Nothing to see here! 60% of deaths are Covid vaccines on 30 year-old database
Mistreating the elderly, children & animals

US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity” J. Bart Classen, MD*

New paper

FDA are expected to vote today to fully license the Pfizer vaccine while hiding the hideous fallout


Three COVID-19 vaccines in the US have been released for sale by the FDA under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) based on a clinical trial design employing a surrogate primary endpoint for health, severe infections with COVID-19. This clinical trial design has been proven dangerously misleading. Many fields of medicine, oncology for example, have abandoned the use of disease specific endpoints for the primary endpoint of pivotal clinical trials (cancer deaths for example) and have adopted “all cause mortality or morbidity” as the proper scientific endpoint of a clinical trial. Pivotal clinical trial data from the 3 marketed COVID-19 vaccines was reanalyzed using “all cause severe morbidity", a scientific measure of health, as the primary endpoint. “All cause severe morbidity” in the treatment group and control group was calculated by adding all severe events reported in the clinical trials. Severe events included both severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events in the treatment arm and control arm respectively. This analysis gives reduction in severe COVID-19 infections the same weight as adverse events of equivalent severity. Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in “all cause severe morbidity" in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group. The Moderna immunized group suffered 3,042 more severe events than the control group (p=0.00001). The Pfizer data was grossly incomplete but data provided showed the vaccination group suffered 90 more severe events than the control group (p=0.000014), when only including “unsolicited” adverse events. The Janssen immunized group suffered 264 more severe events than the control group (p=0.00001). These findings contrast the manufacturers’ inappropriate surrogate endpoints: Janssen claims that their vaccine prevents 6 cases of severe COVD-19 requiring medical attention out of 19,630 immunized; Pfizer claims their vaccine prevents 8 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 21,720 immunized; Moderna claims its vaccine prevents 30 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 15,210 immunized. Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.


Laura Hayes

With regard to the ACLU discussion below, more proof of their complete and utter uselessness when it comes to defending civil liberties. They are now on the side of the tyrants.


Major MED Journal: Criticizes “RUSHED” FDA approval of COVID vaccine…

EXCELLENT information. This was also reported in this week's HIGHWIRE.

Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee
“People who develop Covid have complete and durable immunity”
“Texas at 80% herd immunity with no vaccine”
start at 11:30


That book looks really good (but depressing), greyone. The audio clip is particularly chilling. I will say that the initial response from the FOIA officer (actually, from the FOIA clerk working on my request) was fairly quick--less than a day.

I can't tell how much government slowness is just laziness, and how much is deliberately obfuscatory. I recently filed a Right to Know request with a county I cover, and it took more than a month for the county to give me the information. A neighboring county, however, returned my first call within 24 hours, and then emailed me the data set. The data wasn't great news, but it was hardly shocking, and I have to think it was just foot-dragging by county employees who'd rather go out for coffee than give the public the information.

In the case of this FOIA request, the response email did include a statement about needing to consult with other agencies, but that strikes me as a BS justification for delay, because these agencies are working actively together on the "public health emergency." They discuss this information together all the time. I'm just asking for a copy of something they already have--something that is probably in their active files at present.

Government employees are often uncooperative with the media (and the public). The only way to do a good job is to set your jaw and keep at them, knowing that it will be an uphill battle, even in situations where there's nothing to hide. "Where does the strength come from, to see the race to its end? It comes from within." Sometimes I wish the salaried journalists at the major networks had greater tenacity. It would be harder for bureaucrats to blow off small-market reporters if they knew their delays would be subject to public airing on NBC or in WaPo.

I'm working my angle. I don't know if anyone here has connections in the black civil rights movement, but maybe the feds would take the request more seriously if it came in from a couple of directions. RNK is right. There is probably something to see here.


Haven't read this book on an individual's FOIA request, but looked interesting.
Has an audio snip at the bottom.


My FOIA request is being processed, and will exceed 30 working days (the statute calls for no more than 20 working days) to execute. Odd, because they prepared a report from those very records back in June.


Emma and Ronald, you are both right. If the number of adverse events in black Americans is proportional to the number of black Americans in the US population, then it would be an overrepresentation, because they're underrepresented in the shot population.

Tom Shimabukuro at CDC ought to respond (hahahahahahahahaha) to a FOIA request. He put together the report ( that says repeatedly, "Adjusted for VSD site, 5-year age group, sex, race/ethnicity, and calendar date."

If they adjusted for race, then they must have had race data with the adverse events. I have never done a FOIA request, but one of us (or someone more experienced) ought to do it. I'd like to see what there is to see.



This is a detailed explanation of the statements made by Dr. Malone in this video:

"FDA Pfizer authorization (Comirnaty): Key points to consider and discuss.
These points are an aggregate of many minds, including Dr. Robert Malone., 23 Aug 2021

There are now TWO LEGALLY distinct (Pfizer vs. BionTech), but otherwise identical products, based on two FDA letters, as well as a press release. The analysis of these FDA products below is preliminary and subject to change."
The following is a link to the analysis with links to the actual documents:

Ronald N. Kostoff


"There should be overall death data available from CDC where (as you point out) race is included as a tag or data point. With all the community pressure being applied to black Americans to get these shots, this type of safety analysis ought to be a priority."

Yes, this raises the Sherlock Holmesian question of why the hound wasn't barking at night. Why doesn't the CDC report racial stratification data for vaccine adverse events. They seem to report it for everything else I've examined for COVID-19, as I mentioned previously. Do they know something we don't know, and they don't want us to know?

Is anyone familiar with any vaccine studies that have been done reporting racial stratification of adverse events? They would have had to gather the data independent of VAERS.



The largest Covid 19 unvaxxed population is African American. One would need to know the total vaxxed number of that group to get a better picture of adverse event frequency from VAERS.


Good point, Ronald N Kostoff. There should be overall death data available from CDC where (as you point out) race is included as a tag or data point. With all the community pressure being applied to black Americans to get these shots, this type of safety analysis ought to be a priority.

Of course, we would have even better data in VAERS if the federal government didn't control distribution of these shots. Your family physician may not be a great guy, but he keeps better records and knows more about you than whatever random federal flunkie is manning the needle in the tent in the Publix parking lot. One of the creepiest things about these mass vaccination campaigns is the top-down control. It's not about individual physicians recommending and administering the shots to patients on a one-on-one basis, but about people being coerced into receiving them at distribution centers that have nothing to do with their existing "medical home." A relative of mine got hers at Wegmans. When her chest hurt so badly she couldn't get out of bed, she texted me. She had never even heard of v-safe.

Ronald N. Kostoff

More on the FDA "approval":

"As VAERS is passive, I doubt there is enough race data to do a robust analysis"

Depends what you're looking for. African-Americans are about 1/8 of the US population. They are experiencing about 1/8---1/7 of the US deaths attributed to COVID-19. If ~7,000 total US deaths have been reported in VAERS, then we would expect ~900 African-American deaths if they are race-proportional (would need to be adjusted for inoculation rate differences among races). If there is a major MMR-level deviation from the 900, it seems to me that would be readily observable. If we wanted to do some sort of stratification, that would make the problem more difficult. But, if such an effect were to exist, we should be able to see it from the overall data.


Emma, it sounds crazy at first, but you're right. The spike protein is manufactured by the shot recipient.

Ronald N Kostoff, good point about Thompson. As VAERS is passive, I doubt there is enough race data to do a robust analysis. Dr. Oveta Fuller was one of the VRBPAC members who voted against the original EUA, because of her concerns about the inadequate data for African-Americans. I wonder if a polite letter from a fellow scientist would spur her to press for studies analyzing adverse events with race as a possible factor. The extrapolation involved in this approval is already nuts, but when we consider ethnicity as a factor (ACE2 distribution, etc.), it is shameful how it has been brushed aside.


@Ronald N. Kostoff

Thanks for the timely link. I was just researching this to see if the newly named "Comirnaty" FDA licensed shot was a legal "taxable vaccine" with ACIP and CDC "recommended" approval. OF COURSE IT ISN'T. Congress has to pass their already written bill (I saw it, but don't remember how to access it) which must be buried in the omnibus "infrastructure" train wreck of a bill that hasn't passed yet.

Then I noticed that the license was only for ages 16 and up. I was wondering why they kept saying that in spite of FDA approval, they would maintain their EUA status. I figured they kept the EUA status to legally offer under 16 year olds the jab and still have liability coverage. I still couldn't figure out how "Comirnaty" could have only FDA approval and still get liability coverage via EUA. When the mRNA inventor said that Comirnaty was a separate shot and was not yet available, IT ALL MADE SENSE.

THIS IS DECEPTIVE MARKETING. I was researching and calling elected officials about this and they initially said that the shot was now just like all the other "CDC recommended" shots on the childrens' school vax schedule. The shots they are now giving at their "school pop up clinics" ARE STILL EXPERIMENTAL.

To sum it up, the Pfizer shot named "Comirnaty" now has FDA approved Biologics License Application (BLA) for ages 16 and up. They must observe a high efficacy and safety profile for 6 months following the second dose. After this data is available, they will submit another BLA for ages 12-15. They also plan to seek a BLA for a "BOOSTER" DOSE. Planned failure?


According to the FDA, they also must investigate the manufacturing and facilities data.
This brings up a major problem for the mRNA based jabs. The substance (in this case a spike protein) that triggers an immune response, which they count on to "prevent Covid 19," IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE PHYSICAL SHOT. By design, EACH INDIVIDUAL'S BODY becomes the MANUFACTURER of the spike protein. According to current law, EACH INDIVIDUAL would have to be inspected to make sure their body produced the proper AMOUNT of spike protein which would trigger a safe and effective immune response. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THIS.

Ronald N. Kostoff

FDA approval may not be so clear:

Ronald N. Kostoff

The NYT examined vaxx rates in NYC in different ethnic/racial groups. They found the following: "Only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 are fully vaccinated; About 48 percent of Latino New Yorkers and 52 percent of white residents ages 18 to 44 are fully vaccinated."

A number of vaxx mandates have been issued for NYC, including requiring proof of COVID vaccinations from employees and customers of indoor eateries, gyms and entertainment centers, and for various categories of workers as well. There are three obvious fallouts from this.

First, whether it was meant to be or not, the mandates discriminate to some extent against African-Americans, since they will be most impacted because of low vaxx rates. Second, they discriminate against many types of businesses, especially small businesses, that depend on high customer volumes. While I haven't been to NYC in recent years, my memory is that there were many eateries and similar establishments that survived on very high volumes of people at a few discrete time points during the day, lunch and sometimes breakfast most noticeably for the eateries. Cutting their volume in half spells a death knell for those businesses that have not been killed already. Many of these small businesses are minority-owned, and, again, whether it is meant to or not, these restrictions effectively discriminate against different minorities.

Third, and perhaps most insidious, is an issue I really haven't seen addressed anywhere. In 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a world-class epidemiologist working for the CDC, posted a statement on his lawyer's Website. He said that a CDC-conducted study in which he was a participant discarded data that would have shown roughly three times the risk for African-American children of Autism associated with the MMR vaccine compared to the rest of the population. These allegations were basically blacklisted by the media, never taken to Court, and never brought up at Congressional Hearings. As far as I know, they have never been disputed or proven.

Let's assume Thompson's allegations were true; I see no reasons they wouldn't be true other than a desire for self-destruction. If so, were these higher risks for African-American children an anomaly? Are they applicable only to the MMR vaccine and no other vaccine? More to the point, do these higher risks carry over to the COVID-19 inoculations? I have not been able to find racial stratification in the VAERS database, and VAERS experts I have talked to have not been able to find it as well. That's somewhat strange, since the population in CDC databases such as CDC Wonder is stratified racially, the number of COVID cases is stratified racially, the number of COVID deaths is stratified racially, the number of COVID inoculations is stratified racially, but for some strange reason, the COVID inoculation adverse events are not stratified racially. I have no idea whether there are racial differences in the COVID inoculation adverse events or not, but I would think it would be important to find out.

If some ethnic/racial groups are at higher risk of adverse events from the COVID inoculation, that would be useful information in adjusting their risk-benefit ratio. How do we get such information? I haven't seen such studies reported in the literature. Even if they do exist, and assuming they were funded by the CDC/FDA/NIH, would the numbers be any more credible than those that emerged from the final MMR vaccine-Autism study? Could the numbers be trusted? If there are disparities in adverse events from the COVID vaccines, and those at higher risk are not being informed, this would constitute another form of discrimination, whether or not that was the goal.

How do we resolve this?



This is the meat of the paper:

"COVID-19 vaccines were released for marketing under a EUA.
Use of such a protocol should be reserved for outbreaks of
life threatening epidemics. If this were, actually the case with
COVID-19 then reduction in “all cause mortality” should be
the primary outcome for the vaccine trials and “all cause severe
morbidity” should be the secondary endpoint. However, the
manufacturers show no evidence of a survival benefit. Deaths in
the trials were extremely rare and of 30 deaths, out of roughly
110,000 trial participants, only about 6 deaths were confirmed to
have COVID-19 at the time of death. Regrettably, the vaccines
did not reduce morbidity but caused an increase in severe events.
Worse, the pivotal clinical trials were never designed to show a
benefit in “all-cause mortality” or reduction “in all cause severe
morbidity”. The fact that the trials were never designed to show
these health benefits is an admission that those developing the
vaccines never expected the vaccines to result in measurable health


Jesus, Take The Wheel

This apostate church enticed citizens to take the jab at their pop up clinic and rewarded them with a BBQ dinner coupon.....This mother of 3 took the bait:

Jessica Turner: 34-year-old Massachusetts woman has seizure while driving five days after first Pfizer mRNA injection (She live streamed the event on Twitter)

MyCCPay Portal

The two immunizations designated a populace that was a little, minuscule part of the 16-year-olds and up who are focused on by this Pfizer endorsement. VRBPAC gave an entire day to talking about Rotateq and one more day to examining Rotarix. ACIP required two entire months after the VRBPAC vote on Rotateq to add it to the suggested plan.


We already have the truckers, Ms Hayes, we need the ACLU.

Thank you for all you do!

Laura Hayes

Forget the ACLU.

Let’s appeal to our truckers in hopes they might follow the lead of their Australian counterparts…with our full support!

My mantra remains unchanged:

“Continue to comply and watch your freedom die.”

Laura Hayes

Anita Donnelly,

Unfortunately, the ACLU wouldn’t know a civil liberty if it bit them on the arse.

Californians learned this over the course of many years of healthcare/medical choice freedom and parental rights battles.

Corrupt cowards, like so many others.

Laura Hayes

Anita Donnelly,

Unfortunately, the ACLU wouldn’t know a civil liberty if it bit them on the arse.

Californians learned this over the course of many years of healthcare/medical choice freedom and parental rights battles.

Corrupt cowards, like so many others.

Anita Donnelly

Found this interesting:

I think the ACLU should also get involved.

Carolyn KylesMom

Literally copied from Google page on Moderna stock. Everyone make this comment on every single comment board you can about this story and point out they ought to incur liability given this profit. Also point out that mandates increase profits.

People want to think vaccines are some kind gift by the pharma Gods.

Market Summary
Moderna Inc
406.60 USD +386.86 (2,079.89%)past 5 years

Okay. If you had 1000 shares at $20 which it was when it went public in Dec 2018, it would have been worth $20,000.00

If you held on to this stock, it would now be worth $400,000,

Your 20k investment (which most of us don't have due to the costs of raising vaccine-injured children) would now be worth $380,000 .

If you were wealthy and had invested 10,000 shares, it would now be worth 4 million.

And the price skyrocked when they announced boosters.

But you know.



It is particularly alarming that FDA approved this product without calling on VRBPAC. No public hearing, no chance to hear actual vaccine and virus experts on the record, no roll call vote. I guess after Offit spoke out publicly against boosters, they didn't want to take the chance that he'd say something negative on a YouTube livestream about the Pfizer product.

Offit's rotavirus vaccine had upwards or 70,000 people in the trials, which went on for years. GSK's Rotarix had 63,000 people. Both vaccines targeted a population that was a tiny, tiny fraction of the 16-year-olds and up who are targeted by this Pfizer approval. VRBPAC gave a whole day to discussing Rotateq and another day to discussing Rotarix. ACIP took two whole months after the VRBPAC vote on Rotateq to add it to the recommended schedule. ACIP was already recommending the Pfizer product for kids 12 and up, months before it was approved.

Even by the crummy standards of vaccine approval that are responsible for the previously approved vaccines--standards that are insufficient to protect against somewhat rare adverse events or detect adverse events that take years to manifest--today's approval is an appalling joke.

"Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older [...] More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months."

Four months... 12,000 people... thousands of unexplained deaths and adverse events in the unmonitored trial that is EUA... yes, by all means, let's extrapolate that to mean it's "safe and effective" for everyone old enough to drive. Good Lord.

Bob Moffit

"Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe."

FDA .. "Nothing to see here … threat to a "looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe" … sounds like similar IGNORED warnings of Afghanistan collapse.


A constant itch that goes on and on for decades, not just years.

As found by these researchers that the covid vaccine causes the immune system to over react to a fungi microbe that is really a back ground microbe that is safe and just crowds out other microbes.

This is pretty bad really.

The same study also found that the immune system is dampened down in taking care of tumor cells.

Hyper for a normal floral fungi and dampened down for cancer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)