What Can The US Senate Teach Us about the Dangers of the COVID-19 Vaccines?

A review of the common forms of spike protein injuries and the profound consequences of denying them.

Since the COVID-19 vaccines first came out, I have had many vaccine-injured patients, friends have contacted me about relatives who died suddenly, and I’ve spent an immense amount of time reading vaccine injury reports online. Once it became apparent that none of my colleagues would consider these concerns because they were trapped in a mass formation about the vaccines being 95% effective and our salvation from the pandemic, I felt trapped and hopeless.

Before long, I could at least meticulously confirm and document each injury I came across. I was unsure if it would ultimately lead to anything, but I had a strong feeling that, for some reason, I needed to do it. I then rationalized this hunch under the logic that making a log would give me a better sense of if the reports I saw online were accurately describing the catastrophe that was unfolding, it would provide me with some form of proof I could show colleagues who insisted there was no evidence whatsoever the vaccines were harmful, and it was a way I could at least pay respect to those who were injured.

Ultimately, my intuition was correct, but not for any of the reasons I rationalized at the time ago (which has repeatedly been an important life lesson for me). Fifteen months ago, not knowing who I was, Steve Kirsch kindly agreed to share an article I felt the world needed to see. It argued what we were going through with the COVID vaccine (written at the time the trucker protests were happening in Canada) perfectly mirrored what had happened with the disastrous (and ineffective) smallpox vaccines almost 150 years ago.

However, in addition to sharing it, Kirsch also encouraged his readers to subscribe to my newly formed Substack (made solely to share the smallpox article). Not being sure what else to do with a newfound subscriber base, I published the log I had put together over the last year. It hit a nerve and went viral (again, largely thanks to Steve’s help).

I share this story to illustrate that I have taken the time to develop a detailed understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine’s toxicity—something I believe was partly motivated by the fact pharmaceuticals have injured many people close to me and thus created a strong interest in understanding pharmaceutical toxicity.

Note: in writing this, I sought out Robert Malone to provide commentary on it.

With the COVID-19 vaccines, I have observed that their injuries fall into a few common patterns, and the myriad of symptoms you observe can normally be traced back to one or more of these creating the specific symptom:

1. Severe inflammation and autoimmunity throughout the body.

2. Circulatory obstruction throughout the body.

3. Immune suppression.

Note: a paper by Stephanie Seneff was published in a peer-reviewed journal on May 2021 (a few months after the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market). It recognized the signals that accurately predicted the first and third items would be major vaccine issues. It is inexcusable that an independent researcher with access to limited data could do this, yet our healthcare and scientific authorities could not.

Comment from Robert Malone: this is a clear inditement of the WHO, US HHS, and the medical establishment in US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and most of the western world. For those who seek evidence supporting accusations of “crimes against humanity”, the clear documentation that the suppressed “dissident” voices were actually correctly interpreting the data in real time is a pretty good start.

I believe the first problem is a property of the spike protein being extremely immunogenic (which may in part be due to it collapsing the zeta potential of the body), the spike protein having homologies to a variety of human tissue (thereby creating autoimmunity to those tissues) and vaccines being designed so that the immunogenic spike protein is expressed on the surfaces of tissue, thereby causing the immune system to attack the mRNA transfected tissues.

Comment from Robert Malone: The cationic lipid nanoplexes also impact on zeta potential, and may play a role in this potential mechanism of toxicity.

There are many different approaches to this issue. Some of those colleagues and I use are addressing the cell danger response and utilizing certain oxidative therapies (along with a few other methods also detailed here).

I believe the second problem is a property of the spike protein collapsing the zeta potential of the body, it frequently attacking the lining of the blood vessels, and it being well suited to creating misfolded proteins. These complications tend to respond to restoring the zeta potential of the body, using regimens that can remove the fibrous clots, utilizing various anticoagulants (and repurposed drugs which disperse spike protein microclots), and using therapies that create new blood vessels in the body.

The third problem, immune suppression, causes a variety of issues such as (often aggressive and unusual) cancers (which may also be due to the spike protein entering the nucleus), far more frequent cases of the flu and other viral infections, reactivation of latent viruses, and sometimes severe illnesses typically only seen in those with severe immune suppression (e.g., AIDS). Of the three problems listed, the treatment protocol for immune suppression is the least clearcut, and at this point, most of the approaches I’ve seen utilized are ones that target the first two in the hope they will also help for the third.

Note: one of my friend’s fathers died from the same fungal pneumonia (typically only seen in AIDS patients) detailed in the above letter from an ICU doctor to the federal agencies overseeing the vaccination program.

When this article was originally posted, this comment was left by an Infectious Disease doctor I verified the credentials of:

I think this comment is important because, beyond illustrating the widespread immune suppression from the spike protein, it also shows how difficult it is for doctors (and people in general) to discard their existing filters and instead see what is directly in front of them. Put differently, I've argued the greatest reason why doctors gaslight patients is due to the nature of our educational system. Since it encourages copying the algorithms you are taught to navigate reality rather than open and critical thinking, it is very hard for most people nowadays to recognize things (e.g., a diagnosis) unless they have been trained to see them—which as you might expect does not occur for pharmaceutical injuries.

Furthermore, my observation is that over the last 150 years, there has been a gradual decline in the health and vitality of the human species, leading to chronic illnesses (particularly neurological and autoimmune ones) being much more common and more difficult to treat. I am certain they are a consequence of modern technology and that vaccines (starting with smallpox 150 years ago) are one of the biggest culprits—likely partly due to their adverse effects on fluid circulation throughout the body. 

While this decline is continual but gradual and thus typically only noticed by physicians noticing how much sicker patients were at the end of their careers than at the start, a much stronger toxin is introduced every now and then, which creates a faster decline which far more recognize. Sadly, however, in each case, the created chronic illness becomes normalized. I suspect that doctors entering medicine now that everyone has been spiked won't even realize what they assume to be normal is in fact not.

For example, I recently listened to a third-year medical student tell a group of physicians their recent rotation had been an excellent experience for them because there were "a lot of hearts and strokes" they could learn from. At the time this happened, I did not notice any reaction from the other doctors present (besides nodding in agreement), while I remembered heart attacks and strokes had previously been relatively uncommon at the clinical rotation site this student was at.

Shingles and Spike Proteins

After you have a chickenpox infection, the virus will become dormant in your system and can reactivate later in life (especially if your immune system weakens) as shingles. Typically the reactivation is much worse than the initial infection (shingles can be extremely unpleasant), so various approaches, such as vaccines for shingles, are always being investigated and promoted.

Comment from Robert Malone: Historic fact- the reactivation of latent DNA viruses including shingles was known by my colleagues at the FDA in the office of the Commissioner and the Office of the Chief Scientist very early on, and we discussed it frequently on our weekly zoom calls. This is also the group that first identified the myocarditis adverse event signal. Both of these adverse events were disregarded by the review branch when they were initially notified.

In areas where this was studied (the CDC commissioned studies as they believed chickenpox vaccination would decrease shingle), shingles instead became much more common (and appeared in younger age groups). The best explanation put forward to explain this (since you would expect the vaccine to do the opposite) was that the chicken pox vaccine creating partial immunity in the population prevented members of the population from periodically having their immunity to the virus be boosted by subclinical exposures from members of their community.

To quantify the impact of the CDC’s researcher’s findings (keep in mind that the immune suppression which leads to a susceptibility to shingles has significantly increased since the time of these findings):

Goldman pointed out that during a 50-year time span, there would be an estimated additional 14.6 million (42%) shingles cases among adults aged less than 50 years, presenting society with a substantial additional medical cost burden of $4.1 billion. This translates into $80 million annually, utilizing an estimated mean healthcare provider cost of $280 per shingles case.

Sadly, the CDC researcher’s findings were not positively received. He received cease and desist orders and eventually had to leave the CDC.

Note: much more has been written on this subject within this book.

When the COVID-19 vaccines came out, one of the first things that raised red flags to independent researchers was shingles being a frequently reported adverse effect of the vaccines.

We believe the occurrence of zoster is another important ‘signal’ in VAERS. This increased risk to shingles, if valid, may have important broader implications. Multiple studies have shown that patients with either primary or acquired immune deficiency are more susceptible to severe herpes zoster infection. This suggests that the mRNA vaccines may be suppressing the innate immune response.

There is cross-talk between TNF- α and type I interferon in autoimmune disease, wherein each suppresses the other. Type I interferon inhibits varicella-zoster virus replication (Ku et al., 2016). TNF- α is sharply upregulated in an inflammatory response, which is induced by the lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine. Its up-regulation is also associated with the chronic inflammatory state of rheumatoid arthritis. Exuberant TNF-α expression following vaccination may be interfering with the dendritic cell INF-α response that keeps latent herpes zoster in check.

The spike in shingles suggested the COVID-19 vaccines were causing suppression of the innate immune system. This is that has been seen with previous vaccines, but not to the degree witnessed with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Comment from Robert Malone: Likewise the spike in EBV reactivation, which many physicians believe to be one of the major contributing causes to the “post vaccination syndrome.

The Distribution of Adverse Reactions

Anytime something causes an injury to the body (assuming it is not something extreme like a nuclear blast), each person's response will vary, with less severe injuries being much more common than severe reactions. Conversely, if an injury pattern exists, which can be mild, moderate, or severe in its presentation, and you see a disproportional number of severe reactions (this is quite rare), that serves as a warning the toxin in question is extremely dangerous and that a much larger undetected number of mild and moderate injuries are also occurring.

When the cases of shingles began emerging, one of my first questions was, "Will we see the much rarer and more dangerous cases of it as well?"

Then, in June of 2022, arguably the most famous celebrity in the world, Justin Bieber, had just that happen to him and developed Ramsay Hunt syndrome (a very rare form of shingles that paralyzes your face).

I did some digging on this subject and found out the following:

•Based on the available literature, Justin Bieber had a 27/1,000,000 chance of developing this condition.

•Justin Bieber was almost certainly vaccinated.

•Justin Bieber had previously recovered from Lyme disease, which may have created his susceptibility to this condition.

When I looked at the broader context, I discovered that:

•Both Moderna and Pfizer were well into developing mRNA vaccines for shingles despite a traditional vaccine already being on the market.

•Opthamalogists were observing an increase in Ramsay Hunt syndrome, a condition that is typically referred to opthamalogy specialists, but it is so rare that most of them (including a close friend of mine) had never seen it in their careers. This statement for example came from an ophthalmologist I verified was who they claimed they be.

•Both shingles and the severe complications of it, in turn, have been elevated following COVID-19 vaccination. The following table is from the most comprehensive article I was able to find on the subject:

What I found most disappointing about these events was Bieber’s choice not to speak out about what had happened and risk his career to do the right thing. This was particularly disappointing given that Bieber had previously publicly spoken out on the issue of Lyme disease, a condition that is marginalized and neglected by the medical community, and which many patients suffer with for years.

How Dangerous Are The COVID-19 Vaccines?

Typically, the adverse rates of a dangerous pharmaceutical are rare enough that, while unacceptably high, they are usually possible to sweep under the rug. The COVID-19 vaccines are somewhat unique in this regard because they were given out of the blue to most of the world’s population (making it much easier to recognize their impact) and were clearly associated with an unprecedented incidence of post- inoculation adverse events. Thus, even though most of the media and academic press did their best to cover it up, much of the public saw through these lies. Two of the best resources I saw for demonstrating the overall harm of this vaccination campaign were as follows:

First, Edward Dowd assembled a team of experienced analysts that worked to calculate the costs of the vaccine program. Recently they released a report which speaks for itself:

When I reviewed Dowd’s report, I realized there were a lot of human and economic costs that the report was not counting, presumably since they are impossible to calculate precisely. This means this report underestimated the harms that have been caused by the vaccine program.

Secondly, Rasmussen Reports, one of the more honest political polling firms, recently conducted two surveys on the scope of vaccine injury:

Note: based on all the other figures I have examined, I do not believe “major” was an exaggeration by the survey participants.

Each of these assessments demonstrates that the damage from the COVID vaccines is on a scale that the general public is fully aware of, despite the massive amounts of propaganda telling them otherwise.

Note: Rasmussen has also conducted additional polls on this subject that had results similar to the polls above.

Democratic Senators

Given the high rate of significant COVID-19 vaccine injuries, two possibilities seem quite plausible.

The first is that the COVID-19 vaccines have also injured numerous public officials.

The second is that if those officials pushed for mandating the COVID-19 vaccines on the population, like Justin Bieber, they would likely try to cover up their injury rather than speak out on the issue.

For example, Illinois Democrat and US Representative Sean Casten’s 17-year-old vaccinated daughter Gwen died suddenly and unexpectedly in her sleep Sunday night, June 12, 2022. For context, prior to the vaccines, a sudden death in an adolescent was extraordinarily rare (one reader calculated a US Representative would be expected to have a child under 18 die once every 200 years).

When independent journalists investigated the events, they found both that Casten’s family aggressively promoted the vaccine and that there was a high likelihood it killed his daughter. However, rather than supply any information to dispel these rumors, Casten in a statement, simply said:

“The only thing we know about her death is that it was peaceful. And the only lesson we can take from that is to savor the moments you have with your loved ones.”

Note: quite a few parents took strong exception to how Casten handled this, and sadly there are other similar examples I can also cite of the “Casten Response.”

In addition to Casten, there have been other suspicious incidents strongly suggestive of COVID-19 vaccine injury existing throughout the Democratic leadership (that included prolonged and conspicuous absences) and of those injuries being covered up.

The best sample I have come across can be found in the U.S. Senate. Briefly, since the vaccines entered the market:

Ben Ray Luján is a freshman New Mexico Democratic Senator who repeatedly promoted the COVID-19 vaccines:

On January 27, 2022, Luján (then 49) was hospitalized in Santa Fe after feeling fatigued and dizzy. He was found to have had a stroke affecting his cerebellum and was transferred to the University of New Mexico Hospital for treatment, which included a decompressive craniectomy. A statement from his office said that "he is expected to make a full recovery". Luján returned to work at the Senate on March 3 and stated by April 21 that he was 90% recovered.

Jon Fetterman, a freshman Pennsylvania Democratic Senator (then aged 52) on May 17, 2022, less than a month after strongly endorsing the vaccine, suffered a stroke two days before the state primary for his senate seat. Despite significant signs of cognitive impairment since his stroke, Fetterman somehow won the primary and then the general election. Since becoming elected, Fetterman has had prolonged periods of absence from the U.S. Senate due to needing specialized medical care:

Fetterman was hospitalized for syncope (lightheadedness) for two days beginning on February 10, 2023. Two days after his release he was hospitalized again, for a severe case of major depression. For about two months, Fetterman lived and worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As part of his daily schedule at the hospital, his chief of staff arrived at 10 a.m. on weekdays with newspaper clips, statements for Fetterman to approve, and legislation to review. During his hospitalization, Fetterman co-sponsored a bipartisan rail safety bill, introduced after the derailment of a chemical-carrying train in East Palestine, Ohio, close to the border with Pennsylvania; the regulation aimed to strengthen freight-rail safety regulations to prevent future derailments.

On April 17, 2023, Fetterman returned to the Senate to chair the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry subcommittee on food and nutrition, specialty crops, organics and research. The Washington Post said that Fetterman's "voice stumbled at times while reading from prepared notes" during the subcommittee hearing, but "he appeared in good spirits" and communicated a message about the importance of fighting hunger.

It is also important to consider that in addition to strokes being one of the most common complications of the COVID-19 vaccines, both Luján and Fetterman were at an age where unexpected strokes are fairly rare.

I would argue that both of these events occurring not long after the vaccines entered the market (to a 49-year-old and a 52-year-old within a group of 48 people) was so unlikely that it cannot be attributed to chance.

However, while those two senators' stories are compelling, Dianne Feinstein's is the most important one in my opinion.

In late February, Dianne Feinstein was hospitalized for shingles. To quote Steve Kirsch's investigation of his California senator:

The article in the San Jose Mercury News said her office wouldn’t comment on her medical history regarding shingles due to privacy concerns.

But I’d like to know how keeping her history secret benefits the public.

She pushed the vaccines. Over and over. And over.

She even wanted to require vaccination or COVID tests for air travel.

We all know now how ludicrous such a suggestion was.

Given that shingles typically does not require hospitalization, many assumed Feinstein had suffered a rare but severe complication of shingles like Ramsay Hunt Syndrome due to vaccine immune suppression. Her staff, of course, insisted nothing of concern had happened, and she would be able to return to work soon.

Unfortunately, like Fetterman, a significant neurological injury occurred that became impossible to coverup once she returned, forcing Feinstein and her staff to come clean about what happened:

Adam Russell, a spokesman for Feinstein, said that the encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain, “resolved itself shortly after she was released from the hospital in March.” Feinstein continues to have complications from the Ramsay Hunt syndrome, Russell said.

Russell confirmed the two complications after the New York Times first reported them, raising questions about whether she had been hiding the extent of her illnesses. Upon her return last week, Feinstein was using a wheelchair and noticeably thinner, and has appeared confused at times when speaking to reporters or being wheeled through the halls.

“The senator previously disclosed that she had several complications related to her shingles diagnosis,” Russell said in the statement. “As discussed in the New York Times article, those complications included Ramsay Hunt syndrome and encephalitis.”

Feinstein’s face has appeared partially paralyzed since she returned to the Senate, stirring some speculation about whether she had had a stroke….Encephalitis can also be caused by shingles. The swelling of the brain can have a number of different symptoms, including personality changes, seizures, stiffness, confusion and problems with sight or hearing, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Aides to Feinstein said last week that she is still recovering from her illness and would operate on a reduced schedule. Since she has returned, she has missed some votes where she was not needed. On Wednesday, for example, she missed the first three Senate votes of the day but appeared for the last two, in which the margin was much closer.

While this speaks for itself, the one additional detail I wish to highlight is that, as the above compilation of vaccine injuries shows, encephalitis is a much rarer complication of shingles than the already rare Ramsay Hunt syndrome.

One of the potential complications of this infection is involvement of the central nervous system causing encephalitis. An increased risk of this complication is associated with the immunocompromised patient….According to the World Health Organization, encephalitis occurs in one out of every 33,000–50,000 cases of VZV [shingles].

Note: after this story was originally published, a commenter alerted me to another Democratic Senator, also having a stroke (on May 15, 2022), which occurred while he gave a speech in the Senate (thus making it harder to conceal). Although Van Hollen was 64 (making his odds of a spontaneous stroke a bit higher than his colleagues), the type of stroke he had was quite unusual; it was a brain bleed rather than a blood clot, and it happened in a vein rather than an artery (which is where brain bleeds typically arise). I have seen numerous cases of hemorrhagic strokes following COVID-19 vaccination, and autopsy results showing the spike protein directly attacks the blood vessels, making them more likely to rupture.

Conclusion

I am relatively sure other prominent leaders and members of the senate besides Luján, Fetterman, and Feinstein have had significant COVID-19 vaccine injuries—the only difference being that they were possible to cover up because they did not prevent the senator from being able to appear to do their job. However, if we assume those three were the only ones injured and assume that all Democrat senators vaccinated themselves, given that there are presently 48 Democratic senators, this represents a 6.25% rate of severe injury following COVID-19 vaccination. Then, if we also include Senator Van Hollen, it becomes 8.3%.

This figure is both in line with the 7% rate of “major” injury following vaccination Rasmussen survey respondents reported and Ed Dowd’s conservative estimate of 18% of vaccine recipients suffering a complication from vaccination and 0.93% of vaccine recipients becoming disabled.

It is both utterly inexcusable that our political leaders would be pushing something this dangerous onto the population and also quite perplexing they have continued to do so even after they’ve had first-hand experiences with the COVID-19 vaccine’s devastating consequences.

Recently (as part of a successful intervention for someone trapped within a cult), I rewatched a phenomenal interview Mattias Desmet had with Tucker Carlson about his Mass Formation hypothesis (a dynamic I have independently seen play out in so many areas throughout my lifetime). I believe this interview succinctly explains precisely why the Democrat’s leadership is behaving the way it is, and I would highly recommend you watch it because it touches on so many different critical points of the era we live in.

Postscript: I repeatedly receive requests from people (I would very much like to become friends with) to identify myself. I have avoided doing this because I know once people are under pressure, even if they are great individuals, they often crack; I've seen that happen numerous times throughout my life, including within this movement. 

Robert Malone is one of the few people I have felt comfortable connecting with. This was because mutual friends I trust who knew him before he spoke out on the COVID vaccines vouched for his character, and the fact that what he was saying publicly (e.g., his moderate stance) essentially matched what I would do if my sincere goal was only to do the best I could to move things forward in a positive direction and I was the one in Malone's position.

I have avoided stating my feelings towards Malone because I also hold a great deal of respect for the work many of his critics have done (e.g., we all owe Peter Breggin an immense debt for the work he did to expose the psychiatric industry), and because I do not feel it benefits anyone to take sides and create wedges or divisions in this movement—which is something I have witnessed tear apart many previous causes I've been involved in.

Since many have asked over the last few days, I will also acknowledge that many concerns about Malone have been shared with me for more than a year. I've looked into quite a few of them, and at this point, I've lost count of how many were either (often nonsensical) misinterpretations of existing information or assumptions from afar about his personality that are entirely at odds with who I have found Malone to be when speaking to him directly.