DON’T LET THIS STORY GET BURIED... In 2021, CNN anchor Drew Griffin looks Dr. Rashid Buttar in the eye and says: “I’m vaccinated. You think there is a ticking time bomb in me and I’m going to die?” Dr. Buttar’s chilling reply: “I hope not, but I’ll be happy to meet you in three years and see how you’re doing.” Drew Griffin was diagnosed with cancer shortly after the shot… and died of TURBO CANCER in 2022. He never made it to that three-year check-in. This is what happens when warnings are mocked. Millions more are walking time bombs.

This is so sad. The procedure is very simple, and I’ve never needed more than topical numbing medicine to perform it. I wonder how a dentist is allowed to give children Demerol?

'Inside the VAERS Data' On this week's IMA show, host and IMA Head of Medical and Scientific Affairs Dr. Ryan Cole (@DoctorCole) was joined by research bioscientist Dr. David Wiseman (@AdhesionsOrg) for a timely discussion on the recent Senate hearing examining COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) analysis, and what federal health officials knew. Watch now.

Jeffrey, this is disingenuous for the following reasons and needs to be responded to: 1⃣ Your sample size calculation assumes a tiny fraction of SIDS deaths are due to vaccination - but that is the point being tested. You have therefore committed a circular argument fallacy. For a study of a drop of SIDS rate from 0.1% (US average SUID per CDC) to 0.067% (giving an IRR of 1.5) you only need 240,524 in your study. The 2.5 million comes from your assumption that the risk only accounts for 10% of the possible risk. 2⃣ The risk is not just at the time of dose 2 (in the US this is the first DTAP as babies have already been coerced into vaccination at birth). If vaccination overall increases the all-cause SUID mortality by 1.5x you only need the smaller number in your study, provided the groups are matched. You are assuming that nobody would agree to match 1:1, which would only happen if the assumption that vaccination improved all-cause mortality was true, yet it has never been tested 3⃣ Infant mortality in the US is 0.5%. It is multifactorial but even a tiny 10% overall rise in all-cause mortality would require a sample of 704,356 children - less than 20% of the annual births in the US, of which only half would need to be "unvaccinated" for a few months - including for birth dose HepB (which is a scandal in itself). 4⃣ I don't understand why you would want to quash the idea of a controlled trial. I mean, if infant vaccinations are such proven science to reduce all-cause mortality you would be able to prove the case for them within a year. There is not one RCT that shows that any of the vaccines on the infant schedule improve all-cause infant mortality. It's time to shine and show us just how good injecting a baby in the first 6 months of age with over 100 antigens (with cellular carriage agents) is for overall mortality. And at the same time you would get to prove Zervos wrong because you would have a huge cohort to show the impact on chronic disease. 5⃣ You make the same circular assumptions for a functional mSCCS as you do for the over-exaggerated sample size calculation. That is, you are assuming that the risk window only occurs in a few days post-vaccination. In which case, you don't have anything to worry about because any controlled trial will fail to show a signal. As I have shown, mSCCS can only work under certain assumptions and the sample size problem affects mSCCS just as much as a controlled trial. If you think the issue is 1:50,000 of the population, your mSCCS will only have that much of the population to work with. As we have seen, manipulating bins can hide any signal anyway so we understand why you are pushing this method. 6⃣ Another circular argument "you can't give infants placebo because it's unethical when vaccines reduce all-cause mortality" - that is the subject of the question. It's a disingenuous unscientific tactic and has no place in evidence based medicine. If you want to show first that any specific vaccine improves all-cause mortality show us the RCT that proves it. You can't, because you know damn well that the sample size figures you are crowing about being "unrealistic" equally apply to any pharma randomised trial. And they will never fund a 2 million baby study with a risk that their treatment ends up looking bad and shutting down the vaccine industry overnight. 7⃣ Just show us the data. No trial needed. Unmask every study that analysed SIDS data and concluded that the vaccines were not contributory (after smoking and formula feeding is excluded). Alternatively you wouldn't even need a controlled trial of vaccination vs placebo because you could just run a registry. I guarantee there are enough angry parents that were lied to about the COVID vaccines and mandates that they will never take a vaccine again. Just ask them to agree to release their deidentified anonymised data - with an audit tag so that they can check their data has been recorded correctly. I bet you will get more than 300,000 babies registered. And you wouldn't be able to cheat because the parents could show that their baby's data was manipulated. There is zero chance you will agree to this. 8⃣ The exact same argument that you are hiding behind should have stopped the COVID vaccines being given to children at all. For a halving of death rate from 2 per million for children your trial would need 47 million children. Where did you ever say that the COVID vaccine was unsuitable for children because of the huge numbers needed to show a mortality benefit in this age group? Never. That's when. If you really still disagree (you will) then I strongly recommend that you start advocating for the release of the datasets from such as your magical "Taiwan study" run by people with vested interest in vaccination. You won't, because you know those data sets cannot be verified. Finally, if anybody wants to test these numbers they can go to an online power calculator like this one - no need for a biostatistician gatekeeper. @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD @delbigtree @AaronSiriSG @JesslovesMJK @DrJBhattacharya @Fynnderella1 @BrokenTruthTV @SabinehazanMD @dragonfishy

The digital cage cannot be hidden anymore, with the move from planning to implementation stage. I mapped some of the surveillance architecture being built across the globe these days: digital IDs, CBDC, age verification, biometrics, DAC8, smart cars etc. vs. freedom tech as the exit strategy. It all connects. Read & share👇

A very informative article about vaccine injury that provides information on what is happening here and in Japan. 'A Call for Healing the Vaccine-Injured' by @RealBookerScott From the article: “…We must confront uncomfortable facts and fix them. If you care about justice and healing, support the doctors doing the work, insist on transparency, and refuse to let injured Americans be forgotten. Patients deserve better than silence or gaslighting…” 🔗 Link to full article in reply post.

@Evelyn31721 @ch_tiane @peterre76976220 @Arkancideisreal @LoweT29230022 @JamesTodaroMD @richardursomd @jwato_watson @NHSuk FDA’s statement is political posturing. They do not have authority to determine use of an approved medication. They may only change labeling but not direct prescribing directives! If a physician doesn’t know that already, they’ve failed.