Madison Area Lyme Support Group

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

June 21, 2022

A case study was published earlier this month in the Journal Français d’Ophtalmologie reporting an anterior uveitis case that developed after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine in a 54-year-old female.

Bilateral anterior uveitis after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: Case report

A 54-year-old female patient, who did not have any disease other than diabetes mellitus, had complaints of redness, blurred vision, eye and headache that started in both eyes 3 days after the first dose of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. Three days later, she was referred to our clinic.

She had the best corrected visual acuity of 5/20 on the snellen chart in both eyes. Conjunctiva of both eyes were hyperemic, corneal epithelial edema and keratic prepitates were observed in the lower quadrant. There was intense reaction in the anterior chamber and posterior synechia in the right eye. Intraocular pressure values were 60 mmHg in the right and 55 mmHg in the left with the Goldman applanation tonometer. Corneal edema was attributed to high intraocular pressure.

The patient was hospitalized and necessary blood tests were taken. (Full study.)

We have previously reported on a case of a 7-year-old girl in Thailand who began oozing blood from her eyes and skin after receiving the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Her case was published in CTN News, which reported:

According to the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute MDPI, there have been recent reports of hemorrhage, blood clots, and thrombocytopenia following the administration of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that have raised concerns over the safety of genetic vaccines for people with pre-existing coagulation disorders or those on certain medications. (Full article.)

With the dangerous COVID-19 mRNA shots now being extended to babies and toddlers, I decided to search the Government VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting System) database for cases filed for various eye disorders. The list of eye disorders that I searched can be seen here. They are:

• Abnormal sensation in eye
• Abscess of eyelid
• Autoimmune eye disorder
• Binocular eye movement disorder
• Decreased eye contact
• Eye allergy
• Eye contusion
• Eye discharge
• Eye disorder
• Eye haemangioma
• Eye haematoma
• Eye haemorrhage
• Eye infection
• Eye infection bacterial
• Eye infection fungal
• Eye infection intraocular
• Eye infection staphylococcal
• Eye infection toxoplasmal
• Eye infection viral
• Eye inflammation
• Eye injury
• Eye irritation
• Eyelid abrasion
• Eyelid bleeding
• Eyelid boil
• Eyelid contusion
• Eyelid cyst
• Eyelid disorder
• Eyelid function disorder
• Eyelid haematoma
• Eyelid infection
• Eyelid injury
• Eyelid irritation
• Eyelid margin crusting
• Eyelid pain
• Eyelid tumour
• Eyelid vascular disorder
• Eye movement disorder
• Eye pain
• Eye pruritus
• Eye rolling
• Eyes sunken
• Eye swelling
• Eye ulcer
• Floppy eyelid syndrome
• Glassy eyes

For the past 18 months since the COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorizations, there have been 17,858 cases of eye disorders reported, including 59 deaths, 1,232 permanent disabilities, 2,882 ER visits, and 1,466 hospitalizations, with 307 life threatening events. (Source.)

That’s an average of 992 cases of eye disorders reported each month following COVID-19 vaccine injections, and this is most certainly NOT an exhaustive list of eye disorders.

But it does give us a sub-set of data to compare to all other FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 years (360 months) prior to the roll out of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Using this exact same set of eye disorders, we find 11,898 cases filed for eye disorders over the course of 30 years following all other FDA-approved vaccines, which averages out to 33 cases a month. (Source.)

So that is a 2,902% increase in eye disorders following the very dangerous COVID-19 vaccines, which the health “authorities” now want parents to inject into their babies.

__________________

**Comment**

Oozing blood after these shots is also documented here, and German physicians showed alarming footage and slides of multiple vaxxed patients’ blood after the shots.  Also, listen to an important podcast where Dr. Jane Ruby explains embalmers are finding white, fibrous substances in the vasculature of the vaxxed.  Scroll to 9:00 to listen and see pictures.

Way back in 2020 I posted a video of Italian pathologists who performed more than 50 autopsies and who explain COVID patients are not dying from interstitial pneumonia (why ventilators don’t work and actually do more harm) but from DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulation) a medical term for blood clotting causing lack of oxygen. Chinese researchers performed 74 autopsies and confirmed this.  Interestingly, Dr. Fauci told the government, “Don’t do autopsies,” so little has been studied and revealed in the U.S.  This article explains how a German pathologist who stated that 30-40% of vaxxed autopsies died from the ‘vaccine’ went oddly silent and suddenly stopped doing autopsies.

Autopsies are key for discovery.

The Italian pathologists state in the video:

SARS, COVID2 was invented in a British lab (Pirbright Institute) from a U.S. patent(Bickerton et al.) which has 4 genetic inserts:

• HIV
• Malaria
• TB
• most likely Dengue or Zika, which most likely were carried out in the biosafety lab in Wuhan China, and then escaped or were released.

Of these diseases Malaria, Dengue, Zika, and HIV can cause Thrombocytopenia, which means decreased platelets and formation of micro clots or thrombus, which produces purpuric lesions on the skin, which results in red dots on the limbs, that have been reported in some patients asymptomatic but infected with COVID-19 – mainly in young people, and the worst cases are capable of inducing coagulation, Disseminated Intravascular, which is a systemic event triggered by damage in the blood vessels, caused by inflammation.This has two consequences:

• Severe, localized micro thrombus formation OR
• Generalized or localized bleeding

Dr. Hoffe used D-dimer tests on his vaxxed patients complaining of breathlessness, and found that 62% showed microscopic blood clots, with capillaries plugging up which will eventually lead to a serous cardiovascular event.  This also helps explain why embalmers are now finding arteries filled with blood clots, why many are needing leg amputations after the shots, and how Chinese cupping on those who got the shots shows blood like jelly.  Within this article is a video showing pictures from embalmers of “biostructures” within the vaxxed vascular systems. Evidently these are not clots but appear to be some sort of organic crystals and extremely thin wires.

These blood clots are found mainly in the lungs, heart, brain and kidney. It is feasible that many died of hemorrhagic vascular brain ischemia, others with kidney failure, and others with heart disease such as myocardial infarction or failure of cardiac dilation of the heart.

This also explains why hydroxychlorquine (HCQ), an antimalarial (along with zinc)is working, as well as Azithromycin as it stops the growth of bacteria like TB.  HCQ also prevents the virus from binding to hemoglobin.

In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.

The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”

Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”

After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.

Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).

I was wrong.

The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).

This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.

If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.

The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”

And yet, in the agency’s response to the FOIA request, it wrote that “no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.”

The agency suggested contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.

CDC officials repeatedly claimed they have not seen safety signals in VAERS.

For example, on April 27, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated the CDC did not see any signals related to heart inflammation.

But a PRR calculation I did using the number of myo/pericarditis reports listed in the first table produced by the CDC obtained via the FOIA request reveals clear and unambiguous safety signals relative to the comparator vaccines mentioned in the briefing document (i.e., flu vaccines, FLUAD and Shingrix).

The table is dated April 2, 2021, almost four weeks before she made those remarks.

In fact, among the 15 adverse events for adults included in that week’s tabulations, PRRs I calculated also show loud-and-clear safety signals for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, coagulopathy, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), stroke and death.

The actual monitoring the CDC did diverges from the one promised in the briefing document in other ways.

For example, the CDC never created tables of the top 25 adverse events reported in the previous week, tables comparing different vaccine manufacturers, or tables of auto-immune diseases.

And it only began monitoring in early April 2021, even though reports from COVID-19 vaccines had been flooding VAERS since mid-December of the previous year.

To be clear, VAERS is not the only database the CDC uses to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety.

For example, the CDC sponsored several studies of COVID-19 safety using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is comprised of millions of medical records from HMO’s across several states.

Those studies do not raise many safety concerns. However, they make many questionable methodological choices.

To give one example, a major safety study based on VSD data published in September 2021, in “JAMA,” compares adverse event rates that occur within 1-21 days of vaccination to the rate of occurrence from 22 to 42 days after vaccination.

It makes no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or before vaccination versus after in the same individuals.

Moreover, the VSD is far from infallible, having failed initially to detect the increase in myocarditis rates.

In contrast, although calculating PRR’s is a blunt pharmacovigilance tool and far from perfect, it nevertheless has the advantage of being straightforward and difficult to manipulate with statistical sleight of hand.

PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.

It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.

Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.

And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.

It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.

But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals.