https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDo5-fONeLg

This film explores the unprecedented global rollout of mRNA vaccine technology.

1) New study find COVID spike protein in blood years after vaccination. NIH spends $1.6B on Long COVID but millions are likely vaccine injured. pic.twitter.com/4h41KPKBBo

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) February 19, 2025

https://twitter.com/thackerpd/status/1892324778331296129

1. New study find COVID spike protein in blood years after vaccination. NIH spends $1.6B on Long COVID but millions are likely vaccine injured.
   https://x.com/thackerpd

2. YALE SCIENTISTS: There is considerable overlap in self-reported symptoms between long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome (PVS). Both share exposure to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with inflammatory responses during infection or vaccination

3. Long COVID patients such as Dawson’s Creek writer Heide Ferrer are hiding vaccine injury. Ferrer took her own life, w/ media reporting it was Long COVID. Her husband later admitted in a private video that after COVID vax “that’s when things turned.”

4. #MEAction’s Beth Mazur also took her own life following a COVID vax and years of struggle with chronic illness. “Beth was a compassionate advocate for ME/CFS and a fierce advocate for vaccine injury after she experienced this herself sometime before she took her own life.”

5. Several of the study’s new findings as well as research the authors cite in their paper have been labeled as false by federal agencies, medical experts, and fact checkers. FDA falsely claimed the spike protein does not linger. Researchers found it 709 days after vaccination

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/yale-researchers-find-covid-spike

Yale Researchers Find COVID Spike Protein in Blood 709 Days After Vaccination, Positing Millions of Long COVID Patients May Actually Be Vaccine Injured​
NIH has poured $1.6 billion into Long COVID research, but little or nothing to study vaccine harms, causing patient advocates to hide vaccine injury.​

https://ibb.co/1fJrsYK

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=860579756097449&set=a.213269540828477
https://ibb.co/Khk5hRb
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=864092065746218&set=a.213269540828477
https://ibb.co/80MRB65
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=869100385245386&set=a.213269540828477&type=3&ref=embed_post
https://ibb.co/R42rhgW
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=873767261445365&set=a.213269540828477&type=3&ref=embed_post

Recently the Ministry of Health has been coming out with a series of Myth/Fact posters on Facebook with regards to the Covid jabs.

This comes after numerous studies and analyses by prominent medical experts around the world which raised serious concerns about the safety of the Covid jabs.

Its interesting to see the comments on these MOH's Facebook pages, as lots of Singaporeans have already become aware of the myriad of adverse effects coming from the Covid jabs, and are thus lambasting MOH for trying to whitewash the facts.

ChiefKiasu\" post_id=\"2053885\" time=\"1640756769\" user_id=\"3:

@sk8jack, we have removed your post as there has been complaints that the post only serves to frighten people. For context, the post listed 32 cases, of mostly teenagers from the VAERS database which is owned by National Vaccine Information Centre of the US. The teenagers purportedly died after being administered the Pfizer vaccine. There was also a baby who was thought to have died \"because it drank breast milk of the mother\" who just happened to have the Pfizer vaccine.

The fact is, even though the cases are true, you only listed 32 cases. While it may seem to be a lot of deaths, that is against a population of 332 million people. Even if you consider only teenagers between 12-19, there's 42 million of them. At least https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/adolescents-covid-vaccine-shot.html has already been vaccinated, which is 21 million. For comparison, Singapore's population is 6 million.

32 cases out of 21 million? I'll leave it to the reader to think whether it is significant.

While I agree that the statistics highlighted by you does indeed point out that the number of death cases of those teenagers would seem insignificant as compared to those who were vaccinated. I’ll like to assure that my post wasn’t meant to frighten or cause any unnecessary panic to parents here.

Rather, I hope to present a clearer view for parents to weight the risks and benefits of vaccinating the children.
Let me present the logicality behind the choice to reject the mRNA vaccines that the media has conveniently left out.

Firstly, let us look at the supposed benefits of the mRNA vaccines in general.

Survival and Hospitalisation rates

The following data were extracted from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf.

With respect to survival rates, the vaccine increases the survival rates or decreases mortality rates of Covid-19 by a negligible amount, 0.204% and 4.435% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.

With respect to hospitalisation rates, the vaccine decreases hospitalisations rates by 0.168%, 2.168% and 10.237% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.

From the perspectives of the youths and the middle-aged, the benefits of the vaccines are minimal. The elderly, on the other hand, does seem to benefit from a small decrease in mortality rates and a substantial decrease in hospitalisation rates.

Having said that, any benefits is clearly better than no benefits at all. This is where we investigate the risks associated with the vaccine. Simply put, if the harm supersedes the benefits, the choice to not vaccinate is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate one.

Transmission Rates

When the vaccine was first released as a solution to Covid-19, it was advocated for its ability to reduce transmission rates or infectivity. The 95% efficacy of the vaccine has been used loosely to suggest the effectiveness of the vaccine with respect to reducing transmission.

This 95% figure is obtained through relative risk (https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/vaccine-makers-claim-covid-shots-are-95-effective-but-what-does-that-mean/). The absolute risk reduction of contracting Covid-19 in Pfizer’s trial is 0.70% with the vaccinated’s being 0.04% while the unvaccinated’s being 0.70%. However, it must be noted that as time progresses, it is very likely for this figure to increase as more and more people contract Covid-19. Be that as it may, it is definitely more apt to look at empirical date as the trial in no way clearly reveal transmission rates

Using data referenced in an https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf, it can be seen clearly in the last two columns of the table (pg13 of report) that the rates of contracting Covid-19 in the fully vaccinated is higher from age 40 to 80+ but is lower from ages 0 to 39. The conclusion is that the 95% efficacy cited in Pfizer’s trials are not valid at all; the highest efficacy pertains to those under 18 at 78%.

The verdict is that the vaccine seems to reduce infection rates in those below 40 years old and increase infection rates in those above 40 years old.

With the severity of Covid-19 being more pronounced within the aged, the increase in infection rates for those above 40 years old would lead to a more than proportionate increase in overall mortality due to an increase in infection rates while the decrease in infection rates in those below 40 years old would lead to a less than proportionate decrease in overall mortality rate.

Alternatively, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 suggests that there is little validity to support the claim that the unvaccinated are more prone to Covid-19 infections. In an analysis of the increase in Covid-19 cases in 68 countries, the study found “no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases in the last 7 days”. In fact, it was even stated that there might be a “marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”

If anything, transmission rates are a weak motivator for one to get vaccinated due to the insignificance of the reduction in transmission rates by the vaccine is any.

Possible Long-Term Adverse Effects

Perhaps the most glaring risk of the vaccine is the possibility of long-term effects. While it is true that the long-term effects of the vaccine are not confirmed, this is not the issue at hand. Rather, the point of contention is in the probability of the long-term effects. Because no one can say for sure regarding the existence of long term effects pertaining to the vaccine, it is only plausible to look at the probability of such effects instead.

Let us first look to the track records of the major stakeholders of the vaccine industry. It is not unreasonable to say that firms who are observed to be compliant with legal standards are more likely to be meticulous in the process of safeguarding the health interests of its consumers. After all, firms who actually prioritise the health interests of its consumers will never release a product that will exposes it consumers to probable risks.

It may come as a surprise, but the mentioned stakeholders, mainly Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca all have questionable legal records.

https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/.

AstraZeneca has been involved in similar cases of https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_371.htm and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing too.

J&J is no different being involved in https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations. One can read about lawsuits against J&J products like baby powder, blood thinning medication and diabetic medication here.

As for Moderna, they have https://fortune.com/2020/11/19/moderna-vaccine-distribution-lonza-swiss/ into https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/29/3-red-flags-for-modernas-potential-coronavirus-vac/?awc=12195_1640832520_386e88e889d797b20a1641810bfe58c3&campaign=78888&pc_source=TheMotleyFool_Awin&utm_source=aw&utm_campaign=78888 before. Yet somehow they were able to https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-designed-coronavirus-vaccine-in-2-days-2020-11?op=1 using the novel mRNA technology. Yes, you read that correctly, 2 days. While some articles, including the ones referenced above, would argue that this is because mRNA technology has been researched thoroughly in the past, is it really possible for a solution for new problems to be developed so quickly? Additionally, how can the vaccine be made with the coronavirus’ genetic sequence without the need for virus cultivation in labs when SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and purified yet?

As can be seen, the stakeholders of the Covid-19 vaccine industry do not have our health interests at heart; they prioritise profits instead. These people are willing to endanger the lives of even children if it means that they can earn even greater profits.

Can we trust these firms when they claim that long-term side effects are unlikely?

Only the most naïve of people would take their words for it; the criminal nature if such firms alone suggests that there is insufficient considerations into the long-term effects of the vaccine if at all.

There are some who will reject the information pertaining to lawsuits filed above on the basis that it is false or misinformation, which is utterly absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the documentation listed was quoted directly from the United States department of justice itself, no sane person would engage in fraud regarding the legal history of another as this would easily engender legal proceedings especially in the context of large corporate firms.

Others may attempt to rationalise by claiming that it is normal for firms to be involved in one or two issues with legality. This is ludicrous to the extreme too. Even if it is indeed true for such incidences to be common, in no way does the state of being ‘normal’ suggests that it Is correct.

As a matter of fact, it should be stressed that such therapies are at their experimental stages. Clinical trials for the https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1, and AstraZeneca are estimated to conclude in May 2, 2023, October 27, 2022, and February 14, 2023, respectively.

Contrary to what some news media tell you about the state of being ‘experimental’ (the fact that this means nothing as the vaccine is thoroughly tested), the reason why the mentioned vacines are experimental is simple – the effects, most notably, the long-term effects of the vaccines are not tested yet. This is why more ‘experimentation’ is even needed in the first place.

From the above, any reasonable thinker would agree that the threat of possible long-term adverse effects are very probable.

Natural Immunity

Natural immunity is a concept that is almost never covered by mainstream media. We are all flooded with information about the vaccine’s efficacy so much so that many of us seem to have forgotten about natural immunity.

Note that natural immunity refers to the immunity one develops after exposure to Covid-19. It has nothing to do with one’s initial immune response to Covid-19. So how effective is natural immunity really?

An https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13520 from Austria suggests that natural immunity is indeed effective. It is observed that out of 14,840 Covid-19 survivors, only 40 were re-infected (0.27%) in the time period of over more than half a year. In contrasts, there were 253,581 infections (2.85%) in the remaining general population of 8,885,640 in the same time period as above. This translates to a 91% reduction in the odds of a re-infection compared to the odds of a first infection. It was even stated in the study that “protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.”

This observation is corroborated by a https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf. It is mentioned in the study that of 2,579 individuals who had survived Covid-19, none of them were re-infected in the 5 months period where they were under monitoring. Of these 2,579 individuals, 1,359 were unvaccinated. Once again, the efficacy of natural immunity appears to be far superior and efficacious even when one is unvaccinated.
If there is anything that can attest to the superiority of natural immunity, it would be this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf where the delta variant is relatively more dominant.

The study compares two groups of people from the 1st of June 2021 to the 14th of August 2021, with the first being “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees” who were individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and the other being previously infected individuals who are partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The study concluded that:

• The risk of infection was 13 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.

• Taking into account the influence of comorbidities, the risk of symptomatic Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.

• The risk of hospitalisation was 6.7 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.

The above indisputably highlights that natural immunity is leaps and bounds ahead of any protection the current vaccines can offer.

While the vaccine offers temporary protection (arguably insignificant depending on age groups) against Covid-19, it would seem that the protection procured through natural immunity is much more permanent.

A study investigating the presence of neutralising antibodies in survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic found that virus-neutralizing antibodies remains functional and effective against the 1918 influenza pandemic strain for many decades after exposure. In fact, this effectiveness extends well into the tenth decade of life; in other words, natural immunity for this strain lasts a lifetime.

Recent research into natural immunity for Covid-19 have shown that infection to Covid-19 will likely engender long-term immunity.

If we are to think about this logically, the concept of a potent and long-term natural immunity is not such a far-fetched idea. After all, if it were true that natural immunity is ineffective and temporary, then would the entire human race not be already plagued by innumerable diseases from the past since the usage of medicine for treatment was not as robust in the past?

As seen, natural immunity is both more effective and enduring than ‘protection’ from vaccination.

Conclusion

For a disease that is largely unthreatening, is the choice to obtain relatively insignificant protection in the near future worth the probable risk of long-term effects especially when exposure to this minor threat promises relatively far greater and longer-lasting protection?

Furthermore, while the short-term adverse effects of the vaccine might be rare or unthreatening, does the choice to repeatedly go for booster shots (perhaps indefinitely) not significantly increases the odds of these adverse effects? Would it not be wiser to just procure natural immunity instead?

Of course, one’s decision to vaccinate is their own autonomy; the reason for one to vaccinate is not at all undermined by the reasons for one to not vaccinate, both can be legitimate.

As parents, we would definitely prioritise the safety of our children as the utmost concern. After all, these are young lives we are talking about, and they still have a long road ahead. As such, I hope that parents are able to make informed decisions on whether to inoculate their children with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

https://rumble.com/vr0gk5-childrens-resilence-against-covid-19.html?fbclid=IwAR3VzyITiG0pioT3vP1EgDtv5iNYY9QeoIXriI7JvhqtHK0dy6WN_QfT8ko


CHILDREN'S RESILENCE AGAINST COVID-19 (above is the video link)

Three international experts from South Africa, USA and Singapore, were invited to a webinar recording recently by The ACTS Community, to share the latest news about Omicron, and scientific research about the risks-benefits of covid vaccines for children aged 5 to 11.

This webinar is brought to you by The ACTS Community, live on Sun 19 Dec 2021.

3:10 mins - Start

5:21 mins - Parents' testimonies on recovering from Covid

17:17 - Dr Chetty

39:00 - Dr John Tay

55:05 - Dr David Wiseman

1:22:35 - Q & A

Speakers’ Profile:

Dr Shankara Chetty is a frontline medical doctor in South Africa who has treated more than 4000 Covid patients, including those infected with Omicron. He brings you the most current news on the ground in South Africa where Omicron was first identified.

Dr John Tay is a retired Professor and Head of the Department of Paediatrics, National University of Singapore (NUS). With an academic career spanning from 1988 to 1995 at NUS, Dr John Tay trained many pediatricians and doctors in Singapore. He holds 3 doctorates: two in human genetics and the third a Doctorate of Philosophy. He was a former dean and vicar of St Andrew’s Cathedral n 2004 and is currently a dean at the Bethany International University. As a grandfather of eight young children, Dr John Tay is not only well qualified to speak on the subject, but is also highly motivated about the safety and risk-benefits of inoculating young children in a pandemic.

Dr. David Wiseman, from Texas, USA, is a PhD Research Bio-scientist with a background in pharmacy, pharmacology and experimental pathology. One of the top research scientists at Johnson & Johnson, he led a research program overseeing pre-clinical and clinical research as well as submissions to FDA. Since 1996, he runs his own R&D consulting business, helping companies develop medical products. He is also a journal peer reviewer.

ChiefKiasu\" post_id=\"2053601\" time=\"1640573512\" user_id=\"3:

Well, since most countries have given up and started treating covid as andemic, I think omicron is a blessing in disguise. It's a sign that covid has become as treatable as a 'cold' and it's nothing to be afraid of.

That's right.
Thus far, it is understood that omicron variant is more transmissible than delta variant, but much less severe than delta.

Before your child is injected, watch Dr. Robert Malone’s statement on child COVID vaccination.


https://3speak.tv/watch?v=pandemichealth/lsdpodis&jwsource=cl

Would like to share a video from Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA technology, regarding Covid-19 vaccination for young children.

Dr. Robert Malone is a renowned American virologist and immunologist who has devoted his career to vaccine development, provides parents a clear statement outlining the scientific facts behind children vaccination.

Right now Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine is the only approved vaccine for children aged 5 to 11.

Before making the decision to vaccinate your child, please take a moment to view the video.