough to prove the possible beneficial properties of a drug because the effects could be observed in the next generations through epigenomic modifications. This lesson should be learned in order to prevent future medical catastrophes.”
And that “If DES had been withdrawn for pregnancy “treatments” when the first controversial experimental results were obtained, the tragedy could have been avoided for millions of mothers, their children, grandchildren, and maybe, great grandchildren.”
Barclay et al in 1979 noted that the risk of DES exposed females developing adenocarcinoma of the cervix or vagina by the age of 24 has been estimated at between 14 and 140 per 100,000.
Look again at those figures.
The DES scandal is an acknowledged catastrophic medical disaster affecting thousands of children and millions of families. When it comes to adverse events from the administration of new medical treatments, (no matter how we frame them) we are talking about the detection of a few cases per hundred thousand people being a highly significant signal worthy of immediate action.
Let’s be clear here, DES is not a vaccine, but, equally clearly, the mRNA gene technology being used in the Covid-19 “vaccines” has NO established long term safety profile, and signals are arising that all is not as it seems for our vaccinated, including pregnant women and their babies.
With regard to assertions that “there is no mechanism” for the new mRNA covid-19 technology to cause pregnancy or post birth problems, there is evidence that the vaccine mRNA nanoparticles injected in the arm leave the injection site and concentrate in multiple organs including the ovaries.
But even without considering potential longterm consequences of this, let’s look at what we do know:
Once the mRNA is incorporated into cells, no one is sure how long it takes for the body to break down the “recipe” code so that the cell stops producing the encoded spike proteins. Animal studies implied maybe a few days but there is evidence of spike proteins being produced for as long as weeks.
The spike proteins that the cells create are now known to circulate throughout the body and even if individual spike proteins degrade, for as long as more continue to be made by the body’s cells, the body will be bathed in spike proteins at concentrations that have not yet been ascertained in humans.
These spike proteins are meant to invoke an immune response from the body, and they do, but unfortunately they are also toxic to the lining of blood vessels and are known to promote clotting and inflammation.
There is barely any research about the rates at which covid vaccine nanoparticles cross the placenta, let alone what percentage of these spike proteins cross the placenta and enter the circulation of the embryo or the fetus in humans, [“whether intact vaccine particles cross the placenta and enter fetal cells remains largely unknown”: SARS-COV-2 Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Complex Decision. May 2021]
Yes, SARS-Cov-2 infection guarantees spike protein covered virus enters the pregnant woman’s body. But WHAT IF the placenta has an immune mechanism for recognizing the full virus and eliminating it prior to it reaching the baby but NOT a mechanism for recognizing isolated circulating spike proteins manufactured in the mother after Covid-19 mRNA injection? If isolated spike proteins are able to evade placental defences and enter the baby’s circulation then long term adverse effects could be catastrophic.
Spike proteins are known to cause micro-clots in the circulation and therefore it is conceivable that in some pregnancies, spike proteins generated by mRNA injection into the mother, may enter the fetus and trigger the formation of micro-clots in fetal blood vessels.
But how would we know? According to our esteemed “Whole Truth Health Reporter” and our experienced vaccinologist, we already know. Because some normal babies have already made their appearance, and because, in their world, there is “NO mechanism” by which damaged babies could eventuate.
Except, in the real world, there is.
We already have a cohort to whom we can turn to gain insight into what we might expect if a baby in the womb develops micro-clots, and it’s not pretty.
The cohort is rare but has been extensively studied. It consists of babies who continued to survive and grow in the womb after their twin died in the womb next to them.
When the surviving twin is born, although it often looks and behaves normally, and has a normal ultrasound of the brain, if one is done, it has a high likelihood of suffering either major or minor long term brain damage.
At its mildest this is referred to as a “neurodevelopmental disability” – for instance, learning difficulties, intellectual delay, problems with movement, planning, attention and concentration. In the words of one study author, there was a “significant reduction in the overall cognitive performance of those who were survivors of co-twin death.” It doesn’t stop there; at its more severe end there is a lifetime of epilepsy and cerebral palsy.
NOT ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE EVIDENT AT BIRTH and they are often not evident for months to years after the child is born.
The list goes on: kidney damage manifesting as gradual kidney failure, liver, spleen, and lung damage, blindness secondary to damage to the blood vessels that supply nutrients to the eyes.
And why do these devastating things happen in these surviving twins? The answer is, we don’t know. [“The exact mechanisms leading to risk of morbidity are yet to be proven”] but for many years there have been two main theories, one of which is that when the first twin dies, it releases chemicals as its body decomposes in the womb next to its sibling, and these chemicals migrate into the living twin’s blood stream and, like the Covid-19 induced spike proteins are known to do, induce micro-clots in that surviving twin.
These micro-clots then travel through the twin’s blood stream and lodge in various organs, most devastatingly in the brain, where they get stuck, blocking any further blood flow, and causing microscopic strokes.
But more than this, it makes prima facie sense that if micro-clots happen in a growing fetus, there is likely to be long term alteration to the growth trajectory of that fetus’s micro-clot affected organs.
So there are two questions, and two answers:
Do spike proteins generated by covid-19 vaccines cross the placenta into the baby growing in the womb?
Answer: We have NO idea, but it makes intuitive sense that they might.
If we keep vaccinating pregnant women, or women who may soon become pregnant, how long until we will know if this is a “thing”?
Answer: Possibly a VERY LONG TIME.
Firstly, as illustrated by the studies on single twin fetal demise in the womb, babies who are in fact badly affected may appear normal for months to years, and have normal head scans.
Secondly, one must understand, that even if this happens it probably WON’T happen in the majority of exposed pregnancies; We may be talking 1 in 1000, or even 1 in 10,000 (ie 10 per 100,000) but it will still be a tragedy on a massive scale.
There is NO way to establish if this outcome is in our future except by doing what has always been done with new vaccinations until this time, and that is to take it slowly and cautiously. It is why we NEED 10 year lead times. It is why anyone who tells you the vaccine testers have just run everything in a compressed time frame (“Operation Warp-Speed”) but still covered all the bases, is being dishonest with you.
I refer again to Kostoff’s recent Toxicology article assessing the mRNA vaccines for use in children. He states:
“Safety science applied to Covid-19 mRNA treatments is poor and focuses only on adverse events at the symptom level rather than the biomarker level.”
And that “This focus on symptoms masked the true costs of the mRNA intervention which would probably include much larger numbers of people whose health could have been degraded by the intervention as evidenced by increased abnormal values of these biomarkers. For example, the trials and VAERS reported clots that resulted in serious symptoms and deaths but gave no indication of the enhanced predisposition to forming serious clots in the future with a higher base of micro-clots formed because of the mRNA intervention.
The latter is particularly relevant to children, who have a long future that could be seriously affected by having an increased predisposition to multiple clot-based (and other) serious diseases resulting from these inoculations.”
The grim reality is, we are clueless about the long-term risks to babies, from injecting their mothers with Covid-19 mRNA.
In some places this has manifest as an overt edict with threats of investigation, fines and loss of medical registration for failure to comply.
The Australian Health Practitioners’ Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which polices the compliance of every Australian health professional is a case in point. Its 9 March 2021 Position Statement reads in part that:
“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social-media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
When someone is told to “seek the advice of your trusted health professional” if they feel uncertain about getting a vaccine, this ensures there can be only one outcome – vaccination will be recommended.
Information about the benefits of early treatment are unlikely to be discussed even though early treatment can help patients through their covid illness.
We end with the reminder that whether someone is vaccinated or not, the chances are high that everything will be OK - the vast majority of people, including young men and pregnant women, get through Covid-19 well (fewer than 1% of young adults will end up in hospital with covid for an overnight stay, even if unvaccinated) and they get through the covid-19 vaccination process with no evident adverse effects.
But anyone who does experience ill health in the days, weeks and months following vaccination, should insist that it gets recorded in the vaccine adverse reporting system. A 2017 study by Ross et al and published in JAMA found that between 2001 and 2010 almost a third of 222 drugs approved by the FDA were subsequently revised or withdrawn due to having significant, initially unrecognised toxicity.
These are unprecedented times, and new medical procedures are being fast-tracked as never before. It remains a tragedy that information to help everyone understand what is going on and make good choices is no longer as freely available as it once was.
BMJ = British Medical Journal
JAMA = Journal of the American Medical Association
NEJM = New England Journal of Medicine
Helen Egmont is a New Zealander who is interested in the bigger picture.
Helen Egmont is a New Zealander who is interested in the bigger picture.