Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

As Senator Johnson stated at today’s hearing, I will be testifying this Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the corruption of vaccine science, including about a robust study conducted by a major institution that inconveniently found far higher rates of various chronic diseases among vaccinated children and was therefore...

109,394 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

A recent hearing chaired by Senator Ron Johnson brought significant attention to an unpublished study conducted by the Henry Ford Health System, led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, the head of infectious diseases. The study, which compared health outcomes in vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children, has become a central point of controversy. Following the hearing, Henry Ford Health System pushed back, stating the study draft faced significant peer review concerns and serious data flaws, and that the institution was unaware the rejected draft was being discussed. Critics, including a Washington Post journalist, have echoed these concerns, labeling the research as commissioned by an "anti-vaccine group" and highlighting methodological issues. However, defenders of the study offer counterarguments to the criticism: - They assert the study was not "commissioned" but was a challenge to Dr. Zervos to prove the safety of the vaccine schedule. - They claim no formal peer review was ever conducted on the completed study. - They argue that while the unvaccinated cohort was smaller, its size was statistically significant for comparison. - They contend that sensitivity analyses—which limited data to one year, three years, and five years—consistently showed worse health outcomes in the vaccinated group, with the results becoming more pronounced over time. The core finding of the study indicates vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to develop a chronic disease. Defenders of the research argue that the study's design mirrors the CDC's own recommended blueprint for such comparative safety studies and question why a major health institution would bury concerning results rather than address the alleged flaws and publish. This incident is framed as part of a larger pattern where a comprehensive vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study is avoided by public health authorities. A forthcoming documentary, An Inconvenient Study, promises to explore the entire episode in detail.

Camus

33,372 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

BREAKING: APPEAL PANEL MEMBERS RESIGN IN ENOCH BURKE CASE Members of the Disciplinary Appeal Panel tasked with hearing teacher Enoch Burke’s appeal have resigned after shocking revelations came to light in High Court proceedings as to how the Appeal Hearing was conducted. Enoch Burke was dismissed from Wilson’s Hospital School after he refused to call a student by a new name and the “they” pronoun. He has since spent over 580 days in Mountjoy Prison. At the Appeal Hearing on 13 December 2025, Enoch Burke was subjected to an Appeal Panel that blocked cross-examination of witnesses from the school, privately solicited documentation from the school in advance of the hearing and abruptly ended the hearing without closing submissions and during the attempted cross-examination of Principal Niamh McShane. One panel member, Geraldine O’Brien, stated at the outset of the hearing: “If I were instructed by my Principal to call a child whatever, I have to implement that instruction, I don’t make the instruction”. The Appeal Hearing took place over a single day on 13 December 2025 and concluded that evening. The result was expected within 10 school days of the hearing, as per Department of Education regulations. The High Court was informed by the Counsel for the school that the decision would be delivered by 9 January 2026. Enoch Burke raised serious concerns about the conduct of the Appeal Hearing and as a result, the Appeal Panel made a decision on 2 January 2026 to re-open the hearing. However, in a subsequent High Court affidavit, the Chairperson of the Appeal Panel Seán Ó Longáin swore on oath that the Appeal Panel had always intended to reconvene the hearing, and that the decision to re-open the hearing was in no way connected to the concerns Enoch Burke had raised. These were demonstrably false statements and were shown to be such by Enoch Burke. We believe that it is as a result of these lies, and other serious matters brought to light in these proceedings, that these resignations have been tendered.

Enoch Burke

262,125 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten