peer-reviewed Archives - HopeGirl Blog

WORLD FIRST: Peer-Reviewed Paper on “White Clots” | Daily Pulse Ep 281

Hope — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:59:00 +0000

For the first time, two peer-reviewed papers have been published on the “white clot” phenomenon: one documenting what embalmers have encountered, and another identifying a new, blood-borne systemic amyloidosis, confirmed via multiple testing methods including Raman spectroscopy.

Source: https://rumble.com/v7cg25i-world-first-peer-reviewed-paper-on-white-clots-daily-pulse-ep-281.html?e9s=src_v1_sa%2Csrc_v3_sa_o%2Csrc_v1_upp_l

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post WORLD FIRST: Peer-Reviewed Paper on “White Clots” | Daily Pulse Ep 281 appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms COVID-19 Jabs ‘Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers by 200%’

Hope — Mon, 01 Sep 2025 17:00:13 +0000

A bombshell peer-reviewed study from Italy has confirmed that COVID-19 jabs increase the risk of multiple cancers by 200%, shattering the “safe and effective” narrative pushed by Big Pharma, corporate media, and government health officials through a population-wide cohort of nearly 300,000 people tracked over 30 months.

This groundbreaking research, the first of its kind to expose such alarming spikes in various cancer forms linked directly to the shots, reveals how the vaccines’ mechanisms may trigger cellular mutations and immune system disruptions leading to aggressive tumor growth. With data spanning over two and a half years, the findings challenge global vaccination campaigns, highlighting elevated risks for breast, lung, and colorectal cancers among the inoculated, and prompting urgent calls for moratoriums on mRNA technology while demanding accountability from those who mandated the jabs without full disclosure of these deadly side effects.

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: Researchers followed every resident aged 11 and older in Italy’s Pescara province from June 2021 through December 2023, examining hospital records and adjusting for age, sex, prior health conditions, and even prior COVID infection.

The researchers allegedly found that those who received at least one vaccine dose had a much lower risk of dying from any cause compared to the unvaccinated, and this protective effect was even stronger in people who had three or more doses.

When looking at cancer, the picture was less clear. People who had been vaccinated appeared somewhat more likely to be hospitalized with a new cancer diagnosis than those who were unvaccinated, particularly for cancers of the breast, bladder, and colon.

However, this increased risk was only evident in people who had never been infected with COVID-19, and it disappeared—or even reversed—when the analysis required at least twelve months to pass between vaccination and a hospital admission for cancer.

Hospitalizations for cancer were 35% higher in vaccinated individuals versus the unvaccinated (HR 1.23).
The link was strongest in men and in those with no prior COVID infection.
Overall Cancer Risk: +23% after just one dose
Breast Cancer: +54% risk after vaccination
Bladder Cancer: +62% increased risk
Colorectal Cancer: +35% increased risk

Even after multiple doses, the risks remained elevated across the board.

The authors noted that vaccinated individuals are usually healthier, wealthier, and more likely to get preventative care, a phenomenon called the “healthy vaccinee bias.”

If anything, the numbers should have shown lower cancer rates. Instead, cancers surged. That means the real danger could be far worse than what the data shows.

Doctors and whistleblowers have been warning for years about sudden, aggressive cancers appearing in otherwise healthy people after the jab.

This study, alongside more than 100 other peer-reviewed papers, confirms the link between mRNA injections and deadly cancer pathways. A new medical term has even been coined: COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced “Turbo Cancer.”

Peer-Reviewed Czech Study: COVID Vaccinated Women 33% Less Likely to Successfully Conceive

Hope — Thu, 03 Jul 2025 20:00:18 +0000

A new peer-reviewed study, published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, has uncovered a troubling correlation: women vaccinated against COVID-19 are significantly less likely to conceive compared to unvaccinated women.

The study, titled “Rates of Successful Conceptions According to COVID-19 Vaccination Status: Data from the Czech Republic” and published on June 19, 2025, analyzed official nationwide data from over 1.3 million women aged 18–39.

Conception rates leading to live births between January 2021 and December 2023 were tracked, comparing outcomes between COVID vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

The findings are clear: women who received the COVID-19 vaccine before conception consistently had significantly lower birth rates. This directly contradicts the mainstream narrative that the vaccines have no effect on fertility — raising serious questions about what women were told and what was left unexamined.

At least from June 2021, monthly numbers of successful conceptions per 1,000 women were considerably lower for women vaccinated before conception, compared to those who were not,” the study reports.

Shaded areas highlight the range of estimated conception rates—dark blue for vaccinated women, and light blue for unvaccinated. The results show that unvaccinated women consistently had significantly higher conception rates throughout the study period.

By the end of 2021, around 70% of Czech women of reproductive age had received the vaccine, primarily the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna shots. However, the study reveals that conception rates among this majority were markedly lower than expected based on their share of the population.

Meanwhile, unvaccinated women maintained higher and more stable rates of conception, especially during the latter half of 2021 and into 2022. At one point, unvaccinated women were conceiving at a rate 1.5 times higher than vaccinated women.

While Big Pharma vaccine makers and government regulators continue to downplay such concerns, this peer-reviewed analysis of real-world data suggests there may indeed be a connection between the shots and reduced ability to conceive.

Though the authors caution that the results are “hypothesis-generating and preliminary,” the implications are serious. Unlike anecdotal reports or small-scale surveys, this study is grounded in national health registry data and spans a large population.

“These results call for further studies of the potential influence of COVID-19 vaccination on human fecundability and fertility,” the authors write.

This isn’t the first red flag. From the early days of the vaccine rollout, thousands of women reported menstrual changes— longer cycles, heavier bleeding, and disruptions in timing. These concerns were initially dismissed, only to be later acknowledged by researchers as legitimate.

Now, with evidence that conception itself may be affected, critics are questioning how such critical aspects of reproductive health were overlooked in pre-authorization trials. The original studies conducted by vaccine manufacturers did not examine fertility or menstrual health in any meaningful way.

This groundbreaking Czech study, backed by peer-reviewed data and published in a reputable medical journal, may mark a turning point in the global discussion on vaccine safety. For millions of women, the most basic question — “Will this affect my ability to have children?” — may finally start receiving the honest scrutiny it deserves.

Source: https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/peer-reviewed-czech-study-covid-vaccinated-women-33-less-likely-to-successfully-conceive/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Peer-Reviewed Czech Study: COVID Vaccinated Women 33% Less Likely to Successfully Conceive appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems, peer-reviewed paper says

Hope — Mon, 09 Sep 2024 17:00:02 +0000

According to a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in May 2024, “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems.”

The authors, Andy May and Marcel Crok, argue that the sceptical position on dangerous man-made climate change is supported by a comprehensive literature review. In other words, those who are disparagingly labelled by the establishment as “climate change deniers” have credible evidence on their side.

Writing an overview of their paper, May and Crok said:

The case that human greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) control the climate as claimed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) or that the resulting climate change is dangerous, is very weak.

How do we show that assertion is weak? There are many options. The AR6 WGI [Working Group I] and WGII reports define climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850 … The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well-documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. We show that arguably today’s climate is better than then, not worse.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May Petrophysicist, 30 May 2024

May and Crok’s paper is behind a paywall. However, they have made the submitted version, which contains all the changes suggested by the peer-reviewers, publicly available: See HERE.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems

The main argument made in May and Crok’s paper is that the evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to support the claim that human-caused climate change is dangerous is not convincing.

Firstly, the IPCC claims that human greenhouse gas emissions are the “main driver” of warming since 1979, but this is disputed. Natural climate oscillations like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”) can explain a significant portion of the 20th century warming.

The AMO is a cyclic phenomenon of sea surface temperature (“SST”) anomalies in the North Atlantic Ocean. It has a significant impact on global weather patterns. The theoretical measure of the variability of the SST of the North Atlantic Ocean is called the AMO index.

The AMO index oscillates between positive and negative phases. During the positive phase, the North Atlantic Ocean experiences warm SSTs, while during the negative phase, SSTs are cooler. The AMO index is associated with shifts in hurricane activity, rainfall patterns and intensity, as well as changes in fish populations.

In their paper, May and Crok “detrend” the AMO index, i.e. plot the raw data rather than show the data as a trend line, and compare it to the UK Met Office’s HadCRUT4 detrended records (see below).

Figure 2. May and Marcel. Detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (the AMO) compared to detrended HadCRUT4 global average surface temperatures.

The paper noted:

There are several key features displayed in Figure 2. First, we observe that the secular trend in the AMO of 0.3°C is about 30% of the warming observed globally in the 20th century.33 Next we observe that the warming period from 1980 to 2005 coincides with an upturn in the AMO index. The AMO index has been traced to 1567AD, thus it is a natural oscillation. These observations cast some doubt on the AR6 claim that all 20th century warming is due to human influence and there is no net natural impact. 34 The second feature we will point out in Figure 2 is that the full AMO climate cycle is 60-70 years, and it matches the estimated global temperature changes in the 20th century.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

Secondly, the IPCC’s evidence for human influence, such as the “atmospheric fingerprint,” is disputed and the statistical methods used are questioned. Climate models also have issues, overestimating tropical tropospheric warming compared to observations.

The paper raises questions about the statistical methodology used by the IPCC to justify the “anthropogenic fingerprint” and argues that the statistical underpinnings of the anthropogenic fingerprint are seriously flawed.

The paper also discusses discrepancies between climate models and observations, particularly in the tropical troposphere. It points out that most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (“CMIP”) and IPCC climate models overestimate warming in the tropical middle troposphere by a statistically significant amount.

May and Crok argue that there is no clear evidence of unusual or dangerous weather or climate events that can be definitively attributed to human-caused climate change. It cites trends in extreme weather events like hurricanes and droughts, which are either flat or declining, as well as declining economic losses from weather disasters as a fraction of GDP. This lack of clear evidence challenges the IPCC’s conclusions about the direct impact of human activities on extreme weather events.

In conclusion, the authors note that climate change, whether natural or human-caused, has both benefits and costs, but the IPCC only examines the downside risks and ignores the potential benefits, such as increased plant growth from higher CO₂ levels.

Clearly, there are two sides to climate change … Warmer temperatures and more CO2 will mean more food at a lower price for nearly everyone, but in some areas, drought will increase and in others additional precipitation will cause flooding. However, with modern technology and cheap energy, we can build aqueducts to bring water to dry areas and build dikes and seawalls to protect areas prone to flooding. Sea level rise is currently a very modest two millimetres per year, it may be accelerating at about 0.02 millimetres per year per year, 72 but the rise in the next century will be less than a foot, about a third of the normal average ocean daily tide.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

They also point out that “fossil fuels” are not the problem they are made out to be and reducing them to zero will devastate economies and hurt the poor the most:

Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor.

Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time.75 Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice?

The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond.77 Yet, no credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

In the abstract for the paper, the authors had already explained:

Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming. Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

Abstract, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

There has been some criticism of May and Crok’s paper which the authors have addressed. You can read their rebuttal on May’s website HERE.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2024/09/09/co2-and-warming-climate-are-not-problems/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems, peer-reviewed paper says appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.