Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Serious editorial misconduct: unwarranted removal of an important vaccine study

It showed that infant deaths after vaccination are clustered in the first three days

Miller’s demonstration of a clustering of infant deaths just after a vaccination is important information, which the CDC also published.4 But he became the victim of outrageous editorial and publisher misconduct. And not only him. We are all victims of scientific censorship. It impedes the free flow of ideas and results, to the detriment of science and to our patients.

I find it horrific when some people decide what others are entitled to know. This happens every day but is a constant threat to science and democracy, and it paves the way to dictatorships and theocracies. I fail to understand that some people are so arrogant that they give themselves such powers. It shows a deep disrespect for fellow citizens.

Buried Before Ivermectin: Meet Chlorine Dioxide

To believe it, given that it involves an enormous number of people, all in sync to cover up and steer people away from valid treatments, you have to believe something else: that humanity doesn’t care.

What Was Covid-19?

I’ll give you a simple summary. And I know this summary will make a lot of people stop reading right here. If that’s you, I’ll say it upfront: I can explain why you feel that way.

The pandemic in a nutshell: Covid-19 always had very effective and inexpensive treatments, right from the start. Millions were left to die because it was, of all things, profitable.

The lockdowns, when the world stopped as it never had before in history, was never necessary beyond two weeks, because with the disease properly treated, fewer people would have died than in a common flu season.

Yes, that’s exactly what I said: millions dead for profit. For money. Does that shock you?

I know it’s a hard story to believe. I understand. Because to believe it, given that it involves an enormous number of people, institutions, medical societies, scientific bodies, regulatory agencies, all in sync to cover up and steer people away from valid treatments, you have to believe something else: that humanity, at its core, doesn’t care. It’s a blow to your faith in human goodness. That’s not easy to let go of.

Let’s Get Straight to the Biggest Contrast of Covid-19

Six years after the pandemic, some striking contrasts remain. Let’s look at the most remarkable one: the hydroxychloroquine saga.

Today, the words “chloroquine” and its slightly younger but still septuagenarian sister, “hydroxychloroquine,” have become synonymous with lunacy. “That person is chloroquine-brained,” someone might say, invoking the drug as a punchline. The word “chloroquine” became a setup for jokes. People made comedy sketches, genuinely funny ones, and songs mocking anyone who kept insisting on talking about the medication during Covid-19.

But how did this happen? Everyone knows that the WHO, understood as the final authority on such matters, never recommended hydroxychloroquine. Everyone knows that the FDA and other major regulatory agencies around the world, along with the most respected medical associations and scientific journals, never recommended it against Covid-19. Quite the opposite, in fact. They all recommended against it. The reasoning was that if desperate, frightened people believed in false cures, they would stop following the things that actually worked: vaccines, lockdowns, and masks.

In the US, newspapers treated the subject as a “conspiracy theory.” In Brazil, a physician named Luana Araújo appeared before Congress during a parliamentary investigation and stated that “Discussing chloroquine is choosing which edge of the flat Earth we’re going to jump off.” That made headlines in Brazil’s most important newspapers. Flat-earther stuff, you understand? Are you a science denier, or are you intelligent?

Now follow my thinking. If three or four thousand people were dying every day from Covid, and there was something effective out there, everyone would say it was effective, right? Nobody would commit the immeasurable evil of speaking against it, steering people away from valid treatments, letting millions die around the world. Therefore, faced with that obvious reality, only completely deranged people could claim that hydroxychloroquine had scientific evidence behind it.

And yet, despite all the clarification across every major newspaper that HCQ was “conclusively proven ineffective” against Covid, as the mainstream media put it, some physicians, clearly delusional, kept insisting that there was, in fact, evidence. Many of them were fired, faced investigations, and even lost their medical licenses. After all, only someone as deluded as a flat-earther could promote such dangerous nonsense and put society at risk.

Now let’s get to the contrast. Open a link with me. It’s a news article. Let’s open it, check the website address, verify the source carefully: “Hydroxychloroquine provides moderate COVID-19 prevention, large clinical trial shows.”

Chlorine Dioxide

“The Medicine That Could End Medicine;” that’s the subtitle Dr. Pierre Kory and Jenna McCarthy, journalist and co-author, chose for the book. At the very least, it’s intriguing, isn’t it? End it all. Remake everything.

They use that phrase because they believe that chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) poses an existential threat to the business model of the modern pharmaceutical industry, just as hydroxychloroquine threatened Big Pharma’s grip during Covid-19.

Chlorine dioxide is a cheap, non-patentable molecule that people can prepare at home, with reported efficacy against a wide range of infectious and chronic diseases. It could replace or eliminate the need for countless expensive, cartel-controlled medical treatments. Does that unsettle you?

But the book isn’t only about scientific evidence. It tells the story of the molecule itself, and of the people who, throughout history, tried to bring it into wider use. The result? Three suspected murders, including that of Dr. Eugene Blass, who was beaten to death in front of his own laboratory. Another survived multiple poisoning attempts. And there was even a man whose legs were blown off by a bomb planted in his hotel room. Dangerous business, messing with this topic.

Then there are the people who were imprisoned. One case involves a professor and researcher who conducted and published a highly positive study of 500 malaria patients treated with chlorine dioxide in Cameroon, Africa. He traveled to a meeting, and on his way back, someone asked him to carry a package. It contained cocaine. He was arrested for drug trafficking. And the study he had already published? Retracted from the scientific literature. The book reads more like a Hollywood spy thriller than a medical text. It’s a page-turner.

Pierre and Jenna also surface some remarkable details, like the fact that in 1987, NASA called chlorine dioxide a “universal antidote” due to its efficacy against 42 known pathogens.

One of the book’s most brilliant moments is the “Kory Scale.” It’s a satirical but grounded metric he developed to assess the likely efficacy of “unproven” therapies. The premise is simple: the effectiveness of a treatment is directly proportional to the brutality of the attacks it suffers from the medical establishment: the FDA, the media, health agencies. On the scale, media attacks are worth 4 points, imprisonments 10, and murders 50.

The hydroxychloroquine story I told above never reached the level of assassinations. There were intimidating police raids, professionals losing their jobs, others losing their medical licenses, and a staggering volume of media attacks, but on the Kory Scale, that scores relatively few points.

The book has many other striking passages, like the researcher who installed a water treatment system that eradicated malaria in an entire city. Consider the stakes: 600,000 people die of malaria every year.

But one thing needs to be said clearly. For hydroxychloroquine against Covid, we now have the highest possible level of scientific evidence, produced by one of the most important universities in the world. For chlorine dioxide, we don’t have that. But this reminds me of 2020. Early in the pandemic, the first evidence for HCQ in prophylaxis began emerging from observational studies, low on the evidentiary ladder. Yet there were many of them, from many different places, and all positive. Some scientists argued at the time that it was enough, that prophylaxis should begin immediately and the pandemic could be brought to an end. The picture, taken as a whole, was clear. Instead, everyone dragged their feet, held back, buried results in drawers, delayed studies. There was even outright fraud to derail or interrupt ongoing research, with the Surgisphere case being the most glaring example. “Monumental fraud,” said Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet.

The book presents striking accounts of a vast range of conditions that reportedly responded to chlorine dioxide: acute infections such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, influenza, and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; chronic and inflammatory conditions including autism, diabetes, Lyme disease, and hard-to-heal wounds, among them severe cases of gangrene and diabetic foot that avoided imminent amputation.

There are even case series documenting stable remissions in patients with metastatic cancer, pancreatic, prostate, and renal, who had exhausted all conventional options. Dr. Kory acknowledges that formal trials are still needed to determine the precise magnitude of the effect at scale. But the clinical impact of watching diseases labeled “incurable” simply recede is something that both astonishes and challenges the business model of conventional medicine.

Reading the book, I feel the way I did at the start of the pandemic. The evidence for chlorine dioxide, as it stands, shows a great deal. But given the violence of what surrounds this topic, I doubt anyone will ever manage to conduct large, randomized, gold-standard trials on it. One researcher who tried ended up in prison as an international drug trafficker, arrested on his way back from a meeting where he had been seeking funding for another study.

BREAKING: Legitimate New Loopholes in California's Mandatory School Vaccine Scheme

Real paths forward for vaccine choice in private and religious schools

Then in 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 276 into law, demolishing the medical exemption.

What remains is a designed-to-fail system: doctors now must write medical exemptions under penalty of perjury, are limited to just a handful per year, and must log them into the state’s anti-vaxxer database (CAIR-ME). As a result, almost no doctors will write them.

The school schedule requires 10 vaccines (about 30 doses.)

However, many pediatricians use the school requirement as a battering ram to bully unaware parents into giving their children even more vaccines! The anti-MAHA state public health alliance vaccine schedule contains 17 vaccines (about 90 doses.) Simple math reveals that seven of those vaccines and about 60 doses are not actually required for school.

Let me say that again- most pediatricians are pushing 60 non-mandatory doses of vaccines onto California children, conflating the bigger schedule with school mandates.

Let’s turn to the school mandates and emerging exemptions.

His Mission: Saving Lives and Souls With Chlorine Dioxide

In Africa, missionary Dan Healy has used chlorine dioxide for almost two decades to heal illness while also preaching the gospel. “It’s hard to say what I love more,” he said.

He may not scale buildings in a single leap. But armed with a simple pathogen-killing molecule—two atoms oxygen, one atom chlorine—he quells typhoid. He brings toddlers back from the ravages of malaria, which annually kills 425,000 African children under five years old. He takes out asthma, tapeworms, fungal infections, and whole-body rashes. He saves teeth to boot. All this with an oxidizing substance with almost no side effects that is used with government blessing to purify the water of 12 million Americans.

Granted I cannot verify all of these reports by Healy, who first told his story as “Dave the Missionary” in a 2021 documentary on chlorine dioxide called The Universal Antidote. But in addition to detailed interviews with Healy, who decided to forego anonymity for the first time, I was able to speak with key witnesses to his work.

A missionary couple who visited a pediatric ward with Healy in 2011 in Guinea-Bissau, a small country on the Atlantic Ocean south of Senegal, said they were “amazed” to see malaria quickly resolve in ill children after one chlorine dioxide treatment. Malaria infection of the brain is commonly fatal to 15 to 25 percent of children, even with hospitalization and advanced care.

An assistant who worked for Healy for six years told of successfully treating high-ranking officials in Guinea-Bissau’s ruling party—and many others—with CD for malaria, typhoid, and even diabetes. The word got out, he said, and the report that started spreading was: “That clinic is good. They have good medicine.”

A senior consultant physician in Sierra Leone, Dr. Kojo Carew, said he attended a meeting in 2025 with Healy and the country’s Deputy Minister of Health after which Healy was permitted to treat with chlorine dioxide and other natural remedies as long as he followed regulatory rules.

In his hospital, Carew’s Ebola patients were treated with an ozone and oxygen gas mixture. In the community, however, Carew, who founded the West African Society of Integrative Medicine, gave chlorine dioxide to quarantined families in three of the nation’s sixteen districts. There, hundreds and likely thousands of people had been exposed to Ebola by family members who had been taken to hospitals.

“Those in quarantine were given a single dose of CD which appeared effective in stopping the spread of the disease,” Dr. Carew told me. Other districts that did not similarly treat residents in quarantine “had a lot of problems with people coming out positive.”

As a result of that experience, Carew said he would like to see “an outside researcher” study the use of chlorine dioxide.

Although chlorine dioxide played a heroic role then against Ebola, it is still not an approved medical treatment in Sierra Leone, or elsewhere.

Healy knows this. He stays “under the radar,” avoiding local boards that monitor malaria, for example. He relies on a wide circle of contacts and carefully navigates the rules of African survival.

I had CD with me but I didn’t trust it. I thought I’m not gonna take it and went with quinine and anti-malaria drugs,” he told me. Ten days later, vomiting, feverish, and losing sight, hearing, and sleep, he decided at 2:30 in the morning, “I gotta try my own medicine.”

Within perhaps an hour, Healy fell into a restful sleep. The disease broke; it was over. To convince himself it had really worked, he later gave thirty-three malaria-positive patients chlorine dioxide in water, then tested them again the next day, he said. All were negative.

Healy had discovered first-hand why NASA in 1988 first called chlorine dioxide the “universal antidote [that] killed bacteria, viruses, and fungi on or shortly after contact, yet was nontoxic to humans, animals and plants.”

Without formal authorization but with learned clinical experience, he offered six to seven drops of chlorine dioxide in a cup of water to sick children at various malaria stages, some with bleeding lips. “You can tell just before they die,” he told me. “There’s a certain look. They can’t focus on you.”

Again and again, he saw delirious children quickly recover, “laughing and running around,” with parents “crying and hugging” their youngsters—and him.

“Just where there’s no hope, you go in and you give them something that cost me a penny per application, and you just save, save the kids,” he said. “There’s no better feeling.”

In his first ten years of treatment, Healy said he used just forty pounds of the dry material called sodium chlorite that when activated by citric or hydrochloric acid makes chlorine dioxide. That was enough to treat perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 people, he said, which may be why CD is not on any list of recommended pharmaceuticals.

It’s cheap. It’s widely available, including online. It can’t be patented. NASA’s 1988 article foresaw “broad potential” for chlorine dioxide in lung cancer, skin diseases, and herpes. That did not come to pass.

Healy follows in the footsteps of others who have observed the power of chlorine dioxide.

In the 1980s, as reported in the book The War on Chlorine Dioxide, a U.S. engineer was tasked with building a water purification facility in remote Nigeria to contain a cholera outbreak. When he mistakenly used too much chlorine dioxide to clean the water, the engineer told the book’s author Dr. Pierre Kory, he received reports that not only was cholera under control, but malaria was being eradicated. He and his team thought the government would be ecstatic. They were instead drummed out of the country.

Decades later, a 2012 Ugandan Red Cross Society study documented the resolution of malaria parasites within a day in the blood of 154 people treated with chlorine dioxide. Although the project was sanctioned and videotaped, its findings were subsequently disavowed.

In both episodes, chlorine dioxide apparently risked upsetting the tenuous social order that is Africa. For Nigerian officials, the grim reality was that malaria was nature’s way of checking human population and if cured would lead to mass starvation.

The Forgotten Tragedy of Neurological Vaccine Injuries
The subtle dangers of vaccinations must be considered when assessing if their risks and benefits justify mandating them

Story at a Glance:

Neurological injuries from vaccination have been documented since the smallpox vaccine over two centuries ago, with severe injuries reported throughout medical literature.

The medical profession concealed these injuries, believing public vaccination benefits justified hiding information that might create vaccine hesitancy.

Historical injuries like spreading paralysis mirror current "one in a million" vaccine injuries, but toxicity documentation was erased to preserve the "safe and effective" narrative.

In the past, these injuries were widely reported, but now research into them is widely censored.
Many of these forgotten reports are critical for understanding modern “inexplicable” conditions like Autism.

BREAKING STUDY: COVID-19 Vaccination During Early Pregnancy Linked to Major Birth Defects

Babies born to mothers vaccinated during the first trimester suffered higher rates of atrioventricular septal defects (holes in the heart) and cleft palate.

Turbo Cancer" Is Here — Dr. Peter McCullough on the Post-Jab Cancer Wave, Vaccine Injury, and 31 Million Still Taking Boosters

Inflection point Time Magazine can't explain, Ron Johnson's fight to make vax injury a billable diagnosis, the 84% cancer response with generics, and a flesh-eating worm tamed by ivermectin

31 Million Americans Still Getting Boosted

The interview opens with a sobering statistic: 31 million Americans — 8.9% of the population — continue taking COVID boosters, according to McCullough’s calculations published on his Focal Point Substack. That’s despite years of mounting evidence that the mRNA shots cause myopericarditis in healthy young people, particularly young men.

McCullough explains the mechanism plainly: small areas of inflammation and scarring in the heart that serve as triggers for lethal arrhythmias. This is the pathology behind the widely observed phenomenon of young men collapsing on soccer fields, at gyms, and walking through their neighborhoods. The acute danger has receded simply because fewer people are getting jabbed, but for those still lining up, the risk remains.

Surgisphere 2.0 - the new JAMA study that says the COVID shots are cardioprotective

Good controls and RCTs be damned!

What are the main problems with this study from a methodological perspective (if any)?

It’s an observational study, not an RCT - baseline comparability is everything. Their survival curves show all-cause mortality separating by ~day 10, MACE separating by ~week 5 and all-cause death by ~week 2 which is implausibly fast for a true vaccine effect on these outcomes. The only realistic explanation is that the “no vaccine” group might have sicker/frailer from the start.

What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results – in relation to cardiovascular conditions – and how they were interpreted and presented (if any)?

See above answer. Bad controls/falsification tests: All-cause mortality is a good one here because a vaccine shouldn’t rapidly cut deaths from all causes if the groups are balanced. Quick separation screams confounding.

What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results – in relation to overall vaccine benefits and the cohorts where these benefits were noted – and how they were interpreted and presented (if any)?

See above answer. This is Surgisphere 2.0. This paper should not have passed peer-review.

What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results it presents among the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohorts (if any)?

The study design tried to mitigate healthy vaccinee bias via flu-shot-only controls and weighting but failed, as proven by the supplement’s time-to-event curves. This invalidates causal claims about the booster’s cardioprotective effects. The results largely reflect who chooses extra vaccines rather than vaccine efficacy itself. Randomized or better-controlled evidence is needed.

Please share your thoughts on Prasad’s analysis – what would you add to it, if anything?

Prasad is right.

What do the study’s results and data actually tell us?

Nothing. Because the study design is flawed and cannot support causal claims. The study’s data show very small absolute associations between the 2024-2025 COVID booster (in flu-vaccinated veterans) and lower cardiovascular risks. It was allowed to pass peer-review to pump out a false narrative, in my opinion.

Is there anything else you would like to add, not covered by the above?

No. I think I covered it.

Jess

U.S. Taxpayers Fund Research Behind Moderna's New mRNA-1010 Influenza Vaccine, Journal 'Nature Immunology' Confirms

Even though jab triggers six times more severe reactions for less than 1% absolute benefit.

Problems With the Study

The paper is overwhelmingly positive toward Moderna’s vaccine and is written to support the conclusion that mRNA-1010 produces a superior immune response.

However, several limitations and findings in the paper may give readers reason to scrutinize the study’s optimistic conclusions:

The study was observational rather than a randomized controlled trial, meaning participants were not randomly assigned to receive the vaccines.

The paper’s most significant findings came from a small subgroup of participants. Only 13 Moderna vaccine recipients underwent the lymph-node sampling used to support many of the study’s headline conclusions.

Some of the deeper immune-system analyses were conducted on an even smaller number of participants, limiting how broadly the results can be generalized.
The researchers were not comparing identical vaccines. The paper acknowledges that Moderna’s vaccine and the conventional flu shot contained slightly different influenza strains, complicating direct comparisons.

Despite reporting broader immune responses, the authors acknowledged that they “did not detect significant increases in their binding affinities” among the analyzed immune-cell clones.

The study also found no significant advantage in hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) titers, one of the traditional measures used to evaluate influenza vaccine responses.

The study measured immune-system markers rather than real-world outcomes such as reductions in influenza infections, hospitalizations, or deaths.

Participants were healthy adults between the ages of 20 and 50, meaning the findings may not necessarily apply to children, elderly individuals, or people with significant underlying health conditions.

The Moderna paper reports biological differences between the vaccines, but several of its key conclusions are based on small participant groups, non-randomized observations, and immune-system measurements rather than direct clinical outcomes.