Adverse Effects from Vaccines: The Case of Alexis Lorenze, By Mrs. Dr. Abigail Knight (Florida)

Safe and effective? The Midwestern Doctor details the case of Alexis Lorenze of California, who was being treated for a particular condition, but was given, as is the manic thing to do now, to make sure the "shots were up-to-date, tetanus, meningitis and pneumonia vaccines all at once. Within 10 minutes she couldn't move her arms and was blind in both eyes, a product of an adverse reaction. Her condition worsened, and soon she had hematomas and legions over her body; truly gruesome. One can view the photographs at the link below. When her eyesight returned, she put out a message for help on social media and vaccine critic Steve Kirsch responded, and the story went viral.

All is detailed below for those who want the details, but the story does indicate that there can be unanticipated side-effects even from routine vaccines. The medical profession has always argued that the benefits outweigh the risks of all vaccines, as they do with all Big Pharma drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors (POPIs). Even so, Suzanne Humphries in her book Dissolving Illusions, has gone back over the historical records and shown that most diseases, such as smallpox, were conquered by public health measures, well before vaccination. More details are below.

https://vigilantfox.news/p/horrific-vaccine-injury-leaves-23?

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-happens-when-a-hospital-vaccine

"After finishing the first part of the DMSO series (which explains how millions of permanent disabilities and deaths from strokes, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries could have been prevented if the FDA hadn't blacklisted DMSO), I decided to take a technology break. However, as I was drifting to bed last night, a lot of people began contacting me about a disaster that was unfolding in California.

What I find astounding about this case is that within minutes of looking into the limited information that was available, I was relatively certain of what happened, and now that her basic labs were posted online, it was indeed what happened. However, as best as I can tell, a fairly straightforward (conventional) diagnosis was missed and Alexis Lorenze has instead been put at risk of a life-threatening injury.

I was initially in disbelief this was possible (and to an extent still am), but people directly connected to the situation confirmed this indeed is the case. As this case is an instructive example of medical blindness, I felt it would be helpful to share what happened.

Note: premier academic hospitals, while less likely to have a compassionate and caring relationship with their patients, are normally better at recognizing less common diagnoses and are typically equipped with the specialized services needed to address those situations—all of which makes me particularly surprised this was missed. To some extent, I am juxtaposing my understanding of the Midwestern academic centers onto this situation, so if you are directly familiar with the UC hospital system (particularly Irvine) and there's is something I am missing here, please let me know.

A major in medicine is that doctors are frequently unable to recognize conditions which:

•Create cognitive dissonance for them (e.g., by forcing them to acknowledge they hurt a patient or accept that the guidelines their medical tribe gave them are flawed).

•They were not taught to identify to recognize (as there is so much complexity to a human being, the majority of physicians lack the innate capacity to see things they weren't taught to filter for or the willing to seriously consider the significance of things which do not make sense within their cognitive map of the world).

Because of this, physicians frequently fail to recognize a pharmaceutical injury is occurring or believe a patient who claims an injury was linked to a pharmaceutical (particularly since medical education conveniently does not train doctors to recognize these injuries and simultaneously trains them to believe anything patients report that is not backed by science is "anecdotal" and most likely a spontaneous coincidence). This in turn leads to the tragic phenomenon of "medical gaslighting" (discussed further here) something many patients understandably find infuriating.

This issue is particularly common with vaccines because:

•The meaningless slogan "safe and effective" has been used to market them for decades regardless of how much evidence of harm exists (e.g., I previously listed some fairly tragic examples that ultimately go back over a century). Because of this, the majority of doctors assume vaccines are 100% safe and that no possible issue can emerge from giving them ad-infinitum.

•To maintain the mythology of "safe and effective," a massive embargo existing on publishing any information which is critical of vaccine safety. For example, here I presented numerous independently conducted studies which all show that vaccines cause between a 2-10 fold increase in numerous chronic diseases which have "inexplicably" spiked throughout America at the same time the vaccine schedule proliferated throughout the society (due the manufacturers being granted complete immunity from the harms of their products as they were going out of business due to the cost of injury lawsuits).

•Much of the credibility of modern medicine arises from the mythology that it rescued us from the dark ages of infectious disease with vaccinations (when in reality that decline was entirely due to improved public sanitation). Because of this, attacking vaccination directly attacks a doctors identity and social status.

As a result, the medical profession will frequently go to extraordinary lengths to defend a bad vaccine they've endorsed—with the COVID-19 vaccines being one of the most absurd examples I've seen in my lifetime, but not by any means the first time this has happened.

Suzanne Humphries (and Roman Bystrianyk) did an incredible service to the vaccine safety movement by publishing Dissolving Illusions, a book which clearly demonstrated that the mythology we were sold about vaccines saving the world was hoax, and in reality they caused far more harm than they benefitted people (discussed further here).

Suzanne Humphries embarked on this project, because as a nephrologist, she kept on seeing patients enter kidney failure after a vaccine (or have their kidneys significantly worsen once they received a vaccine at a hospital).

Note: Nephrologists have a somewhat unique position in medicine as if they request for a drug to be discontinued because they suspect it is harming a patients kidneys, other doctors will listen and stop the drug (whereas if a non-nephrologist points out a drug injury to a colleague, they colleague often won't discontinue it).

"One Monday after picking up the weekend service, a hospital inpatient with kidney failure got very grumpy with me. Seeing him in the middle of his dialysis treatment, I'd asked the usual questions, like "And how long have you been on dialysis?" and the man exploded. "I've never been on dialysis! I never had anything wrong, until they gave me that shot." . . . Working up a lather he almost yelled . . . "I was fine until I had that vaccine!" Taken aback, I asked, "What vaccine did you get? When did you get it, and how do you know your kidneys were fine before?" Apparently he'd told his story to everyone, but had been blown off. Now, he was startled that anyone was even asking sensible questions. So he tumbled the whole story out. After a very thorough investigation and a fine-tooth-combed patient history analysis, which did indeed reveal that his kidney function was perfectly normal a month before, I decided that his words and beliefs had merit"

"After the first man with kidney failure, I began asking other people, with unusual case presentations, whether or not they had been recently vaccinated. Some would become wide-eyed after the question, as if they too had never considered any connection, but in others, the light dawned and after picking up their jaws, they often replied, "YES, it was shortly after that!" Sure enough, the records would show the time relationship. Sometimes violent sickness began on the very day."

"After three people came in with fulminant kidney failure, temporally related to vaccination, I thought it prudent to bring the cases to the attention of the hospital chief of medical staff. Upon passing him in the hallway, we stopped for the usual cordial robotic small talk: "Hello. How are you? How is the practice going? Are you happy here?" To which the answer for the previous seven years" "had been "Great. Great and yes!" But this time I had news! "We have a problem. I've seen three cases of kidney failure in adults shortly after they were vaccinated and two of the three told me they were fine until the vaccine. All of them had documented normal kidney function within two months of the vaccine. What do you think?"

After a short silence, I got to know a different side of this man. Perhaps he could also say he got to know a different side of me. His immediate response was, "It was not a vaccine reaction. They just got the flu and the vaccine didn't have time to work." The problem was that none of the three even had flu-like symptoms. Why did he automatically jump to that conclusion? It is true that even less than once in a blue moon, influenza infection all by itself can lead to interstitial nephritis and kidney shut down. I'd never treated a case of flu-related kidney failure in all my years of practice as a very busy nephrologist in large tertiary care centers."

"Around this time, I admitted a patient of mine for a kidney biopsy. I came to write the admitting order 45 minutes after she arrived, and saw that she had been given a flu shot before I got there, with an order that had my name on it. I hadn't ordered it, so I asked the nurse how this could be. Astonishingly she said that it was now policy for the pharmacist to put a doctor's signature on the order if the patient gave consent. They were very efficient that day.

Usually it could take forever to get an IV infusion set up, yet suddenly vaccines were given immediately on arrival. While the first problem for me was that I didn't order the vaccine, the second was that the policy extended to ALL admissions, even if they had sepsis or worsening cancer, or were having a heart attack or stroke. A third problem was that there was no realization that a vaccine, or two, might make it more difficult for a clinician to subsequently work out what the problems were caused by, and correctly diagnose and treat the patient. Plainly, there was no consideration as to the utility, benefit, or detriment of a flu shot, to any seriously, acutely ill patient."

Note: a key reason why hospitals push vaccines is because Obamacare, in a mission to "improve" medicine changed their financial reimbursements to reward "quality health care" and made a key component of that metric that a hospital ensured vaccinating a high percentage of their staff and patients.

"As time went on, inpatient consults became quite revealing because we could track the kidney function from normal or slightly impaired, to failed after a vaccine was given on admission."

"In the past when I was consulted on kidney failure cases and said, "Oh that was the statin/antibiotic/diuretic that did that!" instantly the drug would be stopped—no questions asked. Now, however, a new standard was applied to vaccines. It didn't matter that the internist's notes in the charts said, "No obvious etiology of kidney failure found after thorough evaluation." It didn't matter that I considered the vaccine a possible cause when all other potential culprits had been eliminated. It was never the vaccine. The collective mindset said with glazed-over eyes, "Vaccines? Not possible or likely."

"When I was discussing the issue one day on a cardiology ward, a cardiologist who knew me well, approached me with wide eyes. He was horrified, thinking he was behind on the latest recommendation. He said "Wait! Are we not supposed to be giving flu shots? I have been brow-beating my patients into flu shots whenever possible!" I explained the situation I witnessed and he listened. He also had never considered a vaccine to be a potential danger in any way. Whether or not he has since changed his thinking, or his practice at all, I don't know. What was telling to me, was that all he wanted to know was what he had missed. He was not interested in thinking it out on his own. He was far too busy for that. He just wanted to know if he missed anything of 'importance', so that he could be a good, correct doctor. Kind of like the student who only wants to know what will be on the exam, but not how to think about how that information might fit into the bigger picture."

"Several months went by, and the medical executive committee met to discuss my concerns, without allowing me to be present at the meeting. I was informed in writing that the nursing staff were becoming confused by me discontinuing orders to vaccinate and that I should adhere to hospital policy. I thought this odd, given that nurses are not accustomed to giving the same treatment to every patient, and are fully capable of reading individualized orders."

"The next time the medical chief of staff and I met in the corridor, an oncologist was present. At one point, I asked the chief, "Why doesn't anyone else see the problem here? Why is it just me? How can you think all this is "okay? Why is it now considered normal to vaccinate very sick people on their first hospital day?" The oncologist gave an answer that surprised me. She said, "Medical religion!" and turned and walked away. That was a strange outburst from her because in the months that followed, I watched her continue marching down the aisle of medical religion—not only with her own health issues that she shared with me, but also with her cancer patients."

I looked deeper into the poke, because I was forced to—but ONLY after I realized that what I thought I purchased with my medical education, was not complexity of thinking or even complete analysis of science, but rote training, and reactive responses.

A good doctor researches fact. My research turned up a mass of medical articles about kidney failure related to influenza and other vaccines, and reasons to suspect that vaccines could also be causing many of the other diseases commonly labelled as 'idiopathic'. I was shocked at the potential scope of the damage I had previously brushed off because of lack of education. Like my colleagues, I had considered many vaccine reactions to be coincidences. Auto-immune diseases and kidney diseases requiring harsh immune-suppressive drugs are not unheard of, after vaccines. Nowhere in medical school, internship, residency, or fellowship, had kidney failure after vaccines been discussed. Why not?"

Note: many of my awake colleagues joke that idiopathic denotes individuals being too idiotic to recognize the obvious cause of a disease.

"I wrote all the cases out and put together a comprehensive brief for the hospital administration, but to no avail."

"As time went on, it was interesting seeing the divide in the hospital staff. Nurses would bail me up in quiet corners and tell me stories that completely backed up what I was seeing. They would guardedly support me, when their superiors were out of eye- or ear-shot. A deeper respect was building between those who could see what I saw, while an icy wind roared from those on high."

"I kept presenting the administration with facts they could not respond to, in the hope that they would get a blinding revelation of the obvious. Finally, they recruited the Northeast Healthcare Quality Foundation, the "quality improvement organization" for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, to get me off their backs. Dr. Lawrence D. Ramunno sent a letter invoking the fallacy of authority, which adamantly informed me that hospital vaccination against influenza virus would become a global measure for all admissions in 2010, and that my evidence of harm was not significant because 10 professional organizations endorse vaccination."

"Not satisfied with demanding that I practice automaton obedience to dictates from on high, they initiated a shadow observation, where everything I did and wrote in the hospital, from then on, was observed and scrutinized.

This unscientific and unprofessional harassment only served to reinforce my decision to leave no policy unquestioned, ever again."

Suzanne Humphries in turn was inspired to write her book "Dissolving Illusions" because one of the most common counterarguments she received from her colleagues about flu shots causing kidney failure was that "vaccines saved us from smallpox and polio so there's no possible way a vaccine could be bad." This in turn inspired her to look into the data underlying that claim, at which point she realized most of it wasn't publicly available, but when she unearthed records from the basements of medical libraries, she discovered that statement was a myth, after which point she published that evidence in her book.

In my own case, I've admitted quite a few patients to the hospital who I quickly realized were hospitalized because of a vaccine injury (e.g., including a kidney failure case like Suzanne Humphries described), and in each case, one of the biggest challenges I had was finding a way to present the case in such a way that the other doctors at the hospital would not get enraged at me for it (e.g., I was successful in one case by attributing one injury to how the vaccine was administered rather than the vaccine itself).

Note: in this publication, I've emphasized the forgotten medical theory that many vaccine injuries are a product of them altering the zeta potential of the body, causing blood in the body to clump together and create microstrokes which damage critical parts of the body (e.g., I've seen numerous cases where this happened in the brain or kidneys).

Likewise, I believe one of the most common reason why people are hospitalized is because the zeta potential of their body has weakened enough that they begin developing severe symptoms which meet the criteria for hospitalization. In turn, I've seen textbook zeta potential collapse cases from a vaccine that resulted in hospital admission and I also believe one of the most helpful things hospitals do for patients is give them IV saline (which is just done routinely because everyone is "dehydrated") because IV saline marginally restores the physiologic zeta potential.

Alexis Lorenze came from a family that skipped many of their later vaccines (due to an injury she experienced) and had an unfortunate genetic disorder (PNH) that causes her immune system to destroy her blood cells because they lack a protein that prevents that attack. The conventional options for the condition aren't great—a stem cell bone marrow transplant (which produces blood cells the body won't attack) or a monoclonal antibody that causes $400,000.00 a year.

Because Alexis was desperate for an effective way to treat her condition, after months of struggling with it, she eventually came to UC Irvine for treatment, a facility which happens to be a premier adult stem cell transplant research center.

When stem cell bone marrow transplants are done, they essentially require first killing off the existing bone marrow and then replacing with new bone marrow (from a donor) which unlike the old marrow, does not produce the problematic blood cells (e.g., this is a common treatment for blood cancers). Frequently when this occurs, the adaptive immunity from previous vaccinations is lost, and for this reason, many (but not all) groups recommended re-vaccinating after a bone marrow stem cell transplant, and they ofter space them out (e.g., consider what one of the countries "top" medical centers does). That said, given that most of the diseases they re-vaccinate against pose minimal risk I do not completely agree with this rationale.

Note: one of the unusual characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine was that it would accumulate in the bone marrow, and I came across cases of individuals with had a bone marrow stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma who then had their bone marrow transplant fail after the COVID vaccine. Likewise, since organ transplants are in short supply, transplant doctors prioritize people who are taking care of their health as they are the most likely to have a successful outcome with the organ. During COVID, this created the nightmarish situation where many were told they could not have a transplant unless they vaccinated, and I in turn came across numerous cases of individuals who had severe injuries, death, or failure of their transplant after the vaccination.

Steve Kirsch briefly outlines what happened to Alexis

Tues, Sept 10: She has PNH and had terrible migraines for the last 2 weeks. Went in for help. Checked into UCI Hospital. ABNORMAL ECG - Sinus tachycardia Abnormal T, consider ischemia, anterior leads. Her HR is 131 bpm. Her hemoglobin was 3.1 (severely low). Her platelets were

Her Troponin I was high at check in which is an indicator of heart damage.

Her platelets (needed to prevent bleeding) were very low (28) at check in.

Fri, Sept 13: Given platelets by IV. Doesn't seem to increase her counts. They did bone marrow biopsy and 2-3 transfusions.

Sat, Sept 14, 2pm: Hematologist [whose page has since been deleted] tells Alexis they will not treat her any further unless she is up-to-date on her vaccines. They gave her tetanus, meningitis and pneumonia all at once. She has had ZERO V's with the exception of when she was a baby. 2 V's in her left arm and 1 V in her right. Within 10-minutes post vaccines, she couldn't move her arms and was blind in both eyes.

Within 10 minutes of the 3 vaccines which were given all at the same time, Alexis went temporarily blind in both eyes, had a locked jaw, began vomiting and then things went horribly downhill from there.

At this point, the hospital did nothing except put her on pain meds and benadryl, and eventually she put out a plea for help on TikTok to save her from the hospital because she was worried she was going to die that subsequently went viral (hence why I was contacted).

Without knowing anything beyond what was in that video, my immediate assessment was:

1.This is most likely immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) a condition where the immune system attacks its own platelets. This condition is quite rare (every year 3-4 out of 100,000 people develop it) and unlike most vaccine injuries, significant literature exists linking it to vaccination (including for the COVID-19 vaccines), which I believe is in part due to ITP being fairly rare so awknowledging it doesn't disrupt the "safe and effective" narrative.

2.It might be a case of purpura fulminans (another rare low platelet disorder), an often fatal acute condition characterized by a more visible skin rash (from blood clots under the skin) that results from coagulation in the the small vessels (something I associate with impaired zeta potential). Additionally, this condition is linked to PNH.

3.This might be Disseminated Intravascular Congestion (DIC)

4.This might be a vaccine related kidney issue.

5.This is some other unusual autoimmune disorder and she needs a comprehensive immunological blood work to identify it.

Given that ITP is a known complication of stem cell transplants, it is again very strange that the hospital (a premier stem cell transplant center) did not recognize an extreme case of the disorder.

Once her limited labs were obtained (which can be viewed here), it was clear she had ITP, and that at least at the time, there was not a significant issue with her kidneys (ruling out #3).

Note: in her medical records, there are also numerous correspondences indicating that a nurse reported this critical platelet lab value to the doctor.

Additionally, beyond it being apparent from looking at her, her lab work showed she was having a lot of clots breaking down in her body.

Note: other blood coagulation parameters were also abnormal (e.g., her PT was 15.6 and her INR was 1.36). Additionally, she was anemic (due to her PNH).

Based on all of this and how ITP is managed, I was very confused as to why nothing was done (besides giving her pain killers), so I went to look up the standard management of ITP to make sure I was not missing something.

UpToDate is one of the primary resources doctors use for clinical decisions.

Since that time, this story has gone viral, Steve Kirsch sent his team to the hospital to help her and two subsequent interviews were conducted which showed how much Alexis is suffering. In the first interview (which you can view here), they shared a few key points:

•She came in hoping for a blood transfusion, but was told she could not have any more treatment unless she received the vaccines.

•The hospital has given conflicting messages about what vaccines she received (even though the nurse clearly told them which ones were being given).

•Alexis's entire body is covered with the same hematomas you can see on her face and her body feels as though it is inflated. Additionally, she is in severe pain.

•The doctors have not treated her well (she claims some laughed at her, while another one stated they had never seen anything like this before) and that when she's hit the call button for basic things she needs, it's taken hours for nurses to get to her.

•The hospital is convinced this could not have been due to the vaccine, and instead was due to a Parvovirus infection (which a PCR test was positive for). Given that all or her symptoms started 10 minutes after the vaccines…that's a bit of a stretch but no different from what Suzanne Humphries experienced.

•They tried to transport her out of the hospital but were unable to as she does not have the insurance to get care at another facility.

In the last few hours, they at last were able to get Alexis transferred to the ICU, either due to the political pressure being placed on the hospital from the story going viral on Twitter or because she had, Nurse Angela, a skilled advocate helping her (which is often what is needed to get proper care in these larger institutions).

I am very hesitant to ascribe motives to people when I can't read their minds, but in this case, assuming the facts as presented are true, my best guess is that the hospital's response to Alexis was a combination of fear (especially once she mentioned "malpractice"), uncertainty and paralysis over her situation (e.g., the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her disappeared), and provides an excellent illustration of why, if you have the choice, smaller rural hospitals rather than academic ivory towers are often much better to go to.

One of the more telling aspects of this story was the hospital threatening to sue Steve Kirsch for publishing Alexis's medical records (which legally they can't do), which in turn illustrates that the hospital's focus is on protecting itself rather than the patient.

In this case, I believe it sheds a light on four very crucial points.

First, as Suzanne Humphries showed, it is incredibly difficult for doctors to accept that vaccines could be harmful because it goes so against their deep seated beliefs. In turn, even when the COVID vaccines have killed and crippled large numbers of people (which has been enough to wake many doctors up) other doctors I know are still not willing to acknowledge the vaccine is dangerous (e.g., I know one doctor I think in many ways is a great physician who still supports vaccines even though two of the three members of his immediate family had severe and unambiguous reactions to them). My best guess is that the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her could not conceive of the possibility they could be harmful (hence why he said to take all of them at once rather than one at a time) and then withdrew from the situation once something bad happened.

Second, in most cases, things like this get swept under the rug (which is a large part of why doctors are convinced serious vaccine reactions are "1 in a million"). Fortunately, due to the new media climate social media (particularly Twitter) has enabled, it's getting much harder to do that. In turn, while what happened to Alexis is extremely unfortunate, unlike those before her, she was able to publicize it and get something done about her situation, and it is my hope this will bring greater awareness to the possibility vaccine injuries are indeed quite real.

Third, one of the greatest challenges in getting people to believe vaccine injuries is that "evidence" for them doesn't exist or it's hard to appreciate the suffering the person is going through. What makes this case unique is that it visually apparent something is wrong (which hence allowed it to go viral) and the temporal relationship is almost impossible to deny. What's important to remember is that in almost all vaccine injuries, that is not the case (which again illustrates why they frequently get swept under the rug).

Fourth, if something does go awry with a vaccine, there is often minimal to no safety net available to you (e.g., you can't sue anyone and the Federal compensation programs almost never pay out to the injured). Because of this, those injured are often forced to go to online fund raising platforms for their medical expenses (which often doesn't works). In turn, one of the particularly cruel things that happened during the vaccine roll out is that Gofundme started deleting fundraisers for the COVID vaccine injuries because a lot of them went viral and they didn't want to "spread vaccine hesitancy" by making people aware severe injuries were occurring.

Note: Alexis has a fundraiser on this (more ethical) platform.

Finally (since I am still having trouble wrapping my head around all of this), if any of you have familiarity with the UC hospital system (particularly UC Irvine), this midwestern doctor would appreciate your insights into the hospital culture there (and sincerely appreciates the help all of you have given me to help get critical messages like this out).