Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
A new study published Friday in the peer-reviewed journal JMIR Formative Research found that 59.40% of web-based surveys about individuals’ COVID-19 attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, are fraudulent.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/majority-of-covid-surveys-about-infection
“Corruption is creeping into the system,” admits Oxford University professor.
Skyrocketing peer-review fraud has caused a record-breaking 10,000+ sham research papers to be retracted in 2023 alone.
Experts are calling the startling revelation “only the tip of the iceberg.”
Last year’s deluge of fraudulent papers means that the total number of retractions issued so far has passed 50,000, according to a recent Nature analysis.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/trust-the-science-drug-development
(Tom: The gaslighting, misinformation, disinformation, manipulation and downright lying continues…)
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-authors-of-a-big-new-paper
The orthodox “health industry” is claiming that wellness is a bad idea. Why? It eats into their profits, of course!
So their platform is that all aspects of self-care, alternatives to drugs and surgery, diet and nutrition are bad, could kill the patients (as if) and is morally, even legally, wrong. Besides, it’s “not scientific”.
“Wellness companies use the same strategies as evidence-based medicine, they claim, to sell tests for diseases that don’t exist and treatments that don’t work, recommended by individuals who aren’t qualified.” So says a rant by a couple of apologists, Andrea Love, PhD, and Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH, MS, writing for MedPage Today.
No mention in this publication of the fact that MILLIONS of patients are being killed by the clumsy, pseudo-scientific orthodox medicine approach that they are boasting of.
Of course the medical profession peddles diseases that don’t exist and treatments that don’t work, but that’s OK. Forget the fact that outcomes are deplorable. It’s business as usual, fighting down the competitors!
We all remain conscious of the startling paper in 2000 published by the late Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, which revealed that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US! (after cancer and heart disease).
These deaths consist of:
• 12,000 – unnecessary surgeries
• 7,000 – medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 – other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 – infections acquired in hospitals
• 106,000 – non-error, negative effects of drugs
The last figure needs some explanation. She is saying that over 100,000 patients a year are dying of medications correctly prescribed, at the correct dose (in other words, not errors) but still proved fatal.*
That’s a total of 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes! Iatrogenic is a Greek word which means “caused by doctors”.1
I don’t know if you consider that a quarter of a million deaths per year is a lot, in a population of around 300 million. But it ought to be zero, or very close. 250,000 a year is equivalent to a million people killed by doctors every four years, in just one country.
Gary Null et al. gives a far higher number but we’ll stick with Starfield. See Gary’s piece here.
Now Starfield only calculated deaths. What about permanent injury or damage? Frederick van Pelt, a doctor who works for The Chartis Group, a health care consultancy, said another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error.
“‘Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate,’ van Pelt said.”
*Actually, according to Starfield, who prepared the report for The Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors are actually the number one killer, because they do not inform patients properly of the hazards of the procedures they offer (why would they? The patient might have second thoughts and that would lose income for the doctor!)
It’s not just about errors of judgement and treatments. Misdiagnosis resulting in (of course) inappropriate and potentially harmful treatments is also rampant. A recent groundbreaking study published in BMJ Quality & Safety (2024) that found approximately 795,000 Americans suffer permanent disability or death annually due to diagnostic errors.2
Cancer blunders seem exceptionally likely. In 2012 The National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel which determined that MILLIONS of individuals may have been wrongly diagnosed with “cancer” of the breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung, when in fact their conditions were likely harmless, and should have been termed “indolent or benign growths of epithelial origin.”
Importantly, no radical change occurred in the conventional practice of cancer diagnosis, prevention, or treatment. Nothing improved. The harvesting of human suffering continued as before.
This is overdiagnosis to raise funds (not to help patients).
Along with overdiagnosis is the problem of overtreatment. When non-threatening abnormalities are labeled as “cancer,” women often undergo aggressive treatments that can cause significant harm with no real benefit. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are not without serious dangers, never mind side-effect.
Yet these are handed out as if there was not, and could not be, any complications. Mastectomy can be very hurtful. If it’s not necessarily then it becomes a major criminal assault, as in indictable offence in my view.
Then there are the numerous multiple hormone treatments, messing about with a woman’s sacred physiology, all in pursuit of profits, not better health.
The scale is just mind boggling. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine some years ago estimated that over a 30-year period, 1.3 million U.S. women were over-diagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer.3
If you do the math, that’s 70,000 women a year receiving unnecessary treatment. Most appallingly, that includes an estimated 20,000-25,000 women undergoing needless mastectomies or lumpectomies annually.4 A quarter of a million breast “amputations” per decade. Makes me shudder.
Yet orthodox apologists and the goons they defend dare to criticize alternative healers who, in a way, are protecting patients from the full onslaught of this greed and industrialized medicine. There are days when I wake up ashamed of my beloved profession!
https://alternative-doctor.com/sanctimonious-wellness-hypocrisy-by-prescription/
One of the fundamental principles in statistics is that variable phenomena tend to distribute on a bell curve, with the average value (e.g., adult American men being 5’9—which is a bit above the global average) being by far the most common, while values become exponentially rarer as they move further away from that mean (e.g., only 15% of adult American men are at least six feet tall).
Sensitivity to pharmaceuticals and environmental toxins (e.g., synthetic chemicals) follows a similar pattern, with a minority of the population existing which is extremely sensitive to these things (and conversely, on the end of the bell curve, another minority exists on the opposite end which has a very high tolerance to them).
The important thing about this principle is that it can frequently allow you to infer a great deal from limited data. For example:
•Shortly after the COVID-19 vaccines entered the market, I had multiple people contact me to share that a loved one had died suddenly—something I’d never seen with any other vaccine. Given how frequently the standard vaccines cause significant injuries (e.g., the independent studies that have been done collectively show that the childhood vaccines cause between a 1.5 to 40 times increase in the rates of chronic illness), I immediately inferred that around 10% of recipients would experience significant side effects—which is insane for something being given to everyone. Later, large surveys showed 7% of recipients believed they’d had a “major effect from the vaccine,” 13.4% stated they’d developed a “severe health issue” after COVID vaccination, and 34% reported “minor effects” from the vaccine.
•After Ozempic hit the market, I began seeing a large number of people with minor or moderate issues from it. Because of this, I correctly inferred serious side effects would begin emerging, especially once the higher dose for weight loss began being used.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-your-clothes-and-their-materials-231
A new study published this month in MDPI’s peer-reviewed Methods and Protocols confirms Pfizer Inc.’s COVID-19 injection contains in some cases “more than 500 times” the permitted limit of potentially cancer-causing DNA contamination.
Pfizer’s poor testing method caused a “massive under-detection” of DNA impurities.
“Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient,” the study states.
The authors warn Pfizer’s COVID shot could integrate foreign DNA into the human genome, increasing the risk of dangerous mutations.
“What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome, i.e., the risk of insertional mutagenesis, should be a secondary focus of the discussion required, which must go far beyond what could have been considered years before the so unexpected introduction of mRNA pharmaceuticals into the global market,” the conclusion reads.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/pfizer-covid-jabs-dangerous-dna-impurities
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/colostrum-3-times-more-effective
In a recently published preprint study on Preprints.org, a team of independent researchers has raised significant concerns about the safety of COVID-19 shots for pregnant women.
The study, titled “Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the U.S. Government, Medical Organizations, and Pharmaceutical Industry Claim? Part I,” assesses the rates of adverse events (AEs) in pregnancy following COVID injection compared to influenza vaccines and other vaccines.
The authors, including James Thorp, Albert Benavides, Maggie Thorp, Daniel McDyer, Kimberly Biss, Julie Threet, and Peter McCullough, conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study using data from the CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The study period covered 412 months for all vaccines except COVID shots, which were only used for 40 months (December 1, 2020, to April 26, 2024).
The authors “report a retrospective, population-based cohort study assessing rates of adverse events (AEs) in pregnancy after COVID-19 vaccines compared to the same AEs after influenza vaccines and after all other vaccines,” the study reads.
The researchers found that the CDC/FDA safety signals were breached for all 37 AEs following COVID injection in pregnancy.
These AEs included miscarriage, fetal chromosomal abnormality, fetal malformation, cervical insufficiency, premature rupture of membranes, premature labor, premature delivery, placental calcification, placental infarction, placental thrombosis, placenta accreta, placental abruption, placental insufficiency, placental disorder, fetal maternal hemorrhage, fetal growth restriction, reduced amniotic fluid volume, preeclampsia, fetal heart rate abnormality, fetal cardiac disorder, fetal vascular malperfusion, fetal arrhythmia, fetal distress, fetal biophysical profile abnormal, hemorrhage in pregnancy, fetal cardiac arrest, fetal death (stillbirth), premature infant death, neonatal asphyxia, neonatal dyspnea, neonatal infection, neonatal hemorrhage, insufficient breast milk, neonatal pneumonia, neonatal respiratory distress, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and neonatal seizure.
The CDC/FDA’s safety signals “were breached for all 37 AEs following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy,” the authors confirm.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/37-pregnancy-complications-linked
A new study made available online today in preprint analyzes exposure to COVID-19 vaccine components such as lipid nanoparticles or spike protein.
This exposure can be experienced directly, as through vaccination, or indirectly, such as through blood transfusions from vaccinated donors.
Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are used in mRNA COVID vaccines, like Pfizer and Moderna, to deliver the mRNA into the host cells.
The mRNA tells the host cell to produce spike proteins, which in turn triggers an immune response in the body.
The study authors argue these vaccine components can be found not only in the body of the vaccinated, but they also can be shed onto those nearby.
“Biodistribution may not be limited to the body of the vaccine recipient, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates the possibility of secondary exposure to vaccine particles,” the authors write.
“These can be via bodily fluids and include the following routes of exposure: blood transfusion, organ transplantation, breastfeeding, and possibly other means.”
For example, the presence of vaccine components in the blood “presents a possible threat to a recipient of a blood donation from a vaccinated donor who suffered from vaccine induced thrombosis or thrombocytopenia (VITT).”
Vaccine-induced thrombosis or thrombocytopenia is a serious condition where blood clots (thrombosis) and low platelet levels (thrombocytopenia) occur after receiving certain vaccines, particularly those against COVID.
Alarmingly, the authors were unable to find evidence that it is safe for the vaccinated to donate blood.
“[W]e did not find evidence to support the safety of COVID-19 vaccine recipients to donate blood,” the study reads. “Questions remain over the safety of associated blood products and secondary exposure to vaccine particles.”
The authors therefore call on the vaccinated to stop donating blood altogether.
“Given these concerns, blood donors should consider refraining from donation until more information is published on the safety of blood from vaccinated donors,” they conclude.
The researchers note vaccine components can be shed from the vaccinated onto those nearby simply by proximity.
“In households where one person was vaccinated, other family members developed spike protein antibodies,” they confirm.
Vaccine components can be transferred simply through “either exhalation or skin-to-skin contact.”
The authors also point to sexual intercourse as a “possible mode of transmission,” as “spike protein RNA has been observed in semen during SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Breastfeeding also presents a “possible, albeit likely transient, route of secondary exposure for nursing babies” given that “vaccine contents have been observed in breast milk,” the study adds.
The researchers point to cases of breastfed infants who have suffered from severe adverse events “from their mother’s milk that contains not only SARS-CoV-2 antibody proteins, but traces of the injection materials and likely spike proteins as well.”
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/covid-vaccinated-could-shed-lipid
A new study published this month in the peer-reviewed journal Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy confirms higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous abortions, oligohydramnios (abnormally low amount of amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus), and abnormal fetal growth, among pregnant women who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 jab compared to those who didn’t take the gene therapy drug.
The study looked at the prevalence and issues of COVID-19 injection adverse events among pregnant women.
The authors call for “clear and trustworthy information” regarding COVID jabs, “particularly among pregnant women who face higher risks of severe illness.”
“Given the increased risk of severe viral pneumonia in pregnant women, it is critical to foster confidence in the vaccine’s safety and understand any potential adverse events (AEs),” they write.
Conducted March to May 2022 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (SA), the researchers compared women who did not get any doses of the COVID gene therapy drug during pregnancy (Group A) to women who did get at least one dose during pregnancy (Group B).
They analyzed the frequency, types, AEs, and management of AEs of the COVID shot, and explored pregnancy, delivery, and fetus-related complications like miscarriage, birth defects, and preterm labor.
The Pfizer vaccine was most commonly taken among the patients, followed by AstraZeneca and then Moderna.
The cross-sectional study involved 438 women who gave birth or were pregnant within the previous 8 weeks.
Most participants were aged 25 to less than 35 (58.8%), and 287 (61.3%) were university graduates.
Data was collected through face-to-face interviews with skilled nurses in 13 randomly selected primary healthcare facilities, using a validated, well-structured questionnaire that included the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID injection-related AEs, according to the study.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/covid-jabbed-pregnant-women-have