Healthy 1 year old girl dies of multi seizures less than 12 hours after receiving 6 vaccines

[Nid_Noi]

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, but what does it have to do with this specific fraud? You do know that this "donate to the family" is a financial scam don't you?

A financial scam is when you don’t have any other option than pay or you have already paid for a cause you did not want to support.

In this case you are free to decide without any pressure from your peers.

Your wallet, your choice.

[Serenity_Now]

cheerful lady the daily telegraph in NZ stopped publication in 99

this current aparition if googled has a strangely familair logo to x

the article links to X and a video of a rather cheerful mother

this is a sophisticated scam maybe an offshoot of musk

its anti vax propoganda

the real story is the arrest of the medical professional of which there is none 

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, Nid_Noi said:

A financial scam is when you don’t have any other option than pay or you have already paid for a cause you did not want to support.

In this case you are free to decide without any pressure from your peers.

Your wallet, your choice.

 

No. Here is the common explanation;

Fraudulent fundraisers are often referred to as charity fraud, donation scams, or fake charity scams. These schemes involve using deception to obtain money from people who believe they are donating to a charity.

Charity Fraud/Donation Scams:

This is the general term for schemes where individuals or groups deceive people into donating money to fake charities or organizations, with the money not being used for the stated purpose. 

Fake Charity Scams:

These scams involve creating fake charities or organizations to solicit donations, often targeting specific causes or emergencies to exploit people's empathy. 

 

 

[Patong2021]

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Use a better search-engine before dismissing a story as 'fake news'.

Here another article about this tragic event

> https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/trending-news-segments/baby-tragically-dies-after-6-shots/

 

 

This not a legitmate news source. It is a media release by an anti vaccination interest group. It is promoting this event in its  money raising campaign. Nothing new.

Children's Health Defense initiated a number of court cases, with little success. Requests for contributions to its litigation funds are a major component of its fundraising activities

[Lacessit]

23 hours ago, jas007 said:

 

 

If you ask me, some people need to be in jail for life.  

Others need to be in straitjackets.

[billd766]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

They are posted in the thread, but here they are in case you can't find them:

• https://kirschsubstack.com/p/mother-of-1-yr-old-girl-who-died
• https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/trending-news-segments/baby-tragically-dies-after-6-shots/
• https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/healthy-1-year-old-dies-hours-after-6-vaccines-parents-warn-these-shots-can-kill/

And here the link to the GiveSendGo site to help the heart-broken Carter family, that need support to fund an independent autopsy, as well as funeral and memorial expenses.

• https://www.givesendgo.com/SaNiyaCarter

How many hours a day do you spend searching for obscure websites? As for the Telegraph, the news was so earth shattering it didn't even make the MSM.

[Red Phoenix]

For all the doubters whether this is a genuine and not a made-up story, here another link:

https://slaynews.com/news/1-year-old-baby-dies-suddenly-cardiac-arrest-receiving-12-vaccines-once/

 

 

And yes, you do NOT find anything about it on the mainstream media (and probably never will).

For comparison >

A fear-stoking story like the young boy in Texas that died of measles gets nation-wide headlines to boost the uptake of vaccines, while his comorbidities are of course conveniently not mentioned.  But this outrageous baby-death story - and it is far from unique - might invoke vaccine-hesitancy in parents for the truly insane Child Vaccination program in the US.  And so the Big Pharma advertising dollars dependent mainstream media will not mention it. 

For the large majority of people, the mainstream media are their ONLY source of information, and everything that casts doubt on the narrative, is labeled by those same mainstream media as 'conspiracy theory', 'dangerous mis- or dis-information' and ridiculed, twisted or made suspicious.  

And from some of the reactions on this thread that's clearly a quite effective strategy.  Because if it is not mentioned in the MSM or does not come from 'an accepted trustworthy source' (that supports the narrative) they automatically dismiss it, as it is a dissonant to their MSM-shaped beliefs.  And it's painful to admit that you have been 'played' all of your life in believing what you are told by people with an agenda. 

Mark Twain was quite right when he wrote that “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

[SAFETY FIRST]

On 3/30/2025 at 10:31 AM, Red Phoenix said:

Please do not vaccinate your child.

This is reckless comment

 

On 3/30/2025 at 10:31 AM, Red Phoenix said:

There have been 10 studies in the peer-reviewed literature comparing fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids. The results are always the same: the unvaccinated kids are far healthier. So for now, kids are better off unvaccinated. That’s what the science says. 

Only 10, there are thousands saying the opposite. 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

3 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

This is reckless comment

 

Only 10, there are thousands saying the opposite. 

 

Red is correct. He is only trying to save lives.

[Red Phoenix]

On 4/3/2025 at 8:30 AM, SAFETY FIRST said:

On 3/30/2025 at 10:31 AM, Red Phoenix said:

There have been 10 studies in the peer-reviewed literature comparing fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids. The results are always the same: the unvaccinated kids are far healthier. So for now, kids are better off unvaccinated. That’s what the science says. 

Only 10, there are thousands saying the opposite. 

Are you familiar with the Black Swan analogy, which is the litmus test for accepting a scientific hypothesis as the current best approximation of reality?

John Stuart Mill , rephrasing David Hume: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”

 

Applying that cornerstone of science to your post.  

The 'thousands of articles'  that you mention (haven't come across any of them, but that's another matter) allegedly support the hypothesis that kids are healthier BECAUSE of being vaccinated compared to unvaccinated ones, 

And the studies that provide evidence of the opposite are the Black Swans that challenge this hypothesis.  And they should not be automatically dismissed, when their results are not supporting the White Swan dogma.

This is how science progresses in their quest for truth.  

When the methodology used by a Black Swan study is sound, and its results are consistently confirmed when that same methodology is used on a different population, we have an issue as both hypotheses cannot be correct at same time.  So there must be a 'confounder' that leads to diametrical conclusions when testing the hypothesis.  For this particular case, that's obviously the methodology being used to reach the conclusion.  And it could be related to how the population was selected, what criteria were used to determine degree of health, the statistical analysis of the results, etc.  

 

So which hypothesis is most likely to be correct? 

We know that Big Pharma has an interest in promoting the White Swan 'popular' hypothesis that because of vaccination, the children receiving them are healthier than unvaccinated kids. And they are generous with funding for studies that 'prove' what they like to hear. 

And applications to perform studies that might lead to a different conclusion, often struggle for funding and face difficulties getting 'airplay' as Big Pharma also funds the major scientific journals that publish these studies (don't bite the hand that feeds you). 

The number of studies is hardly a criterion for 'truth'.  Did you know that +90% of published studies are actually 'garbage' because they do not fully disclose the methodology they used, and when they do the results they present often cannot be reproduced. 

 

It is wise to always consider the question of 'cui bono' (who benefits) on the conclusions of articles/studies that address controversial issues when there are two (or more} parties with different interests.   

[SAFETY FIRST]

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Are you familiar with the Black Swan analogy, which is the litmus test for accepting a scientific hypothesis as the current best approximation of reality?

John Stuart Mill , rephrasing David Hume: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”

 

Applying that cornerstone of science to your post.  

The 'thousands of articles'  that you mention (haven't come across any of them, but that's another matter) allegedly support the hypothesis that kids are healthier BECAUSE of being vaccinated compared to unvaccinated ones, 

And the studies that provide evidence of the opposite are the Black Swans that challenge this hypothesis.  And they should not be automatically dismissed, when their results are not supporting the White Swan dogma.

This is how science progresses in their quest for truth.  

When the methodology used by a Black Swan study is sound, and its results are consistently confirmed when that same methodology is used on a different population, we have an issue as both hypotheses cannot be correct at same time.  So there must be a 'confounder' that leads to diametrical conclusions when testing the hypothesis.  For this particular case, that's obviously the methodology being used to reach the conclusion.  And it could be related to how the population was selected, what criteria were used to determine degree of health, the statistical analysis of the results, etc.  

 

So which hypothesis is most likely to be correct? 

We know that Big Pharma has an interest in promoting the White Swan 'popular' hypothesis that because of vaccination, the children receiving them are healthier than unvaccinated kids. And they are generous with funding for studies that 'prove' what they like to hear. 

And applications to perform studies that might lead to a different conclusion, often struggle for funding and face difficulties getting 'airplay' as Big Pharma also funds the major scientific journals that publish these studies (don't bite the hand that feeds you). 

The number of studies is hardly a criterion for 'truth'.  Did you know that +90% of published studies are actually 'garbage' because they do not fully disclose the methodology they used, and when they do the results they present often cannot be reproduced. 

 

It is wise to always consider the question of 'cui bono' (who benefits) on the conclusions of articles/studies that address controversial issues when there are two (or more} parties with different interests.   

Vaccination deaths are due to choosing the wrong parents.

If your born with inadequate DNA, and receive poor genes you are doomed.

 

What we should be studying is individual genes of people before getting vaccinated.

 

If you are born with health issues do not administer vaccines, you'll definitely die early in life anyway. 

 

[johng]

9 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Vaccination deaths are due to choosing the wrong parents.

 

Can you share with us the criteria you used to choose your parents ? 

[SAFETY FIRST]

Just now, johng said:

 

Can you share with us the criteria you used to choose your parents ? 

It's impossible to choose your parents but I reckon you're a smart guy, you know what I mean.