The year was 578 AD. Justin II, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, was in excruciating pain and begged court physicians to operate. They resisted treating him, fearing severe punishment if they failed. So, what did they do? They asked that he hand them the scalpel they would be using for the surgery as a sign of his free and complete consent.*
* Is Consent in Medicine a Concept Only of Modern Times? (Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ Journals.)
The underlying principle of informed consent isn’t particularly complicated: Patients have a right to make an informed, voluntary decision about their care. That means they need to know the nature, risks, and benefits of their options — which includes declining treatment.
This article is going to be a compilation of information on the Covid vaccine.
I realized that I have eyes on many sources of information that might be unknown to others. It is possible for some people to be shielded or walled off from any information regarding the risks of these vaccines, and to effectively be in a situation where they are unable to give (or are prevented from being able to give) informed consent because they don’t know and don’t understand the negative repercussions of these vaccines.
This content might be entirely familiar to you already. But it might help you educate someone else you care about.
I started accumulating various articles that made good points, articles that could be fairly easily understood by people who are not medically educated. Some of this information might be a lot to confront, either because the language is a bit more technical than you would like, or because of the horrifying realizations that you might have about the situation at hand. I hope you will carry on, at least until you have seen enough to be able to make an INFORMED decision about Covid vaccines and give or withhold your authentically informed consent.
The information revealing the harm that the Covid vaccines cause, which I will share here, has been coming out at a faster and faster pace and from multiple sources. It’s an avalanche of information! I am only sharing with you a limited number of articles. There are so many more. Many of these articles are found on Substack – if you opened a link and particularly enjoyed a specific article, you can subscribe to that newsletter and author in Substack. Subscriptions can be free or paid. Some articles are linked to The Epoch Times. Because I subscribe to this publication, I can’t really tell if, as a non-subscriber, you will be able to open the links. If you have difficulties, I recommend you subscribe, even if only for one month. They are an excellent source of news.
The following references are in chronological order of publication. In the future, I might delete some and add fresh ones, so come back and refresh this post if you are curious.
Losing My (Vaccine) Religion: A Doctor’s Journey From Hope to Despair
Turtles all the way down: Vaccine Science and Myth
How Do Vaccines Cause Sudden Death?
Evidence of harm
We Now Have Clear Proof the Vaccine is Dangerous and That The CDC Concealed It
Vaccine Injury Documentary: Safe and Effective (2022) Oracle Films
Nov 11 2022
Vaccine Roundtable at the Senate + Highlights & Clips
Highlight Reel, Full presentation links, Clips, Post event resources
Five reasons why some people get adverse reactions and others do not
Published December 14, 2022
Myocarditis from Covid Shots
Why this differs from viral infections
Dec 16, 2022
Real Truth Real News Published December 15, 2022
NEW Documentary ~ “Anecdotals” Movie (Covid Vaccine Damage)
Vaccine Harm Big Bang
Studies showed inadvertent intravascular injections occur regularly when injecting in the muscle. Further studies confirmed COVID vaccines in IV cause the same adverse effects…let’s wake up
COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects: “I Can’t Hear You”
Risk of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Doubled in the Elderly after Vaccination
Dec 19, 2022
Cleveland study conducted to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of the bivalent vaccines accidentally finds that the risk of Covid-19 infection increases with each prior vaccination
What Can We Learn From “Cause Unknown?”
☕️ THE WRONG ANTIBODY ☙ Monday, December 26, 2022 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
December 27, 2022
Horowitz: The sudden decline in birth rates post-vaccination — and the shocking silence
December 29, 2022
Horowitz: Possibly the most important study on COVID shots might explain why COVID never seems to end
World Council for Health Report looks at the NUMBERS!
Covid-19 Vaccine Pharmacovigilance Report
December 20, 2022
Purpose of Report
This report was prepared to determine if there is sufficient data on well-established, existing pharmacovigilance databases to establish a safety signal regarding Covid-19 vaccines.
Find the report HERE.
You will also be able to download a pdf of the report:
But…Are the Risks Worth It?
Here is an excerpt from Jeff Childer’s newsletter, Coffee & Covid, of 1/3/23:
🔬 In late September’s the Journal Vaccine published a study titled, “Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Randomized Trials in Adults.”
The researchers took a 2020 W.H.O.-endorsed list of “adverse events of special interest” created for the covid vaccines before they were released. Thus the study didn’t include ALL adverse events. The researchers were only looking for ones from the list, called “adverse events of special interest.”
For their data, the researchers decided to use the interim datasets from Pfizer and Moderna, that were used as the basis for emergency authorization in December 2020, which was about four months after trials began. Then they matched the adverse events reported in the Pfizer and Moderna trials against the independent list of adverse events of special interest.
With me so far?
By using the Pfizer and Moderna data, the researched had a randomized, blinded trial set. Nobody’s done one since the FDA approved the jabs. It’s the only randomized, double-blinded study there is.
Once the researchers combined the lists, they found a remarkably high level of adverse events compared from jab takers compared to the placebo group, which got saline instead of mRNA. In particular, they found the risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI’s) from the vaccines was much higher than the risk reduced. In other words, they concluded — from Pfizer and Moderna’s OWN clinical data — that the jabs were neither safe nor effective:
In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants).  In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).
In other words, the data showed that Moderna lowered the chance of covid hospitalization by -6.4 per 10,000, but INCREASED the risk of a serious adverse event by +15.1 per 10,000. Therefore, vaccinees’ net risk of a bad outcome increased by +8.7 per 10,000 by taking the Moderna shot.
Pfizer was nearly the same. The data showed Pfizer lowered the chance of covid hospitalization by -2.3 per 10,000, but INCREASED the risk of a serious adverse event by +10.1 per 10,000. Therefore, vaccinees’ net risk of a bad outcome increased by +7.8 per 10,000 by taking the Pfizer shot.
The difference between the two shots makes sense. Moderna contains a much higher dose of mRNA. So the higher risk reduction and higher adverse events in Moderna seems correlated with the amount of mRNA in the shot, just as you would expect.
So, there’s THAT. But now think about what the numbers MEAN for people’s risk of injury. For Pfizer, in their own trial, during just the first four months of the trial, meaning only about two months post-jab, 10.1 folks per 10,000 had a serious adverse event. That’s 1 injury per 1,000 shots, a crazy-high level of injury. Moderna was even worse. At 15.1 injuries per 10,000, it translated to about 1 serious injury in only 662 jabbed.
The study’s drafters were clear about their conclusion that the jabs weren’t SAFE due to excess injuries over the placebo, and that the jabs weren’t EFFECTIVE because they didn’t prevent hospitalization when compared to a placebo (from all causes). While they didn’t exactly beat the drum about it, they didn’t exactly hide their conclusion, either:
Rational policy formation should consider potential harms alongside potential benefits. To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization. We found excess risk of serious AESIs to exceed the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.
In addition to the fact they only counted adverse events from the “special interest” list, the authors noted three other reasons why adverse events in the study might be undercounted. In other words, it might even be a lot worse:
First, Pfizer’s trial did not report SAEs [Serious Adverse Events] occurring past 1 month after dose 2. This reporting threshold may have led to an undercounting of serious AESIs [Adverse Events of Special Interest] in the Pfizer trial. Second, for both studies, the limited follow up time prevented an analysis of harm-benefit over a longer period. Third, all SAEs in our analysis met the regulatory definition of a serious adverse event, but many adverse event types which a patient may themselves judge as serious may not meet this regulatory threshold.
By this point, you’re probably wondering how the FDA ever approved these dangerous products in the first place. The answer is that the FDA used different numbers than these researchers; and the study discusses those differences in some detail. At the end of the day, the study’s authors clearly thought the FDA’s approach was overly-optimistic.
I would call it “reckless.”
This is a serious study in a respected journal, with clear methods and using pharma’s own data, and unless you agree with the FDA’s forgiving analytical methods, the study undermines the claim that the jabs were EVER safe and effective. You could send this study to anyone who was wondering what the most current “science” says about the jabs.
Here’s the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036
But…What If You Are Being Coerced to Take a Vaccine to Keep Your Job?
Jeff Childers, the lawyer behind the newsletter, Coffee & Covid, gave advice to his readers in October 2021, which can still be helpful today if you find yourself in a mandate situation:
“…a lot of folks are facing imminent injection ultimatum deadlines. Should they resign? Take the jabs? Try to sue? What to do? Today I’m offering suggestions to all those folks who are facing reprehensible employment policies that treat them like cattle. Send to everyone who needs to see this.“
But…What About the J&J Shot?
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH [Master of Public Health]
“Throughout the disastrous COVID-19 injection campaign, desperate patients have often asked me which is the safest vaccine? “
Read the article: Massive Clot Burden Days after Taking Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine
But…What About a Booster?
The Unknown Benefits Can’t Outweigh the Known Harms & Why Medicine Has to take Absolute Risk into Account
But…The CDC Investigated, Right?
You’ll need to understand “Limited Hangout” to understand how that worked:
“The way a limited hangout works is, if you’re an intelligence agency, or a global corporation, or a government, or a non-governmental organization, and you have been doing things you need to hide from the public, and those things are starting to come to light such that you can’t just deny that you are doing them anymore, what you do is, you release a limited part of the story to distract people’s attention from the rest of the story. The part you release is the “limited hangout.” It’s not a lie. It’s just not the whole story. You “hang it out” so that it will become the whole story, and thus stop people from pursuing the whole story.”
What if I don’t want the vaccine but I have a procedure or surgery scheduled – How do I make sure they won’t give it to me while under anesthesia?
I saw this advice online – sounds good to me:
“When you go for the procedure, do not sign a digital release. Insist on a paper copy, cross out and initial any wording that allows them to vax you, write by your signature: ‘no vaccines’ and ‘no biologicals’* . Then photograph it before you hand it in.”
*What is the meaning of biologicals?
Biologicals are a diverse group of medicines which includes vaccines, growth factors, immune modulators, monoclonal antibodies, as well as products derived from human blood and plasma.
What about Myocarditis from Covid Infection – Sounds Dangerous! Will the Vaccine Help?
Health authorities have repeatedly stated that you’re more at risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19 than from the ‘vaccine’. They lied.
“Well, if you weren’t told about any of these studies before being injected with a novel RNA transfection agent, you weren’t given informed consent. If you were told that your teenage son’s risk of getting myocarditis was higher if he got COVID than if got the shot, neither of you was given informed consent (in fact, you were outright lied to).”
A friend has spent the last couple of years making a compilation of over 900 doctor studies, reports and statements that examine these products thoroughly. These studies were conducted by independent doctors and medical scientists.
Here is the website:
You can navigate from the home page to this section:
Then, to see more, you can go to the pdf document which is over 100 pages of studies and evidence!
Here is the pdf offered on the site:
THIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. I AM NOT MAKING MEDICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR.
Be well, do well, stay well!