Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 BREAKING: A new study that exposed a higher mortality rate in vaccinated infants than unvaccinated infants was just retracted with NO explanation. This study was groundbreaking. And it was censored less than a month after being published. Dr. Karl Jablonowski just broke down the shocking censorship of this...

ChildrensHD's profile picture

Children’s Health Defense

327,473 subscribers

392,615 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & WellnessNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Dr. Brian Hooker revealed a new study showing vaccinated children are far more likely to die than unvaccinated children. “We’ve been working with the state of Louisiana and we were able to get their infant mortality data for the last 10 years… and we cross-referenced the vaccination data for those infants who died.” “We looked specifically at the two-month vaccines… the more vaccines that these children got, the worse off they were.” “The worst offender was a six-in-one vaccine used in the United States called Vaxelis.” “In the third month following those vaccines, the rate of infant death was two times higher in those infants that got the Vaxelis vaccine versus those that didn’t get the Vaxelis vaccine.” Brian Hooker, PhD
1:56

Dr. Brian Hooker revealed a new study showing vaccinated children are far more likely to die than unvaccinated children. “We’ve been working with the state of Louisiana and we were able to get their infant mortality data for the last 10 years… and we cross-referenced the vaccination data for those infants who died.” “We looked specifically at the two-month vaccines… the more vaccines that these children got, the worse off they were.” “The worst offender was a six-in-one vaccine used in the United States called Vaxelis.” “In the third month following those vaccines, the rate of infant death was two times higher in those infants that got the Vaxelis vaccine versus those that didn’t get the Vaxelis vaccine.” Brian Hooker, PhD

Children’s Health Defense

44,871 views • 5 months ago

A MUST WATCH! Aaron Siri just revealed that a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study from Henry Ford Medical Center was buried because it showed unvaccinated children were healthier. “Del Bigtree and I met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.” “He was pro-vaccine, running clinical trials.” “We argued this was the chance to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.” “To our surprise, he agreed to conduct the study.” “Dr. Zervos recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. These were mainstream scientists with orthodox views about vaccines.” “The study compared children enrolled at Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward — unvaccinated children versus those who received one or more vaccines.” “It was based on actual medical records.” “Vaccinated children had 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease, 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder.” “ADHD: 262 cases in the vaccinated group. Zero in the unvaccinated group.” “All of these findings were statistically significant.” “After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health issue — often multiple, only 17% of unvaccinated children did.” “Had it found vaccinated kids were healthier, it would have been published immediately. Because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.” “The findings didn’t fit the policy that vaccines are safe.” “We urged the researchers to submit it. They admitted the study was well-designed and conducted. But Dr. Zervos said he didn’t want to lose his job. Another said she didn’t want to make doctors uncomfortable.” “This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted — how only studies that confirm the belief that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a drawer.”
4:07

A MUST WATCH! Aaron Siri just revealed that a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study from Henry Ford Medical Center was buried because it showed unvaccinated children were healthier. “Del Bigtree and I met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.” “He was pro-vaccine, running clinical trials.” “We argued this was the chance to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.” “To our surprise, he agreed to conduct the study.” “Dr. Zervos recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. These were mainstream scientists with orthodox views about vaccines.” “The study compared children enrolled at Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward — unvaccinated children versus those who received one or more vaccines.” “It was based on actual medical records.” “Vaccinated children had 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease, 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder.” “ADHD: 262 cases in the vaccinated group. Zero in the unvaccinated group.” “All of these findings were statistically significant.” “After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health issue — often multiple, only 17% of unvaccinated children did.” “Had it found vaccinated kids were healthier, it would have been published immediately. Because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.” “The findings didn’t fit the policy that vaccines are safe.” “We urged the researchers to submit it. They admitted the study was well-designed and conducted. But Dr. Zervos said he didn’t want to lose his job. Another said she didn’t want to make doctors uncomfortable.” “This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted — how only studies that confirm the belief that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a drawer.”

End Tribalism in Politics

1,534,282 views • 9 months ago

🚨🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS PRESS CONFERENCE FROM JAPAN Japan's Real World Data shows vaccinated individuals had a higher probability of infection "We collected data from 1,000 people, divided into about 500 vaccinated and 500 unvaccinated individuals. In that case, there is a paper available now, so I will show it to you. Once it was carefully filtered, when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, the vaccinated individuals had a higher probability of infection. It increases with each dose administered. There is a statistically significant difference."
1:13

🚨🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS PRESS CONFERENCE FROM JAPAN Japan's Real World Data shows vaccinated individuals had a higher probability of infection "We collected data from 1,000 people, divided into about 500 vaccinated and 500 unvaccinated individuals. In that case, there is a paper available now, so I will show it to you. Once it was carefully filtered, when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, the vaccinated individuals had a higher probability of infection. It increases with each dose administered. There is a statistically significant difference."

aussie17

171,737 views • 1 year ago

"There was a beautiful study done by the Nordic countries. They probably have the best capture of medical data from how they run their health care systems and their electronic medical record. And so, they published this in JAMA Cardiology, and it was 23 million people. And they looked at their vaccination status by age, sex, which vaccine they got, how many did they get, did they get one of one and one of the other. …What they found was that the unvaccinated have the lowest amount of myocarditis. If you had one Pfizer, you had more than if you were unvaccinated. If you had two Pfizer, you had even more. If you had one Moderna, it was more. If you had two Moderna, it was even more. And if you mixed them, it seemed even higher. All of these were above what we saw with the unvaccinated. So, that sort of answers the question: which is worse, to be unvaccinated or vaccinated? For myocarditis, it was worse to be vaccinated." Kirk Milhoan Independent Medical Alliance
7:34

"There was a beautiful study done by the Nordic countries. They probably have the best capture of medical data from how they run their health care systems and their electronic medical record. And so, they published this in JAMA Cardiology, and it was 23 million people. And they looked at their vaccination status by age, sex, which vaccine they got, how many did they get, did they get one of one and one of the other. …What they found was that the unvaccinated have the lowest amount of myocarditis. If you had one Pfizer, you had more than if you were unvaccinated. If you had two Pfizer, you had even more. If you had one Moderna, it was more. If you had two Moderna, it was even more. And if you mixed them, it seemed even higher. All of these were above what we saw with the unvaccinated. So, that sort of answers the question: which is worse, to be unvaccinated or vaccinated? For myocarditis, it was worse to be vaccinated." Kirk Milhoan Independent Medical Alliance

Jan Jekielek

75,498 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Paul Thomas: A pediatrician with over 10,000 active patients published a peer-reviewed study on children in his practice, comparing health outcomes of the variably vaccinated to the completely unvaccinated. The results were staggering. The data revealed a dramatic increase in nearly all chronic conditions among the vaccinated group: ADHD was virtually non-existent in the unvaccinated. Allergic conditions (asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis) were significantly higher in the vaccinated. The vaccinated had a 300-400% higher rate of overall infections (ear, lung, sinus, etc.). Within days of publishing this science, his medical license was emergently suspended. He was declared a "threat to public health" for revealing data that challenges the official narrative. Pediatricians are good people who love children, but they are trapped in a system that feeds them garbage science and shields them from the truth. Our children are sicker than ever, and it's time to ask why.
5:49

Dr. Paul Thomas: A pediatrician with over 10,000 active patients published a peer-reviewed study on children in his practice, comparing health outcomes of the variably vaccinated to the completely unvaccinated. The results were staggering. The data revealed a dramatic increase in nearly all chronic conditions among the vaccinated group: ADHD was virtually non-existent in the unvaccinated. Allergic conditions (asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis) were significantly higher in the vaccinated. The vaccinated had a 300-400% higher rate of overall infections (ear, lung, sinus, etc.). Within days of publishing this science, his medical license was emergently suspended. He was declared a "threat to public health" for revealing data that challenges the official narrative. Pediatricians are good people who love children, but they are trapped in a system that feeds them garbage science and shields them from the truth. Our children are sicker than ever, and it's time to ask why.

Camus

94,129 views • 10 months ago

🚨 Dr. Karl Jablonowski just EXPOSED a “huge revelation” about autism. “Children’s Health Defense—myself and my co-author Dr. Brian Hooker—just published a pre-print and have an article in review that demonstrates that children of people who served in the US military are more likely to have autism than people who did not serve.” “That is a huge revelation.” “It gets worse when both parents were serving in the US military.” “It gets worse if they were a National Guard reserve or active, but not deployed.” “And just the severity, um, gets worse as well, going from mild, m- moderate to severe autism.” “This is a major issue … and it’s incumbent upon the Department of War to really look into what could be attributing to a higher autism rate in children of the US military.”
1:59

🚨 Dr. Karl Jablonowski just EXPOSED a “huge revelation” about autism. “Children’s Health Defense—myself and my co-author Dr. Brian Hooker—just published a pre-print and have an article in review that demonstrates that children of people who served in the US military are more likely to have autism than people who did not serve.” “That is a huge revelation.” “It gets worse when both parents were serving in the US military.” “It gets worse if they were a National Guard reserve or active, but not deployed.” “And just the severity, um, gets worse as well, going from mild, m- moderate to severe autism.” “This is a major issue … and it’s incumbent upon the Department of War to really look into what could be attributing to a higher autism rate in children of the US military.”

Children’s Health Defense

78,163 views • 6 months ago

A study conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos entitled “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study” it found that vaccinated children were significantly more unhealthy than unvaccinated. They refuse to publish it.
6:11

A study conducted by Dr. Marcus Zervos entitled “Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study” it found that vaccinated children were significantly more unhealthy than unvaccinated. They refuse to publish it.

Champagne Joshi

101,168 views • 9 months ago

🚨Aaron Siri just EXPOSED the TRUTH about vaccine injuries live in front of the Senate. The first major vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study was finished in 2020. And the results were so SHOCKING that it was never released. “Vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders.” “There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group but zero in the unvaccinated group … including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics.” “Overall, the study found that after 10 years, 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue, while 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue, often multiple.”
6:10

🚨Aaron Siri just EXPOSED the TRUTH about vaccine injuries live in front of the Senate. The first major vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study was finished in 2020. And the results were so SHOCKING that it was never released. “Vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders.” “There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group but zero in the unvaccinated group … including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics.” “Overall, the study found that after 10 years, 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue, while 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue, often multiple.”

Health Freedom Defense Fund

367,651 views • 9 months ago

The results of the study at the heart of our award-winning film “An Inconvenient Study” are shocking. A complaint I hear often is that the study is too small - that there aren’t enough children in the unvaccinated group. For contrast, the Hepatitis-B vaccine that we give newborns only had 147 children in it, with no control and no placebo. They were monitored for 5 days. So, a 5-day safety study with 147 children was good enough for the Hep-B approval, but a study with twenty thousand kids, two thousand of which were unvaccinated, followed for multiple years, is not? Think about that. Weston A. Price Foundation
1:59

The results of the study at the heart of our award-winning film “An Inconvenient Study” are shocking. A complaint I hear often is that the study is too small - that there aren’t enough children in the unvaccinated group. For contrast, the Hepatitis-B vaccine that we give newborns only had 147 children in it, with no control and no placebo. They were monitored for 5 days. So, a 5-day safety study with 147 children was good enough for the Hep-B approval, but a study with twenty thousand kids, two thousand of which were unvaccinated, followed for multiple years, is not? Think about that. Weston A. Price Foundation

Del Bigtree

115,850 views • 6 months ago

🚨Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just declared in no uncertain terms: The Covid-19 shots are the “biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed.” And she declared that sudden deaths from Covid-19 shots are an “epidemic.” “These shots are an absolute disaster.” “There was a big study that came out of South Korea that did an evaluation of 22 million people that lived in Seoul and Icheon … that had had at least one Covid shot.” “There was a huge uptick in dementia and in memory loss … and early onset Alzheimer’s.” “It was released as an Emergency Utilization Authorization, which means it came to market without any of the long-term studies … without knowing what the side effects and complications were.” “Pfizer wanted to maintain their records away from the American public for 75 years.” “It was taken to court and the judge said, ‘wait a minute, you wanna wait until everybody involved with this is dead before you bring forth the information that shows what the problems were?’” “Well, the first paper that they released was a 38-page paper.” “The last 8 pages of that paper listed more than 1,200 disease side effects and conditions that they knew that the Covid jab could be associated with.” Dr Sherri Tenpenny Alex Clark
3:16

🚨Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just declared in no uncertain terms: The Covid-19 shots are the “biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed.” And she declared that sudden deaths from Covid-19 shots are an “epidemic.” “These shots are an absolute disaster.” “There was a big study that came out of South Korea that did an evaluation of 22 million people that lived in Seoul and Icheon … that had had at least one Covid shot.” “There was a huge uptick in dementia and in memory loss … and early onset Alzheimer’s.” “It was released as an Emergency Utilization Authorization, which means it came to market without any of the long-term studies … without knowing what the side effects and complications were.” “Pfizer wanted to maintain their records away from the American public for 75 years.” “It was taken to court and the judge said, ‘wait a minute, you wanna wait until everybody involved with this is dead before you bring forth the information that shows what the problems were?’” “Well, the first paper that they released was a 38-page paper.” “The last 8 pages of that paper listed more than 1,200 disease side effects and conditions that they knew that the Covid jab could be associated with.” Dr Sherri Tenpenny Alex Clark

Children’s Health Defense

66,808 views • 6 months ago

U.S. Brid. Gen Mark Kimmitt explains catastrophic US YPG policy fiasco in Syria: „We told the Turks and our policy that this relationship with the PKK with the YPG was going to be temporary. It was going to be transactional and it was going to be tactical. That was the American policy that time expressed numerous times. It didn't mean that we were long-term allies to the YPG. It meant that we had a specific purpose, for a specific time and at the end of that we were going to break apart.“
3:16

U.S. Brid. Gen Mark Kimmitt explains catastrophic US YPG policy fiasco in Syria: „We told the Turks and our policy that this relationship with the PKK with the YPG was going to be temporary. It was going to be transactional and it was going to be tactical. That was the American policy that time expressed numerous times. It didn't mean that we were long-term allies to the YPG. It meant that we had a specific purpose, for a specific time and at the end of that we were going to break apart.“

Hamparsum Hampikyan

185,153 views • 2 years ago

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.
2:34

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.

DepressedBergman

33,114 views • 1 month ago

Oncologist Dr. William Makis describes getting attacked by the president of City of Hope cancer centers for publishing success stories using antiparasitics to treat turbo cancers: "These antiparasitics are being heavily attacked and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, [and] fenbendazole. And I have hundreds of success stories...." This clip of Dr. Makis, a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from a panel discussion posted to the World Council for Health Rumble channel on November 24, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "So these antiparasitics are being heavily attacked, and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, fenbendazole, and I have hundreds of success stories. I get attacked. I get attacked by mainstream doctors and mainstream oncologists. "And just going back to what Kevin McKernan said about this phenomenon of trying to retract papers, get good papers retracted, I've had this happen to me very recently. We published recently a paper on fenbendazole. Three cases of stage four cancer patients who had failed three or four or five lines of chemotherapy, and mainstream oncology regimens. These cancer patients were dying. They took fenbendazole and they became cancer free. And we followed them up, up to three years. They stayed cancer three for up to three years. So we had three cases. We published this paper a few months ago. This was only the second paper published on the antiparasitic fenbendazole in the past five years with human cases. The first one was published by Stanford University in 2021. And so they had published three cases in 2021. We published three cases in 2025. Within a month or two of the publication of our paper. Now it passed peer review and it was published. We were attacked by the editor of the paper, who's actually the president of the City of Hope cancer centers in the United States, in Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. "This was Dr. Maurice [Maurie] Markman, President of City of Hope, so a big time oncologist, with a lot of, you know, big pharma funding behind him. He said he's going to pull the paper. And they didn't have a good reason to pull the paper. In fact, the reason that they were putting was that I was giving, you know, medical advice to other cancer patients with fenbendazole. And so that was some kind of a conflict of interest. And because, you know, that wasn't declared in the way they liked, that they were going to pull the paper. "And so, you know, this is an attack. We're going to see these attacks not just on Kevin McKernan and David Speicher's work in trying to make the link between Covid vaccines and these turbo cancers. But even those of us who are going to try to treat these patients, and help these patients and try to get that work published with antiparasitics and these turbo cancers, we're being attacked, and our papers are being attacked for retraction as well." #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure
2:33

Oncologist Dr. William Makis describes getting attacked by the president of City of Hope cancer centers for publishing success stories using antiparasitics to treat turbo cancers: "These antiparasitics are being heavily attacked and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, [and] fenbendazole. And I have hundreds of success stories...." This clip of Dr. Makis, a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from a panel discussion posted to the World Council for Health Rumble channel on November 24, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "So these antiparasitics are being heavily attacked, and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, fenbendazole, and I have hundreds of success stories. I get attacked. I get attacked by mainstream doctors and mainstream oncologists. "And just going back to what Kevin McKernan said about this phenomenon of trying to retract papers, get good papers retracted, I've had this happen to me very recently. We published recently a paper on fenbendazole. Three cases of stage four cancer patients who had failed three or four or five lines of chemotherapy, and mainstream oncology regimens. These cancer patients were dying. They took fenbendazole and they became cancer free. And we followed them up, up to three years. They stayed cancer three for up to three years. So we had three cases. We published this paper a few months ago. This was only the second paper published on the antiparasitic fenbendazole in the past five years with human cases. The first one was published by Stanford University in 2021. And so they had published three cases in 2021. We published three cases in 2025. Within a month or two of the publication of our paper. Now it passed peer review and it was published. We were attacked by the editor of the paper, who's actually the president of the City of Hope cancer centers in the United States, in Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. "This was Dr. Maurice [Maurie] Markman, President of City of Hope, so a big time oncologist, with a lot of, you know, big pharma funding behind him. He said he's going to pull the paper. And they didn't have a good reason to pull the paper. In fact, the reason that they were putting was that I was giving, you know, medical advice to other cancer patients with fenbendazole. And so that was some kind of a conflict of interest. And because, you know, that wasn't declared in the way they liked, that they were going to pull the paper. "And so, you know, this is an attack. We're going to see these attacks not just on Kevin McKernan and David Speicher's work in trying to make the link between Covid vaccines and these turbo cancers. But even those of us who are going to try to treat these patients, and help these patients and try to get that work published with antiparasitics and these turbo cancers, we're being attacked, and our papers are being attacked for retraction as well." #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure

Dr. Zakaria MD

28,607 views • 2 days ago

"The Largest Autopsy Series in the World" censored by powerful pharmaceutical interest: "we found that about 74% of the cases of sudden death were caused or contributed to by the vaccine" William Makis, working with Dr Peter McCullough and other Drs. was set to be published with the Lancet, but after hundreds of thousands of downloads, Big Pharma put pressure on the journal. Lancet "took the paper down", so they had to go to another publisher, which notified Makis MD hours before this clip was recorded, that it passed peer review. William Makis MD: "[We] submitted a vaccine injury paper to the Lancet, to one of the biggest journals in the world, co authored by Doctor Peter Mccullough myself, Doctor Mark Trozzi Doctor Roger Hodgkinson and other doctors that paper was [the] largest autopsy series in the world of covid vaccine people who took Covid 19 vaccines and then died suddenly a few days or a few weeks after." "That paper was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times and within 24 hours there was so much pressure put on by the pharmaceutical industry, that the Lancet took the paper down [and] basically wanted to cancel it forever" "I just found out a few hours ago that that paper has passed peer reviewed and is going to be published" It looks like the "peer review" process is shielding the pharmaceutical industry from liability
1:19

"The Largest Autopsy Series in the World" censored by powerful pharmaceutical interest: "we found that about 74% of the cases of sudden death were caused or contributed to by the vaccine" William Makis, working with Dr Peter McCullough and other Drs. was set to be published with the Lancet, but after hundreds of thousands of downloads, Big Pharma put pressure on the journal. Lancet "took the paper down", so they had to go to another publisher, which notified Makis MD hours before this clip was recorded, that it passed peer review. William Makis MD: "[We] submitted a vaccine injury paper to the Lancet, to one of the biggest journals in the world, co authored by Doctor Peter Mccullough myself, Doctor Mark Trozzi Doctor Roger Hodgkinson and other doctors that paper was [the] largest autopsy series in the world of covid vaccine people who took Covid 19 vaccines and then died suddenly a few days or a few weeks after." "That paper was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times and within 24 hours there was so much pressure put on by the pharmaceutical industry, that the Lancet took the paper down [and] basically wanted to cancel it forever" "I just found out a few hours ago that that paper has passed peer reviewed and is going to be published" It looks like the "peer review" process is shielding the pharmaceutical industry from liability

Humanspective

282,200 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Brian Hooker says AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine was known to be deadly long before it was pulled. “We’re trying to get a paper published right now that shows that the death rate of the AstraZeneca was much higher than the death rate of the Pfizer.” “Not saying that either one of them is good, but the thing that’s really frightening is they pulled the AstraZeneca off the market in 2024, but they knew about this effect in 2022.”
0:44

Dr. Brian Hooker says AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine was known to be deadly long before it was pulled. “We’re trying to get a paper published right now that shows that the death rate of the AstraZeneca was much higher than the death rate of the Pfizer.” “Not saying that either one of them is good, but the thing that’s really frightening is they pulled the AstraZeneca off the market in 2024, but they knew about this effect in 2022.”

Dr Dave Cartland BMedSc MBChB Ex-MRCGP

28,032 views • 6 months ago

Dr. Brian Hooker says some pediatricians are making half a million dollars a year from vaccinating children. “We were able to get the incentive program for one of the largest HMOs in the United States, and it was Anthem Blue Cross.” “What we found was that pediatricians stood to make over a half a million dollars a year if 63% or more of their pediatric practice was fully vaccinated.” “They could get $600 per patient.” Brian Hooker, PhD
0:51

Dr. Brian Hooker says some pediatricians are making half a million dollars a year from vaccinating children. “We were able to get the incentive program for one of the largest HMOs in the United States, and it was Anthem Blue Cross.” “What we found was that pediatricians stood to make over a half a million dollars a year if 63% or more of their pediatric practice was fully vaccinated.” “They could get $600 per patient.” Brian Hooker, PhD

Children’s Health Defense

21,944 views • 7 months ago

17% vs. 57%: The Staggering Chronic Illness Difference Between Unvaxxed and Vaxxed Kids A Major Study Found—Before It Was Buried. A bombshell revelation from attorney Aaron Siri exposes a systemic corruption of science that has left parents in the dark for decades. Leading up to 2013, the U.S. government paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review ALL existing science to confirm the safety of the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule. Their finding? “The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule… have not been conducted.” They found ZERO studies comparing the long-term health of fully vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children. The IOM could only conclude “there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe”—a far cry from proving it is safe. They noted such a study was possible using large medical databases. A 2015 CDC white paper even outlined how to do it. Yet, the government never did. In 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sought to answer this critical question. They met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center—a mainstream, pro-vaccine doctor who conducts clinical trials for companies like Moderna. He agreed to conduct the study. Using actual medical records from 2000-2016, his team compared children with no vaccines to those who had one or more. The sample was large: ~2,000 unvaxxed vs. ~16,000 vaxxed. The results were staggering, and all statistically significant. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated children had: ▪️ 4.29x higher rate of ASTHMA ▪️ 3.03x higher rate of ATOPIC DISEASE ▪️ 5.96x higher rate of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE ▪️ 5.53x higher rate of NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS - Including 3.28x DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY - And 4.47x SPEECH DISORDER For conditions like ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, there were HUNDREDS of cases in the vaccinated group and ZERO in the unvaccinated. The overarching finding: By age 10, only 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic illness. Among the vaccinated, that number skyrocketed to 57%. This was the study that was never done. The one the IOM called for. And its findings were devastating to the official narrative. So what happened? The study was completed in early 2020… and then buried. Aaron Siri states that the researchers, despite affirming the study was well-designed, refused to publish it. Dr. Zervos reportedly said he “didn’t want to lose his job.” The co-author said she “did not want to make doctors uncomfortable.” This is the corruption of science in plain sight. Studies that confirm the desired outcome are published. Those that don’t are shoved in a drawer. We must be able to have honest science to ensure we are protecting children from infectious diseases without causing widespread chronic harm. The public deserves the truth.
6:12

17% vs. 57%: The Staggering Chronic Illness Difference Between Unvaxxed and Vaxxed Kids A Major Study Found—Before It Was Buried. A bombshell revelation from attorney Aaron Siri exposes a systemic corruption of science that has left parents in the dark for decades. Leading up to 2013, the U.S. government paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review ALL existing science to confirm the safety of the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule. Their finding? “The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule… have not been conducted.” They found ZERO studies comparing the long-term health of fully vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children. The IOM could only conclude “there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe”—a far cry from proving it is safe. They noted such a study was possible using large medical databases. A 2015 CDC white paper even outlined how to do it. Yet, the government never did. In 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sought to answer this critical question. They met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center—a mainstream, pro-vaccine doctor who conducts clinical trials for companies like Moderna. He agreed to conduct the study. Using actual medical records from 2000-2016, his team compared children with no vaccines to those who had one or more. The sample was large: ~2,000 unvaxxed vs. ~16,000 vaxxed. The results were staggering, and all statistically significant. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated children had: ▪️ 4.29x higher rate of ASTHMA ▪️ 3.03x higher rate of ATOPIC DISEASE ▪️ 5.96x higher rate of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE ▪️ 5.53x higher rate of NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS - Including 3.28x DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY - And 4.47x SPEECH DISORDER For conditions like ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, there were HUNDREDS of cases in the vaccinated group and ZERO in the unvaccinated. The overarching finding: By age 10, only 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic illness. Among the vaccinated, that number skyrocketed to 57%. This was the study that was never done. The one the IOM called for. And its findings were devastating to the official narrative. So what happened? The study was completed in early 2020… and then buried. Aaron Siri states that the researchers, despite affirming the study was well-designed, refused to publish it. Dr. Zervos reportedly said he “didn’t want to lose his job.” The co-author said she “did not want to make doctors uncomfortable.” This is the corruption of science in plain sight. Studies that confirm the desired outcome are published. Those that don’t are shoved in a drawer. We must be able to have honest science to ensure we are protecting children from infectious diseases without causing widespread chronic harm. The public deserves the truth.

Camus

1,048,382 views • 9 months ago

I asked Nikhil Basu Trivedi about investing in Canva's Seed round in 2014 (last valued at $42 billion): "I look for founders who are obsessed with their product. Always making it better. Continuing to invest in a competitive advantage, and not sitting on their laurels. You look at Mel and Cliff at Canva, and there was nothing on their resume that they would be that way. They grew up in Perth, had started a yearbook company, and then a software company around design. But they were just so ambitious from the early days. They were talking about taking on companies like Google and Microsoft. And how much bigger of an opportunity that was than just going after Adobe. It's the everyday person's work suite. Slides, video editing, documents. It has everything. Despite getting no's from a lot of investors, they were thinking that way in 2014. It was six months post launch, and things were going well with 100k MAU's growing 30-40% organically per month. But the level of ambition they had for what it could become was pretty amazing."
3:30

I asked Nikhil Basu Trivedi about investing in Canva's Seed round in 2014 (last valued at $42 billion): "I look for founders who are obsessed with their product. Always making it better. Continuing to invest in a competitive advantage, and not sitting on their laurels. You look at Mel and Cliff at Canva, and there was nothing on their resume that they would be that way. They grew up in Perth, had started a yearbook company, and then a software company around design. But they were just so ambitious from the early days. They were talking about taking on companies like Google and Microsoft. And how much bigger of an opportunity that was than just going after Adobe. It's the everyday person's work suite. Slides, video editing, documents. It has everything. Despite getting no's from a lot of investors, they were thinking that way in 2014. It was six months post launch, and things were going well with 100k MAU's growing 30-40% organically per month. But the level of ambition they had for what it could become was pretty amazing."

The Peel

10,316 views • 3 months ago

This is crazy… In 2000, there was a study done famously called the “Williams Study” — which 99.9% of all studies Cite regarding the “Safety” of Glyphosate Just last month, that study was retracted because it was found that Monsanto executives wrote it… wow Clip Full Interview
0:44

This is crazy… In 2000, there was a study done famously called the “Williams Study” — which 99.9% of all studies Cite regarding the “Safety” of Glyphosate Just last month, that study was retracted because it was found that Monsanto executives wrote it… wow Clip Full Interview

MJTruthUltra

277,527 views • 4 months ago

For years, the public has been told a comprehensive, government-sponsored study comparing the health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations was unnecessary. Yet, every time an independent group manages to do it, the results are deeply concerning. Now, a bombshell has dropped. A new study led by Dr. Marcus Zervos—head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center, a pro-vaccine scientist renowned for exposing the Flint water crisis—has been released. His team, entirely pro-vaccine and from a prestigious institution, found that in almost every health category, the vaccinated cohort is faring far worse. This hearing was supposed to be about that science. Instead, after having every one of his points dismantled, a public health official’s closing argument was not a defense of data. It was a rebuke of emotion and a warning about "threats" and "mobs." He pleaded for civility for scientists. This is the ultimate insult. It is a deliberate attempt to dehumanize and caricature parents of vaccine-injured children—who filled the room—as a violent mob, rather than engage with their evidence. These parents are the opposite of a threat. They are the heart of this movement. They spend their days caring for injured children, and their spare moments trying to warn others: "Look out. Don't let this happen to you." They are giving, beautiful, and courageous. To be lectured on civility by a system that has dismissed their suffering, ridiculed them, and supported policies that kicked their children out of school and them out of their jobs? It is the height of absurdity. When they can't win on science, they reframe the debate around safety. This had nothing to do with violence. It had everything to do with silencing dissent and avoiding accountability for a failing paradigm.
4:06

For years, the public has been told a comprehensive, government-sponsored study comparing the health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations was unnecessary. Yet, every time an independent group manages to do it, the results are deeply concerning. Now, a bombshell has dropped. A new study led by Dr. Marcus Zervos—head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center, a pro-vaccine scientist renowned for exposing the Flint water crisis—has been released. His team, entirely pro-vaccine and from a prestigious institution, found that in almost every health category, the vaccinated cohort is faring far worse. This hearing was supposed to be about that science. Instead, after having every one of his points dismantled, a public health official’s closing argument was not a defense of data. It was a rebuke of emotion and a warning about "threats" and "mobs." He pleaded for civility for scientists. This is the ultimate insult. It is a deliberate attempt to dehumanize and caricature parents of vaccine-injured children—who filled the room—as a violent mob, rather than engage with their evidence. These parents are the opposite of a threat. They are the heart of this movement. They spend their days caring for injured children, and their spare moments trying to warn others: "Look out. Don't let this happen to you." They are giving, beautiful, and courageous. To be lectured on civility by a system that has dismissed their suffering, ridiculed them, and supported policies that kicked their children out of school and them out of their jobs? It is the height of absurdity. When they can't win on science, they reframe the debate around safety. This had nothing to do with violence. It had everything to do with silencing dissent and avoiding accountability for a failing paradigm.

Camus

55,308 views • 9 months ago