News Ticker

17,503 DEAD, 1.7 million injured (50% SERIOUS) reported in European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 shots

PHOTO: North County Daily Star

By Brian Shilhavy | 18 July 2021

HEALTH IMPACT NEWS — The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.

The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)

So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured due to COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.

The EudraVigilance database reports that through July 3, 2021 there are 17,503 deaths and 1,687,527 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (837,588 ) are serious injuries.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

As we reported yesterday, tens of thousands of people in the U.S. now regret getting the COVID-19 shots, and are begging for help, because the medical system has turned its back on them and refuses to treat their injuries. […]

3 Comments on 17,503 DEAD, 1.7 million injured (50% SERIOUS) reported in European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 shots

  1. I’d like to know how many have died from the Russian, Israeli and Chinese vaccinations as well, but I don’t imagine that sort of information will ever be released.

    Most people today don’t know about the infamous Cutter disaster.
    This was a virus-related poliomyelitis epidemic that was initiated by the use of the Salk vaccines just after they were rapidly developed and fast-tracked into licensure by the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This record-breaking approval process took only two hours.74

    Because of outside pressure, the licensing committee in charge of approving the vaccine did so after deliberating but without first having read the full research, namely the Francis Report on which their approval was to have been based. Dr. Howard Shaughnessy, laboratory director, Illinois Department of Health, testified to this event:

    Previously it [the vaccine] had been distributed as an experimental product, not a licensed product . . . the committee was asked to come to a decision very quickly . . . there was discussion of the report that Dr Francis had given, but we were not in a position to discuss it very intensively because we had not seen the report prior to this morning and the report was distributed to us after the presentation . . . we were pressured in the sense that we were told that speed was essential, and when we came up toward the 5:00 time, some of us felt we would like to discuss this matter more. We were told that to discuss the matter further it would have to go into the following week, and we would have to go to Washington or Bethesda and most of the members were unwilling to do so. We were in effect pressured into an earlier decision than we ordinarily would have made. . . . It was part of the pressure of events, put it that way.75
    73 E. Wimmer, “The Test–Tube Synthesis of a Chemical Called Poliovirus: TheSimple Synthesis of a Virus Has Far-Reaching Societal Implications,” European Molecular Biology Organization Report, vol. 7, no. SI, July 20, pp. S3–S9.
    74 Richard Carter, Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk, Trident Press,New York, 1955, p. 282.
    75 Opening brief of Defendant and Appellant Cutter Laboratories Gottsdanker v.Cutter Laboratories (1960) 182 Cal. App.2d 602 pp. 31–33. Dr Shaughnessywas the Director of Laboratories and Head of Department of the IllinoisDepartment of Public Health, University of Chicago, and member of the Ann Arbor Licensing Committee for the Salk vaccine.

    Dr. Thomas Francis did not issue the final report of his evaluation of the 1954 field trials until April 1957, two years after the licensing of the vaccine. 76 At the time, public health authorities decreed that physicians inject the fast-tracked vaccine before those doctors knew much about the science or the large Francis trial. The consequences of this impulsive action turned out to be significant.

    The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development. Any professional objection by scientists involved during the development of the vaccine was rapidly subdued.77 Dr. Paul Meier attested to the practice of firing scientists who disagreed with the NFIP’s plans.

    Jonas Salk had a paper in which he argued that all the virus was inactivated, and that there was no live virus left. But, the sixth lot was not listed. And so I said that something was wrong. He cut out data in order not to show what happened to some lots. . . . Well, NFIP did form an advisory committee. And
    they reformed it five or six times. Each time somebody didn’t agree, they dropped them and got somebody who might agree. By the time they were done forming the committee, everybody on it was distinguished, but very agreeable.78

    76 T. Francis et al., “Evaluation of the 1954 Field Trial of PoliomyelitisVaccine: Final Report,” Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, April 1957.
    77 H. Eyer et al., Social Medicine and Hygeine: An Evaluation of the ProtectiveImmunization Against Poliomyelitis, Report of the Scientific Committee, 1956.
    This 102-page document with 22 corresponding graphs is a translation of a larger 492-page German report from an article that appeared in the Munch Med Wochenschr, April 6, 1956. A copy of English translation is in the authors‟possession.
    78 H. A. Marks, “Conversation with Paul Meier, Interview by Harry M. Marks,” Clinical Trials, vol. 1, February 2004, pp. 131–138.
    As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.

    Others Wendell Stanley, Sven Card, Enders, Herdis von Magnus and myself among others disagreed, convinced that the inactivation process did not follow a straight line and it was not permissible to extend the curve below the baseline. . . And I remember Colin MacLeod raising the question whether this was really the way to go, but that’s the way the matter stood, namely, “We’ll go ahead and make the vaccine.”
    Well, the vaccine was made that way. Then Cutter made several batches of the vaccine, which upon inoculation into man produced cases of poliomyelitis, some of them with severe paralysis.79

    Millionaire vaccine inventor Paul Offit, a supporter of mandatory vaccinations, wrote a book on the Cutter incident. In the book, even he admits:
    . . the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus.80
    79 Edwin H. Lennette, Pioneer of Diagnostic Virology with the California Department of Public Health, an oral history conducted in 1982, 1983, and 1986 by Sally Hughes, Regional Oral History Office, the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1988.
    80 Paul Offit, MD, The Cutter Incident, Yale University Press, 2005, p. 86.

    History books credit Cutter Laboratories for the disaster. The official explanation of the problem was that the live virus particles clumped into cellular debris (monkey kidney tissue from the manufacture) and, as a result, formaldehyde could not penetrate the center of the clump. Although this clumping may have occurred, it was not the major reason for the presence of live virus in the 1955 vaccine.
    There is a body of literature that speaks to the real cause of the problem, which was known from the outset of the development of Salk’s vaccine.
    Dr. Thomas Rivers, the mastermind of Rockefeller’s polio vaccine mission, hired all the chairmen of departments of virology. He had enormous clout, and nobody dared argue with him, lest their careers be ruined. Dr. Edwin Lenette had some interesting reflections in the 1980s about Rockefeller, Rivers, and the formalin inactivation curve:
    Well, in those days, as I should point out perhaps, things were quite different from today because a professor in this country, just as in Germany, was a highly respected individual, and you didn’t argue with him.81

    Dr. Lennette, talking about a pre-vaccine trial meeting of the minds in New York City in 1953, said:
    Tom Rivers was there, Tommy Francis, Joe Smadel, and Colin MacLeod, all of whom were deeply involved. These were people to whom you might apply the term “the establishment,” . . .
    These were the “old graybeards” who had been through the mill of medical science . . . The question was raised as to whether the vaccine would be safe at the present level of inactivation with formaldehyde. And I remember distinctly Tom Rivers saying, “If you put any more formaldehyde in, you’ll make it so damn safe it won’t be any good.” That’s recorded somewhere in the minutes of that meeting.82

    81 Edwin H. Lennette, “Pioneer of Diagnostic Virology with the California Department of Public Health,” an oral history conducted in 1982, 1983, and 1986 by Sally Hughes, Regional Oral History Office, the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1988.
    82Edwin H. Lennette, Pioneer of Diagnostic Virology with the California Department of Public Health, an oral history conducted in 1982, 1983, and 1986 by Sally Hughes, Regional Oral History Office, the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1988.

    Salk and the scientists who remained on the NFIP board interpreted the formaldehyde inactivation curve incorrectly. As a result, live virus remained. Stubbornly, they would not heed the warnings.
    Salk’s basic hypothesis is false. As early as the poliomyelitis congress in Rome in September 1954, Swedish observations were put forward concerning virus inactivation with formaldehyde which showed that the inactivation curve is not a straight line but shows a continuous curvature. The phenomenon has nothing to do with the presence of aggregates; filtration does not in any way affect the shape of the curve.83

    There was yet another factor in the virulence of the 1955 vaccine.
    The vaccine used in the 1954 trial contained Merthiolate, a mercury compound that had a virucidal (virus-killing action) effect. Because Jonas Salk was disappointed in the antibody-stimulating effect that the 1954 field trial demonstrated, the Merthiolate was removed in the 1955 vaccine to induce a faster antibody response in vaccine recipients. Not only was the 1955 vaccine not the same celebrated vaccine that was trialed in 1954, it was also riddled with live viruses of a highly neurovirulent nature—the Mahoney strain.

    Between April 17 and June 30, 1955, 260 poliomyelitis cases were documented after inoculation of about 400,000 persons with the Cutter vaccine. Ninety-four cases were among vaccines, 126 among family contacts, and 40 among community contacts. An estimate of the case-infection ratio is in the range of 1 case per 100 to 600 injected infections.84

    It is a documented fact that household adult contacts did contract polio —secondarily—from the vaccine, 85 and some became severely paralyzed. Thirteen household contacts required iron lungs, and five died. There were documented cases where infants received the vaccine injection, shed live virulent virus in the stool, and never got sick. But their mothers became very ill, and so did neighbors. A conservative report revealed that 39 friends and neighbors of children who received the Cutter vaccine were paralyzed. Many more were infected to lesser degrees.
    83 Sven Gard, “Prophylactic Vaccination Against Poliomyelitis, ” Svenska Läkartidningen (Swedish Physician’s Journal), vol. 53, no. 121(nr3)a, January
    1956 (3rd week). Translated from Swedish and distributed by the Oak Park Health Department, Oak Park, Illinois. Ref. p. 8.
    84 N. Nathanson and A. Langmuir, “The Cutter Incident,” American Journal of Public Hygiene, vol. 78, no. 1, 1963, pp. 29–60.
    85 Ibid., pp. 16–81
    The newly formed Polio Surveillance Unit (PSU) did not capture all the cases that developed from the domino effect of this grand mishap. The reason is that they had strict cutoff dates beyond which any reported polio was considered not to be from the vaccine.

    Paul Offit summarized the estimate of known damage:
    In the end, at least 220,000 people were infected with live polio virus contained in Cutter’s vaccine; 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed, 10 were killed. Seventy five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.86

    Anyone infected with live vaccine virus, whether symptomatic or not, was readily contagious and capable of spreading the dangerous Mahoney virus strain in their communities. It is evident that the viral ecosystem was forever altered by the introduction of polio vaccines.

    Here is some of what Paul Offit left out of his book. Even though Cutter Laboratories took the fall for the 1955 disaster, all manufacturers had difficulty killing the virus in their vaccines before and after the disaster.87,88 Cutter was not the only manufacturer documented to have produced live virus vaccine that was injected into children and caused paralysis. In 1990, after decades of information concealment, the Freedom of Information Act led to the release of documents that proved Wyeth also produced a paralyzing vaccine.89,90

    Wyeth and Cutter are thought today to have been the only companies that produced live virus vaccine; however, all the vaccine companies could have released active vaccine virus because the “minimum licensing requirements”91 set by the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare were not met by any pharmaceutical company. The initial minimum licensing requirements established April 12, 1955, stated that “all virus infectivity is destroyed with certainty.”92According to later documents and courtroom testimonies, this definition was not followed, and manufacturers were never held to such standards.

    In 1992 Dr. Neil Nathanson stated:
    Minimum requirements were meant to state the assurance that the final vaccine contained less than 5 tissue culture infectious doses per liter . . . in other words to assure that there would be less than one chance in 100,000 that the vaccine would contain one paralytogenic dose per 1,000 human doses
    of vaccine.93

    Does this sound like insurance that “all infectivity was destroyed with certainty?” A Tissue Culture Infective Dose (TCID) is a mathematical calculation. According to late virologist Dr. Wendell Stanley, a single TCID contained up to 30 poliovirus particles, and any one of them could have caused poliomyelitis.94

    There are a couple of problems associated with risk calculation using TCIDs. First, the cut off choice of less than 5 TCIDs was arbitrary.
    Second, there is an assumption that all virions (complete, infectious virus particles) would be distributed evenly and necessarily be included in any test sample. Remember the problem with particulate clumping? According to statistician Dr. Paul Meier, if each virion injected did cause a case of paralytic poliomyelitis, the injection of 1 milliliter of vaccine where the batches contain 5 TCID per liter could cause up to 500 cases per 100,000 vaccinated.95

    The reason there was not much more paralysis among the vaccinated was because, as was already known, 80–90 percent of the childhood population at the time was already naturally immune to at least one strain of poliovirus.96In his book, Dr. John Paul estimated that 80 percent would have had some pre-vaccine antibody to the polio-virus.97 Anyone who was immune naturally would also, fortunately, have been immune to the corresponding vaccine virus.
    You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy. He admitted in 1956 that:
    . . in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of “knowledge about controversy.” If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible. . . . We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.98

    So much for evidence-based medicine and scientific truth. Instead of discrediting the PSU, the decision was made, after some deliberation, to leave Wyeth’s paralyzing vaccine on the market, place the whole blame on Cutter, and ignore the ongoing problem with live viruses in the vaccines that persisted even after the revisions for safer manufacture were carried out. Only Cutter’s vaccines were recalled.

    All other manufacturers’ vaccines released in the 1950s were sold and injected into America’s children. Millions of vaccines were also exported all around the world.

    There were other more insidious and unaddressed problems with the Salk vaccine. Once a vaccine passed the minimum requirement tests showing that all the virus was theoretically killed, the virus was found to have resurrected on the shelves weeks or months later, even after the new safety standards were put in place in 1956.

    Dr. S Stephen Chapman . . . reported . . . he had centrifuged the vaccine and had obtained live virus, “more than we theoretically ever could have anticipated having . . . this brings up the problem of reactivation of the so called dead vaccine.”99

    The most likely explanation for this apparent resurrection is that the safety testing didn’t detect small amounts of live virus, and without Merthiolate in the vaccine the virus was able to replicate. In 1954 Salk’s trial vaccine contained a mercury compound patented as Merthiolate, which was used to prevent mold from growing and to prolong the shelf life. When it was obvious that the vaccine was not as antigenic as hoped, a decision was made to remove the mercury compound in the 1955 manufacture. Salk never wanted the mercury in the first place and protested that it ruined the vaccine, making the Mahoney strain less antigenic.

    Swedish scientists, after the Cutter disaster in 1955, began to test some of their vaccine that was waiting to be dispensed. They did this in response to the alarming news coming from the United States about vaccine-induced paralysis. Tests were done on batches of vaccine that were previously shown to be free of active virus. Upon repeat testing, 30 percent of the vaccine samples showed the presence of active virus.100

    The fundamental problem was that, although required safety testing was done with the hope of releasing only safe vaccines, the foundational principles with which the vaccine was manufactured were highly flawed from the beginning. Salk’s hypothesis was false.
    This problem was never fully addressed. According to expert virologist Dr. Sven Gard, a fundamental property of the virus that had to do with its structure was overlooked.101

    Dr. Gard also stated that vaccination in the United States caused as many cases of poliomyelitis as it prevented in 1955.102

    According to Dr. Wendell Stanley, the formaldehyde engendered a “tanning” effect upon the outer coating of the virus, but potentially left the infectious internal portion of the virus intact.

    The outer protein portion of the virus is not infective, and yet it is this portion which produces antibodies. In making a vaccine, the effort is centered on trying to remove the virus activity contained in the nucleic acid core while at the same time keeping the protein unchanged so that it may produce antibody. This is complicated . . . This results in a “tanning” effect as leather is tanned, making it more resistant to anything attempting to pass through it . . . there is an intermediate stage [in the inactivation] which is reversible, so that there is no viral activity shown by any of the safety tests and yet after further chemical treatment, activity can be gained from this same material. . . . Virus can be held for many days, and in fact may years and still be able to be reactivated at a subsequent time . . . formaldehyde comes off the protein.
    The partially tanned virus may be altered . . . will not give a positive test at the 14th day but would prove infectious at the end of three or four weeks. . . . In addition the virus in a vaccinal suspension is not homogenous but contains viruses which are slightly different in character and have different susceptibility and ability to resist activation.103

    Safety must be built into the method itself so that it automatically leads to a product of a well-defined quality. Instead of creating a reliably killed vaccine in the 1950s, companies had to rely upon post-manufacture safety tests alone for a vaccine that was known by all involved to consistently have some degree of live virus particles.

    Dr. Edwin Lennette, director of the California State Department of Health stated that, in general, vaccines could test negative in the lab and in test animals, yet behave differently in humans:
    You just put in some formaldehyde or whatever and inactivate the virus, and you do a few tests, and if nothing happens in the animal, then you think, well, we’ve got a vaccine. But you put it into man, who is the ultimate susceptible animal, and then something else goes wrong, and you’ve got a problem.104

    In subsequent years, instead of removing the dangerous Mahoney strain, American manufacturers continued releasing vaccines that were safer but far less antigenic. They tended to the problem, not by addressing the fundamental flaw, but by adding more filtrations of the vaccine. Dr. Gard said:

    I am now quite confident that the whole philosophy behind the Salk vaccine . . . is wrong, indeed. When repeated filtrations are applied for removal of “aggregates” one is only hunting ghosts. The effect of filtration is nothing but a gradual removal of virus, live and dead alike. It could just as well be substituted by plain dilution of the vaccine.105

    Even with such effective viral dilution of the vaccine and four revisions to the minimum requirements set forth by the government for producing safe vaccines in 1955, there was ongoing evidence that vaccine-induced infections continued. There were preseason polio (as in vaccine-provoked polio) peaks that were not present before the vaccine years. As you can see in Figure 12.6, 1955 has the largest peak, but 1956–1959 also had preseason increases that were not present in 1954 or earlier. As the years progressed, these peaks were smaller, due to filtering out both live and inactivated virus, so the vaccines had much lower viral levels.

    Alengthy German Scientific Committee report from 1956106 contains graphs depicting the 1955 preseason peak in Wisconsin, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho.

    Not all the vaccine-induced cases were accepted by the Polio Surveillance Unit. Many paralyzed recipients were denied validation and compensation for illness that occurred after the vaccine was given in 1955. The requirements for so-called accepted cases of vaccine-associated polio were more stringent than the requirements for reporting polio in non-vaccinated individuals.107,108

    For example, only cases that began in the inoculated limb were accepted by the PSU, and only within a very narrow time frame. The PSU used norms that historically were not so restrictive. Thus, only first-generation infection cases were reported and only if they met the stringent laboratory validation criteria. This would have excluded chain reaction cases that broke out later.

    The Salk vaccine was anything but a lifesaver. It was known from the start to be trouble, and trouble it was. Wild poliovirus was never a lone or major cause of poliomyelitis. But even if it was, the Salk vaccine could not possibly have been a solution to ridding the world of polio. Nonetheless, Jonas Salk and his vaccine have been forever cast into heroism in the archives of vaccine mythology.
    86 Paul Offit, MD, The Cutter Incident, Yale University Press, 2005, p. 89.
    87 L. Scheele and J. Shannon, Technical Report, Public Health Implications in a Program of Vaccination Against Poliomyelitis, June 7, 1955, p. 7. Digital copy is in the authors‟ possession.
    88 Richard Carter, Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk, Trident Press,New York, 1965, p. 324.
    89 H. Ratner, “An Untold Vaccine Story,” Child and Family, vol. 21, no. 3, 1993, pp. 253–263.
    90 A. Langmuir and N. Nathanson, “The Wyeth Problem,” Prepared by the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Unit, Epidemiology Branch of the Communicable Disease Center, Department of Health Education and Welfare, September 6, 1955.
    91 Minimum requirements involved extra vaccine filtration steps and tests on cortisone-treated primates.
    92 US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,Minimum requirements, first revision, April 12, 1955, p. 2.
    93 N. Nathanson, Declaration. Mosley vs Health and Human Services, p. 8.
    94 Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories (1960) 82 Cal. App. 2d 602 (2869:902870:3; 2871: 14-17) pp. 65–69.
    95 P. Meier, “Safety Testing of Poliomyelitis Vaccine,” Science, vol. 125,May 31, 1957, pp. 1067–1071.
    96 T. Francis et al., Evaluation of the 1954 Field Trial of Poliomyelitis Vaccine: Final Report, Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, April 1957, p. 152.
    97 J. R. Paul, A History of Poliomyelitis, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1971, pp. 335–339, 427.
    98 Richard Carter, Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk, Trident Press, New York, 1965, pp. 318–319.
    99 Ratner, Herbert, “A Premature Salk Vaccine, April 19, 1956” Child and Family, vol. 20, 1988, pp. 255–263.
    100 H. Eyer et al., An Evaluation of the Protective Immunization Against Poliomyelitis, Report of the Scientific Committee, Social Medicine and Hygeine, 1956, p. 13. This 102-page document with 22 corresponding graphs is a translation of a larger 492-page German report from an article that appeared in the Munch Med. Wochenschr April 6, 1956. A copy of English translation is in the authors‟ possession.
    101 Sven Gard, “Prophylactic Vaccination Against Poliomyelitis, Translated for and distributed by the Oak Park Health Department, Oak Park, Illinois,” Swedish Physician’s Journal, January 1956. Ref. p. 8 of translation. Provided by Herbert Ratner, MD. Paper in authors‟ possession.
    102 Sven Gard, “Prophylactic Vaccination Against Poliomyelitis,” Svenska Läkartidningen (Swedish Physician’s Journal), vol. 53, no. 121(nr3)a, January 1956 (3rd week), Translated from Swedish and distributed by the Oak Park Health Department, Oak Park, Illinois. Ref. p. 6 of translation. Courtesy of the estate of Herbert Ratner. Copy in authors‟ possession.
    103 Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories (1960) 82 Cal.App.2d 602 (2869:902870:3; 2871: 14–17)
    104 Edwin H. Lennette, Pioneer of Diagnostic Virology with the California Department of Public Health, an oral history conducted in 1982, 1983, and 1986 by Sally Hughes, Regional Oral History Office, the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1988.
    105 Herbert A. Ratner, “A Premature Salk Vaccine, April 19, 1956,” Child and Family, vol. 20, 1988, pp. 255–263. Referencing personal letter from Dr. Gard, a copy of which is in the authors‟ possession
    106 H. Eyer et al., An Evaluation of the Protective Immunization Against Poliomyelitis, Report of the Scientific Committee, Social Medicine and Hygiene, 1956. This 102-page document with 22 corresponding graphs is a translation of a larger 492-page German report from an article that appeared in the Munch Med Wochenschr April 6, 1956. A copy of English translation is in the authors‟ possession.
    107 Poliomyelitis Trends, 1958, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Canada, June 29, 1959, p. 1m.
    108 Herbert Ratner, Declaration of Herbert Ratner, Diane Lynn Armbrust Mosley vs. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, October 1, 1992

    Dissolving Illusions Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History
    Suzanne Humphries, MD
    Roman Bystrianyk

  3. WOW that article took me all over the place. Seems all those given power by the satanists refuse to see or speak of the devastation of these demonic jabs. I am sorry but I know of NO advantages of any vaccines including most given to our pets which I believe is the reason so many of our pets contract cancer and have skin allergies just like in people. Parents have been sacraficing their babies to these jab devils for decades now, going along to get along. People have been steered into the medical for profit paradigm by chronic illness caused by bad habits bad “food” and probably vaccines. Victim status . Everyone wants the “magic pill” or the profit driven aholes in the white coats to save them. I got pneumonia once from being overworked, working in an environment with mold and the final blow was being in close contact with 2 dim witted coworkers who took the flu jabs. This happened about 10 years ago and I knew it was those factors cause my inner voice told me so. So as expected I was poo-pooed aka blown off by all …now we know these jabs shed VINDICATION!! I also knew there was herpes in these jabs and again VINDICATION..2 more nitwits who took the jabs broke out in shingles and now it’s common knowledge they use herpes in these things even before the COVID scam jabs. All I am saying is trust your intuition, that little voice (or whatever it is) it may be your connection to God, Source or whatever you wish to call it

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: