CENSORED: Devastating Studies That Show Vaccines Harm Children

Governments worldwide claim childhood vaccines are safe and effective but cannot produce the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled trials good science relies on as proof.

Source: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/censored-devastating-studies-that

= = = 

By Sally Beck November 6, 2025

 

Governments worldwide claim childhood vaccines are safe and effective but cannot produce the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled trials good science relies on as proof. Many believe that the ‘safe and effective’ narrative is based on a complete fraud.

Childhood vaccines are tested in small cohorts over days rather than years, and against other vaccines rather than a saline placebo. The hepatitis B vaccine, given to babies in the US on the day of birth, was studied in 147 children who were monitored for just five days after each dose.

The godfather of vaccines, Stanley Plotkin, Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, was deposed by lawyer Aaron Siri in 2018 during a vaccine-related custody case to defend childhood shots. Under oath, he admitted that five days was not long enough to pick up vaccine-induced autoimmune issues, chronic illness or neurological disorders, and that the study had no control group.

 

You can read the full article here, which addresses a.o. two ground-breaking gold-standard studies that provide clear evidence of harm > https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/censored-devastating-studies-that

Go away with your crackpot nonsense.

52 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

CENSORED: Devastating Studies That Show Vaccines Harm Children

Governments worldwide claim childhood vaccines are safe and effective but cannot produce the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled trials good science relies on as proof.

Source: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/censored-devastating-studies-that

= = = 

By Sally Beck November 6, 2025

 

Governments worldwide claim childhood vaccines are safe and effective but cannot produce the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled trials good science relies on as proof. Many believe that the ‘safe and effective’ narrative is based on a complete fraud.

Childhood vaccines are tested in small cohorts over days rather than years, and against other vaccines rather than a saline placebo. The hepatitis B vaccine, given to babies in the US on the day of birth, was studied in 147 children who were monitored for just five days after each dose.

The godfather of vaccines, Stanley Plotkin, Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, was deposed by lawyer Aaron Siri in 2018 during a vaccine-related custody case to defend childhood shots. Under oath, he admitted that five days was not long enough to pick up vaccine-induced autoimmune issues, chronic illness or neurological disorders, and that the study had no control group.

 

You can read the full article here, which addresses a.o. two ground-breaking gold-standard studies that provide clear evidence of harm > https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/censored-devastating-studies-that

Keep the kettle boiling please Red.

 

This stuff has to be brought out into the open. So as many people as possible can be informed and made aware of the vaccine dangers. You are doing your bit; as are others. Thank you to all those in the truth seeking camp.

 

Sally Beck also contributes really good content on:

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/

 

Link to study please....

1 hour ago, Bacon1 said:

Link to study please....

 

Here it is, the study referred to in the movie 'An Inconvenient Study:

https://imahealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/entered-into-hearing-record-impact-of-childhood-vaccination-on-short-and-long-term-chronic-health-outcomes-in-children-a-birth-cohort-study.pdf

 

That is not a published study, and the reason why is that it is flawed:
https://www.michiganpublic.org/health/2025-11-06/henry-ford-health-didnt-publish-a-vaccine-study-was-it-buried-or-just-rejected-science

5 hours ago, farang51 said:

That is not a published study, and the reason why is that it is flawed:
https://www.michiganpublic.org/health/2025-11-06/henry-ford-health-didnt-publish-a-vaccine-study-was-it-buried-or-just-rejected-science

 

Watch the documentary An Inconvenient Study and you will see footage of one of the top specialists in infectious diseases, Marcus Zervos, saying the study (which he conducted) is very solid and the only reason why he won't publish it is that he knows the pharmaceutical cartel will destroy him if he does.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Watch the documentary An Inconvenient Study and you will see footage of one of the top specialists in infectious diseases, Marcus Zervos, saying the study (which he conducted) is very solid and the only reason why he won't publish it is that he knows the pharmaceutical cartel will destroy him if he does.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/vaccine-hearing-congress-illness-children

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Watch the documentary An Inconvenient Study and you will see footage of one of the top specialists in infectious diseases, Marcus Zervos, saying the study (which he conducted) is very solid and the only reason why he won't publish it is that he knows the pharmaceutical cartel will destroy him if he does.

Read the article I linked to, and you will see why the study was flawed. The main point: They didn't follow the unvaccinated children as long at they followed the vaccinated children. That is enough to explain the difference. There were other flaws too but that was the big one.

After reading a couple of posts from those who do not like the film/report, I'm thinking they must pro-vaccine.

 

Has there not been an avalanche of evidence that shows the vaxxes - all of them - are worthless and downright dangerous; especially to babes and toddlers?

 

Suffer little children.

32 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

After reading a couple of posts from those who do not like the film/report, I'm thinking they must pro-vaccine.

 

Has there not been an avalanche of evidence that shows the vaxxes - all of them - are worthless and downright dangerous; especially to babes and toddlers?

 

Suffer little children.

No, there hasn't. Quite the opposite.

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

https://imahealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/entered-into-hearing-record-impact-of-childhood-vaccination-on-short-and-long-term-chronic-health-outcomes-in-children-a-birth-cohort-study.pdf

Study Population

A total of 18,468 consecutive subjects met eligibility criteria, of which 1,957 were unexposed and

16,511 were exposed to at least one vaccine, see Table 1. In exposed subjects, the median number of

vaccinations was 18 (IQR 2-28). Characteristics more common in the exposed group were female sex,

African American race, low-birthweight, prematurity, respiratory distress and trauma at birth. The median

follow-up time was 904 (IQR 392-1,954) days for all subjects, 970 (IQR 430-2,093) days for exposed

subjects, and 461 (IQR 196-1,081) days for unexposed subjects (with enrollment up to 6,575 days in the

exposed group and 6,386 days in the unexposed group)

57 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

After reading a couple of posts from those who do not like the film/report, I'm thinking they must pro-vaccine.

 

Has there not been an avalanche of evidence that shows the vaxxes - all of them - are worthless and downright dangerous; especially to babes and toddlers?

 

Suffer little children.

Did you happen to read the study?

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Watch the documentary An Inconvenient Study and you will see footage of one of the top specialists in infectious diseases, Marcus Zervos, saying the study (which he conducted) is very solid and the only reason why he won't publish it is that he knows the pharmaceutical cartel will destroy him if he does.

Was the study population representative?

20 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

No, there hasn't. Quite the opposite.

They are unproven filth. Nothing safe or effective or necessary about any of them.

 

They are anti-science. And worst of all they are anti-nature.

 

The white-coats pumping this toxic junk into babes and toddler's bodies is unforgivable. The compromised agencies allowing easy passage to the market-place must be brought to book. The MSM telling lies. Shame on them all.

46 minutes ago, TedG said:

Was the study population representative?

It was not, and then there is the followed time. It's like saying that it is ten times as deadly to follow aseannow as not to follow aseannow. Based on 300 users of aseannow and 30 non-users. The users of aseannow was followed for 5 years and 20 of them died. The non-users was followed for 2 years and only two of them died.

 

6 hours ago, TedG said:

Was the study population representative?

 

Do you agree that Marcus Zervos is one of the top specialists in this field, who knows better than you and I, and anyone here, what constitutes a good or a bad study on vaccines?

 

Here is his take on this one, filmed by a hidden camera:

 

Del Bigtree: Did you find any flaws in the study?

Marcus Zervos: Not that I know of.
[…]
Marcus Zervos: Publishing something like that… I might as well retire. I'd be finished.

 

 

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Do you agree that Marcus Zervos is one of the top specialists in this field, who knows better than you and I, and anyone here, what constitutes a good or a bad study on vaccines?

Apparently not. Even a non-expert should be able to understand that when you follow the un-vaccinated group a shorter time than the vaccinated group, they do not have as much time to develop a chronic health condition.

On top of that we have the problem that the two groups were not comparable from the start.

 

By the way, as far as I understand, it was not Zervos that decided not to publish the study.

7 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Apparently not. Even a non-expert should be able to understand that when you follow the un-vaccinated group a shorter time than the vaccinated group, they do not have as much time to develop a chronic health condition.

On top of that we have the problem that the two groups were not comparable from the start.

 

Marcus Zervos

Biography

Marcus Zervos, M.D., is co-director, Center for Emerging and Infectious Diseases, Wayne State University

A 1979 graduate of the School of Medicine, Dr. Zervos has been a clinical professor of Internal Medicine in the WSU Infectious Diseases Section since 1999. He is the division head of Infectious Diseases for the Henry Ford Health.

Before joining the faculty, Dr. Zervos served as an assistant professor of Internal Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, at the Yale School of Medicine from 1986 to 1988.

From 1999 to 2004, Dr. Zervos served as director of Research at William Beaumont Hospital. He has also served as medical director of Infection Prevention and associate director of Research for Clinical Trials for the Henry Ford Health. Certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, he is a member of several National Institutes of Health review panels and is a member and fellow of several professional societies, including the American College of Physicians and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He was awarded the James H. Nakano Citation and Charles C. Shepard Science awards by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for his work with resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

His research focus is on epidemiology, prevention and outcomes of serious enterococcal and S. aureus infection. He coordinates global health projects to develop sustainable capacity in low-income settings in 20 countries. He also coordinates projects to assist vulnerable populations in the United States, including Detroit, and issues related to water quality in Flint, Mich.

Dr. Zervos has secured several million dollars in grants and has been the principal investigator for more than 300 government- and industry-funded studies examining epidemiology and outcomes and prevention measures for multi-drug antimicrobial resistant pathogens. He has contributed more than 530 published abstracts at national and international scientific meetings and has published more than 320 articles in peer-reviewed journals. He has co-written several books and numerous book chapters dealing with infectious diseases.

 

https://ceid.wayne.edu/profile/ab8188

 

7 minutes ago, farang51 said:

By the way, as far as I understand, it was not Zervos that decided not to publish the study.

 

Of course it wasn't, that's the whole point. Doctors know that any departure from the doxa will end their careers, and act accordingly, even if that means burying a study raising major red flags.

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Marcus Zervos

Biography

Marcus Zervos, M.D., is ...

Are YOU able to understand that when you follow one group longer than the other, you will almost inevitably find more chronic health conditions in the group you follow the longest time? There were other flaws in the study; however, this one flaw is pretty obvious.

10 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Are YOU able to understand that when you follow one group longer than the other, you will almost inevitably find more chronic health conditions in the group you follow the longest time? There were other flaws in the study; however, this one flaw is pretty obvious.

 

Oh so now we're supposed to challenge specialist scientists and do our own research, are we? A full 180 on the doxa which prevailed for years, color me astonished.

 

If you watch the documentary, you will see that its limitations are addressed. You will also see that its findings are concerning, as conceded by Dr. Zervos, and should definitely be taken into consideration for further replication and broadening, instead of being buried.

 

Are you really not troubled by Zervos' claims that publishing this study would not lead to challenges, discussions and counter-studies, but to the end of his career and an avalanche of smears which he doesn't have (understandably) the inclination or courage to withstand? How can anyone support a system this blatantly corrupt?

7 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

They are unproven filth. Nothing safe or effective or necessary about any of them.

 

They are anti-science. And worst of all they are anti-nature.

 

The white-coats pumping this toxic junk into babes and toddler's bodies is unforgivable. The compromised agencies allowing easy passage to the market-place must be brought to book. The MSM telling lies. Shame on them all.

Am I correct if I guess you are a born again Christian?

Certainly come across as a religious science denier.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

26 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Are YOU able to understand that when you follow one group longer than the other, you will almost inevitably find more chronic health conditions in the group you follow the longest time? There were other flaws in the study; however, this one flaw is pretty obvious.

 

Oh so now we're supposed to challenge specialist scientists and do our own research, are we? A full 180 on the doxa which prevailed for years, color me astonished.

OK, I take that as a "no". I then see no reason to continue this.

4 minutes ago, farang51 said:

OK, I take that as a "no". I then see no reason to continue this.

 

Nor do I.