Red Phoenix

We are talking about a 27% increase in birth defects during the 2021-2022 period of Covid-19 vaccination roll-out. And let's not forget that each and every birth defect is a human tragedy.

In case you wonder what these LA riots are really all about, this article by Jeff Childers will make it clear what is at stake... > https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/fiesta-in-la-monday-june-9-2025-c

When I came across this study, I smelled a rat... The study wants us to believe that 3.8% prevalence of major birth defects is 'normal', while I know that the actual (and widely accepted) figure is 3% (with a confidence interval of 2.8 to 3.2%). So I queried ChatGPT about this. And in first instance the program came with several plausible explanations for the 3.8% (a 27% increase over 3.0%). Then I pointed out to the program that the study did not give a confidence interval for its 3.8% claim as normal, but that they had only looked at the increases of specific birth defects. All of these did fall within the confidence limits, but they did not mention the accumulation of these individual defects, because when doing that there is a clear signal that on the whole birth defects have increased. And the program did confirm that that was a methodological error by the study authors (I would say that it was a deliberate omission as it undermines their conclusion). Furthermore I pointed to 2 red flags I came across when reading the study: #1 - The study states that: The overall prevalence of participant‐reported major birth defects in the C19VPR (3.8%) was similar to estimates published prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic and COVID‐19 vaccine availability (3%–5%) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2008; Texas Department of State Health Services 2024). #2 - The study also states that: Our analysis is based on birth defects identified up to 4 months after birth, while existing birth defect surveillance systems in the United States typically include birth defects identified through at least 1 year after birth. Thus, we may have underestimated the prevalence of some birth defects. So by cherry-picking those specific limited population reports the study compares their 3.8% prevalence to a wide 3%–5% range, and by doing so the authors reduce the ability to argue that their observed rate is truly elevated. Secondly, they admit that the 'completely normal' 3.8% they come up with is actually underestimated because they only looked at the period of 4 months after birth, while in US typically this is followed up till at least 1 year after birth. If an interested amateur like me can easily see these shortcomings that totally undermine the study's 'nothing to see here' conclusion, the small CYA note at the end of the study does not come as a surprise to me: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. = = =

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12093198/ = = = And here the results and conclusions of that study: Results Participants reported receiving Pfizer‐BioNTech vaccines (59.0%), Moderna (38.2%), and Janssen (2.8%) vaccines. Most (65.2%) participants received their first COVID‐19 vaccine after the first trimester. The prevalence of major birth defects was 3.8%. Among defects with comparator estimates available (n = 50), 35 were below or within expected ranges. C19VPR prevalences were higher than the comparator confidence interval for 15 defects; however, C19VPR confidence intervals included comparator estimates. Prevalences did not differ by the timing of vaccination for seven defects examined. Conclusions Birth defects prevalence estimates among infants born to women receiving COVID‐19 vaccines during or just prior to pregnancy were generally similar to pre‐pandemic estimates. While there was no strong evidence of associations between vaccination and specific defects, statistical power was low. = = = > So the study concludes that there is 'nothing to see here'. That is until you delve into the study... The study reports a 3.8% prevalence of major birth defects among infants born to women vaccinated during or just prior to pregnancy, concluding this rate is consistent with pre-pandemic U.S. estimates and finds no strong evidence of increased risk. However, a critical examination reveals several methodological and interpretative limitations that challenge these conclusions. To be addressed in my follow-up post in this thread...

Source: https://archive.is/20250609221053/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/rfk-jr-hhs-moves-to-restore-public-trust-in-vaccines-45495112 = = = And here the introductory paragraphs to the Opinion Piece that RFK jr wrote yesterday for the Wall Street Journal Vaccines have become a divisive issue in American politics, but there is one thing all parties can agree on: The U.S. faces a crisis of public trust. Whether toward health agencies, pharmaceutical companies or vaccines themselves, public confidence is waning. Some would try to explain this away by blaming misinformation or antiscience attitudes. To do so, however, ignores a history of conflicts of interest, persecution of dissidents, a lack of curiosity, and skewed science that has plagued the vaccine regulatory apparatus for decades. That is why, under my direction, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is putting the restoration of public trust above any pro- or antivaccine agenda. The public must know that unbiased science guides the recommendations from our health agencies. This will ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible. Today, we are taking a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). We are retiring the 17 current members of the committee, some of whom were last-minute appointees of the Biden administration. Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028.

False binaries Katherine Watt Jun 07, 2025 https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/false-binaries ( … ) In my view, the biodefense deception system is comprised of projection of several simultaneous, interlocking illusions, the most important three of which are: 1) that there are airborne threats posed by stable, unique, specific-disease-causing, airborne, transmissible biological organisms (known as “viruses”); 2) that such threats justify societal and government-directed “preparation,” “responses” or “countermeasures;” and 3) that “vaccines” are useful responses because (so the deception runs) vaccines protect people from the threats in a pathogen-specific manner. I think sidelining the threat-deception (No. 1 above) as if it doesn’t matter, serves to maintain the false justification for the biodefense response deception and the false scientific premises for the vaccine deception. ( … ) In my view, the public health system, including the entire communicable disease control and vaccination system, is a component of the US military: more formally authorized as such since the Congressional enactment of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, and deployed nationwide as such since the 1955 polio campaign. The polio campaign was the military-public health seed from which grew the monstrous childhood immunization and adult poisoning schedules now recommended by the HHS-CDC. ( … ) Full article : https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/false-binaries …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Kevin Mccairn's article that reports this case, is cautious - as every scientific publication should - in how it formulates its findings and conclusions. > https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com/p/amyloidogenic-fibrils-in-a-post-gestational 7. Conclusion This case represents a sentinel event that underscores the need for systematic, high-resolution evaluation of post-vaccine biology—especially in pediatric and developmental contexts that have the shadow of events being precipitated by biowarfare research. The persistence of amyloidogenic fibrils years after gestational exposure cannot be dismissed by outdated pharmacokinetic assumptions. Only rigorous post-market surveillance, independent replication, and transparent access to proprietary vaccine data can resolve these urgent questions, especially and until the threat from synthetic, biowarfare spawned amyloids/PRIONS has been contained. > Imo the conclusion can rightfully be described as a 'smoking gun'.

This is precisely what should have happened. It didn't because money was the prime motive. Not health care. What you are advocating here (isolation of the vulnerable, and let the world continue as normal) was the proposed approach in the Great Barrington Declaration. Despite hundred of thousands endorsements, that at first glance sensible - basically protect the vulnerable and create herd-immunity - approach was 'killed' by a mob of hysterics fearful of the Big Bad Virus, led by the evil Big Pharma cronies Collins and Fauci. At the time (October 2020) I signed that declaration. Not because I was fearful of Covid-19 ('cases' were fraudulently boosted to increase the scare-factor, and actual figures showed that there was no global pandemic). But I signed it because it was a far better alternative than the ridiculous one-size-fits-all mitigation measures that were to be forced on everybody, and were actually meant to pave the way for the disastrous 'vax-solution'. On hindsight I should not have signed that Great Barrington Declaration (even though it didn't make a difference), as even at the time I did not believe in its faulty premises. But it was a choice for the lesser evil... Prof dr Norman FENTON expressed this as follows: Also, unlike almost every other public covid dissident (“permitted” or otherwise presumably genuine) I refused to sign the widely acclaimed Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020. There were two reasons for this: Even then, I did not believe there was a major pandemic; the GBD assumed there was. Even if there was a major pandemic, I was repulsed by the idea that anybody should be forced into a lockdown. The GBD was recommending “targeted protection” for “the elderly and infirm”. So, while the GBD was asserting that the young and healthy should be allowed to to go about their lives as normal, it was also asserting that the elderly and infirm should be locked down even if it was against their will.

BOMBSHELL Report: Amyloid Fibrils Found in 3-Year-Old After In-Utero mRNA Injection Exposure The child was born 1 week after mother’s 2nd Pfizer shot—no vital signs at birth, required resuscitation, and has been chronically ill since: recurrent infections, multiple surgeries, immune dysfunction. At age 3, shows persistent amyloid-like fibrils circulating in blood Confirmed by fluorescence microscopy & SEM—not typical clots or plaques Fibrils exhibit cross-β sheet binding, prion-like folding, and autofluorescence > While I do not deny the impact of genetics on a child's health profile, the refusal to consider the child immunization schedule as a likely candidate for health issues is tell-tale. Note: In the above case the impact of the mother's Pfizer-shot on her baby's health problems is obvious.

Yes, I am more than open minded enough to consider that some vaccines might have saved lives (or rather on the whole have a positive benefit/harm ratio). But the 'bias' to overcome would not primarily be the factors that you mention, but rather whether that new puzzle-piece of truth could be integrated in my total world-view and whether it would not be at odds with other more fundamental pieces of the puzzle. As everything is inter-connected, it might have major implications for how I look at the world as a coherent whole and the role of man in that picture.

I provided a Thumbs Up on your last two posts, as I appreciate your attempt to bring back some civility in the discussion. Contrary to what some here accuse me of, I have no problem with people that have a different view (but obviously I do not like the name-calling and insults, which are a discussion-killer).. Like any sensible human being my beliefs and convictions are not carved in stone, and I am open to reason and will not a priori dismiss facts and evidence that casts doubts on my views. That said I have not come across any evidence that made me reconsider my take on vaccines.

Do I smell a bot? The unique user-name 'Richard Smith' with the One Eye of Mordor profile, ... Together with the swollen prose of his comments, while displaying his 'I am OK, you are not OK' superiority sciency stance,

Nuts are good for you!

A great site to start your journey towards truth re Vaxes and Viruses > https://viroliegy.com/

True but that only applies to the non-jabbed. The Covid-19 mRNA jabbed have seriously harmed or even destroyed their innate immune system, and are now prone to suffer from continual infections that their body cannot overcome anymore.