Thank You, Dr. Laderoute. This is terribly important. People need to notice. I keep pointing it out.
This is horribly abnormal, so many young women with no discernible risk factors are dying of rapidly advancing cancers. It was never like this before the shots.
The FDA , Health Canada, TGA and health agencies declare “it has saved millions of lives!” What evidence is there to support this claim? There was no active, independent data collection looking for signals on a technology that had never before been tried on humans before. (Which is shocking) Statisticians have discovered the skewed statistical information brought forth by health agencies, and still no diagnostic tests ergo it’s impossible to make such a definitive claim. It’s more propaganda to convince the unsuspecting public that these shots are a miracle. I am injured from one pfizer. Doctors don’t have a clue how to help as they were given no guidance to help the injured, or directed to report vaccine injuries made by people who had new complaints. Doctor’s who spoke out about the shots had their reputations smeared/ loss of privileges which is right out of pharma’s playbook. We are getting no answers , just obfuscation or denials which screams loud and clear of a cover-up.
I am for preventing breast cancer and for treatment research, but i must bring to your attention that "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the pink marketing campaign are a creation of the pharmaceutical/chemical industry. https://www.bcaction.org/pink-ribbon-marketing-culture/the-cancer-industry/ This organization cautions people to check how their donations are directed. Prevention is far more cost effective and life-affirming than cure!
The data in images 1 and 2 show data from people who got the vaccine. You missed two important comparisons: risk of disease as a proportion of all vaccinated people, and comparison of this number to the risk of disease as a proportion of all unvaccinated people. You would need to incorporate the risk of death from COVID-19 into this somehow.
Lastly, you fail to mention that the VAERS database reports events, not people. For example, one person could have 12 reported adverse events, and the database would report 12 events, not one person. So, using the VAERS data could over-represent problems. The database is useful to identify issues but should be used considering all caveats. In short, the VAERS database is a hypothesis generating resource, not a conclusion backing resource.
Thank you for writing about your concerns on how I interpret data. To say there are no controls in the analyses presented in the 11 images is inappropriate. However, you may be referring to image 1. Image 2 as you quote (and object to) was in vitro work on cell lines and does not refer to people or vaccinated people. It has the classical controls for estrogen: 1) dose response for all test and control hormones ; 2) progesterone (non estrogen) and 3) tamoxifen (anti estrogen that abrogates the action of estrogen) and 4) no added hormones and importantly, the same repeated for the test versus the disease (positive) control. Nevertheless, I do beg to differ from you on a key issue. First the VAERS database is about symptoms and symptoms per cases. For example as queried today there are 48,856 deaths reported as recorded in the VAERS ENTIRE database and for these cases, there were 267,058 symptoms. For the COVID-19 vaccines there were 38,264 cases of deaths with 212,015 symptoms. All printouts come with this information of number of symptoms per number of cases, for your information. In the VAERS database we can say that 78% of all reported deaths with vaccines had to do with COVID-19 vaccines implying the number of deaths per vaccine administered might be higher for the COVID-19 than most of the others and could be investigated further. Thus VAERS as you correctly assert, can generate hypothesis. The issue of COVID-19 infection occurring with excess tumors in the USA has been addressed in the new Image 1B, and I thank you for raising this cofactor issue. It goes without saying that based on the Cleveland Clinic data that the spike mRNA gene therapy shots increased the risk of being infected with COVID-19 in a dose response manner and thus, excess tumors could still relate to the spike mRNA shots. However, the cause of mortality database (Image 2B) does not reveal how long after diagnosis did the person die, so we don't know if all these excess tumors were turbo cancers or not. Also the data in Image 1B appears to suggest the connection of COVID-19 infection with excess tumors may have been eroded by 2023 (due to limited testing or that IgG4 was involved with vaccination and/or shedding?). Not only can VAERS be used to generate hypotheses but conversely can be used to substantiate clinical findings. So my Image 1 (and now 1A) substantiates that the time from the dose administered to death was significantly shorter with the Pfizer\BioNTech vaccine than Moderna in keeping with the reports of the oncogenic SV40 sequences in the former but not the latter. I did talk about how for most common cancers survival times are measured in years (eg. breast cancer is 5 years) and I did show two control cases involving other vaccines. However, I am suspicious that these two other cases could have involved people who also had the COVID-19 vaccine since such symptoms of neoplasm progression had never been reported to VAERS before the advent of the mRNA gene therapy shots. In the updated Image 1A I also elaborated that in 28% of the Pfizer cases, the month of last immunization was the same as the month of death whereas for the Moderna shot, there were none (data not shown). It is quite rare for someone to be diagnosed with a tumor and be dead in 30 days or less. However here we are talking about the time to death after vaccination which is different (and with all due respect much worse). So while the VAERS database is as you have keenly observed, limited in terms of quantitation, I have found it very useful to look at qualitative differences like time from vaccination to a death associated with a rapidly progressing tumor (a symptom of increased oncogenic potential). As another perhaps more important example, did you know that it is very very rare for a death to be reported after 60 days for any vaccine, but very common for the Pfizer\BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine? This helped me develop an algorithm to help assess spike mRNA shedding deaths (to complement/validate a separate approach). It seems I am the only person in the world who has raised alarms about the spike mRNA gene therapy shots killing both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated at levels higher than COVID-19 associated deaths. I could not have done this without discovering how rare it is for a death to be reported after 60 days for all other vaccines. Thank you for sharing and cheers to you too!
Thank You, Dr. Laderoute. This is terribly important. People need to notice. I keep pointing it out.
This is horribly abnormal, so many young women with no discernible risk factors are dying of rapidly advancing cancers. It was never like this before the shots.
The FDA , Health Canada, TGA and health agencies declare “it has saved millions of lives!” What evidence is there to support this claim? There was no active, independent data collection looking for signals on a technology that had never before been tried on humans before. (Which is shocking) Statisticians have discovered the skewed statistical information brought forth by health agencies, and still no diagnostic tests ergo it’s impossible to make such a definitive claim. It’s more propaganda to convince the unsuspecting public that these shots are a miracle. I am injured from one pfizer. Doctors don’t have a clue how to help as they were given no guidance to help the injured, or directed to report vaccine injuries made by people who had new complaints. Doctor’s who spoke out about the shots had their reputations smeared/ loss of privileges which is right out of pharma’s playbook. We are getting no answers , just obfuscation or denials which screams loud and clear of a cover-up.
Thanks for your research and reporting!
I am for preventing breast cancer and for treatment research, but i must bring to your attention that "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the pink marketing campaign are a creation of the pharmaceutical/chemical industry. https://www.bcaction.org/pink-ribbon-marketing-culture/the-cancer-industry/ This organization cautions people to check how their donations are directed. Prevention is far more cost effective and life-affirming than cure!
Breast feed your children. Take vitamin-D. Eat lots of fresh vegetables.
Avoid charred and smoked meats (bacon) and cheeses.
Exercise, meditate/pray.
Peace to you and yours.
Thank you Doctor for your amazing work! Even a lay person like myself can follow especially the substances we can use to move forward.
🎯
If only others were able to reach the lay man the way Dr. Laderoute does!
Amazing piece and thank you so much for your work Dr Laderoute!
Could you kindly expand on how you would dose 7 Keto DHEA for cancer?
I would point to read more on this! Battling cancer and appreciate so much your perspectives
There are no controls on your analyses.
The data in images 1 and 2 show data from people who got the vaccine. You missed two important comparisons: risk of disease as a proportion of all vaccinated people, and comparison of this number to the risk of disease as a proportion of all unvaccinated people. You would need to incorporate the risk of death from COVID-19 into this somehow.
Lastly, you fail to mention that the VAERS database reports events, not people. For example, one person could have 12 reported adverse events, and the database would report 12 events, not one person. So, using the VAERS data could over-represent problems. The database is useful to identify issues but should be used considering all caveats. In short, the VAERS database is a hypothesis generating resource, not a conclusion backing resource.
Thank you for sharing.
Cheers,
Andrés Lorente, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Thank you for writing about your concerns on how I interpret data. To say there are no controls in the analyses presented in the 11 images is inappropriate. However, you may be referring to image 1. Image 2 as you quote (and object to) was in vitro work on cell lines and does not refer to people or vaccinated people. It has the classical controls for estrogen: 1) dose response for all test and control hormones ; 2) progesterone (non estrogen) and 3) tamoxifen (anti estrogen that abrogates the action of estrogen) and 4) no added hormones and importantly, the same repeated for the test versus the disease (positive) control. Nevertheless, I do beg to differ from you on a key issue. First the VAERS database is about symptoms and symptoms per cases. For example as queried today there are 48,856 deaths reported as recorded in the VAERS ENTIRE database and for these cases, there were 267,058 symptoms. For the COVID-19 vaccines there were 38,264 cases of deaths with 212,015 symptoms. All printouts come with this information of number of symptoms per number of cases, for your information. In the VAERS database we can say that 78% of all reported deaths with vaccines had to do with COVID-19 vaccines implying the number of deaths per vaccine administered might be higher for the COVID-19 than most of the others and could be investigated further. Thus VAERS as you correctly assert, can generate hypothesis. The issue of COVID-19 infection occurring with excess tumors in the USA has been addressed in the new Image 1B, and I thank you for raising this cofactor issue. It goes without saying that based on the Cleveland Clinic data that the spike mRNA gene therapy shots increased the risk of being infected with COVID-19 in a dose response manner and thus, excess tumors could still relate to the spike mRNA shots. However, the cause of mortality database (Image 2B) does not reveal how long after diagnosis did the person die, so we don't know if all these excess tumors were turbo cancers or not. Also the data in Image 1B appears to suggest the connection of COVID-19 infection with excess tumors may have been eroded by 2023 (due to limited testing or that IgG4 was involved with vaccination and/or shedding?). Not only can VAERS be used to generate hypotheses but conversely can be used to substantiate clinical findings. So my Image 1 (and now 1A) substantiates that the time from the dose administered to death was significantly shorter with the Pfizer\BioNTech vaccine than Moderna in keeping with the reports of the oncogenic SV40 sequences in the former but not the latter. I did talk about how for most common cancers survival times are measured in years (eg. breast cancer is 5 years) and I did show two control cases involving other vaccines. However, I am suspicious that these two other cases could have involved people who also had the COVID-19 vaccine since such symptoms of neoplasm progression had never been reported to VAERS before the advent of the mRNA gene therapy shots. In the updated Image 1A I also elaborated that in 28% of the Pfizer cases, the month of last immunization was the same as the month of death whereas for the Moderna shot, there were none (data not shown). It is quite rare for someone to be diagnosed with a tumor and be dead in 30 days or less. However here we are talking about the time to death after vaccination which is different (and with all due respect much worse). So while the VAERS database is as you have keenly observed, limited in terms of quantitation, I have found it very useful to look at qualitative differences like time from vaccination to a death associated with a rapidly progressing tumor (a symptom of increased oncogenic potential). As another perhaps more important example, did you know that it is very very rare for a death to be reported after 60 days for any vaccine, but very common for the Pfizer\BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine? This helped me develop an algorithm to help assess spike mRNA shedding deaths (to complement/validate a separate approach). It seems I am the only person in the world who has raised alarms about the spike mRNA gene therapy shots killing both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated at levels higher than COVID-19 associated deaths. I could not have done this without discovering how rare it is for a death to be reported after 60 days for all other vaccines. Thank you for sharing and cheers to you too!