From Fragments to the Whole Picture: Expanding on COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages
The recent article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Fall 2025) deserves recognition. It is thorough and extensive, pulling together a wide range of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 and its
The recent article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Fall 2025) deserves recognition. It is thorough and extensive, pulling together a wide range of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 and its associated injections were engineered, and that the products have driven profound harm across multiple body systems.
The authors deserve credit for giving weight to features many papers avoided – notably the HIV-like motifs and the superantigen sequences that point clearly to laboratory construction. Their survey of harms – immune dysregulation, myocarditis, reproductive risks, aggressive cancers – is detailed, heavily referenced, and academically structured in a way that only professionals at their level can achieve.
I want to acknowledge that. My own work began from a different standpoint. I am a nurse, not a clinician-researcher or academic insider. When the vaccines were announced in 2020, I made the judgement – based on the absence of long-term data and the known risks of the platform – that I would not take them. From there, I simply did what anyone could do: I read the studies as they appeared, compared them to pre-rollout baselines, and began to accumulate the evidence.
By March 2021, the early data already confirmed the dangers. In June 2021, I published Covid Truths, my first attempt to pull those pieces together. It was not an academic paper, and it was not exhaustive, but it placed the fragments side by side. Over the following months I published more, always adding to the jigsaw as new studies appeared. I followed up Covid Truths with Part 2 and Part 3 later in 2021.
Four years later, I look at this new JAPS paper and see something both heartening and troubling. Heartened, because it confirms much of what was already visible by 2021 and does so in an academic voice that will reach further. Troubled, because even in 2025, the whole picture is still missing.
Where the paper is strong
Recognises engineered motifs: furin cleavage site, HIV-like inserts, superantigen elements.
Catalogues a wide range of harms across immune, cardiovascular, reproductive, and oncological systems.
Provides up-to-date data, including VAERS safety signals, DMED findings, and IgG4 tolerance research.
These are valuable contributions, and I agree with much of their presentation.
Where the picture remains incomplete
But where is the whole picture?
Venom analogues – documented spike motifs homologous to cobra and krait venoms (PLA₂, metalloproteinases, disintegrins). These are not speculative; they were identified in sequence comparisons early on. They provide direct mechanistic links to clotting and neurotoxicity. Yet they are absent.
Amyloidogenesis – the anomalous long clots reported by embalmers in 2021 looked like amyloid cascades, and subsequent studies have confirmed prion-like and amyloidogenic motifs in the spike in peer-reviewed biochemical studies. Still, amyloid is barely mentioned, and in my view deserves more prominence.
Pregnancy misinterpretation – the paper repeats the “81% miscarriage” figure, a well-known misreading of Pfizer’s 5.3.6 tables. That error has been weaponised to discredit critics and obscure real pregnancy harms. The genuine signals are elsewhere: VAERS PRRs, placental transfer, neonatal outcomes. See Appendices.
Neurocognitive harms – hypothalamic and pineal pathways, identity and memory disruption, long-term neurological sequelae. These were evident in early mechanistic studies, but still lack full treatment here.
Policy framework – early treatment suppression, EUA invalidity, coercion, and liability shields formed the architecture that enabled harm. Without recognising that structure, the science risks being detached from the system that implemented it.
Accumulating, not cherry-picking
My approach has always been to keep adding pieces. You do not see a picture by removing jigsaw pieces or studying them in isolation. You add them, side by side, until the image becomes undeniable.
That is what is missing from the 2025 paper. It is thorough, it is up to date, and it is academically presented – but it is still fragmented.
Conclusion
The JAPS article is a welcome step. It confirms that the injections were designed with harmful properties and that those harms are real. But the case is even stronger when the full range of evidence is allowed to stand together. Venom analogues, amyloid cascades, neurocognitive effects, pregnancy misreadings, plasmid contamination and cancer-promoting additions, and the policy scaffolding all belong in the same frame.
This is not about claiming priority. It is about showing that the picture was visible years ago and is still becoming clearer. Every new paper should aim not just to catalogue fragments, but to accumulate them into the whole. Only then can we see what has been done – not accidentally, but by design. Which is one of the reasons the paper has been produced to demonstrate and how it is being promoted: New Peer-Reviewed Study Asks: Were COVID Injections Engineered to Harm?
Appendix: The Wallpaper Analogy – How Fragile Claims Are Used to Hide Real Harms
Disinformation does not always work by outright denial. A more subtle method is to offer a fragile or exaggerated claim that is close enough to the truth to attract attention, but flawed enough to be easily debunked. When that claim collapses, the real danger behind it is discredited by association.
The AAPS paper has avoided the traps that lesser writers have fallen for. Marik in particular has been the victim of the Covid Psyops programme. This appendix is not to impugn the authors of their paper, it is to demonstrate how misinformation can enter genuinely great work and the wider public awareness without filtration.
The wallpaper analogy
Imagine a series of deaths caused by arsenic-laced wallpaper. A critic shouts that people are dying of cyanide from the wallpaper. Investigators quickly prove that cyanide is not present. The cyanide claim is discredited, and with it the entire “wallpaper thesis.” Wallpaper is ruled out, and everyone moves on — while the arsenic remains, continuing to kill.
The method works because the critic was close enough to the truth to give the denialists cover. By misidentifying the toxin, they provided defenders with an easy strawman to burn, obscuring the deeper reality.
It becomes even more damning if it is the wallpaper manufacturers that planted the cyanide hypothesis in the first place!
Case 1 The missing venom data
This is exactly what has happened with venoms. Sequence analysis has shown since 2020 that the SARS-CoV-2 spike contains homologies to snake venom peptides — phospholipase A₂, metalloproteinases, disintegrins — motifs well known to cause clotting abnormalities, neurotoxicity, and immune disruption. These are not speculative: they are in the sequence data.
But because Bryan Ardis pushed a sensational “venom in the water supply” theory, the entire field of venom analogues was framed as outlandish. When that theory was criticised, respected figures dismissed the venom analogues themselves as nonsense — not on the basis of the biochemistry, but as a reaction to Ardis. Therefore, venoms, as pieces of the jigsaw, have too often been left out of the emerging picture.
Thus the cyanide mistake (Ardis’s overreach) has allowed the arsenic (real venom motifs in spike) to be ruled out in the public mind. The method is the same: seed a flawed claim, let it be debunked, and then use the debunking to shield the real harm from scrutiny.
Lesson
Whether in pregnancy outcomes or venom motifs, the tactic is the same. A fragile misreading or sensationalised theory is promoted, then debunked, and then the entire subject is treated as false. Meanwhile, the genuine evidence is never addressed.
The task is therefore to keep all the pieces on the table — to refuse to throw away the wallpaper simply because one critic misnamed the poison.
Case 2: The miscarriage rate
Pfizer’s 5.3.6 pharmacovigilance report listed 270 pregnancies, of which only 32 had recorded outcomes early on. Twenty-six miscarriages among 32 outcomes equalled 81 percent. James Thorp and others repeated this as if it were the real miscarriage rate.
It was not. Hundreds of cases were ongoing or beyond the miscarriage window. With the proper denominator, the rate was consistent with background.
By promoting the 81 percent figure, critics created an easy target. Once the number was debunked, defenders used it to dismiss all concerns about pregnancy safety. This obscured the genuine signals – elevated VAERS reporting ratios, placental transfer of mRNA, neonatal complications, and trimester-specific risks.
Here again, the cyanide (81 percent) was disproved, so wallpaper was declared harmless. Yet the arsenic – real harms in pregnancy – remained.
Lesson
The mechanism is the same in both cases:
A fragile claim is promoted.
The claim is debunked.
The deeper truth is dismissed by association.
This is standard psy-ops. It makes critics look incompetent, and it allows real harms to be obscured under the guise of having been “debunked.”
The answer is not to abandon the wallpaper, but to insist on naming the poison precisely. Venom analogues are real, and pregnancy signals are real – but they must be presented correctly. Otherwise, the wallpaper keeps killing while the public is told it was never dangerous at all.
By by citing Thorp’s interpretation, which misrepresents the Pfizer miscarriage data, the paper risks critics dismissing its wider argument. This one point could obscure the strength of the rest. All the bathwater and baby in one go. (I do not know if Thorp has since corrected his initial misreading of the Pfizer data since the last time I saw him presenting it in interviews a couple of years ago.)
Appendix II: The Forced Conclusion Problem
In 2021, a striking pattern emerged in the literature.
High-end, peer-reviewed journals often published studies that documented real harms: myocarditis, clotting, neurological injury, pregnancy risks. Yet despite presenting evidence that in any other context would have triggered alarm, their conclusions nearly always ended with a boilerplate reassurance: “On balance, vaccination is recommended.”
Pre-prints and rejected papers, by contrast, frequently concluded differently: “Risks identified, serious consideration warranted.” Without the pressure of editorial gatekeeping, they allowed their findings to stand without a ritual line to cancel them out.
The effect was clear. To get into the prestigious journals, one had to say the words. The data could be damning, but the conclusion had to encourage uptake. Without that sentence, publication was unlikely.
This is psy-ops within science. It is not merely bias, but a form of controlled messaging: harms acknowledged, then neutralised by a forced conclusion. It amounts to a corrupted peer review process. Researchers were not free to state the rational conclusion their data supported; editorial pressure demanded conformity.
Consequences
Fact-checkers and media ignored the data in the body of the papers and focused only on the mandatory conclusion. They could then say: “See, even the authors conclude vaccination is safer than not,” while erasing the actual evidence.
Informed consent was denied. People were not told the real risks.
Legal and ethical codes were violated – including the Nuremberg Code and provisions of the Mental Health Act – by promoting an intervention without genuine disclosure of danger.
Lesson
The public was misled not only by omission but by editorial coercion. The “fake conclusions” of 2021 are an indictment of those who controlled the narrative of the COVID-19 programme. They prove that science itself was bent into a propaganda tool: a shell of transparency covering a core of deception.
Boxed Summary: Three Ways Discrediting Works
Across the COVID-19 vaccine programme, different tactics were used to obscure truth and discredit critics. Each follows the same pattern: promote a fragile claim, then use its collapse to bury the real evidence.
1. Venoms – the Ardis foil
The fragile claim: sensational theory of “venom in the water supply.”
The effect: once debunked, respected figures dismissed all venom evidence.
The truth: spike protein contains real homologues to venom peptides (PLA₂, metalloproteinases, disintegrins) explaining clotting and neurotoxicity.
My solution: Research the venoms data for yourself. Include it in a comparative study such as the AAPS study, as it gives perspective, within the context of the bigger picture. See the picture develop as each piece of the jigsaw accumulates to reveal it.
2. Pregnancy – the 81% trap
The fragile claim: Pfizer’s 5.3.6 data showed an 81% miscarriage rate.
The effect: once the denominator error was exposed, all pregnancy concerns were dismissed.
The truth: genuine red flags exist – VAERS reporting ratios, placental transfer of mRNA, neonatal outcomes, trimester-specific risks.
My solution: Once alerted to it, I addressed it and updated my paper to document the error. In doing so, the omitted data from the Pfizer Post-marketing Report became even clearer to spot. And the manipulation. It revealed the missing jigsaw pieces, because they no longer were present to distort what the developing image appeared to be.
3. Forced conclusions – psy-ops within science
The fragile claim: “On balance, vaccination is recommended,” inserted into otherwise damning studies.
The effect: fact-checkers and media ignored the data, citing only the forced conclusion.
The truth: peer review was corrupted into propaganda. Informed consent was denied, violating the Nuremberg Code and basic medical ethics.
My solution: Read the papers, conclude for yourself. If the conclusions do not match the paper, there is a high likelihood of manipulation. Do not heed debunkers, fact-checkers or mass media who quote the misrepresentation of the conclusion, and ignore the corpus of the paper. If the papers show harms and the consensus is that the papers do not, it is proof of psyops.
Lesson
Discrediting does not only work by outright denial. It works by misdirection, by strawmen, and by coercing science itself into saying the opposite of what the data reveal. The antidote is precision, accumulation, and refusing to discard the real pieces of the jigsaw.
Appendix III: The Missing Signals – How Ambiguity Hid the Harms
Pfizer’s post-marketing (PM) safety report, submitted to the FDA as part of the Emergency Use Authorization process, has become one of the most cited documents in the vaccine debate.
What it showed
Even with small cohorts and selective reporting, the document revealed a concerning number of adverse events in the vaccinated arm. That alone should have raised questions about the balance of risks.
What it did not show
Despite these harms, the report somehow failed to identify two of the clearest real-world signals:
Pregnancy harms – miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal complications.
Myocarditis – which became one of the most undeniable red flags once mass rollout began.
By omission or ambiguity, Pfizer’s data told regulators there was “nothing much to see.” Yet within months of rollout, independent surveillance and cohort studies made clear that these harms were not rare outliers but consistent patterns.
What is revealed by what is missing
Curated reality – the PM paper was presented as a definitive safety snapshot, but it was curated. It did not represent the reality of what millions of people experienced.
Inadequate for EUA – basing emergency approval on such limited and selective data violated the principle of evidence sufficiency. The harms were already present in the wider dataset, just not reported.
Proven inadequate – subsequent years of data have confirmed the very harms Pfizer did not flag. Pregnancy risks and myocarditis are now well documented. Their absence in the PM report is not proof of safety, but proof of concealment.
Psy-ops within the data
This was not neutral error. The formatting of the pregnancy tables almost invited misreading. Myocarditis was effectively invisible. Meanwhile, the FDA was reassured there was nothing major to consider. The effect was twofold:
To give regulators cover for approval.
To set traps for critics, who could be baited into misinterpreting ambiguous data (as with the 81% miscarriage claim).
This is psy-ops through data presentation – not only hiding harms, but also shaping the debate around carefully planted ambiguities.
Appendix IV: Hidden Contamination – DNA Fragments and SV40
Another omission from Pfizer’s regulatory submissions has now come to light. Independent labs (2023–24) detected plasmid DNA fragments, including an SV40 promoter sequence long recognised for its oncogenic potential, in batches of Comirnaty and Moderna’s mRNA products.
These contaminants were not disclosed to the FDA in 2020–21. Had they been, the red flags would have been immediate:
Residual DNA is a known regulatory concern, with strict thresholds for biological products.
SV40 promoter/enhancer is historically linked to oncogenesis – its presence alone should have forced rejection or at minimum a halt pending investigation.
Dose variability – findings showed nanogram-to-microgram quantities of DNA per dose, far exceeding safe limits, and sufficient to pose real integration risks.
Yet none of this appeared in the Pfizer post-marketing report. The FDA reviewed a curated safety profile that excluded not only pregnancy and myocarditis harms but also manufacturing quality issues of profound significance.
The indictment
Had the FDA been given the data we now possess before authorising Comirnaty, the product should have been rejected outright. Instead, most of the world’s population was injected first, and only later did independent labs expose what the regulatory process should have caught.
This is not just regulatory failure – it is regulatory capture, a psy-ops operation in which dangerous omissions were passed off as settled science and safe policy.
Unsafe Houses – The Fraudulent Architect’s Report
Pfizer’s post-marketing safety report was treated as the architect’s certificate – the document that convinced regulators, governments, and the public that the design was sound. On that assurance, the world began building.
But the certificate itself was not a true safety report. It was a curated document, engineered to hide flaws that later brought structures down:
Pregnancy harms – formatted tables that concealed trimester risks and invited misinterpretation.
Myocarditis – a signal so strong in the real world that it became undeniable within months, yet invisible in the report.
DNA contamination and SV40 promoter sequences – absent entirely, though later proven in independent labs.
As houses began collapsing one by one – surges of myocarditis, reproductive losses, sudden deaths, cancers – the builders refused to stop. Instead of acknowledging that the blueprint was fraudulent, they doubled down on it.
In construction, continuing to build on a design already shown to be unsafe would be criminal negligence. No inspector would allow it, no government would defend it, no professional would keep silent. Yet in medicine, the opposite occurred: every new collapse was waved away, and the fraudulent architect’s report was still held up as proof of safety.
This is the true indictment. The collapse of each “house” was not an accident but the predictable result of a design whose dangers were concealed from the start. And instead of halting the project, the controllers forced it through, relying on a corrupted certificate to cover what they knew would follow.
The parallel is unavoidable: you do not keep building unsafe houses when the blueprint itself is a lie. Yet that is precisely what happened with the COVID injections.
Conclusion
In my opinion, this is a very important paper from well-respected and expert researchers and physicians. However, it is not enough. Not now, at this late stage when we have so much research to back up many levels of manipulation of the Covid ‘vaccine’ technology to deliberately create harms.
By now, we have more than enough evidence to not only collate a mass of evidence, but enough justification to demand that heads roll, that direct accusation of crimes and institutionalised deliberate harms on the population have been more than adequately demonstrated. There is a hidden hand that clearly wished harms on the sovereign citizens of this planet. Polite academic meta analyses without outrage, even incomplete ones, are welcome, but at this stage should be matched by demands for accountability.
Mass outrage should be the norm now, but we still have a long way to go to educate the wider public of the actual scientific basis for our outrage.
For further analyses from me on Covid issues, see the following articles:
Caution - this first Curious Case article is an extensive and dense piece not just about the science of the vaccines - the details on the venoms, amyloids and silk like proteins etc. is towards the end. The rest of this article is not for the faint-hearted!
The Statistical Illusion of Covid Vaccine Safety: An Irrefutable Rebuttal to Mainstream Claims
The Statistical Illusion of Vaccine Safety: An Irrefutable Rebuttal to Mainstream Claims
Applying my Venix system to create stats for analysis - for my case against consensus about Covid vaccines
Having trained Chatgpt’s AI system in my IXOS-based logic system called Venix, we can do the maths and see if we are closer to 1 or 0, in our analyses.
Is there even more to the Covid Pathologies than the Spike Protein?
The excellent researcher A Midwestern Doctor has published an extensive article on how significant research into Covid pathologies, linked to the mRNA jabs, is being routinely ignored and rejected by the major journals.
The Spike Was the Bioweapon — Not the Virus
This is what I believe to be the most likely explanation. (a theory, not established fact - but built on firm data)