The single-dose Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” from Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is back in the news after it was revealed that recipients are 3.5 times more likely than non-recipients to develop “rare” blood clots.
Perhaps not shocking is the fact that taking a J&J injection for the Chinese Virus ups one’s risk of deadly blood clots by a whopping 350 percent, a new study has found. And most at risk are women between the ages of 30 and 64.
While the general rate of blood clots in a given population is 2.5 people out of every 100,000, the rate among J&J injection recipients is 8.5 people out of every 100,000. If “every life counts,” as we were all told last year in defense of the mask mandates, then something must be done to take these J&J injections off the market before any more people suffer cardiovascular events.
Back in April, a temporary pause on the J&J shot was enacted for 10 days while the government supposedly investigated concerns about blood clotting in women. It was learned that the jabs cause cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, or CVST, in some recipients.
This was no big deal to the government, though, as the J&J injection was quickly brought back online to be stabbed into people’s arms at “warp speed.” (RELATED: One of the earliest recipients of J&J’s covid injection had his skin fall off because of the jab.)
Despite all this, both J&J and the government claim that deadly side effects are “rare” and that people should not worry about it. Getting injected, they claim, is still better than risking an ever-dreaded “positive” test result for the Chinese Virus.
You’re better off relying on your natural immune system rather than “vaccines”
For their research, scientists from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., collected data on roughly 158,000 people living in Olmstead County, located about 90 miles southeast of Minnesota.
The data covered a period of time ranging from 2001 to 2015 and looked specifically at known CVST cases. This data was then compared to newer data since J&J’s Fauci Flu shot was released.
It was clear based on this comparison that post-release of the J&J jab, CVST cases skyrocketed, relatively speaking. A direct correlation between the injection and the disease was established, showing that it is hardly the “safe and effective vaccine” that government officials claim it to be.
Most vaccine-induced CVST cases appear to have developed within 15 days of injection. The results were published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
According to reports, the J&J injection is the least popular of the three Wuhan Flu shot brands currently available in the United States, the other two being the mRNA (messenger RNA) shots offered by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
The J&J shot does not contain mRNA technology and oddly enough has been the jab most targeted with scrutiny for causing negative side effects. The others cause side effects, too, but the government seems to favor people taking those, hence the lack of coverage about the damage they are causing.
“J&J presented the FDA with a study on the efficacy of their jabs against severe / critical Delta infection,” wrote one commenter at the DailyMail Online. “It showed NEGATIVE 6% EFFICACY WITH DELTA. The placebo group had one less severe / critical Delta case than the test group.”
“And that’s just rare blood clots,” wrote another about how the J&J injection causes other damage as well. “The data from this study doesn’t include Bell’s Palsy, heart attacks, miscarriages, myocarditis, and other life-changing problems.”
To keep up with the latest news about injuries and deaths caused by Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines,” be sure to check out ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include:
- Yearly COVID-19 shots might be needed by everyone, Johnson & Johnson CEO now conveniently claims
- Johnson & Johnson pauses coronavirus vaccine trial after participant contracts “unexplained illness”
- Catholic leaders encourage congregants to avoid J&J coronavirus vaccine due to aborted fetal tissue
- J&J halts Covid-19 vaccine trial after participant develops “unspecified illness”