Jikkyleaks archive
Ir al canal en Telegram
2 808
Suscriptores
-224 horas
-107 días
-4830 días
Carga de datos en curso...
Canales Similares
Nube de Etiquetas
Menciones Entrantes y Salientes
---
---
---
---
---
---
Atraer Suscriptores
julio '26
julio '26
+4
en 10 canales
junio '26
+2
en 8 canales
Get PRO
mayo '26
+3
en 7 canales
Get PRO
abril '26
+3
en 5 canales
Get PRO
marzo '26
+5
en 5 canales
Get PRO
febrero '26
+11
en 7 canales
Get PRO
enero '26
+4
en 5 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '25
+4
en 11 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '25
+4
en 4 canales
Get PRO
octubre '25
+7
en 7 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '25
+4
en 6 canales
Get PRO
agosto '250
en 12 canales
Get PRO
julio '25
+11
en 8 canales
Get PRO
junio '25
+9
en 7 canales
Get PRO
mayo '25
+15
en 12 canales
Get PRO
abril '25
+5
en 7 canales
Get PRO
marzo '25
+15
en 13 canales
Get PRO
febrero '25
+11
en 9 canales
Get PRO
enero '25
+9
en 9 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '24
+11
en 10 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '24
+23
en 13 canales
Get PRO
octubre '24
+7
en 9 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '24
+10
en 11 canales
Get PRO
agosto '24
+22
en 11 canales
Get PRO
julio '24
+14
en 7 canales
Get PRO
junio '24
+11
en 6 canales
Get PRO
mayo '24
+10
en 3 canales
Get PRO
abril '24
+16
en 6 canales
Get PRO
marzo '24
+21
en 7 canales
Get PRO
febrero '24
+18
en 9 canales
Get PRO
enero '24
+25
en 21 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '23
+24
en 12 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '23
+46
en 12 canales
Get PRO
octubre '23
+23
en 14 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '23
+32
en 0 canales
Get PRO
agosto '23
+48
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '23
+97
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '23
+247
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '23
+26
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '23
+27
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '23
+257
en 0 canales
Get PRO
febrero '23
+40
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '23
+366
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '22
+245
en 0 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '22
+62
en 0 canales
Get PRO
octubre '22
+43
en 0 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '22
+25
en 0 canales
Get PRO
agosto '22
+79
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '22
+2 248
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '22
+107
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '22
+318
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '22
+781
en 0 canales
| Fecha | Crecimiento de Suscriptores | Menciones | Canales | |
| 22 julio | 0 | |||
| 21 julio | 0 | |||
| 20 julio | 0 | |||
| 19 julio | 0 | |||
| 18 julio | 0 | |||
| 17 julio | +1 | |||
| 16 julio | 0 | |||
| 15 julio | 0 | |||
| 14 julio | 0 | |||
| 13 julio | +1 | |||
| 12 julio | +1 | |||
| 11 julio | 0 | |||
| 10 julio | 0 | |||
| 09 julio | 0 | |||
| 08 julio | 0 | |||
| 07 julio | 0 | |||
| 06 julio | 0 | |||
| 05 julio | 0 | |||
| 04 julio | +1 | |||
| 03 julio | 0 | |||
| 02 julio | 0 | |||
| 01 julio | 0 |
Publicaciones del Canal
7️⃣ Just show us the data. No trial needed. Unmask every study that analysed SIDS data and concluded that the vaccines were not contributory (after smoking and formula feeding is excluded).
Alternatively you wouldn't even need a controlled trial of vaccination vs placebo because you could just run a registry. I guarantee there are enough angry parents that were lied to about the COVID vaccines and mandates that they will never take a vaccine again. Just ask them to agree to release their deidentified anonymised data - with an audit tag so that they can check their data has been recorded correctly. I bet you will get more than 300,000 babies registered. And you wouldn't be able to cheat because the parents could show that their baby's data was manipulated. There is zero chance you will agree to this.
8️⃣ The exact same argument that you are hiding behind should have stopped the COVID vaccines being given to children at all. For a halving of death rate from 2 per million for children your trial would need 47 million children. Where did you ever say that the COVID vaccine was unsuitable for children because of the huge numbers needed to show a mortality benefit in this age group? Never. That's when.
If you really still disagree (you will) then I strongly recommend that you start advocating for the release of the datasets from such as your magical "Taiwan study" run by people with vested interest in vaccination. You won't, because you know those data sets cannot be verified.
Finally, if anybody wants to test these numbers they can go to an online power calculator like this one - no need for a biostatistician gatekeeper.
https://clincalc.com/stats/samplesize.aspx
| 2 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2078000206852059519?s=20
Jeffrey, this is disingenuous for the following reasons and needs to be responded to:
1️⃣ Your sample size calculation assumes a tiny fraction of SIDS deaths are due to vaccination - but that is the point being tested. You have therefore committed a circular argument fallacy.
For a study of a drop of SIDS rate from 0.1% (US average SUID per CDC) to 0.067% (giving an IRR of 1.5) you only need 240,524 in your study. The 2.5 million comes from your assumption that the risk only accounts for 10% of the possible risk.
2️⃣ The risk is not just at the time of dose 2 (in the US this is the first DTAP as babies have already been coerced into vaccination at birth). If vaccination overall increases the all-cause SUID mortality by 1.5x you only need the smaller number in your study, provided the groups are matched. You are assuming that nobody would agree to match 1:1, which would only happen if the assumption that vaccination improved all-cause mortality was true, yet it has never been tested
3️⃣ Infant mortality in the US is 0.5%. It is multifactorial but even a tiny 10% overall rise in all-cause mortality would require a sample of 704,356 children - less than 20% of the annual births in the US, of which only half would need to be "unvaccinated" for a few months - including for birth dose HepB (which is a scandal in itself).
4️⃣ I don't understand why you would want to quash the idea of a controlled trial. I mean, if infant vaccinations are such proven science to reduce all-cause mortality you would be able to prove the case for them within a year. There is not one RCT that shows that any of the vaccines on the infant schedule improve all-cause infant mortality. It's time to shine and show us just how good injecting a baby in the first 6 months of age with over 100 antigens (with cellular carriage agents) is for overall mortality. And at the same time you would get to prove Zervos wrong because you would have a huge cohort to show the impact on chronic disease.
5️⃣ You make the same circular assumptions for a functional mSCCS as you do for the over-exaggerated sample size calculation. That is, you are assuming that the risk window only occurs in a few days post-vaccination. In which case, you don't have anything to worry about because any controlled trial will fail to show a signal. As I have shown, mSCCS can only work under certain assumptions and the sample size problem affects mSCCS just as much as a controlled trial. If you think the issue is 1:50,000 of the population, your mSCCS will only have that much of the population to work with. As we have seen, manipulating bins can hide any signal anyway so we understand why you are pushing this method.
6️⃣ Another circular argument "you can't give infants placebo because it's unethical when vaccines reduce all-cause mortality" - that is the subject of the question. It's a disingenuous unscientific tactic and has no place in evidence based medicine. If you want to show first that any specific vaccine improves all-cause mortality show us the RCT that proves it. You can't, because you know damn well that the sample size figures you are crowing about being "unrealistic" equally apply to any pharma randomised trial. And they will never fund a 2 million baby study with a risk that their treatment ends up looking bad and shutting down the vaccine industry overnight. | 170 |
| 3 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2077629589535474014?s=20
Just found out that the only "person" running the PEDSnet github repository is listed as gracecodes144 who is not listed as an author on any @PEDSnet paper.
114 papers, none report vaccine failure. What is going on? archive.md/yb4Lq | 181 |
| 4 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2077625348704141724?s=20
What they aren't telling you in this report is that you don't "die suddenly and unexpectedly" from pneumonia. It takes days and should only happen if you haven't been treated properly.
Or if your immune system is destroyed.
CAR-T therapy programs your own T-cells to destroy your own lymphocytes.
Each report is touting CAR-T therapy as a saviour. It is not. For lymphoma it is programmed to destroy your lymphocytes.
Pneumonia is just one of the known risks.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-16/sam-neill-cause-of-death-revealed-by-agent/106922682
https://www.oncologynewscentral.com/article/deaths-among-cancer-patients-on-car-t-therapies-new-study-probes-nonrelapse-causes | 1 267 |
| 5 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2077491366989574331?s=20
The important thing is that the readers don't need to read this to understand the extent you have had to go to to flog this dead horse. The "modified SCCS" is a long way from the "self controlled case series" you sold it as weeks ago and can be manipulated at will. The point is made.
The correct approach is a RCT powered for all cause mortality. Until that is conducted the recommendations for injecting babies with polyvalent adjuvanted antigens that have never shown a mortality benefit need to be revised. Failing that a full independent investigation into neonatal deaths in vaccinated babies should be commissioned. Although I'm not sure anyone would trust the findings any more. Trust has been destroyed. | 178 |
| 6 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2076995783124304241?s=20
Just a reminder that Sam Neill had exactly the same "rare" T-cell lymphoma that Michel Goldman developed after his COVID vaccines. Goldman published his own case report. After the backlash he was forced to falsely claim that the vaccines "had saved millions" - yet he stopped taking the COVID vaccines that gave him lymphoma and he is still alive. Sam Neill's death is being weaponised by vested interests to claim that the experimental CAR-T gene therapy that was used for him "worked". If you see someone claiming that CAR-T therapy "works" remember to ask them whether they have vested interests in it. Most media accounts that are pushing it do. It is a high risk gene therapy that has no proven and verified success in the treatment of cancers. Meanwhile it is also important to remember that these very lymphomas were predicted to be a consequence of spike producing vaccines - because independent research showed it. But that research was quashed by the @NIH.
People died as a consequence and are still dying. RIP Sam Neill. We tried. | 715 |
| 7 | +1 R code for above simulation | 228 |
| 8 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2076625331096846831?s=20
Here you are @jsm2334 I've finally worked out how the "modified SCCS" technique to "find a safety signal for SIDS" was adopted by the pharma industry because it was so bad at finding a safety signal for SIDS. Your data restrictions. Jittered vaccination dates. Death cohorts up to 800. Just as you demanded.
This simulation of 100 iterations of two scenarios failed to have sufficient power to find a signal: Scenario: the effect of 1.5x increased risk of death is applied over 5 days. Scenario: the effect of 1.5x increased risk of death is applied over 60 days. In both scenarios the increase is applied as an exponential decline with half lives of 2 days and 15 days respectively. In both scenarios the background rate of death in vaccinated children is also 10% higher than in unvaccinated children. Yet none of these scenarios had enough power to detect the safety signal of up to a near 50% overall increase in death rate using the "modified SCCS" method espoused by Farrington (and Jeffrey Morris). Prof Morris found a way to produce the best figures he could for his simulation - claiming that the method was robust - by adapting his "bins" to the type of simulation he was running. You can't do this in a real study because you don't know when the effect of the vaccine will hit, or how long for. That's why mSCCS doesn't have enough power to do this job. What needs to happen to address this question is that for every country where SIDS deaths are reported and where vaccinations are administered in the first 6 months of live, every case of SIDS is published along with the dates of their last vaccination. Then we would get to check the data - not institutions with vested interests and "trust us bro" denials of data availability. It won't happen, because there is too much at stake. | 401 |
| 9 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2075554793461104924
I was taught for years that @DrAndyWakefield had committed fraud - it was not true.
His prior paper - written with @PeterDaszak - showed that measles virus was a contributor to Crohn's.
The Lancet paper showed that bowel disease was a feature of severe disability after vaccination.
Wakefield had to be destroyed to protect the vaccine industry or it would have collapsed in 1998.
That is how the pharma industry works, but they can't do it alone.
In the case of the Wakefield saga, they were aided by the @bmj_latest who commissioned Brian Deer to fabricate a fake story about "fraud" because they were being paid by GSK and Merck - the very vaccine makers who stood to be eviscerated by the truth about their product's safety.
All this is documented (thread below).
The children in the paper were permanently disabled by the MMR vaccine and never, ever, got recognition. They are on track to die without ever having their vaccine disability recognised.
This is the worst travesty of the medical industry ever committed - because it was done for money. | 1 573 |
| 10 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2075537933982109862?s=20 | 270 |
| 11 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2073227578492719277?s=20
Dear Jeff, although you imply that your article is an independent view it is completely undermined by the failure to include discussion of any of the following:
1️⃣ Type shift - the fundamental problem with vaccinating against HPV types whilst failing to note overall HPV-related events (which increased in the older cohort).
2️⃣ Under 16 sexual/reproductive activity which fell off a cliff after 2007 (UK data) and almost certainly drove the drop in HPV infection in the under 25 cohort
3️⃣ The increase in HPV-dependent disease in the catch up cohort that also received the HPV vaccine (UK data).
4️⃣ The massive change in screening programs that obfuscated any data in all countries adopting vaccination
5️⃣ The fact that the FUTURE RCT studies on which the vaccines were approved are now 20 years old and never reported overall reduction in cervical cancers
6️⃣ The fact that the HPV-9 study showed no significant reduction in CIN3+ incidence (precursor to cervical cancer) in HPV-4 treated women.
7️⃣ The massive conflicts of interest of the authors of the latest Lancet "study".
8️⃣ Your quoting of the Palmer study shows your lack of understanding of clinical medicine. The claim of "no cervical cancers" was not only untrue but based on an cohort of only 34 girls followed up long enough to develop cervical cancer.
9️⃣ Failure to discuss NNV (number needed to vaccinate) in relation to NNH (number needed to harm).
Whilst your article contains some interesting commentary it doesn't add to the existing literature at all, as we know that most cervical cancers require HPV infection as causal.
The question is whether the HPV vaccination actually prevents cancers or simply causes type shift - and what is the explanation for the increase in cervical cancers after the rollout in the catch up cohort. In addition we need to have transparent and real data to show that any deaths prevented by vaccination (if there any) are not offset by the known deaths and injuries from vaccination. If, as you state, massive studies would be needed to show a single prevention of cancer then the risk of injury from the intervention can't be brushed under the carpet.
Transparent data has not been forthcoming - like all vaccine data.
What your article does do show however, by the huge list of omissions, your own bias in regards to vaccination data.
Thread with links here:
https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2067547138519863807?s=20 | 409 |
| 12 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2071413106144924128 | 3 273 |
| 13 |  https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2071213077630951729?s=20 | 426 |
| 14 | An article in response to an article. Seems fair.
The vaccine-SIDS link and how they were able to hide it.
https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2071169422002184206 | 1 509 |
| 15 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2071173219642671300?s=20 | 356 |
| 16 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2070710773643620391?s=20 | 377 |
| 17 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2070710773643620391?s=20 | 1 |
| 18 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2069595553516912996?s=20 | 469 |
| 19 | https://vxtwitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2068249496849715642?s=20 | 569 |
| 20 | https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/2068249496849715642
The SIDS vaccine paper controversy debunked
I'm really glad that @jsm2334 made this post, because it highlights how the pharma industry mobilises academics to provide pseudo-scientific arguments to bury a problem. Jeff makes the claim that the retraction of the Miller paper was justified (it wasn't - it passed peer review and wasn't fraudulent, which is the correct threshold for publication), because he thinks that the correct method of looking at the increase in SIDS deaths after vaccination is something called a "self controlled case series (SCCS)". But he knows this is not true for two reasons You can't use death as a measure in the self-controlled case series, because once you're dead you can't continue to be your own control. It creates a survivor bias and is a known problem with SCCS. You can't use SCCS in the absence of a predictable incidence rate because you're comparing one time point to another. If the incidence is decreasing over time (as SIDS does) then comparing an earlier to later time point | 1 |
