From C&C News on COVID "Jab" Injuries: "We’re looking at a public health catastrophe playing out in increasingly fast motion."

Richard C. Cook comments: This morning Jeff Childers has another stunning report on C&C News exposing the “public health catastrophe” of the COVID “jab.” He writes on a new peer-reviewed study using government data on neuropsychiatric reactions including aggression, depression, suicidal and even homicidal impulses. Is the “jab” making people crazy? Meanwhile, I just saw a TV ad from a pharmaceutical company trying to sell you a new prescription drug to counteract such symptoms. What does that tell us?

☕️SURPRISES ☙ Monday, July 7, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS🦠. (Fair Use Claimed.)

For years, scientists who questioned mRNA safety were told to put up or shut up (“publish or perish”). Well— now they’ve published. And I’ll give you one guess whether or not the conclusions support our long-standing concerns. Today, a new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science, blandly titled “View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions.”

The results, however, were not bland.

In the just-published peer-reviewed study, researchers analyzed over three decades of vaccine injury reports in the U.S. government’s own VAERS database, comparing covid mRNA vaccines to both flu shots and all other vaccines (combined). Using the CDC’s and FDA’s own method for detecting safety problems —called “Proportional Reporting Ratios” or PRRs— they found that reports of serious neuropsychiatric issues like brain fog, psychosis, dementia, and even suicidal behavior were not just higher, but dozens to hundreds of times more frequent after the covid shots.

If you thought people were crazy to take the jab, you might have been onto something.

The safety signal thresholds weren’t just crossed; they were blown out of the water, with some categories showing PRRs over four hundred, far above the FDA’s red-flag threshold of two. The study concluded these signals were sufficiently alarming to warrant immediate attention and further investigation— an understatement as big as the Statue of Liberty.

Among the most alarming findings, the study flagged massive spikes in reports of serious brain-related problems after covid vaccination. Compared to flu shots, reports of brain fog were up over 100-fold, psychosis nearly 80 times higher, and Alzheimer’s-type dementia more than 40 times more frequent. Even more chilling, reports related to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, including suicide attempts and self-harm, showed increases as high as 80-fold. One rare but deadly condition —cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, a type of brain clot— was reported at rates over 400 times higher than with flu vaccines.

These numbers weren’t small deviations— they were sky-high red flags by the FDA’s own data and safety standards.

💉 Critics will likely dismiss the study by pointing out that VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it contains unverified data that anyone can submit. That’s partly true—but irrelevant to this analysis. The researchers didn’t claim causation; they followed the FDA’s and CDC’s own protocol for detecting safety signals, using the exact same statistical method those agencies rely on to flag potential problems.

The results weren’t borderline— they were off-the-charts, across multiple categories, with p-values so small they defy random chance. If VAERS isn’t reliable enough to show a 400x spike in brain blood clots, then it’s not reliable enough to show anything— and that would be an indictment of public health surveillance, not the authors. They can’t have it both ways.

It’s also worth noting that VAERS is widely understood —even by the CDC itself— to suffer from substantial under-reporting. Most adverse events, especially non-lethal or slow-developing ones, are never logged, thanks largely to the system’s time-consuming and painstaking reporting requirements. That means the staggering signal ratios found in this study are almost certainly undercounts, not exaggerations. If even a fraction of those cases represent real harm, we’re looking at a public health catastrophe playing out in increasingly fast motion.

💉 Predictably, other critics will attack the study not by engaging the data, but by going after the authors themselves— a classic case of the genetic fallacy, where a claim is dismissed based on who made it rather than whether it’s true. Several authors are well-known covid policy critics, like familiar heroes Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. James Thorp, and Dr. Steven Hatfill.

But so what? That doesn’t invalidate the data they used —VAERS, the U.S. government’s own database— or the statistical method they applied, which came straight from CDC and FDA playbooks. If a former dissenter publishes solid evidence using government sources and standard methodology, the proper response isn’t character assassination; it should be scrutiny of the claims, not the bios.

When critics start attacking résumés instead of rebutting the math, it usually means they’ve got nothing else.

💉 The fact that this astonishing study —authored by high-profile dissidents, using politically radioactive data, and drawing devastating conclusions— still passed peer review and was published in a legitimate journal marks a significant crack in the Overton window. As you well know, for years, any suggestion that covid vaccines could cause widespread neurological or psychiatric harm was treated as fringe conspiracy theory. But now, that same claim sits inside the pages of a peer-reviewed medical journal, backed by basic math, verifiable government data, and unremarkable regulatory methodology.

This doesn’t just crack the narrative— it blows a hole in the prison wall. If the system still held total control over scientific discourse, this paper would never have seen daylight. But it did. And that means the narrative guardians —the journals, peer-reviewers, and editors— are either losing their grip or starting to hedge, perhaps because suppressing credible dissent has become riskier than letting it through.

This study is more than a dead canary in the iatrogenic coal mine. It signals a critical turning point: what was once unspeakable is now printable, citable, and, if the trend continues, increasingly undeniable.

Before the pandemic, Dr. McCullough was a credentialed expert, widely published, respected across his field, and apolitical— just a humble physician-scientist minding his own business. Then came covid. To shut him up they did everything they could to destroy him: stripped his affiliations, silenced his platforms, and vilified his reputation. Now, McCullough’s only path to redemption isn’t apologies or reinstatements— those will never come. His only option is total vindication: proving, with hard data and relentless persistence, that they lied, the public was misinformed by them, the harms he reported were real, and that he —not them— told the truth when it mattered most.

McCullough has published more peer-reviewed articles in his specialty than anyone else in history. He knows exactly how the system works— and now he’s turning it against its corruptors.

In trying to erase him, they created their own worst enemy. Hubris, meet Nemesis. (Again.)

Books Available from the Three Sages:

Richard C. Cook, Our Country, Then and Now. ORDER HERE

Fadi Lama, Why the West Can’t Win: From Bretton Woods to a Multipolar World. ORDER HERE

Dr. Lewis Coleman: 50 Years Lost in Medical Advance: The discovery of Hans Selye's stress mechanism. ORDER HERE