Home(Chinese) USA VirusCOVID Jabs Cause ‘Extensive Brain Damage’

COVID Jabs Cause ‘Extensive Brain Damage’




Italy Releases Evidence That COVID Jabs Cause ‘Extensive Brain Damage’

Italy has released bombshell evidence that proves Covid mRNA jabs cause ‘extensive brain damage’ in recipients.

According to a new study conducted by Italian researchers, severe neurological complications have risen since the rollout of the toxic mRNA vaccines.

The study found that one in three people who received the shots suffered “tremors, insomnia, muscle spasms,” and more shortly afterwards.

NN reports: The researchers note that neurological complications have soared among the vaccinated.

The study, conducted by top researchers from the University Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, Italy, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines.

During the Italian population-based study, scientists aimed to “evaluate the neurological complications after the first and/or second dose of COVID-19 vaccines and factors potentially associated with these adverse effects,” according to their paper.

The study analyzed 19,096 people who received Covid shots in Italy in July 2021.

Out of those analyzed, 15,368 had taken the Pfizer vaccine, while 2,077 had taken the Moderna version.

1,651 had received the AstraZeneca version.

Both Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA shots, which are technically DNA treatments and not vaccines at all.

The AstraZeneca shot, meanwhile, is an adenovirus vaccine.

Pfizer and Moderna shots use a different mechanism than the AstraZeneca version to trigger the immune response.

The report said the study found that a staggering 31.2% of vaccinated individuals were suffering from neurological complaints.

These issues included headaches and tinnitus, sleepiness, vertigo, double vision, numbness, taste and smell alterations, and even “cognitive fog or difficulty in concentration.”

Each of the different shots produced different profiles of complications, the study found.

53% of those who took an AstraZeneca shot reported headaches, and more than 13% suffered from tremors.

Sufferers reported that these symptoms lasted around a day.

Almost 6 percent said they had insomnia and 2.7% reported tinnitus.

The study speculated that complications related to the AstraZeneca vaccine are attributable to two factors:

“Firstly, the nature of the vaccine, which is a modified adenovirus vector that results in significant and persistent systemic immune activation; secondly, individual vulnerability related to a predisposing biology.”

The Moderna and Pfizer nRNA shots both reported similar side effects.

39.7 percent of those who took Moderna jabs reported suffering from sleepiness, with the condition usually lasting for a week.

The discovery suggests that there “could be a strict relationship between the development of sleepiness and immune responses to vaccine/infection,” the study noted.

The researchers suggested that one hypothesis was that the shots could make “the selective immune-mediated destruction of orexin-producing neurons, which is T-cell-mediated neuronal damage, thus triggering narcolepsy.”

The study’s authors are now “urgently” calling for “future investigations” into the possible neurological damage caused by the shots.

Meanwhile, 15.9 percent of those taking the Moderna shot suffered vertigo and 14.5% reported numbness.

2.7% reported double vision, with “an increased risk” after a second dose.

Meanwhile, about 6.4% of Pfizer vaccine recipients reported suffering from cognitive fog, with the condition usually reversing in a week.

The report said the study suggested women had an “increased risk” of such complications, and that may come from DNA differences. Females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.

The study said its results “should be interpreted with caution because of a possible overestimation of neurological events resulting from the self-reported symptoms.”

“We evaluated the risks associated with the first and second doses of the vaccine; however, the data concerning the second dose were limited, thus representing a potential bias in the study,” the study’s authors note.

Renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough responded to the study on Substack.

“A shocking 31.2 percent of respondents to this large dataset sustained neurologic injury after two injections with verified data in health registries,” he wrote.

“Most of the risk estimates indicate the safety profile is unacceptable.

“It is alarming that all neurological societies to date still recommend COVID-19 vaccines and none have issued safety warnings on the products.”

Other studies have also discovered evidence of Covid mRNA shots being linked to neurological complications.

Back in October 2021, a study published in the Neurological Sciences journal stated that the “most devastating neurological post-vaccination complication is cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).”

McCullough noted a November 2022 study in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports made similar findings.

He explained that an excess risk of 20 percent or greater is considered “clinically important.”

Anyone who voluntarily took the vaccine already had brain damage.  To now Blame their condition on the COVID-19 vax is nothing but a copout on their poor decision-making.

Previous article
Next article


  1. I honestly believe that is true. All those who took the jab have a very fucked up mind now and believe that if they did not take the jab they when they got covid would have died if they had not taken it. They believe Jacinda was their single source of truth and all sorts of absolute rubbish she made up to suit her source of funding at the WEF, This has proven to be false information, but try and convince those who took the jab ……… its impossible. Poor bastards, sorry, actually not sorry they were so nasty to me for not taking it.



  2. The study in question seems to me to be an observational study. Such studies are not considered the gold standard. However, that is not a universally held opinion.


    ”An observational study is used to answer a research question BASED PURLEY on what the researcher observes. There is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, and no control and treatment groups.”

    Next, if we look at this Universities global ranking we see they are ranked #314. That is not a score of excellence, however it does not preclude solid scientific studies.

    ”These universities have been numerically ranked based on their positions in the overall Best Global Universities rankings. Each institution was evaluated based on its *research performance* and its ratings by members of the academic community around the world and in the region”

    The results are interesting and definitely deserve further studies.



    • The study in question seems to me to be an observational study. Such studies are not considered the gold standard.

      On the contrary, they are extremely valuable. Climate Change scientists can wax lyrical and point to $87Bn worth of research that proves Climate Change is real and that the ocean is gobbling up beach fronts.

      Someone from my generation who learnt about coast drift, and who knows how to download and read NZ tide gauge data, can tell you that the rate of sea level had not changed.

      If 2 out of every 3 people that ate fish from the new fish and chip shop end up in ED, you don’t need a scientist to tell you the fish was off.



      • As I hinted to above, not all scientists consider observational studies 2nd rate. However , I have a problem with participants in observational studies filling out questionnaires that are then collated by the scientific team running the study and then published without peer review in gold standard publications like ” Nature.”

        Observational type studies are often quoted in MS media. They are simple and easy for our deplorable journalists to understand.



    • …….’Each institution was evaluated based on its *research performance* “…….

      A better way would be to evaluate the research in terms of financial backing on a reverse scale.

      Eg $100 million funding from Pfizer puts the results in the rubbish skip. $1,000,000 from bequests means we listen to what the researchers come up with.



  3. When the jabmania started internationally I had people on my social media feeds feeling delighted if they got really sick after getting their inoculations, in the belief that this indicated it was working well. I wonder how these people are feeling now?



  4. Like many here I’m a pureblood. But I also recognise that the economic, employment and social pressures forced huge number of people to be injected against their better judgement (or at least against their gut instincts).

    I can only imagine how many of these people must be shitting themselves as the evidence of harms builds against this satanic experiment.

    I wonder what the uptake of boosters (or whatever they are now called) is? I would estimate only around 20-25% across the board of New Zealanders are ‘fully’ injected – but does anybody here have an actual published figure?

    EDIT: I was over estimating. The Health Dept figures report 986,345 people have had the ‘second booster’ – which is 19.72% of the total population (of 5 million give or take)!




Recent posts

Have Your Say

Monday Fun

Have Your Say

Recent comments

Viking on Have Your Say
Viking on Have Your Say
Sooty on Have Your Say
Nunnas on Have Your Say
waikatogirl on Have Your Say
Pinky1 on Have Your Say
nasska on Have Your Say
Ross12 on Have Your Say

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
light rain
14.4 ° C
14.4 °
14.1 °
91 %
100 %
15 °
18 °
15 °
12 °
13 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar