top of page

Fact Check: Pfizer Papers Reveal there IS a Link Between Hepatitis and Covid Vaccines

Health agencies attempted to bury the evidence of Pfizer's vaccine damaging healthy livers.

United Kingdom health agencies have reported a huge rise in autoimmune Hepatitis in children with a total of 108 cases with eight children having to have a liver transplant. Of the confirmed cases, 79 are in England, 14 are in Scotland, and the 15 remaining children were located in Wales and Northern Ireland.

'Fact Checkers' have hurriedly published reports claiming that there is no established link between the condition and the shots, however, this is false, the evidence is already in the public domain.

Firstly, no independent analysis has been done. Not looking for a link is very different from looking and not finding one. Neither the MRHA or the World Health Organisation have done any independent studies to determine what effects the vaccine is actually having on its patients, relying entirely on the honesty of the vaccine manufacturers. The conclusion given is baseless. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Secondly, the spike in cases has proved not to be caused by the most common virus in previous cases of this type. (adenovirus) was only present in five out of the 108 cases tested. With the Adenovirus being discounted there a few other possible causes. The MRHA have suggested that it could be Covid-19 or 'environmental factors' which appear to be the stock phrases for all adverse events associated with the vaccine and have little or no scientific basis for their continued use.

Thirdly, the timeline of events does not match the Health Agencies claims that none of the children had received the Covid-19 vaccine. Scottish Health Minister Maree Todd told the Parliament on April 19th that there was no link between the hepatitis cases and COVID-19 vaccines because none of the children had been vaccinated. However, the minister provided no supporting evidence for this claim which appeared to be a blanket statement designed to shut down debate and at odds with data from the NHS.

The Hepatitis alert came after children started receiving the vaccine.

The NHS began vaccinating children aged 5-11 on the 4th April, in what it called 'the biggest and most successful vaccination drive in health service history' saying; 'Almost five million children in this age group are eligible for two doses of the vaccine following updated JCVI guidance, which recommended children can benefit from non-urgent offer of the vaccine.'

The NHS go on to boast that some 37,000 children received the vaccine on the first Saturday it was offered (9th of April)

On 12th of April The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) issued a public alert for 'severe acute hepatitis in children' warning that parents should look out for symptoms of the liver inflammation including jaundice, gastrointestinal symptoms and vomiting (here).

On the 13th of April the European Health Agency issued a statement saying that there was no established link between the Covid-19 vaccine and incidents of Hepatitis despite there only being 24 hours between the alert and the categorical statement. This indicates that no investigation had been performed. Again we are expected to accept this 'argument from authority' without question.

Fourthly, and most damning of all, is that The Health Agency(s) making the claim know it to be FALSE. Hepatitis IS one of the known adverse events caused by the vaccine and what is more, the FDA attempted to bury the fact before a federal judge ordered the evidence to be released.

The FDA had originally declared it would not release the safety data of Pfizer's Covid vaccine for 75 years (2096) but was forced to by a judge following a recent court case. 55,000 pages of documents have now been released.

Hiding in one appendix is the clinical data for Pfizer’s vaccine — is a list of 1,291 adverse side effects in alphabetical order. There are 9 pages of side effects in small print, and there, clearly listed is Autoimmune Hepatitis.

Why should we take the word of habitual criminals who aren't liable for injury or death caused by their products?

Related Article:


bottom of page