Milton Keynes, Numero Zero,30 Marzo a.d. 2023, ore 02:30
A study conducted by scientists from several respected institutions across Germany & Switzerland has discovered that 1 in every 99 Covid-19 vaccination children aged 5 and under require emergency care or hospitalisation.
The scientists also found that the risk of children requiring emergency care or hospitalisation following Covid-19 vaccination was 117% higher than the average risk following vaccination with any other type of vaccine.
The study was published on October 18th 2022, and is titled ‘Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years’.
The study was designed as a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer) Covid-19 vaccine in children vaccinated before they reached the age of five.
Children included in the study had received at least one dose of the Pfizer injection and had written informed consent from a parent.
The study included 7806 children of an average age of 3, 3,824 of which were female, and 3,977 of which were male, and their symptoms following Covid-19 vaccination were followed up for an average of 91.4 days.
The scientists concluded the following –
The data from this cohort study provide evidence for a self-reported safety profile of the BNT162b2 vaccine that is comparable to non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in this large cohort of children younger than 5 years.
This is a very strange and inaccurate conclusion when you look at the actual results of the study.
The above chart shows the rate of symptoms following Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination in the left column and the rate of symptoms following non-Covid-19 vaccination in the next column.
In regards to any symptom being reported, the results show that 1.02 in every 2 children suffered some form of adverse event following Covid-19 vaccination. Whereas just 0.75 in every 2 children suffered some form of adverse event following any other type of vaccination.
This means the risk of children aged 5 and under suffering an adverse event is 36% higher following Covid-19 vaccination than it is following any other vaccination.
In regards to adverse events reported involving the pulmonary system, which includes airways, lungs and blood vessels, the results show that 1.43 in every 100 children suffered some form of illness of the pulmonary system following Covid-19 vaccination. Whereas just 0.47 in every 100 children suffered some form of illness of the pulmonary system following any other type of vaccination.
This means the risk of children aged 5 and under suffering illness of the pulmonary system is 204% higher following Covid-19 vaccination than it is following any other vaccination.
The results also show the exact same risk in relation to neurological disorders, which are illnesses of the brain and nerves.
In regards to adverse events reported involving cardiovascular disorders, which include illnesses affecting the heart and blood vessels, the results show that 0.38 in every 100 children suffered some form of cardiovascular disorder following Covid-19 vaccination. Whereas just 0.27 in every 100 children suffered a cardiovascular disorder following any other type of vaccination.
This means the risk of children aged 5 and under suffering a cardiovascular disorder is 41% higher following Covid-19 vaccination than it is following any other vaccination.
These are all serious adverse events of which the risk of suffering is significantly higher among children following Covid-19 vaccination. So the conclusion of the scientists the “safety profile of the BNT162b2 vaccine is comparable to non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines ” is nothing short of an outright lie.
And that’s before we even take into account the number of children requiring emergency care of hospitalisation.
According to the results of the study, 1 in every 99 children aged 5 and under required emergency care (ambulatory) or hospitalisation (inpatient) following Covid-19 vaccination. This compares to 0.46 in every 99 children requiring emergency care or hospitalisation following any other type of vaccination.
This means the risk of children requiring emergency care or hospitalisation is 117.4% higher following Covid-19 vaccination than it is following any other vaccination.
Therefore, the scientists’ conclusion of this study is not worth the paper it is written on. The actual conclusion should read –
The data from this cohort study provide evidence the Covid-19 injections cause significantly more injuries and harm than non-Covid-19 injections.
The problem is it doesn’t, despite what the results prove, and we can guarantee the false and fraudulent conclusion of the study will be used to justify adding the Covid-19 vaccine to the mandatory childhood vaccine schedule in the USA.
Please sign here: https://chng.it/cMhNMvtj
The petition would serve to restore confidence in the political class and in the media, which due to the scandal caused by their behavior with the COVID vaccination has dropped to very low levels.
I propose that all M.P. and people working on Media will test their blood to find out, from the antibodies, how many of them have been vaccinated (and have not used placebos or fake certificates) and how many instead were in bad faith and invited people to get vaccinated despite knowing the possible side effects.
It is absolutely vital that citizens can trust institutions.
Whilst you stayed at home and believed you were protecting the NHS, your Government was deliberately making decisions that would ensure thousands of the elderly and vulnerable would suffer premature deaths in care homes.
Without those deaths, you would have questioned the logic of ever staying at home to decimate the economy and destroy lives. What your Government did amounts to murder. But they covered it up with lies that they had all died of Covid-19.
Now official documents that were meant to be kept secret have been released under the Freedom of Information Act, and they reveal that the forced euthanasia of the elderly and vulnerable in response to a pandemic had been years in the planning.
Official figures provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that care homes recorded a 21% rise in deaths from all causes in 2020, with nearly 25,000 more deaths than expected.
Nearly 19,000 of those deaths were labelled as being due to Covid-19. But excluding the alleged coronavirus, other care home deaths were 5% up on the five-year average.
ONS figures below show that in the week ending 17th April 2020 there were 7,028 deaths recorded in care homes, of which 2438 were due to Covid-19.
But fast forward a year and as seen in the ONS figures below, the week ending 16th April 2021 saw 1,640 deaths recorded in care homes, of which 51 were allegedly due to Covid-19.
When we remove the alleged Covid-19 deaths from the figures for the week ending 17th April 2020 we can see that 4,590 deaths due to all other causes occurred in care homes.
This is an increase of 3,001 deaths on the number recorded in care homes due to all causes during the same week in the following year (week ending 16th April 2021). This pattern is consistent throughout the next 3 months of 2020 when compared to the same time frame in 2021.
But why were there so many deaths in care homes due to other causes at the height of the alleged first wave?
The answer is simple, the Government and its medical and scientific advisors, and NHS chiefs had a plan, and that plan was to withdraw care, refuse treatment, and put the elderly and vulnerable on the end-of-life pathway.
A pathway that involved the withdrawal of all medication, food and water, and the administration of a cocktail of midazolam and morphine. A pathway that saw them die due to an overdose of drugs alongside starvation, and dehydration.
Several things happened at the beginning of the alleged pandemic, and they were all planned years in advance.
Whilst all this was happening Matt Hancock (the Health Secretary at the time) and Chris Whitty (the Chief Medical Officer) instructed hospitals to discharge as many patients as possible into care homes, the very place the patients loved ones were now banned from visiting, the very place a doctor was not required to visit to certify a death, the very place carers could not be held liable for a death as long as it was just suspected to be Covid-19.
Midazolam is a drug that is questionably used in end-of-life care, and it was also used in end-of-life care for Covid-19, despite the fact it causes respiratory depression and respiratory arrest.
The above graph shows the total number of out-of-hospital prescriptions for midazolam and it also shows all-cause excess deaths in the UK from January 2020 through to March 2021.
We told you that whilst you stayed at home to protect the NHS, they were giving midazolam to the elderly and vulnerable, and telling you they were Covid-19 deaths, the above graph certainly shows a strong correlation, but now sensitive, confidential documents that the NHS did not want anybody to see prove the causation.
In 2016 the NHS drew up plans to withdraw hospital care for nursing home residents in the event of a pandemic.
The documents show that in the event of a pandemic care would be prioritised by the number of years of life lost. This meant that a teenager who suffered appendicitis would be offered a bed in the hospital and treated as required. However, the documents clearly state that the elderly would be denied treatment and put on the end-of-life pathway.
The documents also highlight that the NHS’s estimation of deaths in care homes due to their planned actions in response to a pandemic was a massive underestimation of what was seen once It was put into practice in response to the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.
Within a summary of the document the NHS state that over the duration of a wave they estimate 5,500 – 5,800 deaths would occur in care homes.
In reality, there were 2,000 more deaths recorded in just a single week during the first alleged wave of Covid-19, than what the NHS expected to occur during the entirety of a wave.
The confidential documents also show that the NHS planned to reduce services in response to a pandemic and only maintain life-critical services. This meant they would switch to palliation and end-of-life care. In 2017 the NHS recognised they did not have enough trained staff to deliver end-of-life care, so they developed training packages that could be rapidly rolled out during a pandemic, and trained staff who were “interested” in the meantime.
The confidential NHS documents clearly show that the elderly and vulnerable were to be denied treatment and put on the end-of-life pathway in response to a pandemic, and the evidence clearly shows this was put into practice.
In relation to deaths of people with learning difficulties the ONS said – ‘the largest effect was associated with living in a care home or other communal establishment.‘
Having a learning difficulty and being in care doesn’t mean you are more likely to die of Covid-19. What it means is that you are much more likely to have a DNR order placed on you without informing yourself or your family, which Carers / NHS staff then use as permission to put you on end-of-life care.
The Amnesty report states that –
‘Care home managers and staff and relatives of care home residents in different parts of the country told Amnesty International how, in their experience, sending residents to hospital was discouraged or outright refused by hospitals, ambulance teams, and GPs. A manager in Yorkshire said: “We were heavily discouraged from sending residents to hospital. We talked about it in meetings; we were all aware of this.”’
‘Another manager in Hampshire recalled:
There wasn’t much option to send people to hospital. We managed to send one patient to hospital because the nurse was very firm and insisted that the lady was too uncomfortable and we could not do any more to make her more comfortable but the hospital could. In hospital the lady tested COVID positive and was treated and survived and came back. She is 92 and in great shape.
She explained that:
There was a presumption that people in care homes would all die if they got COVID, which is wrong. It shows how little the government knows about the reality of care homes.‘
‘The son of one care home resident who passed away in Cumbria said that sending his father to hospital had not even been considered:
From day one, the care home was categoric it was probably COVID and he would die of it and he would not be taken to hospital. He only had a cough at that stage. He was only 76 and was in great shape physically. He loved to go out and it would not have been a problem for him to go to hospital. The care home called me and said he had symptoms, a bit of a cough and that doctor had assessed him over mobile phone and he would not be taken to hospital. Then I spoke to the GP later that day and said h would not be taken to hospital but would be given morphine if in pain. Later he collapsed on the floor in
the bathroom and the care home called the paramedic who established that he had no injury and put him back to bed and told the carers not to call them back for any Covid-related symptoms because they would not return. He died a week later.
He was never tested. No doctor ever came to the care home. The GP assessed him over the phone. In an identical situation for someone living at home instead of in a care home, the advice was “go to hospital”. The death certificate says pneumonia and COVID, but pneumonia was never mentioned to us.’
‘A care home manager in Yorkshire told Amnesty International:
In March, I tried to get [a resident] into hospital—the ambulance had employed a doctor to do triage but they said, “Well he’s end of life anyway so we’re not going to send an ambulance” … Under normal circumstances he would have gone to hospital … I think he was entitled to be admitted to hospital. These are individuals who have contributed to society all their lives and were denied the respect and dignity that you would give to a 42-year-old; they were [considered] expendable.‘
The CQC felt it necessary to issue a statement in August 2020 addressing the issue of inappropriate DNR’s being placed on care home residents without informing the resident or their family –
‘It is vitally important that older and disabled people living in care homes and in the community can access hospital care and treatment for COVID-19 and other conditions when they need it during the pandemic … Providers should always work to prevent avoidable harm or death for all those they care for. Protocols, guidelines and triage systems should be based on equality of access to care and treatment. If they are based on assumptions that some groups are less entitled to care and treatment than others, this would be discriminatory. It would also potentially breach human rights, including the
right to life, even if there were concerns that hospital or critical care capacity may be reached.’
That statement was issued because the CQC found that 34% of people working in health and social care were pressured into placing ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders on Covid-19 patients who suffered from disabilities and learning difficulties, without involving the patient or their families in the decision.
The evidence suggests that in reality you were ordered to stay at home, to protect the NHS, so that they could prematurely end the lives of the elderly and vulnerable and tell you that they were Covid-19 deaths.
The confidential documents finally released by the NHS have just proven it.
I wrote many posts on excess mortality. (Here’s a brief guide to them.)
It is exciting to see that a preprint article found the same association between death rates and vaccinations, where paradoxically, higher vaccination coverage led to higher mortality.
For those who like videos, here’s John Campbell discussing this preprint:
Vaccines are supposed to save lives! Instead, we see that the more vaccines, the greater the mortality increases.
I found that same relationship in several articles, such as this one:
My first finding of this nature was published on Aug 30, 2022, and was shared quite a bit on social networks:
I am glad Jarle Aarstad and Olav Kvitastein found a similar relationship in European data.
Sadly, this pattern of vaccines associated with higher mortality held strong over time. If you remember, December of 2022 was a month of illness and death across Europe.
I decided to compare excess mortality for weeks 48-52 (5 weeks) of 2022, as the data for this period is finally available for many countries. The vaccination rates (as of Mar 2022) come from Our World in Data, and the excess mortality was recorded based on information from the short-term mortality database.
Here’s the data for weeks 48-52 of 2022:
I analyzed this dataset with a linear regression calculator:
You can see that the relationship has great statistical significance and no major outliers. Is there a causal relationship? I have written much about it, and Martin Neil and Norman Fenton analyzed it also.
The preprint above comes to the same conclusion:
When controlling for alternative explanations, the association remained robust, and we discuss the result emphasizing causality as well as potential ecological fallacy.
The authors thoroughly analyze the data and rule out Simpson’s Paradox and other vaccine advocates' contentions. Those curious may find a lot of interesting arguments against typical rebuttals of causality that we hear about. Take a look at pages 6 and 7 of the preprint.
In the Covid-vaccine skeptic world, many opponents of Covid vaccines suggest that vaccines cause deaths via various direct mechanisms. (“spike protein slowly kills heart” or some such)
They may partly be right; however, such a straightforward explanation does not explain great month-to-month variations in death rates.
I claimed that excess mortality associated with Covid vaccines is mediated via transmissible illnesses such as Covid-19 or the flu, causing more deaths in Covid-vaccinated or boosted people.
Fortunately, mortality news from February and March suggests that the above statement is correct. Why? The mortality went DOWN by a lot, and in Germany, for example, excess mortality recently became negative. That suggests that temporary factors such as transmissible illnesses were involved!
You can download the latest German mortality data from this Excel spreadsheet.
This is, obviously, great news for Germany. The UK is also experiencing a welcome reduction in excess deaths after experiencing the worst mortality in years this January:
You can see that there is more to the story than “vaccine spike protein slowly killing people.” There is something that causes excess death rates to jump up and down! Thus, I believe mortality is mediated by transmissible illnesses- Covid or the flu - but affects vaccinated people disproportionally.
I hope that this reduction in excess mortality will prove permanent. I am afraid, however, that it is temporary, and mortality will jump up again when the next wave of “Covid variants” or other mystery illnesses sickens people.
The future is hard to predict, and I will be most delighted if excess mortality goes away permanently.
Let us know what you think!