Supporting Evidence

In this document, Dr. Bhakdi points out that the organization of the immune system itself will prevent any and all intramuscularly injected vaccines from reliably protecting the respiratory tract against infection; the COVID vaccines simply conform to this general rule. Dr. Burkhardt gives a summary of his recent histopathologic findings on 15 patients who had died within days to months after the vaccination. He describes

This article reviews some of the publicly available documents on Pfizer’s non-clinical development program and points out its deficiencies, omissions and gaps, which were very obvious, yet were never questioned by the regulators or other health authorities.

Months into the vaccination campaign, and new discoveries in the immunology of SARS-CoV-2 have only just caught up with the rushed vaccination schedule. With booster shots being rolled out in many countries, it is important that doctors and patients understand how the vaccines interact with the immune system, and why 'booster shots are uniquely dangerous, in a way that is unprecedented in the history of

This article summarizes evidence from experimental studies and from autopsies of patients deceased after vaccination. mRNA vaccines travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs and induce long-lasting expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in many organs. The vaccine-induced expression of the spike protein induces autoimmune-like inflammation, which can cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcome.

PDF file is available for download: mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and their effects on the central nervous system Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD This document was written to answer three questions posed to us by a lawyer who is challenging COVID-19 vaccine approvals and mandates in his home country. The answers may be of interest to the readers of this website as well.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi discusses the fundamental reason for the current wave of “breakthrough infections:” the failure of the COVID vaccines had to be expected, because fundamental principles of immunology were ignored in their design.

Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have caused injury and death on an unprecedented scale. This short article explains from first principles why adverse events must be expected not just after the first injection of such a vaccine but after each booster shot as well. The argument is not limited to SARS-CoV-2 or its spike protein but applies generally to any non-self antigen introduced in

This paper summarizes the mode of action of mRNA vaccines, as well as three potential pathogenetic mechanisms that may account for the toxicity observed with the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, namely: chemical toxicity of lipid nanoparticles, direct toxicity of the spike protein, whose expression is induced by the vaccines, and the destructive effects of the immune response to the spike protein. The case is made

Many countries are currently experiencing a wave of COVID-19 “breakthrough cases” in spite of high vaccination rates. We explain the fundamental reason why such cases had to be expected: the antibodies induced by intramuscular vaccination will only circulate in the bloodstream, but they will not reach the surface of the mucous membranes in the upper airways. We also briefly discuss possible mechanisms of vaccine-induced immunopathology.

Recently leaked Government documents suggested that a COVID-19 vaccine rollout in children over 12 years old is already planned for September 2021, and the possibility of children as young as 5 years old being vaccinated in the summer in a worst-case scenario.

Read Doctors for Covid Ethics' letters to and from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In those letters we seek evidence that foreseeable vaccine dangers were ruled out prior to human use, and call for a halt to COVID-19 vaccines on urgent safety grounds. Our first letter of warning was issued prior to clot-related vaccine suspensions around the world. Open Letter The Eternal Dangers of mRNA

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson held a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., with doctors and medical researchers who treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries, along with patients who have experienced adverse events due to the COVID-19 vaccine.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson held a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., with doctors and medical researchers who treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries, along with patients who have experienced adverse events due to the COVID-19 vaccine.

As testing and the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine are hailed as UK pandemic successes, why won’t Oxford University or the government disclose the “long list” of financial interests of a high profile researcher at the centre of both? Paul D Thacker investigates Since the covid-19 outbreak began early last year, John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, has held high profile roles in the UK government’s epidemic response while also working with AstraZeneca on the vaccine. But both Oxford and the government have refused to disclose Bell’s financial interests after The BMJ filed freedom of information (FOI) requests. More alarmingly, it appears that the government is referring media enquiries about Bell through the Cabinet Office and is scrutinising a reporter for The BMJ as it has other reporters it finds troublesome.1 The BMJ has been unable to gain either direct contact with Bell or contact through his employer, Oxford University, despite multiple attempts. The Daily Mail reported on Bell’s financial ties in September 2020, noting that he had £773 000 (€893 000; $1.1m) worth of shares in the pharmaceutical company Roche.2 The newspaper published the story after Roche sold the government £13.5m of antibody tests, which Public Health England later found to be unreliable. Bell had headed the National Covid Testing Scientific Advisory Panel and chaired the government’s test approvals group, but he told the Mail that he had no role in the purchase and that he had disclosed to the government “a long list of my interests.” The government and Oxford University’s failure to be open about Bell’s financial ties make it impossible for the public to know what, if any, interests the professor has when influencing key decisions about which of the many covid-19 tests the UK should …

Experts who sit on national vaccine advisory panels are asked to disclose any industry ties and other conflicts of interest. But Paul D Thacker finds that disclosure standards differ widely, often leaving the public in the dark In the wake of lightning fast authorisations of covid-19 vaccines in the UK and the US, public health officials have worked hard to maintain confidence in these new products. British and American officials have emphasised the independence of the experts who authorise vaccines and those who issue advice on them. But an investigation by The BMJ has found that some of these experts have significant industry ties that government agencies do not always disclose. We looked at experts sitting on the covid-19 authorisation committees at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as those on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government on vaccines. It was not possible to repeat the exercise with the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which licenses medicines and gave temporary authorisation for covid-19 vaccines, because the MHRA and its adviser, the Commission on Human Medicines, make almost none of their meetings or documents public.1 Both the FDA and the UK government require panellists to disclose conflicts only from the previous 12 months, which can miss significant financial payments that occurred in recent years. We also found examples where panellists disclosed to committees their grants, patents, and other industry relationships in their publications, but it seems that the committees did not find these matters worth making public, and they remained undisclosed until now. Most experts on the FDA and JCVI committees registered no conflicts of interest. From the JCVI’s December meeting on 22 December 2020, the minutes report that 18 of 19 members had “no registered conflicts …

Little is known about the interests of the doctors, scientists, and academics on whose advice the UK government relies to manage the pandemic. Attempts to discover more are frequently thwarted, finds Paul D Thacker As the number of UK deaths caused by covid-19 reached 50 000 in early November, England enacted a second national lockdown to control the epidemic. Boris Johnson’s government put these measures into action after months of controversial and sometimes confusing policies, including the “rule of six,” regional tiered controls, and directions to “stay alert.” At the same time, the government has faced mounting questions about procurement decisions, from personal protective equipment to testing kits, from vaccine deals to the services of logistics companies. Calls for greater transparency around such decisions have included those bodies focused on science and health, such as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), as well as taskforces charged with advising on vaccines and testing. Although Downing Street has become more transparent in disclosing the advice of SAGE, it has kept members’ financial conflicts of interest unpublished and shown little concern that advisers to the coronavirus Vaccine Taskforce have financial interests in pharmaceutical companies receiving government contracts. When The BMJ sought further information on these bodies, such as lists of members’ interests, the information was denied or requests were unanswered. After months of criticism about SAGE secrecy, the government reversed course this summer and began releasing the names of SAGE members, minutes of meetings, and some of its policy papers. Still, the government has refused to release to The BMJ the financial interest forms signed by SAGE members, leaving the public in the dark. Criticism over SAGE’s secrecy first appeared in a Nature editorial1 in March. In April, the government’s chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance sent a letter to parliament2 stating …

“Hundreds more people than usual are dying each week in England and Wales with Covid not to blame for the majority of deaths, new figures show,” reports the U.K. Daily Telegraph. It’s become a common theme throughout the world since 2021 (not 2020): There is a spike in excess deaths and sudden unexp...

Australian doctors are setting up a new national register to try and understand unexpected deaths from the mysterious Sudden Adult Deaths Syndrome (SADS).

Here is my list of over 50 leading indicators that the momentum is moving in our favor. I'd be surprised if the narrative doesn't fall apart soon. It's now unravelling quickly in the UK.

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

The label for COMIRNATY is a legal document updated on 12/20/21: 1. CDC made the false claim on its website that anaphylactic reactions occur at rates approximately the same after COVID vaccines as other vaccines. I just looked for the citation and see the claim has recently been removed. Now, CDC

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Rt. Hon. Matt Hancock MP, this week visited the University of Bristol for the official launch of a new Pfizer Centre of Excellence for Epidemiolo

Taking on corporate giants can feel like tilting at windmills, but John Kopchinski's six-year legal battle against Pfizer Inc just made him a rich man.