Source: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/massive-epidemic-of-vaccine-injury

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

I had the honor of speaking at the Massive Epidemic of Vaccine Injury (MEVI) Round Table hosted by the MAHA Institute in Washington, D.C. The event was a major success, with panelists presenting extensive scientific evidence to the media and public demonstrating that vaccines are, in fact, a significant contributor to America’s disastrous chronic disease epidemic—where nearly 60% of Americans now suffer from at least one chronic disease.

The attached video is a compilation of my segments from the Round Table. Below is a summary of my discussion, along with the key studies and data supporting the points I presented.

< The article then provides an overview of studies that were conducted, providing evidence of the devastating effect of these mRNA shots on public health >

Conclusion

Public sentiment has shifted dramatically since 2021. A recent Rasmussen survey found that over 56% of American voters now believe COVID-19 vaccines caused mass deaths.

Yet despite mounting safety signals, the CDC reports that 9% of American children received the latest COVID-19 booster—over 6 million children, including infants as young as six months old.

With the growing body of documented harms and the increasing awareness among the public, it is time to put an end to this madness.

I assume you have never read this;

Primer: Chronic Disease Among Adults in the United States - AAF

I assume, from past experience on any covid "injury" topic , that this latest NEWS will not only be dismissed ...... but will almost surely reach the usual less than one percent of all potential viewers. After all , the latest street fight in some tourist area is MUCH more entertaining.

Tis a shame, because today's NEWS will finally promise to expose the real extent of injuries and adverse events that some ( our own verbose champion defender of the "experts" and "what we KNOW to be true" among them, Richard Smith ) ..... might finally see the truth of what the medical system and our appointed "caretakers" have been obscuring for so long .

"For thirty-six years, the pharmaceutical industry enjoyed the world’s most convenient safety monitoring system— one so broken that most bad reactions vanished into the void, data was published on a schedule slow enough to bury any signal, and the reporting interface was so hostile that doctors gave up in rank frustration.

That wasn’t a bug. That was the best feature VAERS ever had— for pharma."

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/upgraded-thursday-march-12-2026-c

Scroll down and read ...starting with "VAERS is finally getting a long-overdue replacement".

I am sure the "truth seekers" amongst us will be very pleased (hoping of course that this new system and its results will actually be broadcast to the masses . ) Even so..... probably way too optimistic that R. Smith will be persuaded to accept that anything in the past was not as it should have been .

14 hours ago, rumak said:

Tis a shame, because today's NEWS will finally promise to expose the real extent of injuries and adverse events that some ( our own verbose champion defender of the "experts" and "what we KNOW to be true" among them, Richard Smith ) ..... might finally see the truth of what the medical system and our appointed "caretakers" have been obscuring for so long .

They're not interested in the truth.

24 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They're not interested in the truth.

I assume you mean that the "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" are the ones that deny the truth that real science provides!

16 hours ago, rumak said:

Even so..... probably way too optimistic that R. Smith will be persuaded to accept that anything in the past was not as it should have been .

Well, I admit I’m biased. Anything posted by Red tends to be mentally filed straight into the “bo!!ocks” bin until I can be bothered to sift through the copy-and-paste torrents he floods the forum with. And, frankly, this one isn’t inspiring me to make the effort either.

Even without opening the link I can more or less predict the formula - the familiar flaws, the carefully cherry-picked data, the inconvenient information quietly ignored. Perhaps this is the miraculous exception that changes everything, where the article is balanced, methodologically sound, and doesn’t rely on fringe statistics dressed up as mainstream evidence.

But, honestly, I doubt it.

And Rumak, you might take offence at this, but these anti-vax threads are about as intellectually impoverished and meme-ridden as the flat-earth ones. At some point it just stops being worth engaging with.

AN is currently suffering a massive epidemic of gullicism (portmanteau of gullibility and cynicism). The best treatment regimen is a generous application of the IGNORE feature.

22 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

AN is currently suffering a massive epidemic of gullicism (portmanteau of gullibility and cynicism). The best treatment regimen is a generous application of the IGNORE feature.

Actions, not words, my dear. So far, you have been one of the most prolific contributors.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

And Rumak, you might take offence at this, but these anti-vax threads are about as intellectually impoverished and meme-ridden as the flat-earth ones. At some point it just stops being worth engaging with.

Who is claiming the earth is flat? You just can't grasp that there might be negative impacts of vaccines. You are obsessed with defending your vaccine beliefs that anything negative about vaccines is ignored. Not too intelligent...

A Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated people and how they differ on Health Outcomes:

https://theworldwatch.com/videos/1608736/a-study-of-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-people-and-how-they-differ-on-health-outcomes/

An important event is currently happening in Amsterdam. This woman sums up the issue and its implications quite well.

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

I assume you mean that the "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" are the ones that deny the truth that real science provides!

'Real science' like this?

The benefit, for eugenicists like Bill Gates, of using so-called "vaccines" to cull the population is that sometimes, death doesn't occur immediately after injection - which gives the killers plausible deniability. That also allows them to "vaccinate" more people, because if all of the victims dropped dead from the injections immediately, other people would not consent to being killed in this way.

9 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

A Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated people and how they differ on Health Outcomes:

https://theworldwatch.com/videos/1608736/a-study-of-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-people-and-how-they-differ-on-health-outcomes/

So far, not a single vax proponent on this forum has actually addressed the substance of what top infectious disease specialist Dr. Zervos says, when he acknowledges the validity of this study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones, but is adamant that he can't publish it because it would end his career.

Is that real science, @scottiejohn ?

6 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

The benefit, for eugenicists like Bill Gates, of using so-called "vaccines" to cull the population is that sometimes, death doesn't occur immediately after injection - which gives the killers plausible deniability. That also allows them to "vaccinate" more people, because if all of the victims dropped dead from the injections immediately, other people would not consent to being killed in this way.

I might be a dumb 'conspiracy theorist', but I'm smart enough not to take health advice from billionnaires who think the number one problem is that there are too many people on the planet!

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I might be a dumb 'conspiracy theorist', but I'm smart enough not to take health advice from billionaires who think the number one problem is that there are too many people on the planet!

EXACTLY! You took the words right out of my mouth.

45 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Who is claiming the earth is flat? You just can't grasp that there might be negative impacts of vaccines. You are obsessed with defending your vaccine beliefs that anything negative about vaccines is ignored. Not too intelligent...

Quite possibly. When a thread is flooded with the same rhetoric over and over again, it becomes difficult to invest much effort trying to find a diamond in all the chaff.

I’m not someone who believes vaccines are incapable of causing adverse effects. Of course they can. Any medical intervention can. The question has always been about scale of risk versus benefit.

Take VITT (vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) as an example. It absolutely exists. It was identified during the COVID vaccination campaigns and has been studied extensively. The incidence was estimated at roughly 1 case per 50,000–100,000 doses with adenovirus vector vaccines, and much lower with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, the mechanism is now understood and clinicians know how to recognise and treat it early.

But in comparison with the risks from the disease itself. COVID infection increased the risk of thrombosis many times over, with studies showing blood clot rates several orders of magnitude higher than vaccine-associated clotting. Severe respiratory infections in general - including influenza - significantly increase clot risk due to inflammation, dehydration, and vascular stress.

The same applies to myocarditis. Many people talk about it as if it appeared out of nowhere with COVID vaccines. In reality myocarditis has been recognised for decades as a complication of viral infections, including influenza, adenovirus, and many common respiratory viruses. In fact infection-associated myocarditis occurs far more frequently than vaccine-associated myocarditis, and tends to be more severe.

So yes - I am well aware that vaccines can have side effects. Pretending they are impossible would be dishonest.

What I do not do is exaggerate extremely rare risks while ignoring vastly larger risks from the diseases themselves.

Medicine is never about zero risk. It is about which option results in the least harm overall. On that balance, vaccines remain one of the most overwhelmingly positive public health interventions ever developed.

If that is considered “not too intelligent”, I’m comfortable with that.

Came across this earlier today. Interesting.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So yes - I am well aware that vaccines can have side effects. Pretending they are impossible would be dishonest.

What I do not do is exaggerate extremely rare risks while ignoring vastly larger risks from the diseases themselves.

Do you think there should be clear informed consent? Currently, a doctor injecting a patient does not typically tell them that there are associated risks and what those risks are.

A few years ago, my ophthalmologist informed me of a possible operation to correct my farsightedness and astigmatism. He was transparent and told me there is an extremely rare risk of complications and in some even rarer cases, blindness. I refused immediately. I'll keep my glasses for the rest of my life, thank you very much.

How many parents or patients would refuse vaccination if they were explained exactly what is entailed by those tiny, jargon-laden paragraphs describing adverse effects in the inserts? Is it ethical to refrain from informing them in order not to encourage 'vaccine hesitancy'? Especially given the fact that these inserts shield the manufacturers from legal liability should these adverse events (which the vaccine recipient generally does know about) occur.

43 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

So far, not a single vax proponent on this forum has actually addressed the substance of what top infectious disease specialist Dr. Zervos says

Where is the masked dog when you need him eh.

22 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Do you think there should be clear informed consent? Currently, a doctor injecting a patient does not typically tell them that there are associated risks and what those risks are.

A few years ago, my ophthalmologist informed me of a possible operation to correct my farsightedness and astigmatism. He was transparent and told me there is an extremely rare risk of complications and in some even rarer cases, blindness. I refused immediately. I'll keep my glasses for the rest of my life, thank you very much.

How many parents or patients would refuse vaccination if they were explained exactly what is entailed by those tiny, jargon-laden paragraphs describing adverse effects in the inserts? Is it ethical to refrain from informing them in order not to encourage 'vaccine hesitancy'? Especially given the fact that these inserts shield the manufacturers from legal liability should these adverse events (which the vaccine recipient generally does know about) occur.

By all means - explain the risks associated with any forms of treatment or vaccine. And also explain the risks of no treatment or vaccine - explain the risks from both perspectives with clear, concise, balanced measure.

Something like this perhaps:

Chance of getting VITT from a vaccine injection: 4–15 per million

Chance of dying from VITT after an injection: 1–2 per million

Chance of getting Influenza: 50,000–100,000 per million people (per year)

Chance of dying from Flu: 290–650 per million infections

Chance of getting COVID-19: 300,000–700,000 per million people (pandemic exposure)

Chance of getting COVID-19: 100,000–300,000 per million people per year (post pandemic)

Chance of dying from COVID: 5,000–10,000 per million infections (pandemic exposure)

Chance of dying from COVID: 500–1,000 per million infections (post pandemic)

Chance of Myocarditis from a vaccine injection: 10–40 per million injections

Chance of dying from Myocarditis after an injection: <1 per million

Chance of Myocarditis from Flu: ~200 per million infections

Chance of dying from Myocarditis from Flu: ~50 per million infections

So - the Dr's warning might sound something like this...

"So Mr Mump... We recommend the Influenza vaccine because you are an old fart and at risk - here are the stats"....

... if you don't take it - there is a 5-10% chance you get the flu

... if you are one of those people who get the flu - chances of dying are 0.029% - 0.065%

... thats about ~1.5 - 6.5 deaths per 100,000 people per year if not vaccinated.

The risks...

You could suffer from blood clots on the brain - thats about 0.4–1.5 per 100,000, or 0.0004% - 0.0015%.

You could die from blood clots on the brain - thats about 0.1–0.2 per 100,000, or 0.0001% - 0.0002%

So the annual chance of dying from flu is about 65× higher than dying from VITT after an injection.

But, there is also myocarditis, you've may have had it before when you had an illness and and not known about it, but here's the risks.

You could suffer inflammation of the heart - thats about 1–4 per 100,000, or 0.001% - 0.004%.

You could die from inflammation of the heart - thats about <0.1 per 100,000, or <0.0001%

But you stand a 20 per 100,000 chance of getting myocarditis if you catch influenza.

You stand a 0.2–2 per 100,000 chance of dying from myocarditis if you catch influenza.

So, theres a 5–20× higher risk of myocarditis from flu than a vaccine injection.

Theres a 2–20× higher risk of death from myocarditis than after vaccination

Mr Mump - "I'll give it a miss - viruses don't exist"

Note: Data pooled from AI - may not be factual, debatable and arguable depending on source, study, cohort etc... no point debating all of that - just showing what a real risk explanation might look like to a patient - it would be overwhelming.

Would I like that sort of explanation ? Yes - but I'd know the facts before entering the room anyway.

How many of you know the risks of a CT scan and comparison to yearly exposure to radiation?

Abdomen CT: about 3 years of normal background radiation

Extra lifetime cancer risk from one abdominal CT: about 0.02% – 0.05%

Extra lifetime cancer risk from one abdominal CT: about 0.02% – 0.05%

So - how many of you have had a CT scan and not considered the additional cancer risk - meanwhile avoid vaccines ?

Thats what I mean about evaluating the balance of risk - rather than saying 'all vaccines are bad'...

They are not... But go ahead - get bitten by a dog or rip your hand on a rusty nail and ignore advice to get a rabies or tetanus vaccine.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

just showing what a real risk explanation might look like to a patient - it would be overwhelming.

It's called informed consent.

Lots would probably be interested in hearing them. The doctor could ask if they want to know them. If no, fine, if yes, then explain and if that takes 5 minutes of mundane listing, then so be it. It puts vaccines back in their rightful place of being a medical intervention, rather than a routine ritual as banal as registering one's child in the birth registery.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Would I like that sort of explanation ? Yes - but I'd know the facts before entering the room anyway.

You would, but a lot of people don't. Just try to look at it as objectively as possible, I am posing the problem from a strictly ethical viewpoint.

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

How many of you know the risks of a CT scan and comparison to yearly exposure to radiation?

Exactly the same, those risks should be explained. I would accept a CT scan or an MRI only if absolutely necessary. I am wary of these contraptions because, like you, I have done my research. But most people haven't. Informed consent.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Quite possibly. When a thread is flooded with the same rhetoric over and over again, it becomes difficult to invest much effort trying to find a diamond in all the chaff.

I’m not someone who believes vaccines are incapable of causing adverse effects. Of course they can. Any medical intervention can. The question has always been about scale of risk versus benefit.

Take VITT (vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) as an example. It absolutely exists. It was identified during the COVID vaccination campaigns and has been studied extensively. The incidence was estimated at roughly 1 case per 50,000–100,000 doses with adenovirus vector vaccines, and much lower with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, the mechanism is now understood and clinicians know how to recognise and treat it early.

But in comparison with the risks from the disease itself. COVID infection increased the risk of thrombosis many times over, with studies showing blood clot rates several orders of magnitude higher than vaccine-associated clotting. Severe respiratory infections in general - including influenza - significantly increase clot risk due to inflammation, dehydration, and vascular stress.

The same applies to myocarditis. Many people talk about it as if it appeared out of nowhere with COVID vaccines. In reality myocarditis has been recognised for decades as a complication of viral infections, including influenza, adenovirus, and many common respiratory viruses. In fact infection-associated myocarditis occurs far more frequently than vaccine-associated myocarditis, and tends to be more severe.

So yes - I am well aware that vaccines can have side effects. Pretending they are impossible would be dishonest.

What I do not do is exaggerate extremely rare risks while ignoring vastly larger risks from the diseases themselves.

Medicine is never about zero risk. It is about which option results in the least harm overall. On that balance, vaccines remain one of the most overwhelmingly positive public health interventions ever developed.

If that is considered “not too intelligent”, I’m comfortable with that.

And there was me thinking that vaxxes have killed as many, if not more, in the last 180 years than wars.

On 3/12/2026 at 4:31 PM, Red Phoenix said:

Massive Epidemic of Vaccine Injury

This is due to poor health of parents passing on genetic abnormalities.

The world is doomed, so many unhealthy, fat, obese people now passing on their abnormal DNA.

People if you have chosen the wrong parents and have an abnormality, poor genes etc. avoid vaccinations.

I have superb, hi quality genes, I have passed on excellent genes to my children so we'll will stick to getting vaccinated.

You fat, obese unhealthy people please avoid vaccinations, you could die.

8 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

A Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated people and how they differ on Health Outcomes:

https://theworldwatch.com/videos/1608736/a-study-of-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-people-and-how-they-differ-on-health-outcomes/

LOL... the world definitely needs another site on which anyone can post just about anything....

when you need advice..... just go ask the mumbling homeless.... it will at least be 'free speech'

4 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

This is due to poor health of parents passing on genetic abnormalities.

The world is doomed, so many unhealthy, fat, obese people now passing on their abnormal DNA.

People if you have chosen the wrong parents and have an abnormality, poor genes etc. avoid vaccinations.

I have superb, hi quality genes, I have passed on excellent genes to my children so we'll will stick to getting vaccinated.

You fat, obese unhealthy people please avoid vaccinations, you could die.

The only thing I agree with from your post is that those which are unhealthy, fat and obese have a much higher risk of not surviving the poison shots.

But you inverse it by stating that those with 'good genes' will benefit from those shots.

Vaccines are poison - pure and simple, and the sane decision is to avoid them like the plague they are.

12 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

I assume you mean that the "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" are the ones that deny the truth that real science provides!

According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 56% of Americans are now convinced that the mRNA shots have led to massive deaths.

Which means that the 'Tin Foil Hat Brigade' as you call them are now the majority.

Not that the majority is always right, because at the start of this scamdemic the large majority of people trusted Public Health and the Pharma cartel, that the shots would protect them and were 100% safe and effective.

But those that did not wear blinders saw and experienced the lie all around them with relatives and friends getting serious adverse effects (including death) after their shots. And the combination of their personal experience and the slow but steady amount of published evidence that the shots were neither safe nor effective, made them change their mind. We are at 56% now with trust in Pharma and official medicine at an all-time low.

As always there will be those that stubbornly neglect all signals and will even double down on continuing taking the shots (till they drop). Looks like you belong to that 'Last Man Standing Brigade'.

5 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

This is due to poor health of parents passing on genetic abnormalities.

The world is doomed, so many unhealthy, fat, obese people now passing on their abnormal DNA.

People if you have chosen the wrong parents and have an abnormality, poor genes etc. avoid vaccinations.

I have superb, hi quality genes, I have passed on excellent genes to my children so we'll will stick to getting vaccinated.

You fat, obese unhealthy people please avoid vaccinations, you could die.

.

Poor health of parents can have nothing to do with genes but a poor lifestyle of those parents. Genes have some to do with how long a person lives or what they might end up suffering from, but it's not everything by a long shot, as there are countless cases of parents living longer than children and siblings living longer than other siblings. It's lifestyle by and far, starting with diet, then exercise, stress avoidance and genes.

You keep saying you have superior genes and we have no evidence of this, nor do you. if you aren't 60+, you have no idea what's waiting for you when you hit that age. Some show aging signs young, and it still depends a lot on their personal lifestyle. What you pass onto your children might not be evident until they also reach their 30's or later.

My parents both passed at 79 (dad, likely from smoking 3 packs a day for 60 years), and mom at 84 (never smoked, exercised, ate healthy but lived with that smoker for quite awhile), both from cancer. My brother died from a heart attack at 67, brought on by diabetes, which a few family members have, including my son, while I don't, and he always eats well, never smoked, drank to excess and exercises. My brother was told to lose weight, and he didn't listen, and his normally healthy heart and body was brought down by that diabetes and not losing the weight that diabetes feeds off.

I have good health, and was buff for 50 years, until I slowed my weight training down just this last year, which will continue again. All my children exercise at least somewhat, with some all the time like I did. They all eat healthy, and all are fit and lean, mostly instilled from my cooking and watching me exercise while they grew up, and adopting both the exercise and eating habits. This doesn't mean time won't humble them, as it does everyone, as it will you.

Being fat isn't "abnormal" DNA. That's just a shot towards those who are overweight, and it isn't usually about DNA but that lifestyle they chose. You don't choose your parents, but you will see yourself in them eventually, if only a little . Overweight people who avoid vaccinations just might die because of that, as comorbidities are the main reason most pass early. A major reason children grow up to be fat adults is environment, watching eating habits and being fed unhealthy food by their parents.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Poor health of parents can have nothing to do with genes but a poor lifestyle of those parents

No you are wrong, Poor parental health, including poor nutrition, obesity, smoking, and high stress, can alter gene expression in unborn babies through epigenetic changes rather than changing the underlying DNA sequence. These changes affect how genes are switched on or off, impacting the child’s metabolism, immune system, and lifelong health.

Those of you with poor Health, steer clear of having children, you're putting children on our planet who are effected by vaccinations. Avoid having children for the sake of humanity

14 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

No you are wrong, Poor parental health, including poor nutrition, obesity, smoking, and high stress, can alter gene expression in unborn babies through epigenetic changes rather than changing the underlying DNA sequence. These changes affect how genes are switched on or off, impacting the child’s metabolism, immune system, and lifelong health.

Those of you with poor Health, steer clear of having children, you're putting children on our planet who are effected by vaccinations. Avoid having children for the sake of humanity

Genes have a little to do with your eventual health, 10-30%, but it's primarily your own choices, along with how you were raised as children, possibly adopting bad health habits. Good health can be had no matter your DNA, as has been proven millions of times.

People get fat because they eat bad,along with a sedentary lifestyle. This is what I've been involved with for 50 years, and I'm not wrong.

Yes, of course, genes can be turned on and off, so to speak,.This mechanism, often governed by epigenetics, dictates when genes produce proteins (on) or remain silent (off). It is crucial for development, allowing cells to differentiate and react to environmental factors like diet and stress without changing the DNA sequence itself. And, Environmental Factors: External factors like lifestyle, smoking, diet, and stress can influence which genes turn on or off.

This means no matter your DNA, you can have a healthy lifestyle and body. Your metabolism might be set, but your choices in lifestyle are what makes you lean or fat. Again, you don't know what your genes are, even if you think you're somehow superior, as you haven't hit the age where things change yet. Some get it younger, in their 30's, and some later, in their 50' s and 60's, but it's coming.

The only way to combat most of this is through a healthy Blue Zone diet, as those who adopt it live longer and healthier than most anyone else on earth, and they come from thousands of gene pools and backgrounds. I have seen countless cases while a trainer of people whom are in their 40's through 60's, who are very fit and healthy, while their parents passed very young, in their 50's, from all sorts of health related diseases. You are your parents in some ways, but in most, your choices are how your health goes, especially if you adopted healthy practices watching your parents.

Genes do make a difference in some, as we can see how they live over 100 smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and eating crap, but it's not smart to think just because you have a relative that lived to 100, you can do whatever you want and do the same. Many have shortened their lives getting diseases by abusing themselves physically.

Telling people who are in bad health not to have children is acting like you're God, and you have no bearing on anyone on earth besides yourself and some of the life of your children, who will also eventually choose their own way of living, no matter if yours is not healthy.

There are more overweight and obese people worldwide per capita now than ever before, and it's not the DNA that's getting them there but the increase of processed garbage many eat, along with that sedentary lifestyle where modern living has more lazier than before.