Agreed, that ''causation'' was not answered in his data's limits.... And collecting those combinations would be requiring big creativity, lol, NIH $ize....
As for the lack of increased cancer rates in men, that could easily be tied to the absence of a uterus, which the 'bioweapon' tech preferred as target....
As for the veterinary shots being a hazard for shedding, why on earth are people still letting their pets be injected.?
If your vet ain't like ours, make your vet resort to titers if there's the law involvement to deal with.... AND in absolute desperation, get the doctor's book [T.E Levy, Curing the Incurable] and dose yourself and your pet with vitC [before and after the vet's needle.... ttyl
The latest DOJ batch of Epstein files reveal that by the time the world encountered COVID-19, the financial, philanthropic, and institutional machinery to manage—and profit from—a pandemic was already firmly in place.
While the Epstein files have reignited scrutiny around specific relationships, their deeper significance lies in how they intersect with a much longer and largely unexamined timeline. Public records, institutional initiatives, and financial instruments indicate that the conceptual foundations of pandemic preparedness as a managed financial and security category began to take shape in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as philanthropic capital, global health governance, and risk finance increasingly converged. Following the 2008 financial crisis, this framework rapidly accelerated—expanding through reinsurance markets, parametric triggers, donor-advised funding structures, and global simulations—years before COVID-19 made the architecture visible to the public.
Have you seen this X post released in the Epstein files? It mentions finding "clots" from arteries and veins, men and women in 2018. And that the clots are usually infected with herpes and chlamydia.
(The poster Dr Tau Braun does not sound too reliable a source to me, (he has odd theories about "venom" which I find suspicious) but the Epstein link is probably OK but would need verifying)
The millions of documents published by the Justice Department last month reveal Epstein’s disturbing fascination with eugenic science, expressed through research linked to the intelligence services of multiple governments. Epstein covertly negotiated access to dangerous and ethically dubious technology, between financial elites, often alluding to grand ambitions for reshaping both the human genome and the world order.
No wonder you were suspended, you understood way too much.
i just tried to find the article you refer to in your pinned post on X, the one by Robert Frank "Billionaires Try to Shrink World's Population, Report Says."
That article was published in the WSJ on May 26, 2009! So around the time of the first Plandemic attempt, the one for Bird flu.
I couldn't find the article in WSJ's archive nor on the wayback machine, but i did find it here:
Weird, your pinned post doesn't show me the number of views it got. I wanted to know because i saw that the post you sent above in the comment didn't even get 500 views. And you have lots of followers on X. Most of them never got to see your post from yesterday. Maybe it will pick up - but it should have gotten way more already.
I have posted these links to "clotastrophe" substack too.
It is astonishing to see just how focussed and integrated via Epstiein's efforts this conspiracy is. And yes, the planning goes back a long way, before even the first financial collapse of 2008. But we know this from Watt's legal research - the legal changes took decades to inconspicuously set up.
They probably tested these injectable weapons out on some poor Gaza prisoners long ago. They must have planned for the "side effects" and would need to know what they would be.
However, as criminal thieves, and not scientists, with no interest in the realities of scientific discipline, they may have released a toxic weapon beyond their control. If shedding and widespread signs of clotting in unvaxxed is going to emerge as a serious problem they could be affected too. It looks from the New Zealand leak that they believed being unvaxxed would be sufficient to keep them safe.
Jeffrey Epstein’s close friend/scientist, Dr Melanie Walker, was mentored by the two critical people (DARPA Geoff Ling and USAID Raj Shah) needed to facilitate what Dr Francis Boyle was asserting
If we really wanted to prove that shedding exists, wouldn’t it be simpler to take couples where one of the spouses has been vaccinated and the other hasn’t? And this case is much more frequent and children who would contaminate their parents not vaccinated? If the mothers vaccinated their children and did not get themselves vaccinated, it’s already that they have a serious problem! no? And the study can already be biased because of that, right?
As soon as I detected the suspected shedding associations in 2021, I exactly asked for such analyses: deaths or probs in children with 0,1, and 2 injected parents, and also distinguishing btw cases where the single injected is the father or the mother. No reactions, no data.
We don't know how many mothers of injected teenagers got injected themselves. I assume probably a majority, maybe a large majority. There are cases where teenagers got the shots despite their parents objections but not that many I think.
The increase in death from cancers is particularly the case for women over fifty. I agree with you that women over 50 who didn't take the shot are unlikely to show increased death rates. Seligmann believes that it's the combination of taking the shot yourself and being shedded on that makes the shots even more deadly. It's a hypothesis, it might be incorrect. We don't really know.
If the required data to look into all these questions would have been made available, then we would have answers to all these questions. I wonder whether we will ever get them, the real data I mean before they are being altered.
Si on voulait vraiment prouver que le shedding existe, ne serait il pas plus simple de prendre des couples ou un des conjoints a été vacciné et l’autre pas ? Et ce cas est bien plus fréquent et des enfants qui contamineraient leurs parents non vaccines ? Si les mères ont vacciné leurs enfants et ne se sont pas fait vacciner elle même c’est déjà qu’elles ont un sérieux problème ! non ? Et l’étude peut déjà être biaisée à cause de cela, non ?
C est exactement ce que je demandais, des mes 1eres observations d associations suspectees shedding en 2021: comparer deces (ou probs sante) des enfants avec 0;1 et 2 parents injectes, et pour les cas ou seulement 1 injecte, distinguer si c est la mere ou le pere. Mais pour rassembler ces data, il faut avoir acces a des databases adequates.
The intriguing correlation in the original analysis isn’t particularly strong, of the order of 0.65. For example, if you removed Iceland, it’s far from clear to me that a story would remain at all.
I do not agree that these data point strongly towards a shedding-related toxicity.
Too many anomalous situations where we would need to accept shedding didn’t occur or was not harmful, and these seem arbitrary.
How was the possibility excluded that those who got their youngest teenagers jabbed were more likely to get jabbed themselves?
Because if not excluded, that seems by far the most plausible explanation for why mothers of such children go on to die more often than those with unjabbed children.
Children were, statistically, least likely to die of the non existent illness, convid19.
So, a rational parent would be least inclined to have their youngest children jabbed.
Those who set aside strong evidence not to get young kids jabbed are, I argue, more likely than average to get jabbed themselves, because they were acting irrationally.
Personally, I find the concept of shedding extremely problematic. Consider the theoretical situation in which you’ve received a non lethal dose of a poison. Perhaps it made you ill for a while, then you recovered.
I put it to you that even if the entire dose you received was somehow shed onto another person, you would expect them to become less sick than you did. In practise, what fraction of the dose you received could leak out of you & onto another person? It’s a tiny fraction.
Now consider what fraction of this tiny dose would get inside the shed-upon person. Unlike you, who was injected, the shed-upon person is challenged to gain exposure via skin and air. It’s now less than nothing. This is why I never bought the phenomenon.
This objection cannot be circumvented by hypothesising that the injected dose somehow multiplied itself, and that’s how there’s enough material being shed to make a third party sick. My objections to this are firstly that there’s no evidence whatsoever that what was injected is capable of creating copies of itself. Secondary, if this amplification process was to have occurred, the most obvious sign of it would be sharply increased toxicity in the shedder, who would become steadily more unwell over time. This is the opposite of what happened in most cases of toxicity.
I’m confident that the entire convid event was a gigantic fraud designed among other things to provide grounds for why billions of people should roll up their sleeves to get injected with novel materials which weren’t evaluated by any medicines agency.
This has established in the public mind an expectation that when the authorities shout, “Pandemic!”, the public now expects that they’re going to get injected. What a great, evil way to psychologically coerce & optionally poison billions of people!
Hello Dr. Yeadon, Hervé Seligmann asked me to post his reply - he had technical problems replying to your comment. Cornelia
***
Dear Dr Yeadon,
thank you for your comments on my analyses, my answers are below.
This video stresses the fact that the data as found in spring 2025 for 2020 and 2021 and for which associations were observed, were altered in the autumn 2025 'version' so that none of the associations detected in spring 2025 remained.
Your comments stress the fraudulent nature of the crisis, the spring/autumn 2025 changes of the 2020-2021 data show this fraud continues and is perpetrated by those controlling the data analyzed (coverup forced by my publications?).
Analyses were done separately for about 30 cancer types, various cardio-, neurological and gastroenterological diseases (in total about 60 diseases). The pattern observed in the figure for 'all cancers combined' shown on this video occurs in over 80 percent of the 60 specific diseases investigated, only for females and only for the spring, not the autumn versions of the data. If Iceland was an aberrant datapoint that created a spurious association by chance, we could not observe the same pattern in so many and so different diseases.
The value "0.66' refers to 'Rsquare' (R2 (2 as an exponent)) and is the proportion of variation in the data explained by the regression line, meaning 2 thirds of the variation is explained by the linear regression. You probably confuse it with the 'Pearson correlation coefficient r' which is the square root of R2, in this case 'r=0.81'=square root of 0.66. With 16 datapoints, even with the erroneous assumption that r = 0.66, we would have a one-tailed P = 0.0027. For the actual r = 0.81 we have the one tailed P = 0.00007.
Excluding Iceland from the analysis yields r = 0.69, which with 15 datapoints produces a one tailed P = 0.0022. Excluding Slovakia from the analysis produces r = 0.848, with one tailed P = 0.000033. Excluding both Iceland and Slovakia yields r = 0.602 with one tailed P = 0.0114.
I had omitted Iceland from my original analyses (unpublished) that produced overall similar patterns to those presented. Therefore, after adding Iceland to the analyses, and observing the apparent outlier position of Iceland, I knew the results were not due to that position, and that the visual inspection only makes appear that Iceland is an outlier that creates spurious associations, but in fact it does not.
(PDF) Shedding of COVID19 injections: for each 10-14-y-old teen injected until mid-2021, two additional adult women, not men, died of cancer in 2021 vs 2020
(PDF) More deaths from cancers in organs with high COVID19 vaccine concentration
(PDF) COVID19 injections: direct/indirect (shedding) effects on cardiovascular diseases
Your comments on shedding make sense but in my view do not reflect the phenomenon at work. Irrational mothers are a relatively small subset of the injected adults. If teen injections were only a proxy for adult injections, we would observe stronger associations between adult injection and adult diseases than for teen injections and adult diseases. This is not the case, and in almost all diseases the "teen injection->adult disease" pattern is detected and is stronger than the 'adult injection->adult disease'-association.
(PDF) Longer delays between successive COVID19 injections increase survival) of the New Zealand data leaked by Barry Young suggest that the young excrete faster the injectables than the old: in the young, much shorter delays between successive injections k and k+1 are observed for individuals who died after injection k+1 than for older individuals. This means that to obtain toxic overdose by successive injections, in the young the delays have to be very short. The young probably excrete the injectables faster than the old. This would explain the shedding by teens, and disfavor the dose-toxicity explanation that you propose.
I do not favor shedding as a working hypothesis, the patterns observed in different datasets forced me to adopt it. I share your concerns but repeatedly observed that injections in one age group explained better mortality of another age group, and the disease data presented here are no exception. In April 2021, I saw that the all cause mortality of children, uninjected at that time, was proportional (repeatedly) to adult injection rates (euromomo data). That observation forced upon me the shedding hypothesis.
I suspect that the small amounts shed and absorbed create some kind of allergic reaction, most probably in those previously injected (fitting in a sense the irrational mother scenario), but also in others who are not injected (children early 2021), though probably more rarely. I have failed until now to find data enabling to estimate separately each of these 2 phenomena (shedding effects on uninjected vs injected).
The increased mortality for adult women over 50 was in 2021 though. It's possible that they died of the injections of course, but the strange thing is that there are no increased cancer deaths for men apparently and no correlation with injected teens (injected in 2021). And yes, it's true that men likely spend less time with their teenagers than women.
It's a interesting correlation Seligmann discovered. And his conclusion is a hypothesis, not more. The correlations are quite strong between injected teenagers, especially the 10 to 14 year olds, and adult women, particularly over 50. But that doesn't mean it caused the increased rate of cancer deaths in these women. We don't know.
If we had better data, then Seligmann could look at just those over 50 injected women who had injected teenagers in 2021 and see if their cancer rates increased. And then do the same for non-injected women with injected teenagers. Do it for non-injected women with their non-injected teenagers. Do an analysis of teachers, male and female, who taught pre-teens and teens. Look at injected women with no children etc etc etc. There is so much one could do to get to the bottom of this if such research were funded by let's say the NIH.
With dogs and cats getting routinely vaccinated with self-amplifying mRNA vaccines, it's crucial that we understand shedding and how great a danger it poses.
Agreed, that ''causation'' was not answered in his data's limits.... And collecting those combinations would be requiring big creativity, lol, NIH $ize....
As for the lack of increased cancer rates in men, that could easily be tied to the absence of a uterus, which the 'bioweapon' tech preferred as target....
As for the veterinary shots being a hazard for shedding, why on earth are people still letting their pets be injected.?
If your vet ain't like ours, make your vet resort to titers if there's the law involvement to deal with.... AND in absolute desperation, get the doctor's book [T.E Levy, Curing the Incurable] and dose yourself and your pet with vitC [before and after the vet's needle.... ttyl
BREAKING: The Epstein Files Illuminate a 20-Year Architecture Behind Pandemics as a Business Model—With Bill Gates at the Center of the Network
Inside the JPMorgan–Gates–Epstein Pipeline: Donor-Advised Funds, Vaccine Finance, and the Architecture of Pre-Positioned Profit - Part 1 of 4 Parts
https://sayerji.substack.com/p/breaking-the-epstein-files-illuminate
The latest DOJ batch of Epstein files reveal that by the time the world encountered COVID-19, the financial, philanthropic, and institutional machinery to manage—and profit from—a pandemic was already firmly in place.
While the Epstein files have reignited scrutiny around specific relationships, their deeper significance lies in how they intersect with a much longer and largely unexamined timeline. Public records, institutional initiatives, and financial instruments indicate that the conceptual foundations of pandemic preparedness as a managed financial and security category began to take shape in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as philanthropic capital, global health governance, and risk finance increasingly converged. Following the 2008 financial crisis, this framework rapidly accelerated—expanding through reinsurance markets, parametric triggers, donor-advised funding structures, and global simulations—years before COVID-19 made the architecture visible to the public.
Have you seen this X post released in the Epstein files? It mentions finding "clots" from arteries and veins, men and women in 2018. And that the clots are usually infected with herpes and chlamydia.
(The poster Dr Tau Braun does not sound too reliable a source to me, (he has odd theories about "venom" which I find suspicious) but the Epstein link is probably OK but would need verifying)
https://x.com/drtaubraun/status/2026829180323746033
Epstein. EFTA00509242
30/8/2018 well I created a clot bank to learn just that.
Well lots to learn but I’ve got clots from arteries and from men and women.
But they are like moon rocks in that they are unique hard to get but you can make more.
Almost all clots have herpes and chlamydia that’s weird to me.
wow, interesting, have to look into that. Thanks for sending!
Jeffrey Epstein Recruited NSA Codebreakers for Genome “Manhattan Project”
The financier pursued cryptographers to “hack” the genetic code, and develop “new signals intelligence” to understand inter-cellular communication.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-recruited-nsa-codebreakers-genome-russia-skolkovo-bill-gates-mit
The millions of documents published by the Justice Department last month reveal Epstein’s disturbing fascination with eugenic science, expressed through research linked to the intelligence services of multiple governments. Epstein covertly negotiated access to dangerous and ethically dubious technology, between financial elites, often alluding to grand ambitions for reshaping both the human genome and the world order.
https://x.com/JesseMatchey/status/2028128289785823682
I was wholly dismissed when I said Epstein was involved with the entire plandemic
He:
Funded&fixated on CRISPR research
Captured regulators & policy makers
Got the investment money, like JPM
Ties to CBDC,💉passports, digital ID
Lockdown policy
Pandemic Reinsurance
🦠forecasting
Urged the world to investigate Epstein/Maxwell fixation on science. I was mocked/suspended
We have concrete PROOF he was highly involved w/CRISPR gene drives, cloning, global health policy, virologists
Far more devastating than Iran having nuke
No wonder you were suspended, you understood way too much.
i just tried to find the article you refer to in your pinned post on X, the one by Robert Frank "Billionaires Try to Shrink World's Population, Report Says."
That article was published in the WSJ on May 26, 2009! So around the time of the first Plandemic attempt, the one for Bird flu.
I couldn't find the article in WSJ's archive nor on the wayback machine, but i did find it here:
https://silview.home.blog/2021/08/02/wsj-2009-billionaires-try-to-shrink-worlds-population-report-says/
Weird, your pinned post doesn't show me the number of views it got. I wanted to know because i saw that the post you sent above in the comment didn't even get 500 views. And you have lots of followers on X. Most of them never got to see your post from yesterday. Maybe it will pick up - but it should have gotten way more already.
Hi Claudia, Very flattering but these are not my posts - I have passed them on to you as quoted from the internet.😉👍
ok :)
I have posted these links to "clotastrophe" substack too.
It is astonishing to see just how focussed and integrated via Epstiein's efforts this conspiracy is. And yes, the planning goes back a long way, before even the first financial collapse of 2008. But we know this from Watt's legal research - the legal changes took decades to inconspicuously set up.
They probably tested these injectable weapons out on some poor Gaza prisoners long ago. They must have planned for the "side effects" and would need to know what they would be.
However, as criminal thieves, and not scientists, with no interest in the realities of scientific discipline, they may have released a toxic weapon beyond their control. If shedding and widespread signs of clotting in unvaxxed is going to emerge as a serious problem they could be affected too. It looks from the New Zealand leak that they believed being unvaxxed would be sufficient to keep them safe.
https://archive.org/details/an-elite-confided-in-me-the-covid-end-game
A couple more posts from X.
https://x.com/JesseMatchey/status/2026868857269624911
I was going to add to this, and perhaps will tomorrow…but my phone quit allowing me to search images.
Walker is bright but incredibly twisted
She’s quite fascinated by clots - started a “clot bank” at UW
Regularly sent him medical images with peculiar commentary
https://x.com/JesseMatchey/status/2028199792216797667
Jeffrey Epstein’s close friend/scientist, Dr Melanie Walker, was mentored by the two critical people (DARPA Geoff Ling and USAID Raj Shah) needed to facilitate what Dr Francis Boyle was asserting
Ling’s BTO:
gene editing
biotechnologies
neurosciences
synthetic biology
If we really wanted to prove that shedding exists, wouldn’t it be simpler to take couples where one of the spouses has been vaccinated and the other hasn’t? And this case is much more frequent and children who would contaminate their parents not vaccinated? If the mothers vaccinated their children and did not get themselves vaccinated, it’s already that they have a serious problem! no? And the study can already be biased because of that, right?
As soon as I detected the suspected shedding associations in 2021, I exactly asked for such analyses: deaths or probs in children with 0,1, and 2 injected parents, and also distinguishing btw cases where the single injected is the father or the mother. No reactions, no data.
We don't know how many mothers of injected teenagers got injected themselves. I assume probably a majority, maybe a large majority. There are cases where teenagers got the shots despite their parents objections but not that many I think.
The increase in death from cancers is particularly the case for women over fifty. I agree with you that women over 50 who didn't take the shot are unlikely to show increased death rates. Seligmann believes that it's the combination of taking the shot yourself and being shedded on that makes the shots even more deadly. It's a hypothesis, it might be incorrect. We don't really know.
If the required data to look into all these questions would have been made available, then we would have answers to all these questions. I wonder whether we will ever get them, the real data I mean before they are being altered.
Si on voulait vraiment prouver que le shedding existe, ne serait il pas plus simple de prendre des couples ou un des conjoints a été vacciné et l’autre pas ? Et ce cas est bien plus fréquent et des enfants qui contamineraient leurs parents non vaccines ? Si les mères ont vacciné leurs enfants et ne se sont pas fait vacciner elle même c’est déjà qu’elles ont un sérieux problème ! non ? Et l’étude peut déjà être biaisée à cause de cela, non ?
C est exactement ce que je demandais, des mes 1eres observations d associations suspectees shedding en 2021: comparer deces (ou probs sante) des enfants avec 0;1 et 2 parents injectes, et pour les cas ou seulement 1 injecte, distinguer si c est la mere ou le pere. Mais pour rassembler ces data, il faut avoir acces a des databases adequates.
The intriguing correlation in the original analysis isn’t particularly strong, of the order of 0.65. For example, if you removed Iceland, it’s far from clear to me that a story would remain at all.
I do not agree that these data point strongly towards a shedding-related toxicity.
Too many anomalous situations where we would need to accept shedding didn’t occur or was not harmful, and these seem arbitrary.
How was the possibility excluded that those who got their youngest teenagers jabbed were more likely to get jabbed themselves?
Because if not excluded, that seems by far the most plausible explanation for why mothers of such children go on to die more often than those with unjabbed children.
Children were, statistically, least likely to die of the non existent illness, convid19.
So, a rational parent would be least inclined to have their youngest children jabbed.
Those who set aside strong evidence not to get young kids jabbed are, I argue, more likely than average to get jabbed themselves, because they were acting irrationally.
Personally, I find the concept of shedding extremely problematic. Consider the theoretical situation in which you’ve received a non lethal dose of a poison. Perhaps it made you ill for a while, then you recovered.
I put it to you that even if the entire dose you received was somehow shed onto another person, you would expect them to become less sick than you did. In practise, what fraction of the dose you received could leak out of you & onto another person? It’s a tiny fraction.
Now consider what fraction of this tiny dose would get inside the shed-upon person. Unlike you, who was injected, the shed-upon person is challenged to gain exposure via skin and air. It’s now less than nothing. This is why I never bought the phenomenon.
This objection cannot be circumvented by hypothesising that the injected dose somehow multiplied itself, and that’s how there’s enough material being shed to make a third party sick. My objections to this are firstly that there’s no evidence whatsoever that what was injected is capable of creating copies of itself. Secondary, if this amplification process was to have occurred, the most obvious sign of it would be sharply increased toxicity in the shedder, who would become steadily more unwell over time. This is the opposite of what happened in most cases of toxicity.
I’m confident that the entire convid event was a gigantic fraud designed among other things to provide grounds for why billions of people should roll up their sleeves to get injected with novel materials which weren’t evaluated by any medicines agency.
This has established in the public mind an expectation that when the authorities shout, “Pandemic!”, the public now expects that they’re going to get injected. What a great, evil way to psychologically coerce & optionally poison billions of people!
Hello Dr. Yeadon, Hervé Seligmann asked me to post his reply - he had technical problems replying to your comment. Cornelia
***
Dear Dr Yeadon,
thank you for your comments on my analyses, my answers are below.
This video stresses the fact that the data as found in spring 2025 for 2020 and 2021 and for which associations were observed, were altered in the autumn 2025 'version' so that none of the associations detected in spring 2025 remained.
Your comments stress the fraudulent nature of the crisis, the spring/autumn 2025 changes of the 2020-2021 data show this fraud continues and is perpetrated by those controlling the data analyzed (coverup forced by my publications?).
Analyses were done separately for about 30 cancer types, various cardio-, neurological and gastroenterological diseases (in total about 60 diseases). The pattern observed in the figure for 'all cancers combined' shown on this video occurs in over 80 percent of the 60 specific diseases investigated, only for females and only for the spring, not the autumn versions of the data. If Iceland was an aberrant datapoint that created a spurious association by chance, we could not observe the same pattern in so many and so different diseases.
The value "0.66' refers to 'Rsquare' (R2 (2 as an exponent)) and is the proportion of variation in the data explained by the regression line, meaning 2 thirds of the variation is explained by the linear regression. You probably confuse it with the 'Pearson correlation coefficient r' which is the square root of R2, in this case 'r=0.81'=square root of 0.66. With 16 datapoints, even with the erroneous assumption that r = 0.66, we would have a one-tailed P = 0.0027. For the actual r = 0.81 we have the one tailed P = 0.00007.
Excluding Iceland from the analysis yields r = 0.69, which with 15 datapoints produces a one tailed P = 0.0022. Excluding Slovakia from the analysis produces r = 0.848, with one tailed P = 0.000033. Excluding both Iceland and Slovakia yields r = 0.602 with one tailed P = 0.0114.
I had omitted Iceland from my original analyses (unpublished) that produced overall similar patterns to those presented. Therefore, after adding Iceland to the analyses, and observing the apparent outlier position of Iceland, I knew the results were not due to that position, and that the visual inspection only makes appear that Iceland is an outlier that creates spurious associations, but in fact it does not.
The original video reporting this association is
https://old.bitchute.com/video/CKBuyrZIQg7u/
Written reports are on ResearchGate:
(PDF) Shedding of COVID19 injections: for each 10-14-y-old teen injected until mid-2021, two additional adult women, not men, died of cancer in 2021 vs 2020
(PDF) More deaths from cancers in organs with high COVID19 vaccine concentration
(PDF) COVID19 injections: direct/indirect (shedding) effects on cardiovascular diseases
Your comments on shedding make sense but in my view do not reflect the phenomenon at work. Irrational mothers are a relatively small subset of the injected adults. If teen injections were only a proxy for adult injections, we would observe stronger associations between adult injection and adult diseases than for teen injections and adult diseases. This is not the case, and in almost all diseases the "teen injection->adult disease" pattern is detected and is stronger than the 'adult injection->adult disease'-association.
Vax Toxicity and shedding
Previous analyses (video https://old.bitchute.com/video/LVvh1TYNuNHS/, written comment
(PDF) Longer delays between successive COVID19 injections increase survival) of the New Zealand data leaked by Barry Young suggest that the young excrete faster the injectables than the old: in the young, much shorter delays between successive injections k and k+1 are observed for individuals who died after injection k+1 than for older individuals. This means that to obtain toxic overdose by successive injections, in the young the delays have to be very short. The young probably excrete the injectables faster than the old. This would explain the shedding by teens, and disfavor the dose-toxicity explanation that you propose.
I do not favor shedding as a working hypothesis, the patterns observed in different datasets forced me to adopt it. I share your concerns but repeatedly observed that injections in one age group explained better mortality of another age group, and the disease data presented here are no exception. In April 2021, I saw that the all cause mortality of children, uninjected at that time, was proportional (repeatedly) to adult injection rates (euromomo data). That observation forced upon me the shedding hypothesis.
(video https://old.bitchute.com/video/UjHgnx4LmuFn/ written ResearchGate comment
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352909703_COVID19_vaccination_increases_mortality_of_unvaccinated_European_children_October_update
these patterns observed on European populations were confirmed comparing populations from the USA
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk
and with Czech data, video https://old.bitchute.com/video/tHt7HKAXJYpK/ and ResearchGate written comments; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380530119_Czech_health_insurance_data_mortality_of_declared_uninjected_increase_proportionally_to_COVID19_injections_Misclassification_or_vaccine_shedding)
I suspect that the small amounts shed and absorbed create some kind of allergic reaction, most probably in those previously injected (fitting in a sense the irrational mother scenario), but also in others who are not injected (children early 2021), though probably more rarely. I have failed until now to find data enabling to estimate separately each of these 2 phenomena (shedding effects on uninjected vs injected).
Best wishes,
Herve
Considering the time periods involved, wouldn't you get the same relationships by theorizing that..
1--- younger teens are more influenced in getting injected if/when their mother and/or grandmother got injected the year before??
---older teens are becoming more prone to self and peer influences AND
---mommas have more conversing opportunities with teens at home than fathers
and
2--- the cancer and other diseases women died of was simply from their own injection the year before...
ttyl
The increased mortality for adult women over 50 was in 2021 though. It's possible that they died of the injections of course, but the strange thing is that there are no increased cancer deaths for men apparently and no correlation with injected teens (injected in 2021). And yes, it's true that men likely spend less time with their teenagers than women.
It's a interesting correlation Seligmann discovered. And his conclusion is a hypothesis, not more. The correlations are quite strong between injected teenagers, especially the 10 to 14 year olds, and adult women, particularly over 50. But that doesn't mean it caused the increased rate of cancer deaths in these women. We don't know.
If we had better data, then Seligmann could look at just those over 50 injected women who had injected teenagers in 2021 and see if their cancer rates increased. And then do the same for non-injected women with injected teenagers. Do it for non-injected women with their non-injected teenagers. Do an analysis of teachers, male and female, who taught pre-teens and teens. Look at injected women with no children etc etc etc. There is so much one could do to get to the bottom of this if such research were funded by let's say the NIH.
With dogs and cats getting routinely vaccinated with self-amplifying mRNA vaccines, it's crucial that we understand shedding and how great a danger it poses.
nobody likes my posts, so i'll put up a crappy one! :D
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/vger
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/vger
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/vger
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/vger
this shows why pfizer had to be FOIAed to get the distribution reports and mouse tissue damage.
they found things to stop the presses and their own studies told them so