Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Undue Censorship Still Skews COVID Treatments

Published

9 months ago

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

The censorship and institutional capture evident in the pandemic should be an ongoing concern for policy-makers, scientists, and the medical field. Someone who encountered this first-hand was clinical trials researcher Sabine Hazan, who testified to the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19.

Hazan, the CEO and principal investigator at Venture Clinical Trials is also the founder and CEO of Progena Biome, a genetic sequencing lab. Starting in 2020, she subjected stool samples of COVID-19 patients’ to next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the entire genome of the virus.

It wasn’t long before the tests, which were $3,000 each, showed the virus mutating into four different spike proteins. Patients had anywhere from one to all of them.

“‘How is the vaccine going to work if the spike protein itself is mutating into multiple combinations?’” she asked herself.

“Vaccinating against viruses is not a really a good idea because unfortunately, viruses mutate more than bacteria.”

Hazan was curious about three cases where the virus had completely disappeared by day five. Two of these patients said they had been taking hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

On April 2, 2020, Hazan submitted a protocol to treat COVID-19 consisting of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, vitamins C, D, and zinc. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a request to do clinical trials within 24 hours, yet Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram blocked her advertisements for patients.

The few patients Hazan could recruit faced another hurdle as medical authorities warned pharmacists not to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together because of cardiac problems. Her monitoring of patients never revealed such problems.

“These drugs have been given to millions of people with arthritis, and all of a sudden, they’re bad?” she asked.

In the first 16 of 17 patients, the virus disappeared from stool samples between 5 to 8 days after being on the regimen. Hazan applied for a patent for her protocol in July 2020 and received it in December 2020. An unnamed party or parties offered her $10 million, then $40 million for her patent, but refused the money to continue her research.

Hazan found newborns have a lot of bifidobacteria and the elderly have little to none. Her research suggests that boosting a person’s microbiomes can address c difficile, anxiety, Lyme Disease, Crohn’s, psoriasis, Alzheimer’s, and cancer, while its deficiencies may be related to autism.

She had concerns from the vaccines from the start, but authorities kept doctors in California like her from warning patients about possible side effects.

“What I realized doing clinical trials is I couldn’t always trust pharmaceutical companies,” she said.

“When people are coming at me with a new medication that has been tested on animals for one week, I start freaking out.”

Some of her studies waited 6 to 8 months to get published, while 52 have not yet found a journal willing to print them.

“I’m trying to publish the data on the messenger RNA [of COVID vaccines] affecting the microbiome, which won a Research Award at the American College of Gastro[enterology], and nobody’s interested in publishing that.”

This study of more than 150 vaccine-injured patients found the entire phylum of bifidobacteria had been “wiped” out.

Frontiers in Microbiology published her most popular paper, Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin’s Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity in July of 2022. The paper received 47,000 views before a complaint led to its retraction in May of 2023.

Twitter deemed her hypothesis as “misinformation” long before the retraction and blocked her account. Some of Hazan’s own patients who worked for Twitter helped get her account reinstated but could not keep her from a ‘misinformation’ label on her posts.

“I was doing the clinical trials. I was treating the patients, I was analyzing the stools. I was working with the FDA. Who’s giving misinformation? I’m publishing. You’re telling me I’m misinforming people?” she recalled thinking.

Hazan expressed concern that a “movement” to retract papers has yanked more than 14,000 of them and artificial intelligence will ignore them.

“What’s interesting about these papers is they all go against the narrative that is meant to sell you something. So that’s dangerous…if you’re trying to push a drug, or biologic, and now you’re removing everything else,” she said.

Such one-sided medical dogma is wrong, she insisted.

“That’s not science. That’s propaganda. That’s what we saw this pandemic,” said Hazan.

“Now I’m blacklisted from a lot of pharmaceutical companies…It actually killed my business of doing clinical trials.”

The fact that mRNA vaccines are still being pushed concerns the Moroccan-born doctor.

“You talk to scientists who do animal studies on the mRNA, they will tell you that the rats are eating their arms. So that’s all I need to hear,” she said.

“The technology may be promising, maybe, but it’s not there yet. It’s still very much experimental.”

Let’s hope more scientists, doctors, and journal publishers will find the integrity and courage of Hazan. Citizens have reason for concern that regulators have pushed risky mRNA vaccines while undermining the legitimacy of other promising options. When will honest science prevail?

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Agriculture / 28 mins ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International / 2 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”

“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X