O:H header
So far (at the time of writing) there have been 33 deaths in Norway related to the Covid vaccine. Experts are saying this isn't a big deal. And neither is the mysterious blood disorder a perfectly healthy Miami doctor died from two weeks after getting the Covid vaccine. Same with a nurse in Portugal (dead), a personal service worker in Canada (severe anaphylaxis), another doctor in Boston (serious allergic reaction) or the 100+ Israelis who all contracted Covid after getting the vaccine. This is all fine.

On this episode of Objective:Health we run through these and more reports of what seems to be happening to people when they're getting the different types of Covid vaccinations. Common, rare, deadly, crippling or mild - what's the real deal with the reactions being reported in the press? How safe are these shots? Join us for another scintillating discussion!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth

♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ObjectiveHealth

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:


Running Time: 00:34:19

Download: MP3 — 31.4 MB

Here is the transcript:

Doug: Hello and welcome to another episode of Objective: Health. I am your host, Doug and with me in our virtual studio from all over the planet we have Erica, Elliot and our brand new co-host, James.


Doug: In the background as usual on the wheels of steel is Damian.

Damian: Hello.

Doug: So today we are going to be once again talking about vaccines. It seems that every single day we're getting new articles coming about something about the new vaccines that are coming out so we always have a topic that we can go to whenever we're short on possibilities. But I think what we're going to start off with today is the latest news coming out of Norway. When we were doing research for the show there were 23 dead after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Apparently that number has now increased to 29.

So people are dying from this vaccine. Now mind you, there's lots of reasons that people can die. It's not necessarily the vaccine although it is always rather suspicious when shortly after receiving some kind of medical intervention if a person dies, there is a very good chance that the intervention at least had something to do with their death. Officially of course they're saying that these people are old, they had comorbidities so the vaccine likely had very little to do with their deaths which is likely true. But I think we can still probably say they would have lived longer had they not received the vaccine. Maybe we can't safely say that but it's certainly something that I would be inclined to believe.

What do you guys think? Twenty-nine dead.

Elliot: Well it was always to be expected, right? The question is, what was the mechanism by which they died? I think they're still looking into some of the causes of death. I'm not entirely sure. I guess most of them were in care homes so these are going to be elderly. These are going to be immune compromised. These are going to be people who are very likely on multiple medications, already have potentially multiple underlying health conditions. So these are the people who, in a general sense, are more likely to get vaccine injury, get the detrimental potential side effects of a vaccine or of any toxin or even a virus.

So it's not really surprising that it did happen in a care home but it's still not good. I think it's good that the major media are even covering this.

Doug: One interesting thing is that in all of the articles you see that are covering this, they're quoting the Pfizer representative who was saying that they're unconcerned. Actually I don't think it was the Pfizer rep. I think it was a health official who was saying that they are unconcerned essentially with the deaths. I just thought that was rather ironic, the excuse being that these people are older, they're immunocompromised, you have to expect some deaths are going to happen. But that's the tack that they take when they're talking about the vaccine deaths but when they're talking about covid deaths, that stuff is out the window. They don't talk about that at all. They don't say, "Well, these people were already in bad shape so it's not really surprising that this virus that is more or less harmless to the majority of the population is having a major effect on these people." No! They say the opposite. They say that this is insane, that we need to do everything that we possibly can to protect these people.

So it just seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth essentially. A vaccine death for an old or immunocompromised person is not a big deal. A virus death is insane, lock down the country. Lock all your doors. Hide everybody in the basement. Nobody go near grandma.

Erica: Especially when you're using that fear tactic for people to stay away from the elderly. Now we're finding that the elderly are suffering from failure to thrive and loneliness. But just as you were saying Doug, it's crazy that you would think, "We need to protect our most vulnerable" and then the most vulnerable are dying at rates higher than everyone else and all of a sudden that's not a concern.

James: If you look at the data from the Pfizer safety studies for their vaccine, most of the study participants were younger than 55 and they also excluded people who had multiple comorbidities. Basically they excluded most of the people that are the most vulnerable who are the people getting the vaccinations at this point. So it seems unfortunate that the study wasn't designed to evaluate whether or not the vaccine was safe for the population before they started vaccinating.

Elliot: Yeah, that's an excellent point, it really is, because we've got all these supposed safety studies which really give us very little information, any longer than 30 to 60 days' worth of time. Sometimes if a vaccine is going to have an effect, in some people it might be having an effect six months down the line. So we're not entirely sure whether these vaccines are safe whatsoever. That's half of what we talk about every week on this show.

But ultimately, as you just said James, the study population was excluded, the majority of the people who would be getting this vaccine in the first place. So you have these healthy young individuals with no other comorbidities so these people are going to be the least likely to develop side effects. I really wonder if they'd have done this study on 85-year-olds in care homes, whether the results would be much different in terms of the safety profile and whether it would even pass. The primary reason why they don't do that is because they probably know how many deaths that vaccine would actually cause and of course they don't want to have that reputation. It's just ironic that that's the first population of people who they're going to be giving it to. It kind of seems like it's in some way a kind of genocide.

Doug: Yeah. In fact I've got a friend that thinks that that is the conspiracy that's going on right now; give it to all the old people first. Clear out all the old people, all the people who are in need of medical care and medical assistance. It's a big money grab. Get rid of the most vulnerable portion of our population. I'm not saying that I believe that. I'm just saying that that's a theory that's out there.

Erica: Well it is also the largest population because it's the baby boomers. Especially in the US, you have all these people that are on Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security and - not to go into the economics of the United States - but if you have a failing system, where's all that money going to be to take care of those people? I'm not on that same line. I'm just saying that it looks like a potential.

James: There's very little data in the Pfizer study that they released also, because it was such a short study, some of the questions that I'd like to have answered are how much does the vaccine reduce the chances of somebody dying versus getting the corona virus naturally and how many fewer hospitalizations will there be and not just among the general population but specifically among the elderly and most at-risk populations. They're really just focusing on whether or not it's safe to get the vaccine but I think we should also be asking the question, what are the benefits of giving the vaccine. If the benefits of the vaccine are outweighed by the dangers of side effects, either short-term or long-term, then why are we giving the vaccine to people? Especially considering that the virus is not very dangerous for the vast majority of the population.

Elliot: And Fauci himself has even said that the vaccine is not designed to block the infection or prevent the spread of infection. It's to prevent symptoms or to reduce the severity of the symptom. It's entirely possible that this vaccine, if there was to be a study, in terms of whether the vaccine was in fact effective at reducing symptoms - that's one big question - but also whether it was actually going to be reducing the spread of any infection whatsoever, compared with the vaccine side effects. It's not likely that they're ever going to do a study like this because it's highly possible that the results would not turn out favourably for them.

So we can hope and we can pray for something like that. But it's not only care home recipients or people who are in the elderly population who are getting this vaccine who are having these side effects. Over the past couple of weeks since January we've seen several occasions of individuals who were previously in relatively good health - there was an article about a doctor, I have lost it now...

Doug: The Daily Mail.

Elliot: Yeah. Where was that doctor from? Was he in the US?

James: Are you talking about the doctor in Florida who had brain aneurysm?

Damian: Miami.

James: No, he had a...

Erica: Blood disorder.

James: Yeah, his immune system was destroying all of his body's platelets.

Doug: Exactly. Which is a crazy side effect. That's just nuts. You get a vaccine and suddenly your body is destroying all of your platelets? They were giving him tests and his platelet count was coming up at zero. He had NONE! I think they were saying in the article that the normal amount of platelets is 45,000 or something like that, those are the kind of counts that you would normally see and his was zero. No sorry, 450,000! Between 150,000 and 450,000 platelets per microlitre of blood and his was coming up at zero. Apparently they kept on giving him platelet infusions and he was still coming up with zero. The body was attacking it so quickly that it was just disappearing.

Erica: And he was in super good health, exercise. His wife is convinced that it was a side effect from the vaccine.

Doug: Yeah. And the guy apparently was pro-vaccine himself. That's why he got it. He was getting it so that he could recommend it to his patients, being a responsible doctor essentially. "Let me try this thing myself before I start giving it to my patients." And he has an effect like this!

Elliot: A similar thing happened with a nurse in Portugal. So she had the vaccine, I think it might have been late December and two days later she was found dead in her bed.

Doug: Yeah.

Elliot: And there was no indication of any underlying health issue, no indication of imminent death and yet she got this vaccine, sudden death. She was 41 years old! That's barely middle-aged. In the scheme of things she's on the young side of things. So is it just the elderly who are going to be more susceptible? It seems as though this is probably, I would guess, not only is underlying health status important, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have underlying predispositions, genetic predispositions, whatever it is, which is going to affect how our immune system has the capacity to process the stuff that's in this vaccine.

Now whether these deaths are purely due to the adjuvant or the polyethylene glycol which is making up the lipid carrier, whether that is purely responsible because that does trigger a compliment system; it can activate the innate immune system and cause a systemic inflammatory response and an anaphylactic response to this; several people who have been experiencing this anaphylaxis reaction from getting this vaccine - but it would as though there's other things going on as well because when you're looking at several days after getting this vaccine, it's not necessarily consistent with an immediate allergic or anaphylactic shock.

So it would seem as though I would bet there's probably several factors which are going to make someone very susceptible to this and it doesn't seem as though age is necessarily going to be one of the things which is going to determine whether someone dies or not. It's hard to say the numbers but Biden has said that he's going to try to distribute 100 million vaccines so that's 50 million people. We should get some better data and see how bad this thing really is but up until then it's fairly difficult with the small amount that they're distributing at the moment.

Doug: It almost seems like a lottery. Get the vaccine. Who's going to have these insane negative reactions and who's going to have the whole thing go by without much of an incident? We were talking before about the cost benefit analysis and whether the vaccine is actually worthwhile. There is some question as to whether the vaccine even does anything. RT had an article right at the beginning of the year actually. "Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer Biontech vaccine" it reports.

So basically this article goes into details on hundreds of Israelis getting themselves vaccinated and then shortly after that getting covid. Now it was the Pfizer vaccine so there's no actual covid in the Pfizer vaccine so they weren't getting it because it was an attenuated virus or a live virus or anything like that. It is showing that the vaccine is not in fact protecting them. Now there's a million excuses for that.

James: It sounded to me when I read the article like they got the first dose of the vaccine and maybe the people who got the first dose assumed that that meant that they would be immune to the virus, or maybe not. I don't know. Basically they used it as an opportunity to talk about how, "You need to get both doses of the vaccine because the first dose only gives you 50% immunity and then the second dose is what gives you the 95% immunity." Both of those numbers are...

Doug: Meaningless?

James: Debatable. {laughter}. Meaningless. Completely. I was trying to be kind. So basically the story is that you can still catch the virus even if you get the vaccine so I wonder if it wouldn't make much more sense for most people to do things like take vitamin D, take zinc, take vitamin C, make sure you have a good diet and get enough sleep; do things that we know are safe, even herbal medicines, homeopathic remedies that we know have an extremely long track record of being safe and might be just as effective as this vaccine at protecting you from the virus.

I talk to people every day about this and people are so afraid of this virus because of the way it has been portrayed on the news that I think the common perception is that just being exposed to it means that you will catch it and you have a high chance of dying from it. That seems like the common perception and I should say misconception of this virus when the numbers show that actually your risk of catching it if you're exposed to it is actually fairly low and we're talking about maybe one in a thousand deaths, one in a thousand who catch it actually die from the virus and something like 90% of those have multiple co-existing underlying conditions.

I don't mean to minimize the deaths of the people who do catch covid and die, but the way it has been portrayed is just blown so far out of proportion that everyone is terrified and ready to accept the risk of getting a vaccine because they maybe think it's less than the risk of catching the live virus when really that might not be true.

Doug: Well I think it's quite likely with this situation in Israel that the first dose of the vaccine actually compromised their immune systems and they became more susceptible to covid because whenever you have something foreign injected straight into your blood, your body's going to have to mobilize some kind of defense against that and that requires resources. So it wouldn't surprise me if what was actually going on here was that these people got the vaccine and they actually became more susceptible to catching covid. That's just a theory obviously. I don't have any way of backing that up but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

James: That's been a concern that I read about which several epidemiologists have written about. Apparently in the past there's been an issue with the development of vaccines for corona viruses and they've never gotten past animal studies. Usually they use a ferret model or a feline model. But an issue that they've run into is that they vaccinate the animals. They test the animals. The animals have a robust immune response to the vaccination, but when they're exposed to the live virus, their immune system overreacts to the live virus and they end up with exactly the kind of cytokine storms and inflammation that we've seen in the worst cases of people reacting to covid-19 exposure.

It seems like there's potentially a danger for that with this vaccine and certainly let's hope that that doesn't happen.

Elliot: We were talking about a similar study just a couple of weeks ago on macaques I think, a certain type of monkey. It's been shown time and time again and this is really what is one of the most concerning things, we have an indication that this kind of vaccine, although it's technically an mRNA vaccine, it's a vaccine which is meant to protect against SARS-Co-V but how do we know that say, six months, 12 months down the line, upon re-exposure to a similar virus, that we are not going to have this kind of cytokine storm that happened in the animal studies? What if 99% of people might go perfectly fine without any reactions? But how do we know that in a year or even two years' time, if these people are not going to have their immune systems somehow screwed up so that they become hyper-reactive or hyper-responsive or even more susceptible to developing a genuine pathogen which is responsible for a real pandemic where people are dying on the streets kind of thing? Like a genuine Black Death kind of pandemic?

So there are just so many unanswered questions and it seems at this point the people who are getting this vaccine are willingly giving their bodies over as guinea pigs. As many people are calling this, it's one large scientific experiment at the moment and I guess it's up to each individual as to whether they participate as a subject or as a bystander, as an observer. I know which one I would prefer to be. {laughter} I'm going to be an observer in this experiment. There's lots of unanswered questions at the moment.

Doug: For sure. It's kind of funny because there have been a number of "rare" anaphylactic reactions. We've mentioned that a bit previously. There was one in Hamilton, Canada. A personal service worker, long-term care worker who got the Pfizer vaccine - it seems that all these stories are about Pfizer and Moderna - and she actually even told the nurse that she had a severe bee allergy which the nurse noted but didn't say anything about and she ended up getting the vaccine and they made her stick around because apparently it's the policy to make them stick around for 15-20 minutes or something like that, and she started feeling really off. She told the tech guy, EMT, whatever he was, about it and he gave her Benadryl and she said that she felt better for a bit but then all of a sudden she started to feel worse. That's when they gave her the epi-pen adrenaline. That essentially made her tank, go right downhill and they ended up having to give her CPR which, as far as I know, means that her heart stopped. So more or less she died.

She was brought back although at the time of the writing of this article, which I think was January 2nd, a little over two weeks ago, she still hadn't recovered fully. She was still feeling really wacked-out and off. There was another who was a doctor who also had a severe allergic reaction. This time it was to the Moderna vaccine. It was the same kind of thing. He does have allergies and he said what this felt like was an anaphylactic allergic reaction. Now Pfizer and Moderna have come out, with the woman in Canada they said "Well there's no bee products in our vaccine so it's unlikely that that had anything to do with it." I think that's shooting themselves in the foot, saying it had nothing to do with her allergy. It was just an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine for no reason.

So there are people who are having these reactions and this is aside from the deaths. I guess the point I'm getting at is that there are multiple different things that seem to be able to go wrong here.

Elliot: Those reactions, the IGE allergic reactions have been something that scientists who have been studying lipid nanoparticle delivery vaccines for a while have been concerned about. They've been concerned with polyethylene glycol. It's called PEG and it's one of the ways in which they encapsulate this mRNA and get it into the cells without the immune system detecting it because if the immune detects it, then it will destroy it upon entry. So the polyethylene glycol is ordinarily meant to give a stealth quality to this nanoparticle delivery system.

The problem is that scientists in this field or the bystanders have raised concerns because there are a number of people in our environment - and I don't know what percentage it is, it's a relatively small percentage - but people who already have antibodies against polyethylene glycol and there's various reason for that because we come into contact with this substance through various means. If I remember correctly it's what makes up a laxative called Miralax and that is primarily polyethylene glycol. Now if some people, let's say if someone has intestinal permeability, if they have leaky gut, then it is possible that some of that polyethylene glycol that they take in their Miralax laxative is going to be getting across the gut barrier and someone is going to be gradually mobilizing an immune response against that.

Now just taking Miralax might not be a problem but let's say for whatever reason, someone does have IGG or even IGE antibodies produced against PEG and when they get it directly injected into their muscle, it's going to be a little bit different from having it come through the mouth. It's bypassing all of the natural defenses so it's theoretically possible that in these people they might have already had some kind of immune hyper-reactivity to this substance but have never had it injected into their veins.

So that's one of the theories as to why some of these people do get anaphylaxis or allergic reactions to this substance. It's because they already have underlying IGE antibodies against it for some unrelated reason.

Erica: Would it be hard to test people for that? If you knew you had a susceptibility could you have a test before you got vaccinated? Is there a way that they can determine? I know with children if your child has an egg allergy or like you were saying earlier, bees, you would think that they would have thought that through.

Elliot: You would, right? I'm looking at a paper right here and it says "Anti-PEG IGE in anaphylaxis associated with polyethylene glycol". So it's established that if you have these antibodies against this substance you can get anaphylaxis against it. I don't know whether there's a test that's widely available. But actually that's an excellent thought. That might actually be a really good way, if you're an individual who knows that you might have to have the vaccine, it might be a good idea if you want to avoid one of these anaphylactic shocks, although they're very unlikely, it might be a good idea to see if you could test your antibodies.

Erica: When you're in a hospital or doctor setting they always ask "Do you have an allergy to Tylenol or Ibuprofen?" It just seems like it wouldn't take that much longer to address these kinds of issues because it's making them look really bad.

Doug: I just wanted to note that PEG is actually in lots of different things. It's in medications. It's in body care products, all kinds of stuff. People are coming into contact with this all over the place. But like you were saying Elliot, it's a little bit different to have it in your shampoo or something like that versus getting it injected into your veins.

Erica: I just wanted to add a little note, not that it's much, but for those that may not know, Pfizer is one of the biggest payouts of criminal negligence of all corporations. Back in 2018 I think they spent over $2.3 billion in settlements. Just something to consider, and the fact that these companies which are convicted criminals, are still getting a big portion of this pie speaks volumes to me. That's just a very cursory Google search, "Pfizer lawsuit payouts". You can look and see it. It's right there. It hasn't been scrubbed. But that's a lot of money and that's a lot of negligence. We've covered them many times over the years. For people who perhaps are new to all this, that's something that you can just say, "Well if a convicted criminal wanted to be in charge of your health, you might want to look into that." Just a side note.

James: That's a great point Erica. I really find it interesting too, the contrast in the general response to say, hydroxychloroquine and the scare around hydroxychloroquine versus the response to the vaccine injuries that have occurred so far. There's a lot of minimizing and it seems like the general mood is, "Well, this is something that we just have to put up with because the vaccination is what we need to do to get past the covid pandemic and get on with life as usual and vaccines are good so some bad reactions are to be expected."

But then you have something like hydroxychloroquine which was widely demonized. If something like this happened with an herbal remedy, it would only take one person to have an anaphylactic reaction and suddenly that remedy would be totally blacklisted everywhere. So I think that speaks to the power that a company like Pfizer has both in the narrative that's being propagated and also in the support that they get from the media and from government agencies and so forth.

Doug: Absolutely. Well we are coming up on our time here. Did you guys have anything that you wanted to add? Any last minute additions?

Elliot: Just on the polyethylene glycol thing, I was just checking a paper. It's talking about using PEG in medicine, using polyethylene glycol in medicine and they're an advisory team. They said at the end of the study that it's very important to test anti-polyethylene glycol antibodies before, during and after treatment. They're not doing that. They're not doing that. I guess that's all I wanted to say. They're not doing it when they should be. They're not prioritizing that. So as long as they do that there's going to be many more unnecessary deaths from anaphylaxis which is quite unnecessary.

James: And that's something that probably would have come up if proper safety studies were done over a long period of time.

Doug: Absolutely.

James: They would have identified that.

Doug: Okay, on that happy note, {laughter} thanks for joining us today everybody. We will see you all next week with another exciting topic. Be sure to like and subscribe, share if you're so inclined and we'll see you on the next one.