The data that SIDS is caused by vaccines has been hiding in plain sight for decades yet, unsurprisingly, our criminal pharmaceutical-governmental public health complex has successfully suppressed it.
Back in the early 1980s I responded to SIDS cases as a paramedic - inside a busy city system. I also saw vaccine injured children within my local homeopathic group.
Harris Coulter's book on DPT is well crafted and exquisitely resourced.
On those tragic EMS calls - I would ask parents about the baby's last doctor's visit and in every SIDS cases I attended, there had been a wellness visit within a week of the baby's demise. And the baby had been otherwise healthy.
This entire discussion reveals one of the most difficult tensions in modern public health: the gap between statistical generalization and individual outcomes. While vaccines may reduce population-level risk under specific conditions, that doesn’t erase the valid concerns raised by families whose lived experience sharply contradicts institutional assurances.
The J.B. case, in particular, highlights something often absent in the public discourse: the legal system’s willingness—on occasion—to acknowledge causal links where scientific bodies remain silent or dismissive. The fact that the court awarded compensation based on inflammatory cytokine interference with infant respiratory function, even in the absence of definitive biochemical markers, challenges the dominant narrative that every post-vaccine death in infancy is purely coincidental. It invites a harder question: how many unexplained infant deaths are accepted as statistical noise when they may, in fact, represent preventable injury?
What becomes clear is not necessarily a slam-dunk indictment of vaccines themselves, but of the systems that control the narrative around them. If the WHO can retroactively overestimate lives saved by a factor of nearly 6, and if vaccine-induced deaths are filtered out through reclassification and coding practices, then the data we’re using to justify broad, sweeping mandates may not be as clean—or complete—as claimed.
The uncomfortable truth is that systems can be both well-intentioned and structurally dishonest. Protecting public confidence doesn’t justify silencing inquiry, and scientific consensus is not immune to economic pressure, liability concerns, or institutional inertia.
None of this negates the value vaccines have offered in some contexts. But it does demand more transparency, especially when risk is not equally distributed across age groups or genetic profiles. When the cost of silence is borne by those who cannot speak—infants, in particular—it’s not only reasonable but necessary to question what we’ve normalized as “safe.”
We don’t need zealotry on either side. We need accountability, humility, and the freedom to re-evaluate assumptions—especially when lives are involved.
The answers to all this rest with Charles Richet who won Nobel Prize in 1913 for coining the ANAPHYLAXIS . He found that injecting a protein , either vegetable or mamalian under the skin resulted in a sensitization to the protein upon the second shot that was unpredictably fatal. Vaccination results in allergy or death due to this sensitization ..Thank Sacha Latypova and Katherine Watt for discovering this information Substack. I am sure the Rockefellers made good use of the Richet discovery.
Why are both the FDA and CDC in charge of the vaccine injury reporting system which is an enormous conflict of interest? The reporting process is so complex that most people can't navigate through it, which was done on purpose.
We need to restore product liability to these vaccine manufacturers and then watch what happens to their profit center.
I.e., is it possible that they turned themselves over during the horrific nighttime event as part of an attempt to keep from suffocating?
When I read about the small studies finding that infants who died in their sleep were often found in a prone position, I thought that maybe instead of the proneness *causing* the SIDS event, that maybe it was part of the infant's instinctive attempt to *defend against* the feeling of suffocation, to put gravity in the service of survival.
Citing from the article:
> Now, to be fair, there were several (small) studies published at the time which suggested that SIDS infants were found more often in the prone position, so it may not have been as clownish as I first maintained above. I will address this below.
I couldn't read the whole article, so if this was already mentioned ...
It is important to realize that although 78% of VAERS SIDS reports are within one week of vaccine admin, that does not mean that 78% of SIDS occurs within one week of vaccine admin. We need to be careful in interpreting data. Unfortunately, people are sometimes careless with data and that can have serious consequences....
The Epoch Times' American Thought Leaders Vlog just released an episode explaining the changes to the CDC's vaccination oversight programs. It seems jam packed with criticism similar to Hollnagel's WYLFIWYF/ WYFIWYF principle. [ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4039811/ ] I recommend the whole 1.75 hour long conversation, and here's a quote from Retsef Levi -- validating Donna Gary's testimony before Congress -- that prompted me to share:
"Again. One of the things I think breaks trust is if the narrative that public health agencies are telling to the public stand in complete contrast to the experience of patients and medical professional. Right? So when [our CDC vaccine committees] ...double down on that ['safe and effective'] narrative, I don't think it's going to help us build trust. So I think we need to listen carefully to what patients and medical professionals are telling us. That should be a major input in driving our hypothesis and what kind of research questions we are exploring and what kind of safety questions and hypothesis we are exploring."
Could placing infants on their backs to sleep help those that get apnea post vaccination? I know I find it easier to breathe during nighttime asthma if I lay on my back.
We are so blessed to have you Doctor Kory, and AMD shedding your light of wisdom and sanity. You are making it possible for us to read and hear the truth which has been deliberately obscured behind the lies of the PGC, the Pharmaceutical Governmental Complex that you described. The repetitious lies spouted by the radical left create a burden easier to bear thanks to you.
The disappearance of E934 is a new one on me. I was unaware that ever existed. However, the very existence of V97.33XD in ICD 10 COMPLETELY nullifies any excuse for removing E934. What a damn 💩 show.
“Except for Hepatitis B, of course - that one is critical to be given on the first day of life because of the large cohort of infants that crawl out of maternity wards to hit the streets, injecting drugs and having sex with prostitutes (sorry, I just can’t help myself here). “ I told you- it’s time to follow the pedophile link. It’s not about the infants, It’s about what will happen to the infants. There could be no other reason. Just when we think it can’t get any more evil…
Thank you very much for this downloadable study. Do I foresee myself keeping a copy with me to handout to pregnant women I encounter? That is a definite possibility…
Back in the early 1980s I responded to SIDS cases as a paramedic - inside a busy city system. I also saw vaccine injured children within my local homeopathic group.
Harris Coulter's book on DPT is well crafted and exquisitely resourced.
On those tragic EMS calls - I would ask parents about the baby's last doctor's visit and in every SIDS cases I attended, there had been a wellness visit within a week of the baby's demise. And the baby had been otherwise healthy.
Beyond words...
I am so glad that people are waking up.
Please - let's stop the crazy train!
This entire discussion reveals one of the most difficult tensions in modern public health: the gap between statistical generalization and individual outcomes. While vaccines may reduce population-level risk under specific conditions, that doesn’t erase the valid concerns raised by families whose lived experience sharply contradicts institutional assurances.
The J.B. case, in particular, highlights something often absent in the public discourse: the legal system’s willingness—on occasion—to acknowledge causal links where scientific bodies remain silent or dismissive. The fact that the court awarded compensation based on inflammatory cytokine interference with infant respiratory function, even in the absence of definitive biochemical markers, challenges the dominant narrative that every post-vaccine death in infancy is purely coincidental. It invites a harder question: how many unexplained infant deaths are accepted as statistical noise when they may, in fact, represent preventable injury?
What becomes clear is not necessarily a slam-dunk indictment of vaccines themselves, but of the systems that control the narrative around them. If the WHO can retroactively overestimate lives saved by a factor of nearly 6, and if vaccine-induced deaths are filtered out through reclassification and coding practices, then the data we’re using to justify broad, sweeping mandates may not be as clean—or complete—as claimed.
The uncomfortable truth is that systems can be both well-intentioned and structurally dishonest. Protecting public confidence doesn’t justify silencing inquiry, and scientific consensus is not immune to economic pressure, liability concerns, or institutional inertia.
None of this negates the value vaccines have offered in some contexts. But it does demand more transparency, especially when risk is not equally distributed across age groups or genetic profiles. When the cost of silence is borne by those who cannot speak—infants, in particular—it’s not only reasonable but necessary to question what we’ve normalized as “safe.”
We don’t need zealotry on either side. We need accountability, humility, and the freedom to re-evaluate assumptions—especially when lives are involved.
The answers to all this rest with Charles Richet who won Nobel Prize in 1913 for coining the ANAPHYLAXIS . He found that injecting a protein , either vegetable or mamalian under the skin resulted in a sensitization to the protein upon the second shot that was unpredictably fatal. Vaccination results in allergy or death due to this sensitization ..Thank Sacha Latypova and Katherine Watt for discovering this information Substack. I am sure the Rockefellers made good use of the Richet discovery.
Why are both the FDA and CDC in charge of the vaccine injury reporting system which is an enormous conflict of interest? The reporting process is so complex that most people can't navigate through it, which was done on purpose.
We need to restore product liability to these vaccine manufacturers and then watch what happens to their profit center.
Were the infants found prone for a reason?
I.e., is it possible that they turned themselves over during the horrific nighttime event as part of an attempt to keep from suffocating?
When I read about the small studies finding that infants who died in their sleep were often found in a prone position, I thought that maybe instead of the proneness *causing* the SIDS event, that maybe it was part of the infant's instinctive attempt to *defend against* the feeling of suffocation, to put gravity in the service of survival.
Citing from the article:
> Now, to be fair, there were several (small) studies published at the time which suggested that SIDS infants were found more often in the prone position, so it may not have been as clownish as I first maintained above. I will address this below.
I couldn't read the whole article, so if this was already mentioned ...
It is important to realize that although 78% of VAERS SIDS reports are within one week of vaccine admin, that does not mean that 78% of SIDS occurs within one week of vaccine admin. We need to be careful in interpreting data. Unfortunately, people are sometimes careless with data and that can have serious consequences....
The Epoch Times' American Thought Leaders Vlog just released an episode explaining the changes to the CDC's vaccination oversight programs. It seems jam packed with criticism similar to Hollnagel's WYLFIWYF/ WYFIWYF principle. [ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4039811/ ] I recommend the whole 1.75 hour long conversation, and here's a quote from Retsef Levi -- validating Donna Gary's testimony before Congress -- that prompted me to share:
"Again. One of the things I think breaks trust is if the narrative that public health agencies are telling to the public stand in complete contrast to the experience of patients and medical professional. Right? So when [our CDC vaccine committees] ...double down on that ['safe and effective'] narrative, I don't think it's going to help us build trust. So I think we need to listen carefully to what patients and medical professionals are telling us. That should be a major input in driving our hypothesis and what kind of research questions we are exploring and what kind of safety questions and hypothesis we are exploring."
https://youtu.be/KZQOuvW1Euw?t=4072
Could placing infants on their backs to sleep help those that get apnea post vaccination? I know I find it easier to breathe during nighttime asthma if I lay on my back.
We are so blessed to have you Doctor Kory, and AMD shedding your light of wisdom and sanity. You are making it possible for us to read and hear the truth which has been deliberately obscured behind the lies of the PGC, the Pharmaceutical Governmental Complex that you described. The repetitious lies spouted by the radical left create a burden easier to bear thanks to you.
Murder investigations certainly seem in order for the poor families victimized by this purposeful deception for profit!
The disappearance of E934 is a new one on me. I was unaware that ever existed. However, the very existence of V97.33XD in ICD 10 COMPLETELY nullifies any excuse for removing E934. What a damn 💩 show.
As soon as the sudden deaths occurred in adults with the covid jabs I saw that SIDS was no different
Sadly many people are STILL unwilling to recognise the truth
Vaccines KILL
Impressive work. Thank you.
“Except for Hepatitis B, of course - that one is critical to be given on the first day of life because of the large cohort of infants that crawl out of maternity wards to hit the streets, injecting drugs and having sex with prostitutes (sorry, I just can’t help myself here). “ I told you- it’s time to follow the pedophile link. It’s not about the infants, It’s about what will happen to the infants. There could be no other reason. Just when we think it can’t get any more evil…
Good work
Thank you very much for this downloadable study. Do I foresee myself keeping a copy with me to handout to pregnant women I encounter? That is a definite possibility…