Josh Sigurdson reports (see all of the news links below under RESOURCES) that we are going into full-fledged global tyranny. Austria, Germany, and other countries are now calling for mandatory vaccinations.
As previously reported, Italy has been threatening to do door-to-door jabs and mandate that every person MUST get the jab.
In addition, massive fines are being given to the unvaxxed in Italy, Australia, Greece, and other countries.
Meanwhile, men, women, and children including countless athletes are dropping dead from heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and strange neurological disorders following the jab. And yet the mandates continue.
(Note: Ursula Van Der Leyen, who is President of the European Commission, does not specifically say anything about the Nuremberg Code. What she does say is that it is “understandable and appropriate” for EU countries to discuss mandatory COVID vaccinations because of the new Omicron variant.” Have a look at the above article and you’ll see a very chummy photo of Ursula with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla that was taken last month.)
Many athletes are now losing their careers due to COVID jab injuries. Florian Dagoury is the world record holder in static breath-hold freediving. Before his Pfizer jabs, he was able to hold his breath for 10 minutes and 30 seconds. After his second dose, his diving performance was slashed by about 30%, and he’s been diagnosed with myocarditis, pericarditis, and trivial mitral regurgitation
Others include tennis player Jeremy Chardy and 32-year-old triathlete Antoine Mechin. Both were severely injured by their COVID jabs. Both now regret taking the shot. “Damaging healthy people to preserve the health of the weakest,” Mechin now says, is “a choice of backward logic”
By any objective measure, the COVID shots are the most dangerous drugs ever launched. The safety signal is absolutely massive
A troubling effect that isn’t getting the attention it deserves is miscarriage. As of November 19, 2021, 3,071 miscarriages had been reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)
Getting the COVID shot during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is extremely risky. Preliminary data published in April 2021 show miscarriage occurred in 82% to 91% of women who got the shot during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy
With each passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the novel gene therapies marketed as COVID “vaccines” gets longer. Slews of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died in recent weeks, and mainstream media act as if those things are either normal or inexplicable.
They’re neither. They’re abnormal, and totally explainable when you know how the COVID shot destroys your heart and clumps your blood. Among the latest victims is Florian Dagoury, a world record holder in static breath-hold freediving. Before his Pfizer jabs, he was able to hold his breath for 10 minutes and 30 seconds.
After his second dose, his diving performance was slashed by about 30%, and he’s been diagnosed with myocarditis, pericarditis, and trivial mitral regurgitation, a condition in which the mitral valve in the heart gets leaky, allowing blood to flow backward into the left ventricle.
Dagoury shared his experience on Instagram:1,2
“After my 2nd dose I noticed that my heart rate was way higher than normal and my breath hold capacities went down significantly. During sleep, I’m at 65-70bpm instead of 37-45bpm. During the day, I’m now always over 100bpm instead of 65bpm, even when I sit down and relax. Once I even reach[ed] 177bpm while having dinner with friends!
Ten days after my 2nd jab, I went to see a cardiologist and he told me it’s a common side effect of Pfizer vaccine, nothing to worry about, just rest, it will pass. 40 days after 2nd jab, I had no progress so I went to see another cardiologist and got diagnosed with myocarditis and trivial mitral regurgitation!
Which is basically an inflammation of the heart muscles caused by the immune system and some tiny leaks of blood from the valves that no longer close properly. I’m now struggling to reach 8 min breath hold, 150m dyn[amic apnea freediving] and I even have a strong urge to breath[e] doing 40m dives. 30% decrease on my diving performance roughly.”
Many Athletes Are Losing Their Careers
Other professional athletes whose careers are now on hold include French tennis player Jeremy Chardy, who commented on his situation:3
“Since I had my vaccine … I am struggling. I can’t train. I can’t play … It’s frustrating, especially that I don’t have 10 years left to play. I regret having the vaccine, but I could not have known that this would happen … it’s difficult because I was having fun and I want to play longer.”
Another one is Antoine Mechin, a 32-year-old triathlete whose career is on indefinite hold, as he developed pulmonary embolism after taking his second dose of Moderna. What makes it all the more tragic is that Mechin suffered pain and shortness of breath after the first shot, but he was told his symptoms were probably just stress and fatigue. He went ahead with the second and now has severe lung damage. Mechin said:
“Damaging healthy people to preserve the health of the weakest, a choice of backward logic. I would not get vaccinated again if it had to be done again.”
Largest Safety Signal in the History of Medicine
By any objective measure, the COVID shots are the most dangerous drugs ever launched. The safety signal is absolutely massive. Here’s a screenshot summary from OpenVAERS’ November 19, 2021, report (the latest available at the time of this article),4 listings some of the most common effects reported following the COVID jab.
According to calculations by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, adverse events are conservatively underreported by a factor of 41,5 so it’s possible we need to multiply these numbers by 41 to get closer to the real-world impact.
For a visual illustration of how dangerous the COVID shots are in comparison to all other vaccines on the market, just look at this OpenVAERS graph. It speaks for itself.
While we’re starting to hear more about the heart damage and strokes the COVID shots cause, a troubling effect that isn’t getting the attention it deserves is miscarriage. As of November 19, 2021, 3,071 miscarriages had been reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). There were also:6
18,024 cases of menstrual disorders
6,654 cases of vaginal/uterine hemorrhage
1,216 cases of testicular pain or swelling
395 cases of erectile dysfunction
All of these effects point to the shots having an adverse impact on human reproductive health. A recent paper7 in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law addresses reproductive concerns, noting that while “the use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy is now generally considered safe … the influential CDC-sponsored article by Shimabukuro et. al.8 (2021) used to support this idea, on closer inspection, provides little assurance …”
In particular, getting the COVID shot during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is extremely risky — the risk of miscarriage is anywhere between 82% and 91% — but Shimabukuro et. al. hid this stunning finding in their paper.9 Here’s how they did it.
How Shimabukuro et. al. Hid Massive Safety Signal
According to Shimabukuro et. al.,10 the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.6% (104 miscarriages out of 827 pregnancies), which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. However, there’s a distinct problem with this calculation. As explained in the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper:11
“… closer inspection of the 827 women in the denominator of this calculation reveals that between 700 to 713 women were exposed to the vaccine after the timeframe for recording the outcome had elapsed (up to 20 weeks of pregnancy).”
To clarify, Shimabukuro et. al. included women in the group of 827 who actually didn’t get the shot during their first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Since they didn’t get the shot until later in the pregnancy, they would not have been AT RISK for miscarriage from the shot in the first trimester.
Put another way, since the third trimester is after week 20, you should not include women who got the shot in the third trimester when you’re trying to determine the miscarriage rate among those injected BEFORE week 20. I hope that’s clear.
If you only include women who were at risk for side effects during the first 20 weeks, because they actually got the shot during those first 20 weeks, then there are only 114 or, at most, 127 of them left in that group. And that changes the calculation considerably! What we actually have are 104 miscarriages out of 127, which is 82%, or possibly as high as 104 out of 114, which is 91%.
Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster.
The Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper points out several other problems with Shimabukuro’s analysis that compound the confusion, including the fact that they used overlapping periods of exposure and outcome:
“Exposure to the vaccine was defined by trimester (periconception, first, second, and third). Outcomes were defined as women first exposed to the mRNA vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation; and first exposed from 20 weeks’ gestation. The infant was followed for 28 days during the perinatal period (birth-28 days).”12
This strikes me as an intentional misdirection strategy to confuse and obfuscate. They could easily have used the same periods for exposure and outcome, either the three trimesters or weeks 1 through 20 and weeks 21 through 40.
Other adverse event statistics included a preterm birth rate of 9.4% (60 out of 636 births), a 3.2% incidence of small size for gestational age, and a 2.2% incidence of birth defects (16 out of 724 births).
Another Problem With Shimabukuro’s Paper
Another minor detail found in Shimabukuro’s paper hints at an effort to downplay and hide the miscarriage risk. The authors claim the normal rate of miscarriage in the published literature is between 10% and 26%.
However, the 26% rate includes clinically-unrecognized pregnancies, and since the cohort under investigation included only clinically-RECOGNIZED pregnancies — meaning women who knew they were pregnant — that 26% statistic does not apply. Basically, it’s included to confuse you into believing that the miscarriage incidence is far higher than it actually is.
Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.13
So, when you consider that the normal risk for miscarriage is just 5% by the time you enter Week 6 (and many women don’t even realize they’re pregnant before that time), an 82% to 91% risk of miscarriage is no negligible increase. This should also make everyone realize that recommending this injection to pregnant women is a reprehensible crime against humanity.
Giving pregnant women experimental gene-based therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is nothing but pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.
Breastfeeding women also need to be aware that the mRNA in the COVID shot, as well as spike protein, can transfer through breast milk. This is another way by which infants can be put at risk for acute and/or longer-term health problems. So, if you got a COVID shot after giving birth, please understand that you are not transferring protective antibodies.
You’re transferring the vaccine itself, and the toxic spike protein your body produces, to your baby. In March 2020, a 5-month-old infant died from thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.14,15 In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 72 other cases where toddlers have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.16
There Are Plenty of Cause for Concern
In closing, I urge you to read through these selected highlights from the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law paper:17
“The sweeping conclusions of safety that Shimabukuro et al. (2021) make are not convincing … [M]echanisms which may be disrupted by the injection include syncytin-1 (syn1), a fusogenic protein of retroviral origin, essential for cell fusion and placental development.
Studies are required to determine if mRNA encoded spike (S) protein HR1 (or HR1a28) or HR2 has the ability to inadvertently inhibit syn1, preventing the cell fusion required for placental attachment, resulting in pregnancy loss.
The rodent studies carried out by Pfizer and Moderna to determine if there could be an impact on fertility and development may need to be repeated in Old World primates, such as macaques, as they have similar syn1 and syn2 proteins to humans, whereas rats do not.
The presence of autoantibodies to syn1 was investigated by Mattar et al., and although a change from baseline of autoantibodies to syn1 occurred in all 15 pregnant women exposed to the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech product, the change was not deemed high enough to be considered biologically significant.
Given the small sample size, these findings may indicate that further investigation is required. Further, an altered syn1 expression is associated with pre-eclampsia, hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome, intrauterine growth restriction and gestational diabetes mellitus in observational studies.
Synctyin-1 is also required for gamete fusion (syn1 and ACET2 receptors present in sperm and oocytes) and, additionally, found in the testes34 and ovaries. In the Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine) Package Insert submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the manufacturers state that potential impairment of male fertility has not been evaluated …
We question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al. study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy … The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide.
Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy.
Additionally, the product’s manufacturer, Pfizer, contradicts these assurances, stating: ‘available data on Comirnaty administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine- associated risks in pregnancy,’ and ‘it is not known whether Comirnaty is excreted in human milk’ as ‘data are not available to assess the effects of Comirnaty on the breastfed infant’…
Due to the nature of the mRNA vaccine roll-out, healthcare providers need to report any issues in pregnancy to further determine the safety of this product …
Considering the evidence presented here, we suggest the immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X) and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population, until more convincing data relating to the safety and long-term impacts on fertility, pregnancy and reproduction are established in these groups.”
Omicron is being used by governments and health authorities to mandate or coerce even more people into receiving COVID-19 jabs.
It is imperative that sufficient information is given to potential vaccinees to allow properly informed consent. This article reviews key information that is not widely reported by governments, health authorities, vaccinators, the mainstream medical profession, or the mass media.
Given that the most commonly used COVID-19 jabs rely on providing genetic information to the body to force it to produce a modified form of the spike protein, the jabs should not be represented as “vaccines.”
The mRNA jabs rely on genetic material that is significantly altered to generate mutant spike proteins that retain their prefusion conformity even after they get into cells. The lipid nanoparticles have not been adequately studied for their safety.
The viral vector jabs by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson rely on human fetal cell lines and the majority of the protein in the jabs may be from this source, rather than from the viral vectors themselves.
The spike protein is toxic in its own right and may induce adverse effects on the body whether it is generated from genetic information from jabs or from naturally-acquired infection.
Contaminants, deliberate or accidental, have been found in many vial specimens.
There are no substantive data to justify the ‘safe and effective’ claims often made for COVID-19 jabs, especially not in the face of omicron.
COVID-19 jabs, especially if given repeatedly every few months, will likely cause lasting negative impacts on immune system function so increasing the risk of a wide range of other diseases while increasing risks of adverse reactions.
Clear evidence has emerged that data used for “vaccine surveillance” by the UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) has been accidentally or deliberately misrepresented to infer outcomes among the jabbed are better than for those who decline.
There is little or no evidence that informed consent is being, or has been, offered at any time during the “pandemic.”
Before diving into the detail, here is Rob’s short, 10-minute video summary:
Freedom on trial
Liberalism in Europe is not only under threat. It has in some parts already been extinguished.
As the first European nation to mandate COVID-19 injections, Austria will criminalize those who refuse the injections. Germany has since followed suit. Greeks will need to pay their government a monthly fee of €100 every month if they remain jab-free.
On Monday night Queensland-based medical doctor, Robert Brennan, told those of us attending the weekly World Council for Health meeting that doctors in Australia who are de-licensed for speaking out about lockdowns, testing, or injection risks will be criminally charged for impersonation if they continue to use their doctor title.
We also heard more about the quarantine camps that are being set up, how indigenous populations are being targeted, and how sacred sites are being destroyed under powers granted by the supposed “emergency” status.
Layered over all of this is the emergence of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant, omicron, that is providing authorities in Europe and North America further justification to mandate or coerce people to be jabbed, most notably with so-called “boosters” (presently existing stock of injections based on the original Wuhan strain, Wuhan_Hu-1).
Policies designed to increase “vaccination” coverage and re-injection of previously injected people (use of “boosters”) are not based on any conclusive data or even mechanistic evidence on the likely effectiveness of this strategy.
Instead, they rely on now outdateddatafrom Israel and England that an mRNA booster jab can reduce the chances of people getting severely ill if infected.
Such data are entirely irrelevant to a situation we might be in in the coming weeks if omicron becomes dominant. That’s because it is increasingly clear that the vaccinal antibodies elevated by the jab do precious little to protect people, given that omicron’s multiple mutations in the receptor-binding domain of its spike protein prevent the antibodies from neutralizing it.
With all the coercion around us, it is more important than ever that people really understand what the jabs are and how they work. We now know a little more about them compared with when they were first released to the public, so let’s have a closer look.
We will restrict our discussion to the two main types of “vaccines,” the mRNA and non-replicating viral vector types, respectively, that include 5 of the 8 World Health Organization-approved COVID-19 injections (Table 1).
Table 1. WHO approved COVID-19 injections
Why the COVID-19 jabs shouldn’t be described as ‘vaccines’
In a recent video I explained why the main contenders (mRNA and viral vector types) should not be described as “vaccines” as they don’t meet the World Health Organization’s definition of being the administration of “agent-specific, but safe, antigenic components that in vaccinated individuals can induce protective immunity against the corresponding infectious agent.”
That’s because both these jab types don’t actually contain any antigenic components.
They contain genetic information that forces the body of the vaccinee to make antigenic components, namely the spike protein of the now no-longer-circulating Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2.
This is succinctly put by two eminent Austrian vaccine scientists from the Medical University of Vienna, Franz Heinz and Karin Stiasny, in their detailed review paper in a Nature journal, NPJ Vaccines, where they state that both types of “vaccine” “… do not contain the spike protein but provide genetic information for its biosynthesis in body cells of the vaccine.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) chose to revise its definition of a vaccine on Sept. 1 so the mRNA and viral vector jabs wouldn’t fall foul of it.
The vaccine definition changed from, “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease,” to the broader, more inclusive definition, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
Other health authorities will undoubtedly follow suit as these new platforms become more and more widely used, and not just to target this one pathogen.
Such is the “let’s make it up as we go along” approach, we noticed, at the time of writing, the CDC has failed to update the “vaccine” entry on this glossary.
In their comprehensive review, Heinz and Stiasny refer to both the mRNA and viral vector type products as “genetic vaccines” — because they deliver genetic information to the body to make it synthesize the antigen. This is why the term “gene therapy products,” while having been branded repeatedly as a conspiracy theory, is a reasonable description.
A paper published in the journal Genes and Immunity states that COVID-19 “vaccines” “… signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgment [sic] due to a large number of skeptical [sic] and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns.”
The “vaccine” tag could be viewed as particularly misleading given the products are not capable of generating herd immunity as they don’t elicit a strong enough sterilizing response from antibodies to prevent infection and transmission.
Furthermore, and contrary to what is inferred by health authorities, comprehensive research using a pseudovirus that expressed spike protein in Syrian hamsters conducted at the Salk Institute found that the spike protein (Fig 1) was far from harmless.
It appears to be toxic in its own right and it is the primary component that induces the vascular disease that develops in severe, life-threatening cases of COVID-19.
What might be in the vials that aren’t declared?
The simple answer is we don’t know. We know what we’re being told is in them, but there is increasing evidence of big variations in the quality and composition of different batches, which may or may not be deliberate.
There has also been considerable speculation around the presence of other materials that do not appear on the official datasheets, notably reduced graphene oxide (rGO), in the injection products. Graphene is a single atom thick layer of bonded carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal pattern.
It has many remarkable properties and has been extensively researched for its ability as a potential vaccine carrier and adjuvant.
Dr. Pablo Campra from Almeria University in Spain published a report on Nov. 2 claiming the detection of graphene in the Pfizer “vaccine.” An English translation can be found here and a video and more information here.
One group of anonymous scientists that appear to be based in Germany also reported at a conference finding graphene oxide in samples of all 5 of the WHO-approved “vaccines” considered here. Video material from the conference is readily accessible here.
Contesting these highly controversial views are fact-checkers and mainstream news channels galore, as one would expect, but no serious analytical chemists.
Other than potential contaminants or hidden ingredients, there is also the possibility of being injected with nothingother thansaline.
What should be in the vials?
Let’s now look at what should be in the two types of “genetic vaccines,” summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Claimed key ingredients in the 5 main WHO-approved COVID-19 injections
Both the Pfizer and Moderna jabs rely on similar technologies, namely mRNA (messenger RNA) which is a transient intermediary between genes and proteins. Companies like Moderna have been founded to exploit the potential to use this technology to get the body to produce an array of therapeutic proteins.
The Moderna jab relies on over three times as much mRNA as that of Pfizer. The messenger RNA (mRNA) is synthetic and now commoditized, encoding instructions that force the vaccinee’s cellular machinery to produce a modified form of the full-length SARS-CoV-2 protein.
The RNA sequence in each of the two mRNA “vaccines” is modified from the one used by the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus when it co-opts particular organelles in cells (endoplasmic reticulum and ribosomes) to translate the RNA that is converted to DNA to make its own spike proteins.
The uridine bases are all substituted for N1-methylpseudouridine to make the mRNA both evade the immune system and enhance protein production. The RNA strand is also “capped” and “tailed” with methylguanosine and poly-adenine, respectively, to further stabilize the mRNA and promote its translation.
The genetic instructions have yet another trick in store that’s at odds with what happens when hosts produce spike proteins from the RNA of beta-coronaviruses.
Two mutations that involve proline substitutions are built in at the beginning of the central helix of the spike protein to force it to stay in its “up” prefusion conformation — the state it’s in before it enters cells, after which it switches to the “down” position.
This unnatural “up” position forced upon it by the structurally stiff proline molecules is intended to increase the exposure of the spike protein to the host’s immune system. This way it increases the amount of neutralizing antibodies generated through the humoral (adaptive) immune response.
Each mRNA sequence is encased in a nanoparticle comprised of three main components: an ionizable phospholipid (phosphocholine), a sterol, and a lipid-anchored polyethylene-glycol (PEG) molecule.
This is in effect a targeted drug delivery system that’s never been used at scale before — certainly not in efforts to treat a global population. The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) is multi-functional in that it protects the very fragile mRNA, reduces particle aggregation, and exploits the tendency of cell membranes to draw the lipid (along with its mRNA cargo) into cells.
It is too early to fully understand how new-to-nature mRNA, modified spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles will affect those injected in the long term.
The likelihood is that these synthetic genetic “vaccines” that are injected directly into our bodies present a substantially greater risk to our species than the consumption of genetically modified foods that have been the subject of open scientific and public discourse for decades, with millions of consumers choosing to avoid their consumption.
The possibility of the mRNA being delivered to a young woman’s ovaries is more than a possibility. If it were to encode for the spike protein, toxicity or an immune response it could adversely affect fertility.
It is our view that there is no conclusive evidence that these “genetic vaccines” will not adversely affect the fertility of either women or men. This risk is likely to increase with successive exposure to the jabs.
Viral vector type
While these “genetic vaccines” also get the body to produce the spike protein, they are more complex in nature. Unlike RNA jabs that are entirely synthetic in origin, they rely on mammalian cell cultures.
The adenoviral vectors are derived from chimpanzees and are subject to two key mutations: one that eliminates the E1 gene that stops the virus from replicating once in a vaccinee, the other that inserts the DNA of the adenovirus, a cloned gene that encodes for the full-length spike protein.
In the Oxford-AstraZeneca, Gamaleya, and CanSino “vaccines,” viral vector particles are sourced from primary human fetal kidney cells (HEK293). The Janssen “vaccine” relies on human fetal retinal cells (PER.C6) (Table 2).
The process is complex and involves detergents and filters to remove free viral DNA and other debris. On all accounts, some 80% of the overall protein content of the jab may in fact be impurities from the fetal cell lines. Heinz and Stiasny separately calculated that the total protein content of the 50 billion adenoviral vector particles would amount to about 8 micrograms.
Yet a separate study found that the actual protein content was much higher, at between 35 to 40 micrograms. This additional amount (80%) must be related to protein-rich cellular impurities from the human fetal cells lines.
Have religious groups, vegetarians, and vegans been informed of the presence of this human cell line debris?
Instead of the spike protein being made in the cytoplasm and endoplasmic reticulum outside the nucleus of the cell, the viral vectors rely on the adenoviral DNA entering the nucleus and transcribing itself to RNA before it can generate the spike protein.
The additional steps mean there are greater possibilities for aberrant genetic processes and transcription patterns, as shown by Almuqrin and colleagues. Animal experiments have shown that the adenoviral DNA, in contrast to mRNA, may remain viable and detectable for months following injection, this being one reason that viral vector jabs are less prone to waning immunity.
Do the ‘vaccines’ contain nanotechnology?
The LNPs in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs certainly are sub-100 nanometers in size. The adenoviral vector types rely on chimp adenoviruses that are typically at or just above this relatively arbitrary threshold.
However, given that size really does matter when it comes to changes in biological properties, the lack of robust safety data on the LNP-dependent mRNA jabs is of particular concern.
Equally concerning is that the public keeps being told there’s no nanotechnology in the jabs. Take a quote by Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and Cornell University, for example. He said, “None of the vaccines contain nanotechnology of any sort, let alone ‘transhumanism nanotechnology,’ which isn’t even a thing.”
Unfortunately, Mark Lynas, who writes for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, and CNN.com, is wrong on both counts. As we’ve already seen, the LNPs in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are most certainly nanoparticles given their size distribution. The game is given away even in their name (LNPs)!
Then there’s the transhumanism claim. It is a thing — potentially a very real thing in the eyes of those who are pushing jabs as the only way out of this “pandemic.” For an introduction to transhumanism, you might want to dive into a somewhat conventional take on the subject via Wikipedia.
You might also want to check out the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Penguin, 2017), by the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. He describes this as a revolution “characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”
Mark Lynas seems unaware of the insights of Schwab and other transhuman proponents on designer beings or humans with gene-edited artificial memories.
To create a robust and durable immune response, you ideally need to train innate immunity coupled with well-integrated adaptive immunity made up of an appropriate humoral (B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies) and cell-mediated (CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) response.
Spike protein-focused COVID-19 jabs largely elevate neutralizing antibodies that only partially neutralize the spike protein of the delta variant (even less so for omicron), while damaging both the innate immune and cell-mediated (T cell-based) adaptive immune response.
It’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated, right?
The UK Health Security Agency (UK HSA), formerly Public Health England, had a long-standing reputation, since the news of a new coronavirus in Wuhan broke in early 2020, as being one of the most comprehensive datasets for epidemiological study.
By October 2021 there was an emerging picture of catastrophic failure of the technology that so much of the industrialized world had appeared to pin its hopes on. That included data from the UK HSA.
It wasn’t long before one of many changes in reporting changed the pattern of the data. Initially, it was hard to understand why a process that had looked like increasing “vaccine” failure had suddenly turned itself around, with vaccinees appearing to have better outcomes in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths than the jab-free.
We started finding anomalies in the data on supposedly COVID-caused or all-cause mortality and immediately sensed that what might be going on was that the people who had been initially jabbed were being counted as jab-free.
Then we saw that Dr. Martin Neil and Prof. Norman Fenton of Queen Mary, University of London, along with a number of other colleagues, had done a stunning analysis of the latest UK HSA data.
Don’t expect a major journal to have published the work — as these have all been systematically blocking the publication of any scientific views or analysis that contradicts the mainstream narrative. So you’ll have to read the paper, for now at least, on the preprint server Researchgate.
What the researchers found once they’d adjusted all-cause mortalities for likely miscategorizations of deaths was that the jabs had no benefits whatsoever. The first signal that something was wrong came when they saw consistent spikes in all-cause mortality deaths of specific age groups of the jab-free.
These coincided with the exact times that jabs were being rolled out to these age groups! How could the jab-free be affected? The answer appears to be: when the reportedly jab-free are actually the jabbed.
Their work is truly disturbing and concludes not only that there was almost certain systemic miscategorization of deaths between the different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated, but also delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations, systemic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated, and/or incorrect population selection for COVID deaths.
It remains to be seen how the UK HSA will respond — but chances are the publication will either be ignored because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal or Neil and Fenton will become targets for abuse and ridicule.
One thing is for sure: the UK HSA can no longer be trusted for its data quality.
Over 5.8 million genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 have been shared with GISAID.
55% of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 jab.
21 billion doses have been administered globally.
87 million are estimated to be administered every day.
Only 6.2% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.
Only 7.7% of people in the African continent have received at least one jab.
Last week, we published a detailed article on the omicron variant that provided evidence suggesting that it was improbable that the variant originated in southern Africa. We figured it was politically expedient for Africa to be placed under huge pressure to increase its vaccination coverage (see Figs 1 and 2).
Will omicron successfully outcompete delta worldwide? Emerging data from the Tshwane District in South Africa, which has been described as the “global epicenter of Omicron Outbreak,” suggest omicron has been able to outcompete delta in this area and it appears likely this trend will be seen elsewhere.
This article scrapes the surface of what is known and not known about these gene therapy products widely misrepresented as “vaccines.” More than that misrepresented as “safe and effective vaccines.”
Omicron will be used as a lever to jab more people. Recognizing that the “ardently jab-free” constitute many of the remaining so-called hesitants, countries like Austria, Germany, Canada, and Australia are resorting to mandates or extreme coercion.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has seized the opportunity afforded by omicron to get EU countries to debate and consider mandatory “vaccination” given her concerns over “low vaccination rates” in Europe.
The very least anyone should expect in the face of a virus that is now on par for lethality to circulating flu is the right to informed consent. That means informing each potential vaccinee what’s in the jabs, what’s known and not known about the greatest experiment ever conducted by, and on, humanity, and what other options there are that are known to effectively combat infection by SARS-CoV-2.
In short, that would mean that nothing you’ve read in this article should come as a surprise to anyone who has been jabbed. And we know from our many discussions, lectures, webinars, and conversations around the world over these last 12 or so months, we are a million miles from achieving the required level of understanding for informed medical consent to having been offered.
To help improve the potential for properly informed consent, while allowing others to exercise their right of refusal in those countries that have yet to introduce mandates, please share this article as widely as you can. Thank you.
There is a new study out now from Germany, allow me to give you the highlights.
The authors begin by noting that there is uncertainty around the absolute risks of COVID to kids.
Often, people divide (kids with bad outcomes) by (kids who present to the healthcare system) but this will always exaggerate risk, as it does not include all the kids whose symptoms are so mild they don’t seek health care. In other words, the denominator is smaller than the real denominator.
Side note: the studies that claim COVID-19 has more myocarditis than vaccination also suffers from this error. I talk about that topic here.
The German authors go on to do it the right way, they combine seroprevalence data with data on bad outcomes in kids. They divide (kids with bad outcomes) by (kids who had COVID-19). I am tempted to say this is amazing, but the truth is: this paper is doing a very basic and obvious thing. The papers people cite instead are flawed.
Here is what we find for healthy kids with COVID-19:
For healthy kids, the risk of going to the hospital is 51 per 100,000.
For healthy kids, the risk of going to the ICU is 8 per 100,000.
For healthy kids, the risk of death is 3 per 1,000,000 with no deaths reported in kids older than 5.
Kids 5 to 11 have a lower risk than kids <5 and adolescents 12 to 17.
Kids 5 to 11 have a risk of going to the ICU of 2 in 100,000; 0 died.
Among kids who died of COVID-19, 38% were already on palliative/ hospice care.
In May of 2021, Wes Pegden, Stef Baral and I argued in the BMJ that kids vaccination should proceed via biological licensing agreement pathway and not the emergency use authorization. Because these risks were so low, we must demand robust evidence and large trials to show that the potential benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms.
The benefits (at best) are going to be very small — what is lower than 3 per million? — so even rare safety signals can tip the scale. We wanted large randomized trials.
Our plea may have affected the UK which is not vaccinating kids 5 to 11 (due to uncertainty) and may have helped the FDA expand the sample size of the trial. Then Gruber and Kraus at FDA resigned and the EUA was granted.
Listen to my discussion with Peds ID Chief Cody Meissner on this topic.
The German study shows that risks to healthy kids are very low. It also shows the massive efforts that try to distort risk.
By lumping together healthy kids and kids with comorbidities, one can find rates of risk that help neither group. They are too small for vulnerable kids, and too big for healthy kids. We have too much of this in the U.S.
These results put risk to kids in perspective. They show us that school closure was wrong. They make you think of easy questions: What is the upper bound benefit for masking a 6-year-old in school? Hint: even if it works (psst — unproven) it won’t be big.
And, this info also suggests difficult questions: Does a healthy 8-year-old who already had COVID-19 benefit from vaccination? If so, how much? If so, what evidence supports that?
When you know the absolute risks, you put COVID-19 for kids in perspective.
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, Pfizer chairman, and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.” Such medical professionals are not just bad people, Bourla said, “they’re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives”
The criminals’ playbook includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of
Pfizer has a long history of criminal activity. The company has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices, bribery in multiple countries, environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste — labor and worker safety violations, and more. It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy
Between 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties, and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behavior
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe,1 Pfizer chairman, and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.”2
Such medical professionals, Bourla said, are not just bad people, “they’re criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.” Bourla is one to talk, being the CEO of a company the name of which is synonymous with corporate crime.
Bourla’s comments were made on the same day Pfizer and its partner BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to broaden its authorization for booster shots to everyone over the age of 18.3
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
I guess we can’t be too surprised, though, as the primary defense strategy people like Bourla have is to blame the opposition for their own misdeeds. He even claims the company is being targeted by “dark organizations,” meaning organizations that aren’t transparent about their funding.
This is precisely what the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is, the fabrications4 of which are being used to prop up the official narrative that those who present evidence showing the COVID shots are dangerous are domestic terrorists5 out to worsen the pandemic death toll.
No one knows who funds this group, but it has plenty of connections to war hawks and Great Reset promoters — including the Atlantic Council, to which Bourla is making these statements.
By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, CIA and Event 201,6,7 Microsoft,8 and the Center for American Progress9 (another organization funded by dark money10).
And Bourla wants us to believe Pfizer is under attack from dark money groups? Again, the playbook of these wolves includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of.
More on the Atlantic Council
In August 2018, Facebook claimed an “influence campaign” by Russian “bad actors” had been carried out on its platform leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. However, it turned out these pages weren’t identified by Facebook. They came primarily from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
In her article, “Hysteria Over Newly Revealed Facebook ‘Influence Campaign’ Doesn’t Fit the Facts,”11 investigative reporters Whitney Webb took a deep-dive into this inane propaganda effort, pointing out that:
“… despite the lawmakers’ claims, Facebook has established no links to the Russian government or even Russian nationals.
The only ‘evidence’ to back up the claim of Russian-involvement is that one of the pages identified ‘had an IRA [Internet Research Agency, a Russian ‘troll farm’ named in a Mueller-probe indictment] account as one of its admins for ‘only seven minutes’ and ‘one of the IRA accounts we disabled in 2017 shared a Facebook Event hosted by’ one of the pages.
Beyond the fact that accusations of Russian involvement are highly politicized given the lack of current evidence, there is hardly any indication that this ‘influence campaign’ was even influential at all.
Indeed, most of the ‘bad actor’ pages and accounts had hardly any followers, with most of them having no followers. For instance, only four of the 32 total social-media pages and accounts had more than 10 followers, with all other pages — i.e., the remaining 28 — having between 10 and zero, according to Facebook’s statements.
All of the Instagram accounts identified had zero followers and, among those seven accounts, only one of them had made a single post on the platform. By Facebook’s own admission, only four of the pages named were even remotely significant in terms of followers and thus ‘influence.’”
Why do I mention this? Because this is the same tactic used to frame a small number of individuals with limited social media reach as domestic terrorists, simply for sharing counter-narratives about the COVID pandemic.
False Allegations Used to Quench Freedom of Speech
According to the CCDH,12 a dozen individuals, including me, were responsible for 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be banned from all platforms. Most social media companies have since complied, de-platforming most of us. This despite a public denouncement of the CCDH’s accusations by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, who stated that:13
“… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
The report14 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.
They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”
Getting back to the Atlantic Council, Webb noted that:15
“Facebook officially partnered with the Atlantic Council this past May in order to tackle so-called ‘fake news,’ adding that the hawkish think-tank would serve as its ‘eyes and ears’ in identifying alleged foreign-influence operations …
The Atlantic Council itself is led by a mix of retired military officers, former politicians, and Western business elites. And the think-tank’s financial sponsors include top U.S. defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; the United Arab Emirates; major transnational corporations; and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
One can think of several reasons why such a group would be interested in fomenting anti-Russian hysteria … The Atlantic Council’s conflicts of interest are certainly worth keeping in mind …”
The same must be said about the CCDH, and Pfizer too. Both are glaringly biased and in no position to judge what is misinformation and what isn’t. But then, this is war, after all. We’re in an information war, and the term “misinformation” is lobbed in lieu of grenades. Discernment and some basic wisdom are required to avoid becoming a victim.
Fact-checking organizations are another weapon designed and deployed to control the narrative. They exist as gatekeepers to funnel readers and viewers to the official narrative and away from anything that might raise inconvenient questions. The largest and most influential fact checker is NewsGuard, which hands out “trustworthiness” ratings to websites.
NewsGuard cofounder Louis Crovitz is a member of the Council on Foreign relations — another Great Reset supporter — and primary advisers include Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security, and Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and NSA.16
Knowing that makes it easier to understand how everyday people who share information that veers from the official narrative can be labeled and treated as a national security threat.
The COVID pandemic is a militarized operation. We’re at war, and the designated enemy (looking at it from the side that started this war without telling anyone) is the citizens of the world who want to hold on to their freedom and human rights.
Pfizer Has a Long History of Criminal Behavior
Pfizer is on the other side — the side that is seeking to install an unelected technocratic regime based on the idea that we need a global biosecurity, biosurveillance apparatus or we’ll all die.
This is not a new position for them. During the American Civil War, which began in 1862, the need for massive amounts of painkillers and antiseptics allowed Pfizer to flourish and expand during wartime.17 Today, the manufactured “need” for the COVID-19 vaccine is allowing Pfizer to make out like a bandit yet again, and as I’ve already stated, we are again at war, albeit an undeclared one.
To achieve that, Pfizer is willing to “blackmail” countries into accepting its COVID shot terms, as reviewed in the Gravitas report above — terms that make sure Pfizer always comes out on top.
A key term is no liability, which is understandable considering the amount of harm Pfizer’s COVID jab is causing. Pfizer went so far as to bully nations into putting up sovereign assets like military bases as collateral to pay for any vaccine injury lawsuits that might result from their COVID jab.
While that might not be illegal, it’s unethical, and so is researching on people without informed consent. Everyone who gets these emergency use authorized injections is part of that research, while simultaneously being prevented from seeing anything but propaganda.
Without truthful and transparent disclosure of both risks and benefits, there is no informed consent. Pfizer is even experimenting on children and pregnant women without informed consent, two categories that historically have been off-limits for drug experimentation.
Whistleblower Claims Data Were Falsified
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified and patients were unblinded. Follow-up on reported side effects also lagged behind.18 This isn’t the first time such unsavory have been levied against Pfizer.
In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad-spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug, and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.
Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.
The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.
What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.
State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents’ lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21
A ‘Habitual Offender’
In his 2010 paper,22 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”
Pfizer has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices,23 bribery in multiple countries,24 environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste25 — labor and worker safety violations, and more.26,27,28 It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.29
Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties, and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
According to the Global Justice report, “The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Can’t Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:”32
“A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. ‘At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,’ he stated.”
In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34
None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, they’re tiny when compared to the company’s profits.
Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35
As noted by the law firm Matthews and Associates, “the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled COVID vaccine.”36 The key strategy to boost confidence, unfortunately, is censorship.
What ‘New Way of Life’ Is Pfizer Promising?
The fastest way to get back to normal, Bourla claims in his Atlantic Council interview, is for everyone to get vaccinated. Considering how little things have changed despite massive vaccination rates, it seems clear the globalists in charge of The Great Reset — and Pfizer is part of that pack — have no intention of allowing anything to go back to normal. It won’t matter how many comply, or how many times we comply
Australia is perhaps the clearest illustration of what the whole world will face. Even though a majority are “vaccinated,” their freedoms have not been returned, and now they have to submit to boosters or lose what semblance of freedom the initial round of shots gave them. The Australian government is confiscating and blocking people’s bank accounts, withholding unemployment benefits, and more — all in the name of “public health.”
Bourla even indicates that there is no going back to the old normal when he states, “The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life is … hesitancy to vaccinations.”
A new way of life. What does this “new way of life” look like? It looks like Australia. It looks like Israel. It looks like Lithuania,37 where your “right” to frequent restaurants, stores, shopping malls, beauty salons, libraries, banks, insurance agencies, and universities, and your “right” to inpatient medical care and travel, all depend on your willingness to participate in a medical experiment that can kill or disable you.
The “new way of life” Bourla is talking about involves repeatedly playing lethal Russian Roulette just to “earn” the right to be part of society. No thank you. Bourla can keep his “new way of life.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new data late Monday showing a total of 913,268 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 19, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 8,898 U.S. deaths reported as of Nov. 19, 20% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 26% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 56% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 447.7 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 19. This includes 260 million doses of Pfizer, 171 million doses of Moderna, and 16 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 19, 2021, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
1,103 adverse events have been reported in the 5 to 11 age group since Nov. 1.
The rest of the reports in VAERS for children in the 5 to 11 age group occurred prior to the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and are due to ”product administered to the patient of inappropriate age.”
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 19, 2021, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 16-year-old girl from Georgia (VAERS I.D. 1865389) who died reportedly from a heart condition and multi-organ failure two days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Other recent deaths include a 16-year-old girl from Missouri (VAERS I.D. 1823671) who died after receiving her second dose of Pfizer and a 17-year-old female from Washington (VAERS I.D. 1828901) who died Oct. 29 reportedly from a heart condition after receiving her second dose of Pfizer.
59 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment, or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
560 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 549 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
139 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 12, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
Man with natural immunity forced to get vaccinated against COVID to remain on the lung transplant list dies after the second dose of Moderna
Bobby Bolin, a 49-year-old Texas man who previously had COVID, was told he would have to get vaccinated against COVID in order to be eligible for a double-lung transplant, even though he had already recovered from the virus.
49-year-old Texas man who recovered from COVID—but was required to be fully vaccinated against virus before being approved for a life-saving lung transplant—died when he developed a pulmonary embolism and heart issues after his second Moderna vaccine.https://t.co/YHCwKb2lIp
After his second Moderna shot, received on April 17, Bolin developed a pulmonary embolism and atrial fibrillation — a heart condition characterized by an irregular heartbeat, shortness of breath, chest pain, and extreme fatigue. His health rapidly deteriorated and he passed away Aug. 20, before receiving new lungs.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, his wife, Amy Bolin, said there was no reason her husband should have been forced to get the vaccine in order to receive new lungs, but unfortunately, he was desperate and very sick.
Amy said she didn’t know what timeline her husband had with his organs, but she saw a complete change in him over four months’ time and doesn’t want others to face the same things they experienced.
Pfizer, Moderna vaccines ‘dramatically increase’ heart attack risk
In an analysis presented during a meeting of the American Heart Association, Dr. Steven Gundry, a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery, said mRNA COVID vaccines put many patients at higher risk of a new acute coronary syndrome, such as a heart attack.
The analysis concluded in part that mRNA vaccines “dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following vaccination.”
Thousands of heart-related injuries have been reported following COVID mRNA vaccines, and scientists have established a myriad of heart- and blood-related effects in some patients, including young people.
Moderna climbed more than 20% during Black Friday’s short trading session on Wall Street and increased by an additional 10% on Monday.
Shares of BioNTech, which partners with Pfizer to produce COVID vaccines, soared 14% on Friday and were up 3% Monday, as Pfizer gained 6% Friday.
Investors are hoping the vaccine makers will be able to quickly update their COVID vaccines to offer protection for the Omicron variant.
Moderna said Friday it “will rapidly advance an Omicron-specific booster candidate” while Pfizer said it hoped to have an update of its vaccine ready in 100 days if Omicron shows resistance to its current vaccine.
Moderna CEO predicts a reduction in COVID vaccine effectiveness against Omicron variant
Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in an interview Tuesday current COVID vaccines will likely be much less effective against the new Omicron variant, compared with previous variants, The Washington Post reported.
“I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data,” Bancel said. “But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are, like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”
Bancel said scientists did not expect such a highly mutative variant to emerge for another year or two, noting 32 of the 50 mutations in Omicron involve the spike protein — the area targeted by existing COVID vaccines.
In early March, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, a vaccinologist who worked with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization in Geneva, broke down the dangers of mass vaccination for COVID compared to natural infection and concluded:
“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines.”
As The Defender reported on March 26, a combination of lockdowns and extreme selection pressure on the virus-induced by the intense global mass vaccination program might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the short term, but will ultimately induce the creation of more mutants of concern.
This is the result of what Vanden Bossche called “immune escape,” which will in turn trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add to, not reduce, the selection pressure, producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.
Vanden Bossche argued the selection pressure would cause greater convergence in SARS-CoV-2 mutations affecting the spike protein of the virus responsible for breaking through the mucosal surfaces of our airways — the route used by the virus to enter the human body — effectively outsmarting the highly specific antigen-based vaccines that are being used and tweaked, dependent on the circulating variants.
The American Medical Association explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options, and COVID shots
The AMA also supports the expansion of COVID jab mandates for private employees, and together with the Biden administration encourages employers with 100 employees or more to implement mandates even though the Fifth Circuit Court has permanently blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing and enforcing its COVID jab rule
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the OSHA emergency temporary standard (ETS) exceeds the scope of OSHA’s authority and/or is unconstitutional
The AMA, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, and other leading nursing organizations threaten doctors and nurses who speak out against COVID measures and/or the COVID jab with revocation of their professional licenses
Aiding them in this task is a liberal front group called No License for Disinformation, created by Chris Gilroy, a marketing strategist who also created EverydayAmericanJoe, a website dedicated to supporting Joe Biden’s presidential campaign
November 4, 2021, the Biden administration announced two major COVID jab policies aimed at two-thirds of American workers.1 At the time, 70% of American adults had supposedly acquiesced to the novel gene therapy, but that was not enough.
In violation of the U.S. Constitution, Biden charged the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to create a rule that all employers with 100 employees or more must have a fully “vaccinated” staff or face stiff fines.
At the same time, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) implemented a requirement that forced health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid to be fully “vaccinated” or lose their jobs.2
The deadline for both of these policies was January 4, 2022. As predicted, OSHA wasted no time before suggesting that the policy might be expanded to companies with fewer than 100 employees as well.
Court Permanently Blocks OSHA ‘Vaccine’ Rule
Fortunately, 10 days later, November 14, 2021, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently blocked OSHA from implementing and enforcing its COVID jab rule, on the basis that the emergency temporary standard (ETS) exceeded the scope of OSHA’s authority and/or was unconstitutional.
Challenges have been filed in several federal courts, however, so the legal fight is far from over.3 What’s more, while OSHA has complied with the court’s decision, suspending its ETS and any activities related to it, the Biden administration is brazenly encouraging employers to implement the suspended rule nonetheless.4 It’s lawless beyond belief, so employers would be wise to think long and hard before following such dictates.
AMA Sides With and Encourages Lawlessness
The American Medical Association is also showing its true colors, actually siding with the White House on this issue. Yes, the AMA is actually telling employers to go ahead and implement the mandate in spite of the court’s permanent injunction.5,6
Essentially, the Biden administration and the AMA are banking on the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision being overturned — and the AMA is actively involved in this legal fight7 — but that is a risky game. If the ruling is upheld, companies that fired employees who didn’t want to get the shot, even though the ETS had been suspended, leave themselves wide open to all sorts of legal actions.
How did the AMA go from being an association dedicated to promoting excellence, integrity, and ethics in the medical field,8 to persecuting and “excommunicating” doctors who follow their conscience, sound medical practice — and the actual law?
The AMA has gone so far as to actually instruct doctors on how to lie to their patients and the public! In its Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,”9 the AMA explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options, and COVID shots.
The entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to the treatment of COVID-19, but in particular, as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots. The issue of potential hazards is overlooked altogether. Doctors are told to say the shots are safe and effective. End of discussion.
Since when are medical experts not to ponder the potential hazards of a novel, never-before-used experimental treatment? To demand blind faith in this regard is unprecedented and unconscionable, but that’s where we are.
AMA Hunts Down Dissenting Doctors
The AMA is now hunting down doctors who think for themselves and act according to conscience and law and is working with local medical boards to strip them of their license. (Keep in mind that rules and guidance issued by organizations such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and OSHA are not laws. None of these organizations have the authority to create law.)
The video above features a press conference given by Dr. Mary Bowden, an ear, nose, and throat doctor with hospital privileges at Houston Methodist, who was suspended after a series of Twitter posts in which she stated that “Vaccine mandates are wrong,” “Ivermectin works” and “Given the current climate and the writing on the wall, I am shifting my practice focus to treating the unvaccinated.”10
According to Houston Methodist, she was suspended pending an investigation of her “inappropriate behavior” and “inappropriate and disrespectful language.” In a series of tweets, Houston Methodist said:11
“Dr. Mary Bowden, who recently joined the medical staff at Houston Methodist Hospital, is using her social media accounts to express her personal and political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.
These opinions, which are harmful to the community, do not reflect reliable medical evidence or the values of Houston Methodist, where we have treated more than 25,000 COVID-19 inpatients, and where all our employees and physicians are vaccinated to protect our patients …
Dr. Bowden, who has never admitted a patient at Houston Methodist Hospital, is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science.”
‘They’re Trying to Make an Example Out of Me’
November 17, 2021, Bowden announced her resignation. In her press statement (see video), Bowden explained that the reason she never admitted any patients to Houston Methodist, where she’s had hospital privileges for the past two years, was because of her aggressive early treatment of COVID-19. None of her patients ended up needing in-hospital or emergency care.
Bowden said she was surprised by the suspension of her hospital privileges. “It’s astounding to me, as a physician, that I am not entitled to my medical opinion,” she said. She also said she did “not appreciate” how Houston Methodist chose to handle the situation, publicly vilifying her instead of having a face-to-face conversation.
“They could have suspended my privileges very quietly,” she said. “Instead they took it to the media … I think they’re trying to make an example out of me … showing people … if you dare challenge the vaccine agenda, this is what happens to you … They beat you down.”
In the wake of Houston Methodist’s public comments about her, trolls have been leaving fake reviews on her website and harassing her in various ways. “I don’t feel I’m getting fair coverage of my side of the story,” she said. Bowden also defended her position to KHOU11 News:12
“I never closed my doors. I was open seven days a week during the pandemic. I’ve tested over 80,000 people for COVID. I’ve treated over 2,000 people for COVID. I’ve tried to stay ahead of COVID. I have tried to be proactive in treating my patients.
I’m not dangerous. I’m not doing anything dangerous. For them to paint me that way is ridiculous. I will continue to see any and all COVID patients. I would never turn away someone with a life-threatening illness. But for the routine ENT [ear, nose and throat] stuff, I was going to prioritize the unvaccinated …
If someone has an illness, they have an illness. What difference does it make if they have been vaccinated? You’re going to treat them. It’s like saying you’re a smoker, we’ll put you in the back of the line for treating your lung cancer. That’s not the way it goes in medicine.”
Dissenting nurses are also finding themselves persecuted by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and other leading nursing organizations, which November 16, 2021, issued a joint policy statement13 stating that nurses who disseminate “non-scientific and misleading COVID-19 information” will be held to account and could face disciplinary action by their board of nursing.
No License for Disinformation — Another Front Group
As I’ve explained in several previous articles, Arabella Advisors — the for-profit hub of a liberal “dark money” network — routinely sets up and runs temporary front groups to promote a specific agenda.14 The No License for Disinformation15 (NLFD) group fits this description perfectly.
As most now know, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a medical doctor in his own right, has been the primary challenger of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s lies, and the NLFD is now instructing willing individuals to report him to the Kentucky Medical Board, with the aim of getting his medical license revoked.16
The NLFD also promotes the false information disseminated by the dark-money group known as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). But who is the NLFD?17 At the very bottom of their website, it says, “Created & Developed by EverydayAmericanJoe.”18 Here’s a screenshot of it, just in case they wisen up and change it because it is more than a little revealing.
EverydayAmericanJoe was a website dedicated to supporting Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. (As of this writing, that site has been disabled.19) The website was created by a marketing strategist named Chris Gilroy.
According to his LinkedIn profile,20 Gilroy created EverydayAmericanJoe.com, “the largest Biden-Harris grassroots website online,” as a freelance senior marketing consultant and designer for the Biden campaign. Since 2007, he’s been the president of The Microtechs LLC, an online marketing, web development, and digital advertising firm that produces custom websites and apps “that our clients can manage themselves.”
Aside from the EverydayAmericanJoe clue, there’s no indication of who is actually running the NLFD. It simply claims to be a “non-partisan grassroots coalition of Americans” whose goal it is to get state medical boards to “protect the public” from medical professionals “who spread medical disinformation.” In all likelihood, the NLFD is run by a coalition that is far from non-partisan.
Not surprisingly, the NLFD relies on the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report, which has been denounced as biased and flawed in the extreme by Facebook.21 While the CCDH claims 12 individuals are responsible for 73% of anti-vaccine content on the social media platform, a Facebook investigation found that, collectively, we account for just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content.
It’s quite clear that the CCDH exists to fabricate “evidence” that is then used to destroy the opposition in order to control the information, and the NLFD relies on this report to suppress First Amendment rights.22 Indeed, Biden himself has publicly promoted and relied on this dark money CCDH report.23
NIH Director Echoes the IGCD
Expanding this spider web a bit further, the National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins recently called for anyone who spreads COVID “misinformation” to be “brought to justice.”24
His nebulous threat echoes that of Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla who, in a November 2021 interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, stated that medical professionals who warn against the COVID shot are “criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.”25 As noted by Zero Hedge:26
“That’s an interesting benchmark given that it was once considered false to claim that COVID vaccines didn’t stop the vaccinated spreading COVID, which is now an all too obvious fact.
Quite what constitutes ‘misinformation’ about COVID-19 is anyone’s guess given that several things that turned out to be plausible or true, such as the origin of the virus behind the Wuhan lab, were once deemed to be ‘misinformation.’ It seems likely that whatever the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci or Pfizer deem to be ‘misinformation’ will become the standard.”
The same kind of militant rhetoric is also coming from the International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD), which functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration, and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states.” One goal, in particular, is the normalization and legalization of censorship, including medical and scientific censorship.
One of the cofounders of the IGCD was British MP Damian Collins, who also happens to be a CCDH board member, and is part of the U.K.’s Online Safety Bill Committee,27 charged with examining the proposed “Online Safety Bill,” which some have warned would be catastrophic for free speech.
Given the connections between all of these players, we cannot be surprised to find that the U.K. Online Safety Bill includes a provision that would result in a two-year prison sentence for “anti-vaxxers” who spread “false information that they know to be untrue.”28
After all, that’s what the bill is really all about. It has nothing to do with preventing online bullying or the spread of hate online. Of course, in the future, these laws will allow them to silence discussion on any topic that undermines totalitarian rule.
An Open War on the Public
We’re now in a situation where asking valid questions about public health measures is equated to acts of domestic terrorism. It’s unbelievable, yet here we are. Over the past two years, the rhetoric used against those who question the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or share data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.
Dr. Peter Hotez, a virologist who for years has been at the forefront of promoting vaccines of all kinds, for example, has publicly called for cyber warfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and this vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.29
Doctors and nurses are now facing the untenable position of having to choose between doing right by their patients and toeing the line of totalitarianism. This simply cannot go on. It’s profoundly unhealthy and dangerous in a multitude of ways.
While frustrating and intimidating, we must all be relentless in our pursuit and sharing of the truth, and we must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights, including, and especially, the rights of medical doctors to express their medical opinions.
The two named defendants are Bill Gates, and Adar Poonawalla, the CEO of Serum Institute of India (SII), reportedly the world’s largest vaccine maker. According to corporate news sources, Adar Poonawalla’s company produces not only the COVID-19 vaccine Covishield, but also over 50% of the world’s vaccines that are injected into babies.
The unnamed defendants are “other Government officials and leaders involved in the murder of a 23 year old man, who lost his life because of vaccination.”
The deceased took the Covishield vaccine by believing in the false narrative that the vaccine is completely safe and also owing to the compliance requirement set by the Railways that only double vaccinated people would be allowed to travel.
The article also states that the Government of India’s AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunisation) Committee has recently admitted that the death of 33-year-old Dr. Snehal Lunawat, was due to side effects of the Covishield vaccine.
The Government of India’s AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunisation) Committee has recently admitted that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat, was due to side effects of the Covishield vaccine.
The said report has exposed the falsity of the claim made by vaccine syndicate that vaccines are totally safe.
The article goes on to quote case law in India which:
“makes it clear that before giving a vaccine or any treatment to a person, he should be informed about the side effects of the medicine and also about the alternate remedies available.
If any person is vaccinated by suppressing the facts or by telling a lie that the said vaccines are completely safe, amount to the consent being obtained under deception.
In India, vaccination under deception or by force/coercion or by putting certain stifling conditions, is a civil and criminal wrong.”
According to the article, this makes Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla co-conspirators to mass murder.
Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, the partners in manufacturing the Covishield (AstraZeneca) vaccine are made accused for their involvement in conspiracy.
In India, the person allowing the false marketing of his product is also held to be guilty due to his act of commission and omission. In this regard the provisions of Section 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of IPC get attracted to make Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla guilty of mass murders i.e. Section 302, 115, etc. of IPC.
If convicted, they face the death penalty.
As per the expert opinion, considering the proofs of sterling nature, Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla will get death penalty.
On a recent episode of “The Corbett Report,” journalist and researcher James Corbett interviewed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. about his latest book, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.”
“Over the past 20 months [there’s been] a coup d’état against liberal democracy, and one of the key players in this medical cartel or medical technocracy is Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“There’s an entire coalition of sinister forces [including] pharmaceutical companies, the intelligence agencies, the medical bureaucracies, the social media titans, the mainstream media and the military, which are all wrapped up in this obliteration of constitutional rights and the use of a health crisis to impose totalitarian controls.”
Kennedy described Fauci as “this sort of avuncular presence who is the face of the technocracy and the demolition of constitutional rights.”
Kennedy discussed Fauci’s role in helping Big Pharma capture federal regulatory agencies. “Fauci is the spearhead of an agency that has experienced regulatory capture on steroids,” he said.
Kennedy told Corbett the financial links between the federal health agencies and the pharmaceutical companies are unlike any other federal regulatory regime. The metrics used within these agencies to measure whether or not an employee will get promoted, advanced, or get a salary raise revolve almost entirely around how well the employee promotes vaccine uptake.
“[These] people do not get rewarded for finding problems with vaccines — they get rewarded for covering up problems with vaccines … and some of the agencies directly profit from vaccine sales,” Kennedy said.
“For example, the [National Institutes of Health] owns thousands of medical patients, including half of the patent for the Moderna vaccine,” Kennedy said. “So Tony Fauci’s agency stands to make billions and billions of dollars. And Fauci was able to choose four of his high-level employees who each get their own individual patent shares and who’ll collect $150,000 per year for life.”
Corbett said the chapter of Kennedy’s book he found the “most difficult to read through” was the one titled, “Dr. Fauci, Mr. Hyde: NIAID’s Barbaric and Illegal Experiments on Children,” which details the role of Fauci and the organization he heads up — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — in illegal experiments on foster children.
“In this case [Fauci] was able to get control of different foster homes in seven states and essentially turn these pharmaceutical companies loose onto these children,” Kennedy said. “The experiments were absolutely barbaric … the children were tortured and they did not have legal representation.”
“The children who stopped taking the drugs because they were making them sick were sent to Columbia Hospital to have feeding tubes installed so the drug companies could [continue testing on them] even when they fought back. At least 85 of these kids died.”
Kennedy also cited the dramatic rise in chronic illness since Fauci took office, pointing out that Fauci has failed to protect the public from environmental health threats.
Other topics covered by Kennedy and Corbett include how Fauci was “locked into” carrying out controversial gain-of-function research for the military, how a large portion of Fauci’s salary comes from the Pentagon, and the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in pandemic planning and policy.
Fauci is the highest-paid federal employee in the U.S., and 68% of his $437,000 a year salary comes from bioweapons research
Instead of safeguarding public health, Dr. Anthony Fauci turned the National Institutes of Health into an incubator for pharmaceutical products and essentially sold the entire country to the drug industry
Fauci has had a hand in creating the vaccine gold rush. In 2000, he met with Bill Gates, who asked to partner with the NIH in an agreement to vaccinate the world with a battery of new vaccines. In 2009, this agreement was rebranded as “The Decade of Vaccines,” the objective of which was to implement mandatory vaccinations for every adult and child on the planet by the year 2020
One of the darkest stains on Fauci’s career, aside from his role in the COVID pandemic, was his handling of the HIV epidemic. Suppressing the use of repurposed drugs, Fauci zeroed in on AZT, a toxic drug that has killed an estimated 300,000 AIDS patients
The similarities between the AZT scandal and what’s happening today with the COVID jab and remdesivir are striking. Again, Fauci has suppressed all treatments using inexpensive and non-toxic drugs. U.S. taxpayers have paid for research, while drug companies have raked in the profits, all while having zero liability for injuries and deaths
In a nutshell, Kennedy describes how Fauci turned the National Institutes of Health into an incubator for pharmaceutical products, and essentially sold the entire country to the drug industry. The book is an incredibly well-referenced record of his history of decimating human health and exposes him as a self-serving charlatan.
I particularly enjoyed how Kennedy placed Fauci in the context of Rockefeller’s legacy with respect to Bill Gates, who developed an alliance with Fauci over 20 years ago. Rockefeller set us on a course of toxic, profit-driven medicines synthesized from the byproducts of the oil refinery process a century ago, and Gates picked up where he left off and then collaborated heavily with Fauci.
The Decade of Vaccines
Fauci, in turn, has had a hand in creating the vaccine gold rush. In 2000, he met with Bill Gates, who asked to partner with the NIH in an agreement to vaccinate the entire population of the world with a battery of new vaccines. In 2009, this agreement was rebranded as “The Decade of Vaccines,” the objective of which was to implement mandatory vaccinations for every adult and child on the planet by the year 2020.
“I show how they use the pandemic simulations, working very closely with the intelligence agencies, with the big media companies and the major pharmaceutical companies to make that happen,” Kennedy says.
“Gates calls what he does philanthropy capitalism, [the idea that] you can use philanthropy to make money. He had a foundation where he has sheltered $50 billion in tax-free money. And, he continues to have absolute control over it. He uses that money to gain control of public health agencies in our country and the World Health Organization.
He’s created a lot of his own [organizations] with Dr. Fauci and a lot of these quasi-governmental agencies that people think are governmental. They’re actually front groups of the pharmaceutical industry like GAVI and SEPI …
He uses this battery and this control of the WHO to set pharmaceutical or medical policy, public health policy around the globe, in a way that maximizes the profits from his stakeholding in these big pharmaceutical companies.
I also show he’s simultaneously doing the same thing to control the global food supply … [He’s] really trying to change both public health and food policies in ways that benefit corporations that he’s invested in and that he’s partnered with.”
Fauci’s Lethal Handling of the AIDS Epidemic
Gates didn’t lure Fauci to the dark side, however. Fauci had already spent decades playing with people’s lives and sacrificing public health for profit. One of the darkest stains on Fauci’s career, aside from his role in the COVID pandemic, was his handling of the HIV epidemic.
The first cases of AIDS surfaced in 1981. Initially, the AIDS program was run by the National Cancer Institute, a separate institute inside the Health and Human Services Department (HHS). The general belief was that AIDS had a chemical etiology caused by drug use. This all changed when the HIV virus was discovered.
Fauci started working for the NIH in 1968 as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). He became director of the NIAID in 1984, the year after the discovery of the HIV virus, and was appointed director of the Office of AIDS Research in 1988 when that office was established. As explained by Kennedy, Fauci essentially built the NIAID around an AIDS drug called AZT.
“AZT was a chemotherapy formulation that was so toxic it killed all the rats when they gave it to them. The inventor of AZT felt that it was unsafe for any human use, so he didn’t even patent it,” Kennedy says.
“Very early on, the National Cancer Institute had found that when you put AZT in a culture of HIV, that killed the HIV, not surprisingly. It killed anything it touched. And so, Fauci partnered with the manufacturer of AZT … He guided that formulation through the regulatory process and tried to fast track it. He cheated terribly on the clinical trials.
In the clinical trials, it was killing everybody. It literally kills everybody who takes it. But he was able to keep the people in the treatment group alive by giving them huge numbers of blood transfusions. It does keep them alive for the eight weeks, and based upon that eight-week trial, he got approval for AZT. It was unprecedented.
As Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) technique, said, with any chemotherapy drug, you’re supposed to give it to somebody for two weeks. Chemotherapy is designed to kill every cell in the body, but hopefully it kills tumor cells first, and you can take the person off it. The tumor dies, if you time it right, and the person doesn’t die.
If you put somebody on that for life, like Tony Fauci was doing, every one of them is going to die. And that’s what happened. Meanwhile, there were a lot of drugs at that time that were being repurposed. Local, community-based doctors in San Francisco and New York who were treating the AIDS community were finding that these drugs treated the symptoms of AIDS, and they stopped people from dying.
Fauci made a deliberate crusade to sabotage those, to make sure they were not available to sick people, in order to make sure that AZT would be the only solution. And AZT was the most expensive drug in history. It was $10,000 for a one-year supply [while costing just $5 per dose to manufacture, plus U.S. taxpayers paid for all of the research and development of the drug] …
Tony Fauci basically created this template that he then used over the next 45 years, to develop toxic drug after toxic drug. He killed early treatment, and killed any protocol that competed with his pharmaceutical enterprise. A lot of people have died [as a result].”
Although a bonanza of money was made with AZT, it pales in comparison to Pfizer making out like a bandit with its COVID shot. The U.S. taxpayers paid $20 billion to fund the research and another $10 billion to market the COVID jab. Pfizer created the best-selling drug in the world and will make $35 billion from it this year.1 Even better, unlike AZT, this is absolutely risk-free and they can never be sued for injuries.
Everything in Fauci’s Career Is Groundhog Day
An estimated 330,000 people have died from AZT alone. Overall, the similarities between the AZT scandal and what’s happening today with the COVID jab and remdesivir are striking. Again, Fauci has discouraged the use of any prevention for COVID-19, and any treatment using inexpensive and relatively nontoxic drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
U.S. taxpayers funded the research while drug companies have made an estimated $100 billion in profits from the shots in a single year, all while having zero liability for injuries and deaths even as people are being coerced into taking them.
“Everything in Tony Fauci’s career is Groundhog Day,” Kennedy says. “Again, and again, and again, he is repeating the same behavior and it is paying off. And he has this way of talking where he never really says anything. And this habit of just lying, and lying, and lying …
I knew a lot about what happened during the HIV crisis because my uncle, Ted Kennedy, was chair of a health committee at that time. Teddy was the first presidential candidate to court the gay vote, and I was running his campaign at that time …
In the health committee, his primary concern for most of the time was AIDS. I talk about this in my book.
Finally, Fauci was called in front of Congress, and was just fileted. Henry Waxman and all of these well-known Democratic congressmen were saying, ‘What the hell are you doing? You’ve produced nothing. You’re totally incompetent.’ After that, his career was over, and he decided at that point, ‘OK, I’m going to work on getting these repurposed drugs on the market.’
He did that for a couple of years, and he had a project, which was a dual track project where they could, without going through the clinical trials and FDA randomized, placebo controlled trials, they could get approval for these drugs, so that people could get insurance for them and pay for them. So, I was deeply involved in this for many, many years, and I’ve known Tony Fauci for a long time.
I have insights on who he really is, that most liberal Democrats are utterly ignorant of. He is the opposite of everything they believe. He is the architect who turned our public health system over to the pharmaceutical industry. He does not do public health. And there is no metric at NIH, where they look and say, ‘We are improving public health.’
The only metric they have is, ‘How many vaccines have we given? How many pharmaceutical drugs have we sold? How much kickback money are we getting into the agency?’ As I explain in the book, this agency has become an incubator for the pharmaceutical industry.”
Gain-of-Function Research Under Fauci’s Watch
Fauci is responsible for an annual budget of about $6.1 billion. He gets another $1.6 billion from the military to do bioweapons research, which is where 68% of his $437,000 a year salary comes from. (Fauci is the highest-paid federal employee in the U.S. Second-highest is the president, at $400,000 a year.)
“That’s why he had to do that gain-of-function shenanigans in Wuhan,” Kennedy says. “He had to do it, because he had to hold on to his salary. And most of his salary comes from bioweapons research …
Gain-of-function research has never provided a single scientific or medical development that has assisted us in responding to pandemics. Not one. But Fauci continues to do it, because it is critical to his salary. And it’s critical to that funding stream.”
Now, the bulk of the NIAID’s funding was intended to be used to study American health and to improve it; to eliminate infectious allergic diseases and autoimmune diseases. Instead, under Fauci’s watch, the chronic disease epidemic has exploded.
This, despite the fact that Fauci, Gates, and the U.K. Wellcome Trust, control 63% of the biomedical research on earth through their funding. Over his career, Fauci alone has distributed more than $930 billion in research grants through the NIAID. You could say they control all of it, really, because they also have the capacity to dry up funding to projects they don’t want to be done.
Case in point: Something happened in 1989, triggering a series of epidemics — autism, food allergies, Tourette’s Syndrome, narcolepsy, ADD/ADHD, speech delay, language delay, rheumatoid arthritis, and autoimmune diseases like juvenile diabetes. All of them sprang up right around 1989. Why? What’s causing them? It’s Fauci’s job to find out, but he refuses to, and he blocks anyone else from digging too deep.
“Tony Fauci’s job is to say, why did that happen? It has to be an environmental toxin. Genes don’t cause epidemics. They provide the vulnerability, but they cannot cause an epidemic. You need an environmental toxin. All we have to do is figure out which one started in ’89, and became ubiquitous the same year. But if anybody tries to do that study, Fauci will ruin their career.”
Top suspects include vaccines, which dramatically increased in ’89, and virtually all of the chronic diseases that have skyrocketed are listed as potential side effects on the manufacturers’ inserts. The herbicide glyphosate also became ubiquitous around that time, and really exploded in 1993 when RoundUp Ready corn was invented. GMOs, other pesticides, ultrasound, and PFOAs are other potential culprits.
“Our kids are swimming around in a toxic soup. And it could be all of those things, or it could be one or another, but it’s easy to find out. You just do the science. And that science is easy to do, but it will never be done as long as Tony Fauci’s in office, because he doesn’t want us to know — because those are the industries he has survived by protecting,” Kennedy says.
Fauci Works on Behalf of Big Pharma
Kennedy goes on to explain how Fauci works on behalf of Big Pharma, and why he’s become so important for the drug industry.
“Between 2009 and 2016, about 230 drugs were approved by the FDA, all of which came out of his shop. So, he is an incubator for Pharma.
And here’s what he does: At his lab, he has petri dishes filled with every virus [imaginable], and he has scientists that are messing around with different molecules and different poisons, and they’ll drop those poisons into a petri dish and see if it kills the culture. If it kills the culture, then he has a potential antiviral drug.
The next step is, they give it to rats, and see if it kills the rats. If most of the rats survive, now you have a potential antiviral that may work in humans. Then, he farms it out to a big university. Now the person it goes to at the university is usually a very powerful person. It’s the dean of the medical school, or the chair of one of the departments, and they run the clinical trials, which is extremely lucrative.
So, they will do the Phase 1 trial, and they’ll recruit maybe 100 people for the trial. Fauci gives that principal investigator maybe $20,000 per recruit. The university skims off 50% to 75% of that. So, now, that university is hooked into the system.
Then, if the drug works in Phase 1 and Phase 2, then they have to bring in big groups of people — 10,000 people — and you’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. And they have to bring in a pharmaceutical company that now takes control of about half the patent.
Tony Fauci’s agency keeps a share of the patent. For example, they now collect royalties on the Moderna [COVID] vaccine. [The NIAID] gets half the royalties, billions of dollars. The university researcher keeps some of the patent, so he is now permanently attached to Tony Fauci and will do anything he says, and the university itself is getting some of that patent.
So, it’s hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to these universities every year, in addition to the grants that he’s giving, and he can cut all that off if somebody at the university does the wrong study.
Once the drug goes through Phase 3, it goes to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fauci says, ‘Well those are independent scientists at FDA.’ The panel is called VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee], and they’re NOT people who work for the FDA. They’re outside persons who are brought in.
Well, where are they brought in from? They’re Tony Fauci’s principal investigators from all the universities, who are working on his other projects, and they’re brought in to rubber stamp the drug …
They OK it and give it a license, because they know that, next year, their drug is going to be in front of that committee, and they are going to want the committee to rubber stamp them. So, that committee never says no. It always green lights everything, and it’s completely controlled by Fauci. He controls the whole process …
Every expert you see on CNN is on Tony Fauci’s payroll, and CNN will never tell you that. It will say, ‘This is an independent virologist, he’s an immunologist at Baylor University, or Stanford, or Harvard.’ They’re not telling you where that guy’s bread is being buttered, and that the person who’s buttering it is Tony Fauci, with your taxpayer dollars. The whole system is just fixed.”
Fauci’s Past and Rotten Character Are Catching Up on Him
As more and more of Fauci’s lies and his funding of sadistic experiments on animals and aborted fetuses are coming to light, Kennedy predicts Fauci will be forced to resign, especially as the book comes out and people really start to understand what he’s been up to all these years.
“Nobody who was not a sadist in his soul would allow [the beagles being eaten by sandflies] experiment to happen,” Kennedy says. “Yet, Tony Fauci deemed that the best use for $450,000 of U.S. taxpayer money, with all of the screaming needs in public health.
But it’s not just $450,000. Millions and millions [of dollars] he has put into these sadistic experiments where they’re torturing animals to death. Like you’d see in a schoolyard with little boys, who don’t know any better and need to be told, ‘You don’t do that to another creature.’ Fauci doesn’t have that instinct, it’s lacking.
It explains what he has done during COVID — denying early treatment to millions of Americans and forcing them to suffer and die in their homes, or on ventilators and remdesevir, which is a deadly toxic drug, rather than get treated and be healthy.
And punishing, silencing, censoring, delicensing, discrediting any doctor who tries to say, ‘Wait a minute, I’ve been treating patients, and my patients aren’t dying, because I’m using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin’ and an entire battery of repurposed drugs that we now know treat virtually all COVID cases.
Seventy to 90% of COVID deaths and hospitalizations could have been prevented, and there are hundreds of studies that support that. Yet, he forbids people from doing it. That is a sociopath …
And shutting down a million businesses, is that really going to save lives? There’s no study that indicated it would … We have 4.2% of the global population, and we had 14.5% of the deaths. Why is anybody listening to this guy? There’s no Health Minister in the world who has a worse track record than Tony Fauci.
There are many countries that had 1/100th of our death rate per million in population. And guess what? Those are mainly the African and Asian countries, that as a matter of course are giving ivermectin for river blindness and hydroxychloroquine for malaria control.”
In support of Kennedy’s assertion that Fauci will be forced to resign, you can view his recent grilling on November 4, 2021, by Sen. Rand Paul in front of Congress. What is most impressive are the comments, which are virtually unanimously disparaging Fauci.
Fauci’s Lethal, Illegal Experiments on Children
In his book, Kennedy includes a chapter on some of the animal trials Fauci funded. He also tells a far grimmer story, where the guinea pigs were Black and Hispanic children. At least 85 of these children died, but the number could be as high as 1,000 or so. Fauci got these children by arranging for foster care programs in New York and six other states to assign children who had lost their parents to AIDS to participate in drug studies.
These children had no guardians, so they were in illegal studies. To do a clinical trial on children, you need to have a guardian appointed who puts their interests first, ahead of the drug companies. Fauci didn’t want that, so he allowed these studies to go forward without a legal guardian for any of these kids. No one was watching out for them. The trials weren’t even done by licensed medical professionals.
“They were mainly Dominican immigrants, who were deeply compassionate, who discovered in the middle that they were actually being hired to treat these children as guinea pigs, and they were killing huge numbers of them. Many of the kids didn’t even have HIV, so they had no possible benefit from the drug, which is illegal.
Yet Fauci got away with all of it. I believe there was a Congressional investigation for a brief time, but like everything that gets near him, it kind of peters out. The BBC did a documentary on these kids back in 2004 called ‘Guinea Pig Kids.’
They interviewed these children, [one] who said, ‘I took the drugs. They made me feel sick. I was vomiting, I couldn’t eat, I was tired all the time, it was painful, and I refused to take it.’
And when they refused, they were sent to another of Tony Fauci’s principal investigators at Columbia Presbyterian who installed a feeding tube to force feed these children these toxic chemotherapy drugs that they refused to take … As bad as Beagle gate is, what he did to these Black and Hispanic children is even worse.”
COVID-19 — The Culmination of Fauci’s Criminal Enterprise
As for the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy equates it to the culmination of Fauci’s career. In the book, he recounts how Fauci has been a key figure in pandemic planning — not necessarily how to prevent one, but how to create it, as infectious disease mortality had dropped so dramatically that infectious diseases were becoming increasingly low priority.
So far, every single pandemic that has been dramatized has turned out to be a complete fraud, and the same can be said for COVID. All the while, billions of dollars were spent on vaccines.
“They’ve taken all of these lessons they learned from all the other fake pandemics and rolled it into coronavirus,” Kennedy says. “Now, I want to make clear, I’m not saying that coronavirus is not a pandemic, or that it doesn’t kill a lot of people. It does. But we’ve all been manipulated by an exaggeration of cases, the exaggeration of deaths, the obscuring of data, all of the manipulations that they’ve done to us.
[In the book] I have a picture that somebody got from a Freedom of Information Act request. It’s a March Madness graph of all of the different pandemics — fake pandemics — [Fauci] has tried during his career, all converging with the grand winner being coronavirus. And [Fauci] signed it, somebody on his staff made it.
But it was Tony Fauci’s triumph, winning March Madness. It’s basically a picture of his career. Him trying every three or four years a new fake pandemic, and finally hitting on all eight cylinders with coronavirus. It’s like it’s a joke, and we are the punchline …
Here’s what I would say to people. We have to stop this. This is the hill that we all have to die on. If you are a parent, and you let them give this [COVID shot] to your child, you are not doing your job as a parent. If you are a doctor, you are committing malpractice to give this to a child. We all need to resist.
I would say that every American who sees what’s happening has to start engaging in civil disobedience every day. And that may mean going to a store and telling them, if they demand a vaccine passport, that you are not going to patronize that store anymore. It may mean resisting on the job. Do not quit! Make them fire you. Because then you have a lawsuit.
Right now, the best thing is to make them fire you for not taking an emergency use authorization vaccine, because there are no approved vaccines in this country available to any American. It was a myth, it was a hoax, it was a chicanery for them to say, ‘We approved this Comirnaty vaccine.’ If you go on Pfizer’s website, it will tell you, ‘We do not make Comirnaty available in the United States.’
Why are they trying to go after our kids? Here’s why. The vaccines can only get liability protection once they are approved. The only way they get liability protection is if they’re on the child’s vaccination schedule. And then, once the CDC votes them onto the child vaccination schedule, then they get liability protection, even for adults.
One lawsuit can bankrupt the company if they didn’t have liability protection. So that’s why they’re going after our kids. They need it to get that liability protection. And we need to stop them from the collateral damage they’re going to cause to an entire generation of children; 26 million children will get a vaccine that’s been tested on 1,300 kids, with catastrophic results.”
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind
Brook Jackson was the regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas. Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues,” and when her concerns were ignored, she finally filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The FDA did not follow up on her complaint. Ventavia was not one of the nine trial locations audited, and Pfizer did not bring any of those issues up when applying for emergency use authorization for its COVID shot
Documentation shared by Jackson shows a Ventavia executive had identified three site staff members who had falsified data
After being notified of Jackson’s complaints, Pfizer contracted Ventavia to conduct four additional trials — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial and an RSV vaccine trial
Yet again, mainstream media have completely ignored what should have been front-page news. According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.
What makes the media’s silence all the more remarkable is that this revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. Paul Thacker, an investigative journalist for The BMJ, writes in his November 2, 2021, report:1
“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …
[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”
As noted by Bill Bruckner for transparimed.org:2
“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the story is deeply problematic. First and foremost, it lets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory oversight over this trial … Where are the media outlets questioning the FDA about its oversight processes? Where are the politicians calling for an enquiry? …
Second, it lets Pfizer off the hook for apparently failing to adequately oversee the operations of its subcontractor … Where are the media outlets questioning Pfizer about its oversight and quality assurance processes? …
Third, it undermines confidence in democratic institutions and public health bodies because it gives citizens … the impression that mainstream media are deliberately ignoring a big story in order to avoid fueling vaccine hesitancy.”
So far, this story has been largely confined to the alternative news media. You’ll find a selection of video reports covering the whistleblower’s testimony in the sections below.
Research Organization Falsified Data in Pfizer Trial
The whistleblower in question is Brook Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas.
Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues,” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email.
Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all. She has provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator. Thacker explains:3
“Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management.
Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box.
Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants … Jackson told The BMJ that drug assignment confirmation printouts were being left in participants’ charts, accessible to blinded personnel …
In a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. ‘In my mind, it’s something new every day,’ a Ventavia executive says. ‘We know that it’s significant.’
Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organization with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: ‘The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.’
ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which ‘Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.’
According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred ‘to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.
In a list of ‘action items’ circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to ‘Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was ‘verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,’ a note indicates.”
FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns
In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following:
Participants were not monitored by clinical staff after receiving the shot
Patients who experienced adverse effects were not promptly evaluated
Protocol deviations were not being reported
The Pfizer injection vials were stored at improper temperatures
Laboratory specimens were mislabeled
Not a single one of the problems Jackson raised in her complaint to the FDA was noted or addressed in Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to the FDA’s advisory committee meeting on December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.
The FDA went ahead, granting the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have put the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At the bare minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.
What’s more, the FDA’s summary of its inspections of the Pfizer trial, published in August 2021, revealed the agency only inspected nine of the 153 trial sites, and Ventavia was not one of them. The complaint also appears to have been ignored when the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID shot that is not yet available.
Pfizer is also in on the cover-up. Shortly after Jackson’s firing, Pfizer was notified of the problems she’d raised. Despite that, Pfizer has since then contracted Ventavia to conduct no less than four additional trials — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial, and an RSV vaccine trial.
So, clearly, Pfizer is not opposed to contractors falsifying data or otherwise undermining the integrity of the trials. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.
They can feign ignorance and proclaim to adhere to “the highest scientific, ethical and clinical standards”4 all they want. Those are just words that, unless backed by consistent action, are completely meaningless. Behind the scenes, they’re clearly well-aware that their trials are resting on fraudulent foundations.
Pfizer Trial Described as a ‘Crazy Mess’
Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after raising concerns about the integrity of the Pfizer trial. Thacker writes:5
“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a text message sent in June the former official apologized, saying that ‘everything that you complained about was spot on.’
Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint.
One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a ‘helter skelter’ work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial. ‘I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,’ she told The BMJ. ‘It just seemed like something a little different from normal — the things that were allowed and expected’ …
After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported COVID-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted.
(An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19.) ‘I don’t think it was good clean data,’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. ‘It’s a crazy mess.’”
Such statements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities, and the mainstream media. Most, like federal health minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, effective and manufactured to a high standard.”6
Nothing we know so far supports such a conclusion. The testing has been far from rigorous and has not been independently verified.
Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data show they’re shockingly far from safe; real-world data show effectiveness wanes within a handful of months while leaving you more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 variants and other infections; and manufacturing standards have also been shown lacking, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials.7
One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have completely ignored this whistleblower testimony is probably because Pfizer has such a dominating influence over them. Thacker told blogger Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D.,8 “Pfizer has such a huge PR machine, they have basically captured the media, they’ve hypnotized the media.”
Pfizer’s PR department is also hard at work trying to hypnotize the public. The TV ad above is perhaps one of the most offensive. In it, Pfizer brainwashes young children into thinking that getting the COVID shot will make them superheroes. Never mind the fact that getting the shot could kill or permanently injure them.
You Cannot ‘Follow the Science’ if There Are No Data
The video at the top of this article is a short extract from November 2, 2021, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity of the COVID jab data.
He points out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its raw data to independent investigators and, without that, there’s no possible way to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.
In other words, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white-collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines for fraudulent marketing and health care fraud.9 Press releases are not science. They’re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to base our decisions about the COVID shot.
As noted by Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford’s School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Centre, who also spoke at the meeting:
“The evidence we have comes from highly curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal publications. We are making big decisions based on limited, highly selected evidence. A compromised scientific process will lead to poor decisions, and it may set a bad precedent.”
Doshi stresses how utterly unscientific a process we’re now following. He also points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Quoting from a 2020 article he co-wrote:10
“Data transparency is not a ‘nice to have.’ Claims made without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed publications or in preprints without peer review — are not scientific claims.
Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional societies should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-19 products as being based on science.”
“The point I am trying to make is very simple,” Doshi said. “The data from COVID vaccines are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just ‘asking’ but ‘mandating’ millions of people to take these vaccines … Without data, it’s not science.”
Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail
We’ve known the FDA is a captured agency for at least a decade. None of the issues we’re now seeing are exactly new. We’re now getting a close-up view of just how dangerous the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma really is.
Americans are dying from COVID jab injuries at unprecedented record rates, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more jabs, more injuries, and more deaths. It’s complicit in causing avoidable deaths rather than protecting public health. That’s the price we’re now paying for not cleaning up the agency and sealing the revolving door between regulators and industry earlier.
In “Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Agencies Don’t Work,”11 published in May 2012 — nearly a decade ago — William Sanjour discussed the failures of regulatory reform. He points out that the reason reforms don’t work is because they keep reforming in the wrong direction:
“… as a result of the recent catastrophic failures of regulatory agencies, politicians and pundits are talking about the same old ‘Regulatory Reform’ again. ‘Fill the regulatory agencies with honest people who won’t cave in to special interests.’ ‘Give them more money, more authority and more people.’
But my experience has shown that by concentrating all legislative, executive and judiciary authority in one regulatory agency just makes it easier for it to be corrupted by the industries it regulates.
I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection agency for 30 years and lived through many cycles of ‘Regulatory Reform,’ doing the same ‘reforms’ over and over again and expecting different results.
I’ve learned that the way to achieve true regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less money, less authority, fewer people but more intelligent regulations. The theme of this article is that by dispersing regulatory authority, rather than concentrating it, we would make corruption more difficult and facilitate more sensible regulation.”
Sanjour points out that regulators being captured by the parties they’re supposed to regulate is far more dangerous than having no regulatory agencies at all, because “capture gives industry the power of government.” Can there be any doubt that the FDA, as an agency captured by Big Pharma in general and Pfizer in particular, now wields power over the U.S. government?
“From my own experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector finds a violation, this only triggers a lengthy complex process with many levels of warning, review, appeal, negotiation, and adjudication before any action is taken (or, more often, avoided),” Sanjour writes.12
“See the labyrinthine flow chart13 for an example of an agency enforcement procedure. It resembles a game of ‘chutes and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a ‘No Parking’ sign. A policeman writes a ticket, and you can either pay the fine or tell it to the judge.
If the EPA wrote the rules for parking violations, the officer would first have to determine if there were sufficient legal parking available at a reasonable cost and at a reasonable distance, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner showed up so that he could negotiate a settlement agreement.”
Even more disturbing, Sanjour reveals that, when he was writing regulations for the EPA, he was “told on more than one occasion to make sure I put in enough loopholes. The purpose of the complexity is to hide the loopholes.” Sanjour went on to explain:
“Regulatory agencies are created by Congress in order to control some powerful forces in society (usually corporations), which benefit society but which are also prone to abuse their power. The purpose of a regulatory agency is to allow the flow of benefits while straining out the abuse.
In order to do this, Congress gives administrators of regulatory agencies broad discretionary power to write regulations for industries for which they are responsible. The flaw in the system is that the administrator is appointed by the president … Thus any discretionary authority given to a regulatory agency administrator is, in fact, given to the president of the United States to be used as the president sees fit …
[R]egulatory agencies, by their very nature, can do little that doesn’t adversely affect business, especially big and influential business, and this disturbs a president’s repose.
The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the oil companies going to the White House screaming ‘energy crisis!’ … When the FDA wants to thoroughly evaluate a new drug, the pharmaceutical company lets loose a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic delays are costing lives.
Regulatory agency employees soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations means making enemies of powerful and influential people. They learn to be ‘team players,’ an ethic that permeates the entire agency without ever being transmitted through written or even oral instructions.
People who like to get things done, who need to see concrete results for their efforts, don’t last long. They don’t necessarily get fired, but they don’t advance either; their responsibilities are transferred to others, and they often leave the agency in disgust. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a talent for procrastination, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially plausible reasons for accomplishing nothing.”
How Do We Fix It?
The question staring us in the face now is, how do we fix these regulatory agencies so that they can operate for the benefit of the public rather than private for-profit interests?
“The reason salaried government regulators can be corrupted is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority,” Sanjour noted. “Their main objective is keeping their job and advancing their careers.” Industries, meanwhile, believe that pressuring corrupt officials is the only way to protect their business. The answer, Sanjour suggests, is:
“… to remove discretionary judgment from the hands of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less susceptible to industry influence. The first thing I would suggest is to make use of people or institutions who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or stronger than the regulated community.”
Sanjour cites research showing that, by far, whistleblowers — who risk their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 fraud detection group, responsible for 19% of frauds being brought to light. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate fraud, was responsible for just 7%.
So, one way we could improve the system is by issuing monetary rewards to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary rewards for whistleblowers pay benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats,” Sanjour notes. Insurance companies can also play an important role, as they are far less likely to overlook safety shortcuts that can result in disaster. An example given by Sanjour is the BP oil spill:
“BP has admitted, between 2005 and 2010, to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud and paid $373 million in fines. Between June 2007 and February 2010, BP refineries in Texas and Ohio accounted for 97% of the ‘egregious, willful’ violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet none of this resulted in any oversight of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that blew up …
If BP had been required to carry a $10 billion insurance policy for an oil spill, I’m sure the insurance company would not have allowed the penny-pinching short cuts that the paid regulators allowed. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”
A third group that makes for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Organizations such as Citizens for Health and Environmental Justice teach citizens how to get involved in the enforcement of regulations, and even more, can be done in that regard.
For example, the EPA could sponsor civilian testing and equip citizens living in polluted areas with resources to conduct their own testing and report back if toxic exposures are found. Sanjour continues:14
“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary authority from the regulatory bureaucracy is to make the rules as simple as possible and to place all appellate functions and consent agreements into the hands of the law courts, just as in our traffic cop example.
This could be judicial courts or administrative law courts. Anything to take the discretionary authority away from the people who write and enforce the rules and provide one more barrier to industry influence.”
We Need to Return to the Constitution
To do any or all of that, we first need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, when regulatory agencies were formed, we diverted from this structure.
Regulations are a type of law, and as such, they should come from the legislative branch. But regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch. Judicial functions have also been usurped by regulatory agencies, and hence the executive branch.
“Thus, despite the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch now includes a great many regulatory agencies whose functions span all three branches of government. A large part of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this fact,” Sanjour notes.
While making changes such as those proposed by Sanjour sounds simple enough, the political pushback would be enormous and would have to be broken through, somehow. Legally, however, it would be a reasonably simple affair.
All Congress would need to do is amend the law such that the agency administrator is stripped of its authority to write rules and implement the law. That authority would then be transferred to another agency, the administrator of which would be appointed by Congress, not the president.
“Note that these are all paper changes. They do not require any relocation, new buildings, new hires, etc. The functions all currently exist. They are merely rearranged,” Sanjour says.
At present, we can no longer overlook the FDA’s corruption. It’s costing too many lives. They have completely abandoned any semblance of working for the public good. How we get rid of them and fix the problem will become an increasingly pressing question as we move forward.
Recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics reveal people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with two manipulated studies — one suggesting the jab reduces all-cause mortality, and another claiming the shot is five times more protective than natural immunity.
Both studies are of questionable quality and have several problems, including a selection of time and date ranges that allow them to pretend that the COVID shots are safer and more effective than they really are.
According to all-cause mortality statistics, the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than in 2018 (the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality) and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019.
Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?
CDC data reveal that while the number of hospitalized patients with natural immunity fell sharply over the summer, when the delta variant took over, the number of vaccinated people being hospitalized soared, from three per month on average during the spring to more than 100 a month in late summer.
Since these vaccinated patients were less than six months from their second dose, they should have been at or near maximum immunity.
While recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics (ONS) reveal people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with a “study” that came to the remarkable conclusion that the COVID shot unbelievably reduces your risk of dying from all causes, which includes accidents (but excluding COVID-19-related deaths). As reported by CNN Health Oct. 22:
“The research team was trying to demonstrate that the three authorized Covid-19 vaccines are safe and they say their findings clearly demonstrate that. ‘Recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non-COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups,’ the researchers wrote in the weekly report of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The team studied 6.4 million people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 and compared them to 4.6 million people who had received flu shots in recent years but who had not been vaccinated against coronavirus.
“They filtered out anyone who had died from Covid-19 or after a recent positive coronavirus test … People who got two doses of Pfizer vaccines were 34% as likely to die of non-coronavirus causes in the following months as unvaccinated people, the study found.
“People who got two doses of Moderna vaccine were 31% as likely to die as unvaccinated people, and those who got Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine were 54% as likely to die …”
Two key takeaways from those paragraphs are:
The researchers admit they intended to demonstrate that the shots are safe and effective, and stats can be manipulated to find what you want to find
People who got the Janssen shot did in fact have a higher death rate than the unvaccinated (54% likelihood, compared to the unvaxxed).
Are the shots reducing all-cause mortality?
The researchers hypothesize that people who get the COVID jab may be healthier overall than those who abstain and have healthier lifestyles. In my view, this is classic Orwellian doublespeak, as most of the brainwashed don’t understand the fundamentals of healthy behavior.
I suspect their new propaganda has more to do with the fact that they only looked at data through May 31. By mid-April, an estimated 31% of American adults had received one or more shots. As of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”
So, we can assume that by the end of May, somewhere in the neighborhood of 45% of eligible Americans were double jabbed, give or take a couple of percentage points.
The reason I suspect statistical tomfoolery is because this is precisely how the CDC invented the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” myth, where they claimed 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations were occurring among the unvaccinated.
To achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June, a timeframe during which the vaccinated were still in a minority.
Here, we again see them use a seven-month span of time when vaccination rates were low.
More importantly, however, is that the chosen cutoff date also obscures a rapid rise in vaccine-related deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
Look at the graph below, obtained from the OpenVAERS mortality reports page. As you can see, reports of deaths following the COVID jab peaked right at the beginning of April 2021, then dropped down again during the month of April. Interestingly enough, the study notes that the daily vaccination rate has declined by 78% since April 13.
However, while the daily vaccination rate has plummeted since April, reported deaths have remained high and relatively steady. Could this be a hint that people are dying from shots they received earlier in the year?
As of January 1, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot, so comparing death rates of the vaxxed and unvaxxed in December 2020 and January 2021 may not be all that fruitful. Why not include July, August, and September in the analysis instead?
As you can see, reported deaths were significantly elevated during these months, compared to December and January. And, while not shown in that graph, between September 3 and October 22 the total cumulative reported death toll shot up from 7,6629 to 17,619. In other words, it more than doubled in about seven weeks — a timeframe that was not included in the CDC’s analysis.
What’s more, while the study was large and socio-demographically diverse, the authors admit that “the findings might not be applicable to the general population.”
Also, recall they changed the definition of “vaccinated” to include someone who is two weeks past their second dose (for two-dose regimens). This would obfuscate the truth as there were tens of millions that received one jab or more but were not considered “vaccinated.”
Why is all-cause mortality higher in 2021?
According to all-cause mortality statistics, the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than in 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019.
Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.
The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?
In a two-part series, Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1, he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.
After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:
“This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll.”
Corroborating Crawford’s calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot. That gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What’s more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab.
Is the COVID jab responsible for excess deaths?
Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.
He identified 23 countries that fit these criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.
As of Aug. 1, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.
Another interesting data dive was performed by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,” he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 300,000 Americans have likely been killed by the COVID shots. Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way.
What do the VAERS data tell us?
In a Sept. 18 interview with The Covexit podcast, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who holds degrees in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry, also discussed what the VAERS data tell us about the safety of the COVID shots.
Rose covers issues such as the magnitude of the side effects compared to other vaccination programs, the problem of under-reporting, and how causality can be assessed using the Bradford Hill Criteria. You can find a PDF of the slide show that Rose presents here. Here’s a summary of some of the key points made in this interview:
Between 2011 and 2020, the number of VAERS reports ranged between 25,408 and 49,412 for all vaccines. In 2021, with the rollout of the COVID shots, the number of VAERS reports shot up to 521,667, as of Sept. 3 for the COVID shots alone. (Fast-forward to Oct. 22 and the reported tally for COVID-related adverse events has ballooned to 837,593.)
Between 2011 and 2020, the total number of deaths reported to VAERS ranged between 120 and 183. In 2021, as of Sept. 3, the reported death toll had shot up to 7,662. As of Oct. 22, the death toll was 17,619.
Cardiovascular, neurological, and immunological adverse events are all being reported at rates never even remotely seen before.
The estimated under-reporting factor (URF) is 31. Using this URF, the death toll from COVID shots is calculated to be 205,809 as of Aug.27; Bell’s palsy 81,747; herpes zoster infection 149,017; paresthesia 305,660; breakthrough COVID 365,955; myalgia 528,457; life threatening events 230,113; permanent disabilities 212,691; birth defects 7,998.
The Bradford Hill Criteria for causation are all satisfied. This includes but is not limited to the strength of effect size, reproducibility, specificity, temporality, dose-response relationship, plausibility, coherence, and reversibility.
CDC claims COVID jab beats natural immunity
If you think the CDC’s claim that the COVID jab lowers all-cause mortality is a low point in its irrational vaccine push, prepare to let your expectations sink even lower, with even more egregious Orwellian doublespeak implementation. On Oct. 29 the CDC released yet another study, this one claiming the COVID jab actually offers five times better protection against COVID-19 than natural immunity. As reported by Alex Berenson in an Oct. 30 Substack article:
“Yesterday the Centers for Disease Control, America’s not-at-all-politicized public health agency, released a new study purporting to show that vaccination protects against COVID infection better than natural immunity. Of course, a wave of stories about the benefits of mRNA vaccination followed.
“To do this, the CDC used some magic statistical analysis to turn inside raw data that actually showed almost four times as many fully vaccinated people being hospitalized with Covid as those with natural immunity — and FIFTEEN TIMES as many over the summer. I kid you not.
“Further, the study runs contrary to a much larger paper from Israeli researchers in August. As my 2-year-old likes to say, How dey do dat? Well, the Israeli study drew on a meaningful dataset in a meaningful way to reach meaningful conclusions.
“It counted infections (and hospitalizations) in a large group of previously infected people against an equally large and balanced group of vaccinated people, then made moderate adjustments for clearly defined risk factors.
“It found that vaccinated people were 13 times as likely to be infected — and 7 times as likely to be hospitalized — as unvaccinated people with natural immunity. In contrast — how do I put this politely? — the CDC study is meaningless gibberish that would never have been published if the agency did not face huge political pressure to get people vaccinated.”
Data manipulation is apparently a CDC specialty
Berenson goes on to dissect the study in question, starting with its design, which he calls “bizarre.” The CDC analysts looked at data from 200,000 Americans hospitalized with “COVID-like” illness between January and August in nine states. Two groups were then compared:
Those who had confirmed COVID at least 90 days before and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization.
Those who had been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days, but not more than 180 days, before their admittance and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization.
Berenson points out what I stressed earlier, which is that choosing certain time or date ranges will allow you to make the shots appear a whole lot better than they actually are.
Here, by choosing a 90- to 180-day inclusion range, they’re looking at a best-case scenario, as we now know the shots quit working after a handful of months. So, they’re only looking at that short window during which the COVID shots are at maximum effectiveness.
The 90-day criterion also ends up excluding the vast majority of patients hospitalized with COVID-like illness, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. While Berenson doesn’t address the vaccinated, few if any could have been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days prior to March, so why include January and February? Just about everyone was by definition unvaccinated at that time.
As for those with natural immunity, only 1,020 of the 200,000 patients hospitalized between January and August had a previously documented COVID infection. As noted by Berenson:
“Given the fact that at least 20% of Americans, and probably more like 40%, had had COVID by the spring of 2021, this is a strikingly small percentage — and certainly doesn’t suggest long COVID is much of a threat.”
Of the 1,020 with natural immunity, only 89 tested positive for COVID, while 324 of the 6,328 vaccinated patients who met the study criteria tested positive. Of note here are two things:
There were more vaccinated patients hospitalized for COVID-like illness than those with natural immunity; this despite including months when vaccination rates were in the fractional and single digits.
A greater number of vaccinated patients tested positive for breakthrough infection than patients with natural immunity.
The hospitalization rate among vaccinated is soaring
“And the CDC didn’t have, or didn’t publish, figures on how many people were actually in the two groups … Instead it compared the PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE TESTS in the two groups. But why would the percentage of positive tests matter, when we don’t know how many people were actually at risk? …
“[A]mazingly, the statistical manipulation then got even worse. The natural immunity group had an 8.7% positive test rate. The fully vaccinated group had a 5.1% positive test rate. So the natural immunity group was about 1.7 times as likely to test positive. (1.7x 5.1 = about 8.7.)
“With such a small number of people in the natural immunity group, that raw ‘rate ratio’ may well have failed to reach statistical significance. (We don’t know, because the CDC didn’t provide an unadjusted odds ratio with 95% boundaries — something I have never seen before in any paper.)
“Instead, the CDC provided only a risk ratio that it had adjusted with a variety of factors, including ‘facility characteristics [and] sociodemographic characteristics.’
“And finally, the CDC’s researchers got a number that they could publish — hospitalized people who had previously been infected were five times as likely to have a positive COVID test as people who were fully vaccinated. Never mind that there were actually four times as many people in the second group. Science!
“By the way, buried at the bottom of the report is some actual data. And it’s bad. The CDC divided the hospitalizations into pre-and post-Delta — January through June and June through August.
“Interestingly, the number of hospitalized people with natural immunity actually fell sharply over the summer, as Delta took off. About 14 people per month were hospitalized in the winter and spring, compared to six per month from June through August. (Remember, this is a large sample, with hospitals in nine states.)
“But the number of VACCINATED people being hospitalized soared — from about three a month during the spring to more than 100 a month during the Delta period. These vaccinated people still were less than 180 days from their second dose, so they should have been at or near maximum immunity — suggesting that Delta, and not the time effect, played an important role in the loss of protection the vaccine offered.”
Perhaps Rep. Thomas Massie said it best when he tweeted:
“What do ‘road kill’ and a CDC-sponsored COVID paper have in common? By the third day, they’re so picked apart they’re unrecognizable. This CDC Director is shameless for fabricating junk science with findings that stand in stark contrast to every credible academic study.”
Massie goes on to point out some obvious flaws and questions raised by the study, including the following:
The authors failed to verify recovery among those with the previous infection, so any number of these “reinfections” may actually have been long-COVID.
The fact that more than 6,000 hospitalized for COVID symptoms were vaccinated, compared to just 1,000 with the previous infection, counters the claim that 99% of COVID hospitalizations are unvaccinated.
The number of vaccinated people hospitalized for COVID symptoms correlates negatively with the time since vaccination; 3,625 were hospitalized within 90 to 119 days of vaccination, 2,101 within 120 to 149 days, and 902 within 150 to 179 days of vaccination. “Could initial hospitalizations be due to vaccine adverse effects or due to a temporarily weakened immune system from the vaccine?” Massey asks.
The study only considered those with natural immunity who ended up in the hospital, and not the ones who didn’t get sick. “Natural immunity helps prevent hospitalization!” Massey says.
Massie also notes that this paper, which is only six pages long, has an astounding 50 authors, and at least half a dozen of them disclose Big Pharma conflicts of interest. What’s more, seeing how Congress gave the CDC a cool $1 billion to promote the COVID jab, isn’t working for the CDC a conflict of interest as well?
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also critiqued the study in a tweet, saying:
“This CDC study has a major statistical flaw, and the 5x conclusion is wrong, it implicitly assumes that hospitalized respiratory patients are representative of the population, which they are not. Trying to connect with authors.”
Natural immunity is the best answer
Try as the CDC might twist the data, there’s really no question that natural immunity is superior and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. This is also a long-held medical fact that has been tossed aside as too inconvenient to matter in COVID-19.
For some undisclosed reason, the government wants everyone to get the COVID injection, whether medically warranted or not. The sheer lunacy of that is cause enough to be leery and hold off on getting the risky jab.
I can tell you one thing, this policy has nothing to do with safeguarding public health because it’s driving public health in the wrong direction.
It’s quite clear that the way out of this pandemic is through natural herd immunity, and at this point, we know there’s no reason to fear COVID-19. Overall, its lethality is onparwith thecommonflu. Provided you’re not in a nursing home or have multiple comorbidities, your chances of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.74%, on average.
Additionally, we also know there are several early treatment protocols that are very effective, such as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance I-MASK+35 protocol, the Zelenko protocol, and nebulized peroxide, detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free ebook, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at the first onset of symptoms.
The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots in VAERS, on the other hand, exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and if you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).
Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.
There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. Salary compensation is of limited duration and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.
For a taste of what life is like for those injured by these shots, review some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world. You can also learn more about the potential mechanisms of harm in Stephanie Seneff’s paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.
Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot was approved (licensed) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late August 2021, but only for adults, and only when carrying the Comirnaty label. No other COVID shot has been FDA approved. However, Comirnaty is currently not available, and while the experimental, emergency use authorized (EUA) Pfizer shot is substituted for Comirnaty, the two products are clearly legally distinct and not the same
A licensed vaccine is not shielded from liability until or unless it’s added to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule by the CDC. So, if you were injured by Comirnaty, you could sue Pfizer. You cannot sue if injured by the EUA Pfizer shot (or any of the other EUA COVID injections)
Even though several hundred claims have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for injuries resulting from the COVID shots — which is the only possible avenue to obtain damages — not a single claim has been paid out
Natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wanes within a few months. The shots may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to later be exposed or infected with COVID
Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the government has done it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but the CHD has not given up and is still pursuing the case
In this interview, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist specializing in toxicology, vaccine-induced illnesses, and Gulf War illness, shares her insights into the dangers of the COVID jab, which received an emergency use authorization on October 26, 2021, for children as young as 5.
We also discuss the conflicts of interest within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that seem to be behind this reckless decision, and how the agency pulled the wool over our eyes with its approval of Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID injection.
Is the COVID Jab Approved or Not?
As explained by Nass:
“All of the COVID ‘vaccines,’ and most of the COVID treatment products, have not been [FDA] approved. Approved means licensed. All except one, which is the Pfizer vaccine for adults, age 16 and up, which got approved, i.e., licensed on August 23 .
But every other vaccine, and for every other age group, including the boosters, have only been authorized under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). There’s a critical difference [between licensing and EUA]. Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability.
If the company injures you with that product, you can sue them, unless it later gets put on the CDC’s childhood schedule or is recommended by the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [during] pregnancy, in which case it obtains a different liability shield.
It then becomes part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP, established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act), and 75 cents from every dose of vaccine that is sold in the United States goes into a fund to pay for injuries that way.”
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability for all vaccines recommended by the CDC for children. Since 2016, they’ve also removed liability for vaccines given to pregnant women, a category that has become the latest “gold rush” for vaccines. Naturally, once a company is no longer liable for injuries, the profitability of the product in question increases dramatically.
Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program Is Nearly Useless
Products under emergency use have their own special government program for liability called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). “It is a terrible program,” Nass says. CICP is an offshoot of the 2005 PREP Act.
“The PREP act enabled the CICP to be created by Congress,” Nass explains. “Congress has to allocate money for it. If you are injured by an emergency use product, you don’t get any legal process. The companies have had all their liability waived. There is a single process that is administered through HHS [Health and Human Services].
Some employees there decide whether you deserve to be compensated or not. The maximum in damages you can obtain is about $370,000 if you’re totally disabled or die, and the money is only to compensate you for lost wages or unpaid medical bills.”
So far, even though several hundred CICP claims have been filed for injuries resulting from the COVID shots, not a single claim has been paid out. This is important because the statute of limitations is one year. “It’s getting close to running out for people who were vaccinated early,” Nass says.
If you fail to apply in time, you lose the opportunity to get any compensation entirely. “Of course, in fact, it’s really ‘an opportunity to apply and get nothing because almost nobody gets paid,” she says. At that point, you have no further recourse. There’s no appeals process to the judicial system.
“You can ask the HHS twice to compensate you, and if they say no, that’s it,” Nass explains. “You can attempt to sue the company that made the product, if you’re convinced it was improperly made, but the secretary of HHS has to give you the permission to sue.
You have to prove that there was willful misconduct and no one has ever reached that bar. So, there has never been a lawsuit under this. Anyway, that’s what you’re looking at. If you get the vaccine under EUA and are injured, you’re on your own. People have no idea about this when they vaccinate themselves or their children.”
Why Were the Shots Mandated?
As you know by now, president Biden decided to mandate the COVID jab for most federal employees (but not all) and private companies with 100 employees or more. “We don’t know why that is,” Nass says. It doesn’t make sense, as large numbers of Americans have already recovered from COVID-19 and have durable, long-lasting immunity already.
As correctly noted by Nass, natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wears off within a few months. The shots “may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to be infected with COVID later,” Nass says.
For these reasons, there’s absolutely no good reason to vaccinate people who have recovered from the infection and several bad reasons. There’s evidence showing the shot can be more harmful to those with existing immunity.
“But for reasons best known to itself, the Biden administration feels so certain it needs to vaccinate everybody that it has used illegal means to tell employers they will lose federal contracts if they don’t force their employees to be vaccinated immediately, and must fire them — if they’re health care workers, for example, or government employees, or military — if they have not been vaccinated.
Obviously that is creating a great deal of chaos, particularly within the health care industry, particularly in my state, Maine, where these draconian rules have gone into effect and many fire department, police, EMTs, nurses and doctors can no longer work.
The one thing that was necessary to push mandates forward was for the government to be able to say it had a licensed product. Before the emergency use authorization was created in 2005, you had licensed drugs and you had experimental drugs and nothing else.
There was no gray area between them. Any use of a medication or vaccine that is not fully licensed is still experimental, despite the fact that a new category of drugs has been created with emergency use authorizations.
These are still experimental drugs, so under emergency use, you can’t force people [to take them]. You have to offer them options and they have the right to refuse. Since that is part of the statute, the federal government can’t get around it.
Therefore, attorneys in the Biden administration knew they could not legally impose mandates under an EUA, and so they demanded that FDA provide a COVID vaccine full approval, aka, an unrestricted license. This was believed to enable them to impose mandates.
They must have put pressure on the FDA, and FDA gave them what they wanted, which was a license for the Pfizer vaccine called Comirnaty on August 23 .”
Comirnaty Approval Includes Important Caveats
In the documents released August 23, 2021, by the FDA, there were some interesting caveats. They said the Comirnaty vaccine is essentially equivalent to the EUA vaccine and the two vaccines may be used interchangeably. However, they pointed out that the two are legally distinct. Curiously, FDA didn’t specify what these legal distinctions are.
“I concluded that the legal distinctions were the fact that under EUA, there was essentially no manufacturer liability, but once the vaccine got licensed, the manufacturer would be subject to liability claims unless and until the vaccine was placed on the childhood schedule or recommended in pregnancy, in which case it would then fall … under the NVICP,” Nass says.
“Right now, Comirnaty is still not in that injury compensation program, and it’s licensed, so it no longer falls under the CICP. So, it is in fact subject to liability if you get injured with a bottle that says Comirnaty on it. Of course, if you’re Pfizer, what do you want to do?
You don’t want to make that licensed product available until several months have gone by and Comirnaty has been put into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. So, Pfizer and FDA have not made the licensed product available yet.
What has happened instead, in the military, is the FDA has made a secret deal with the military and said, certain emergency use lots can be considered equivalent to the licensed vaccine, and [told military medical staff] which QR codes — which lots can be used. [These specific lots] can then be given to soldiers as if they’re licensed.
Subsequently, we’re told that military clinics are actually putting Comirnaty labels onto bottles that are under EUA. Now, that probably can happen in the military, but only in the military, because there are likely to be memoranda of understanding within the military that we haven’t seen yet that say soldiers cannot sue Pfizer for injuries …
In the military, the government and Pfizer feel like they have set up a situation where nobody can sue, but in the civilian world, that has not happened, and so there is no Comirnaty available.
Yet, on the basis that FDA licensed this product, the federal government is still telling employers that they can mandate it and that they must fire employees that have not taken the vaccine, or they will lose government contracts. We’re in a very interesting situation that is ripe for litigation, and Children’s Health Defense, which is an organization I represent, is litigating some of this.
However, the litigation situation has been very difficult since the pandemic began. Cases that normally would’ve been easy wins are being thrown out by the courts, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Something strange has happened and the judges are looking for any way out, so they don’t have to rule on the merits of these cases.”
The organization Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the federal government did it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but Children’s Health Defense hasn’t given up and is still pursuing that case.
COVID Jab Is Authorized for 5- to 11-Year-Olds in the US
As mentioned, the FDA recently authorized the EUA COVID jab for children between the ages of 5 and 11, which is simply appalling, considering they are at virtually no risk from COVID-19. I’ve not seen a single recorded case in the entire world of anyone in that age group dying of COVID that didn’t have serious preexisting comorbidity, such as cancer.
If you have a healthy child, they are at no risk from the infection, so there’s only danger associated with this shot, which in this age group would be one-third the adult dose. Typically, when you’re giving a drug to a child, the dose is calculated based on the child’s weight. Here, they’re giving the same dose to a 5-year-old as an 11-year-old, despite there being a significant difference in weight. So, it’s pure guesswork.
Worse yet, the mRNA vaccines produce an unpredictable amount of spike protein, and even if they produce much too much, there is no way to turn off the process once you have been injected.
Despite clear safety signals, the FDA’s advisory committee authorized the Pfizer jab for 5- to 11-year-olds unanimously, 17-to-0 (with one abstaining vote). However, when you look at the roster of the FDA’s committee members1 who reviewed and voted to authorize the Pfizer shot for children as young as 5, the unanimous “yes” vote becomes less of a mystery.
Abhorrent Conflicts of Interest
As reported by National File2 and The Defender,3 the membership of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has had staggering conflicts of interest. Members have included:
A former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines
A paid Pfizer consultant
A recent Pfizer research grant recipient
A mentor to Raphael Simon, senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer
James Hidreth — President of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer vaccines
A chair of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program
An individual proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine
Several people who are already on the record supporting coronavirus vaccines for children, including Ofer Levy, Jay Portnoy, and Melinda Wharton
In addition to that, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb is currently on Pfizer’s board of directors. As noted by Nass, two of the members, one permanent and one temporary, is also CDC career employees whose job it is to push vaccines at the CDC.
“If they voted against authorizing a vaccine, they would be out of a job,” Nass says. “They have no business on that committee … It’s a very unethical stew of advisory committee members …
What happened is Pfizer delivered a large package of information to the FDA on October 6, 2021. FDA staff had to go through this large packet of information on the 5- to 11-year-olds and produce their own report, which was about 40 pages long, and create talks to give to the advisory committee, and they did all of this in 17 days.
There was apparently very little critical thought that went into their presentations. Before the meeting, Children’s Health Defense, and I was one of the authors, wrote to the committee and to FDA officials saying, ‘Look, there’s all these reasons that don’t make logical or medical sense for vaccinating kids in this age group, because they almost never get very ill or die, and the side effects of the vaccine are essentially unknown.
We know there are a lot of side effects, but the federal government has concealed from us the rate at which these side effects occur. But we know that the rate from myocarditis is very high, probably at least 1 in 5,000 young males … which is a very serious side effect. It can lead, probably always leads, to some scarring. It can lead to sudden death, to heart failure.”
Trials in Young Children Were Insufficient
As explained by Nass, in the clinical trial, there were two groups of children. The first group was enrolled for two to three months, while the second group was enrolled for just 17 days after receiving the second dose. (Pfizer added the second group because FDA claimed there weren’t enough volunteers in the first group.)
These two groups comprised over 3,000 children who got the jab and 1,500 or 2,000 who got a placebo. None suffered serious side effects. This was then translated into the claim that the injection was safe. However, as noted by Nass:
“They didn’t look at safety in all these kids. Even though FDA had said, ‘Add kids to your clinical trial,’ Pfizer created a ‘safety subset’ of one-tenth of the vaccinated subjects.
It was this small number of kids from whom they drew blood to show they had adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies, which was a surrogate for efficacy, because they didn’t have enough cases of COVID in this abbreviated trial to show that the vaccine actually works in this age group.”
Even though the advisory committee acknowledged that the blood test done for efficacy had not been validated, and wasn’t reliable evidence of effectiveness, they still decided that all children, regardless of health status, would benefit from the injection.
They also ignored the fact that at least half the children are already immune, and giving them the injection will provide no additional benefit in terms of immunity while putting them at increased risk for serious side effects.
“Nobody said, ‘Look, the parents of healthy kids may be dying for a vaccine, but that’s because we haven’t told them the truth about the vaccine. We haven’t told them their kids don’t need it. We haven’t told them it’s going to potentially damage future immunity.
We haven’t told them they’re at higher risk of side effects than if they never had COVID. We’re not allowing them to go get antibody tests to establish that they’re already immune and therefore should be waved from being vaccinated.’
The committee members were aware of all this stuff, but in the end [they voted yes] … apart from one very smart member of the committee who works for the National Institutes of Health. He abstained. He didn’t have the guts to vote no, but he knew this was a bad idea.”
Children Are Being Injected Without Parental Consent
While all of that is bad enough, parents of young children now face the possibility of their children being injected against their will and without their knowledge. Nass comments:
“As I said, we don’t know why the government wants everybody vaccinated, but there’s probably a reason that goes beyond protecting us from COVID.
The government got the FDA to authorize the vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds on May 10 , and subsequently that group, which is about 6 million kids, has been getting vaccinated across the country. That’s under emergency use so, again, you can’t sue.
But something kind of evil happened, which was many cities began vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds in the absence of parental permission. So, a child could show up with their friends or a friend’s mother at a vaccine center and get vaccinated with no one asking about their medical history, nobody calling the parents. No notation got entered into the child’s medical record that they were vaccinated.
Vaccinators were told to make their own assessment. If they thought this child could give consent, go ahead and vaccinate. Now, that is a gross violation of our laws, and yet it was happening in Boston, in Philadelphia, in Seattle, in San Francisco, and we have good documentation of it.
The government currently is planning for mobile vaccination clinics for kids and vaccinations in schools, and they may take this program of vaccinating without parental consent down to the 5- to 11-year-olds …
In fact, we may see clinics popping up that don’t require informed consent in the 5- to 11-year-old group. Let me just mention that the chief medical officer in Canada’s British Columbia said they have brought laws that allow children of any age to consent for themselves. Think about that. A baby can consent for vaccinations for itself. It would be funny if it wasn’t so diabolical.”
All of this goes against the most basic concept of medical ethics, which is informed consent. No one has the right to perform a medical procedure on you without your consent, or the consent of a legal guardian. The government, again, without establishing any new laws, is simply bypassing the legal system.
Will Young Children Be at Risk for Myocarditis?
Based on her review of the scientific literature, Nass suspects younger children in the now COVID jab-approved, 5- to 11-year-old age group will be at exponentially higher risk of myocarditis and other side effects compared to the 12- to 15-year group, where we’ve already seen a documented increase.
“In the letter that Children’s Health Defense wrote to the advisory committee for the FDA, we created a graph based on the reporting rate of myocarditis versus age, and we showed there was an exponential curve.
Men aged 65 and up had a rate that was 1/100th the rate of boys aged 12 to 17. If that exponential curve keeps going up, the rate in the 5- to 11-year-olds could be even dramatically higher. In those young men, a 1 in 5,000 rate was reported to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System]. That’s not a real rate.
That just tells us how many people got diagnosed with myocarditis, and then went to the trouble of reporting it to the FDA. The FDA and CDC have a large number of other databases from which they can gather rates of illness.
VAERS is considered passive reporting. It is not considered fit for purpose to establish illness rates because we don’t know how many people report. Do 1 in 10 report, 1 in 100, 1 in 50? Nobody knows.
However, again, because everything is crazy since the pandemic came in, the CDC has tried to pull the wool over our eyes and has claimed that the rate of anaphylaxis in the population from COVID vaccines is identical to their reporting rate to VAERS. We know that’s not true.
On the CDC’s website, that’s what they have. Elsewhere on the website, they say you can’t take a VAERS rate and call it an actual rate of reactions, but they’ve done that [for anaphylaxis]. And they’re trying to obfuscate the fact that they’re not giving you real rates, and sort of pretending that the myocarditis rate is probably the VAERS reporting rate of myocarditis, although they’re not saying so directly.”
Nass goes on to recount an example from the smallpox vaccine, which also caused myocarditis. A military study that just looked at cases sent to specialists found roughly 1 in 15,000 developed myocarditis. A military immunologist then dug deeper, and drew blood on soldiers before and after vaccination, and found a myocarditis rate of 1 in 220 after receiving the smallpox vaccine.
However, 1 soldier in 30 developed subclinical myocarditis where troponin rose from normal to more than two times the upper limits of normal. While asymptomatic, 1 in 30 had measurable inflammation of the heart. “Right now, in terms of what the rate is for COVID, nobody is looking, no federal agency wants to find out the real rate,” Nass says.
You Can’t Find Problems You Refuse to Look For
A simple study that measures troponin levels — a marker for heart inflammation and damage — before and after each dose, could easily determine what the real rate of myocarditis is, yet that is not being done.
“This is what we’re dealing with,” Nass says. “All these databases, which is about a dozen different databases, that CDC and FDA said they could access to determine the rates of side effects after vaccination with COVID vaccines, they’re either not being used or being used improperly,” Nass says.
“It was discovered that a new algorithm was being used to study the VAERS database that only came into use in January 2021, immediately after the vaccines were authorized, and the algorithm was developed such that you compare two vaccines to each other.
If the pattern of side effects was similar between the two vaccines — which is often the case because there’s a limited number of general vaccine adverse reactions — even if one vaccine has a thousand times more side effects as the one it is being compared to, by using this flawed algorithm, if the pattern of reactions was the same, even though the rates were 1,000 times higher for one, the algorithm would fail to detect a problem.
That is the algorithm they’re using to analyze VAERS [data]. They’re also using bad methods … to analyze the vaccine safety database, which encompasses 12 million Americans who enrolled in HMOs around the country. The CDC pays for access to their electronic medical records and their data.
Somehow when these databases have been looked at carefully, they’re finding very low rates of myocarditis in boys, approximately equal to the VAERS reporting. It was said months ago, ‘We can’t find a safety signal for myocarditis. We’re not finding an anaphylaxis signal. we’re not finding a Bell’s palsy signal.’
The FDA’s and CDC’s algorithms couldn’t pick up for most known side effects. So, there’s something wrong with the analytic methods that are being used, but the agencies haven’t told us precisely what they are. What we do know is that the rates of side effects that are being reported to VAERS are phenomenal.
They’re orders of magnitude higher than for any previous vaccines used in the United States. An order of magnitude is 10-fold, so rates of reported adverse reactions are 10 to 100 times higher than what has been reported for any other vaccine. Reported deaths after COVID in the United States are 17,000+. It’s off the charts.
Other side effects reported after COVID vaccinations total over 800,000. Again, more deaths and more side effects than have ever been reported for every vaccine combined in use in the U.S. cumulatively over 30 years.”
Despite all this shocking data, our federal agencies look the other way, pretending as if nothing is happening, and no matter how many people approach them — with lawsuits, with public comments, reaching out to politicians — they refuse to address blatantly obvious concerns. This is clear evidence that they’re acting with intentional malice.
The FDA and CDC are supposed to protect the public. They’re supposed to identify safety concerns. They’re not supposed to act as marketing firms for drug companies, but that’s precisely what they’ve been converted to.
New Formulations Have Never Been Tested
Another truly egregious fact is that Pfizer has altered its formulation, allegedly to make it more stable, but this new formulation has never been included in any of the trials. Nass explains:
“During the October 26, 2021, VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] meeting, Pfizer said, ‘Look, we want to give the vaccines in doctor’s offices and we’ve found a way to stabilize the vaccine so we don’t need those ultra-cold fridges anymore. We can put these vials in a doctor’s office and, once defrosted, they can sit in a regular fridge 10 weeks and they’ll be fine.’
Some committee members asked, ‘OK, what’d you do? How did you make this marvelous discovery?’ And they said, ‘We went from the phosphate buffered saline buffer to a Tris buffer, and we slightly changed some electrolytes.’ A committee member asked, ‘OK, how did that make it so much more stable?’ And everybody in the meeting from FDA and Pfizer looked at each other and said, ‘We don’t know.’
An hour later, Pfizer had one of their chemists get on the line, but he couldn’t explain how the change in buffer led to a huge increase in stability, either. Then, later in the meeting, one of the members of the committee asked, ‘Did you use this new formulation in the clinical trial?’
And Dr. Bill Gruber, the lead Pfizer representative, said, ‘No, we didn’t.’ In other words, Pfizer plans, with FDA connivance, to use an entirely new vaccine formulation in children, after their clinical trials used the old formulation. This is grossly illegal. They’ve got a new formulation of vaccine. It wasn’t tested in humans. And they’re about to use it on 28 million American kids.”
It’s nothing short of a dystopian nightmare. Completely surreal. You can’t make this stuff up. Yet as shocking as all this is, earlier this year, Dr. Anthony Fauci projected that these COVID jabs would be available for everyone, from infants to the elderly. Now they’ve got the 5-year-olds, and there’s every reason to suspect they’ll go after newborns and infants next.
Whose Babies Will Be Offered Up as Sacrificial Lambs?
According to Nass, Pfizer and the FDA have struck a deal that will allow Pfizer to test on babies even younger than 6 months old, even if there’s no intention to inject infants that young. Those trials may begin as early as the end of January 2022.
“This arrangement between FDA and Pfizer will give Pfizer its extra six months of patent protection, whether or not these vaccines are intended to be used in those age groups. So, you can look at these trials as a way of almost sacrificing little children, because when you start a trial, you don’t know what the dangers are going to be.
I could be wrong, but I doubt we’re going to give these to newborn babies the way we give the hepatitis B vaccine on the date of birth, yet they will be tested in very young babies. The question is, whose babies get tested? In the past, sometimes the babies that got tested were foster children, wards of the state. Sometimes parents offer up their children. But there will be clinical trials.”
When will we get the data from those trials? It turns out that in the agreements reached between Pfizer and the FDA, some of those trials won’t conclude until 2024, 2025, and 2027. The goal here is to vaccinate all Americans, children, and adults, within the coming few months or a year, yet it’ll be five years before we actually know from clinical trials what the side effects may be.
We’re Living in Clown World
As noted by Nass, this is yet another crime. It may fulfill the letter of the law, but it doesn’t fulfill the meaning of the law. It makes no sense to run clinical trials that won’t be completed until five years after your mass vaccination program has been completed and the entire population is injected.
“It’s just a joke to do that,” Nass says. “But FDA has become Clown World, and what they do now is to perform a charade of all the normal regulatory processes that they are expected to do, but they’re only doing them in an abbreviated or peculiar manner so that they don’t really collect the important data.
For example, the control group has been vaccinated two months into the Pfizer trials, which effectively obscures side effects that develop after two months. Blood is not tested for evidence of myocarditis or blood clots using simple tests (troponin and D-dimer levels).
For all the Americans out there who haven’t spent 20 years examining the FDA procedures like I have, these FDA advisory committee meetings are it’s designed to make you think a real regulatory process is going on, when it’s not. Instead we are all guinea pigs, but no one is collecting the data that would normally be required to authorize or approve a vaccine. Therefore, in my opinion, nobody should get these shots.“
To make matters even worse, it’s actually illegal to grant EUAs for these vaccines, because there are drugs that can prevent the condition (COVID), as well as treat it. EUAs can only be granted if there are no existing approved, available alternatives to prevent or treat the infection.
The effective drugs most have already heard of are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but there are a number of other drugs that also have profound effects on COVID, Nass says, including TriCor and cyproheptadine (Periactin).
TriCor, or fenofibrate, emulsifies lipid nanoparticles and fatty conglomerations that contain viruses and inflammatory substances. The drug essentially allows your body to break down the viral and inflammatory debris better. As such, it might also help combat complications caused by the nanoliposomes in the COVID shot.
According to Nass, Pepcid at high doses of up to 80 milligrams three times a day is also useful for treatment. Dr. Robert Malone is starting a clinical trial using a combination of Pepcid and celecoxib (brand name Celebrex). Many are also recommending aspirin to prevent platelet activation and clotting.
I believe a far better alternative to aspirin is lumbrokinase, and/or serrapeptase. Both are fibrinolytic enzymes that address blood clotting. You can develop sensitivity to them, so I recommend alternating the two on alternate days for about three months if you’ve had COVID.
You could rule out blood clotting by doing a D-dimer test. If your D-dimer is normal, you don’t need an anticlotting agent. If clotting is a concern, you could also use NAC in addition to these fibrinolytic enzymes. It too helps break up clots and prevent clot formation.
“Remember, all the COVID jabs are authorized [under EUA], not licensed. They’re all legally, technically, experimental. I know you can lose your job and all these terrible things can happen if you refuse the vaccine, but if you are injured by the shot, you won’t be able to sue later. You will be on your own.
Legally, they can’t force you to accept the vaccine while it is in EUA status because of the Nuremberg code, because of existing U.S. law about informed consent, and because of the actual statute on emergency use authorization, which says you have the right to refuse. They can’t force you to take these [shots].
I know they are forcing you, but legally they can’t, and please keep that in mind. Hopefully these wrongs will be redressed. Mandates are being walked back in many jurisdictions.
As I’ve told people, demand to see the bottle that says Comirnaty, because legally, they can force the licensed product on you, but there isn’t any right now. So, you have an out for the next few months, hopefully.
They’re really dangerous vaccines. What you don’t know will hurt you. Please protect your children. If there’s any way, don’t get vaccinated. The more people who say no, the more the government is already backing down. In many cities, the imposed dates by which you have to be vaccinated have been pushed back.
Now Biden’s administration is saying, ‘Well, it’s not going to be carved in stone. We’re going to negotiate with people because they don’t want to lose 30% or 40% of their staff.’ So, be strong, protect yourself and your children. Know you’re doing the right thing.
We’ve got a criminal organization running things now. This is a worldwide program of some kind designed to control us. Once we all figure it out, we can win. There’s many, many more of us than there are of them.”
Pfizer expects to earn about $36 billion in revenue this year from the COVID vaccine developed with BioNTech, the company announced Tuesday — an increase from the previous estimate of $33.5 billion.
Pfizer’s COVID vaccine quickly became the highest-selling drug in the world. During an earnings call, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the vaccine contributed $13 billion in revenue during the third quarter alone, bringing total revenue this year to $24.3 billion.
Pfizer said its profit margin on the vaccine, before taxes and after splitting profit with BioNTech, is the “high 20s,” which means vaccine profits could approach $10 billion just for Pfizer this year.
The sales estimate for 2021 is equivalent to roughly 80% of what Pfizer believes the rest of its business will earn in 2021.
The company forecasted $29 billion in sales in 2022, based on 1.7 billion doses committed to purchasing contracts. Pfizer said it will manufacture up to 4 billion doses next year, meaning there are 2.3 billion doses it could still sell, Axios reported.
In the U.S. and Europe, Pfizer has benefited from having the first vaccine cleared for booster doses and for use in younger adolescents and children. According to the company, its average market share as of Oct. 31 was 74% in the U.S. and 80% in Europe, up from 56% and 70%, respectively, in April.
Pfizer’s advantage could increase as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently authorized the vaccine for use in children between 5 and 11 years old.
The earnings call occurred the same day advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) met to discuss giving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to children ages 5 to 11.
The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel unanimously recommended Pfizer’s COVID vaccine on Tuesday for children 5 to 11, despite concerns raised during the meeting about Pfizer’s clinical data, the fact that children who previously acquired natural immunity to COVID were included in clinical trials and evidence showing COVID poses little risk to children.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky signed off on the decision late Tuesday and children ages 5 through 11 could start receiving COVID vaccines as early as today.
Pfizer sponsors ads on news networks
As The Defender reported Nov. 2, analysts in the advertising industry believe a bolstered marketing push will follow now that the FDA has granted full approval to a Pfizer COVID vaccine under the name Comirnaty.
Pfizer’s goal may be long-term in scope: If annual or semi-annual COVID boosters become a reality, Pfizer may be gearing up to place its name ahead of the competition.
According to Pfizer’s most recent quarterly report, for the second quarter of 2021, there was a 10% increase in “SI&A expenses,” which include marketing and advertising, for the first half of 2021, as compared to the same period in 2020, when there was no COVID vaccine available.
By “sponsoring” television newscasts and information programs, Pfizer may be intending to do more than merely increase vaccination rates: They may wish to influence news coverage by these media, skewing such coverage in their favor in any number of ways.
Recent examples where Pfizer has sponsored prominent television news and information programs on American television include the following:
“Good Μorning America is brought to you by Pfizer.”
As recently highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer — and other pharmaceutical companies — have not restricted their sponsorship campaign to news show segments and paid tweets.
In a recent segment on his online talk show, commentator and comedian Jimmy Dore ran off a list of recent headlines published by CNBC.com, presenting Pfizer in a positive light.
Dore capped the segment off by presenting a recent tweet posted on CNBC’s official Twitter account, again portraying Pfizer in glowing terms, accompanied by the text: “paid post for Pfizer.”
Moreover, by not advertising their vaccines by name, Pfizer-BioNTech and other drugmakers are not obliged, under current regulations, to rattle off a list of potential side effects associated with the vaccine, which would certainly do those companies no favors in the face of widespread vaccine hesitancy and criticism.
On a recent episode of “The Jimmy Dore Show,” comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore condemned the popular portrayal of COVID policy critics as anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists.
“Because I’ve been giving a critical examination of the COVID narrative, they’re calling me anti-vax, even though I’m double vaccinated,” said Dore. “And I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m anti-mandate.”
Dore said he’s against COVID vaccine mandates because vaccinated individuals can still spread the disease to others. He took issue with the popular justification for mandate policies — the need to protect others from disease.
“That isn’t what the science shows,” Dore said. “A vaccinated person does not protect other people.”
Dore pointed to an Oct. 28 Bloomberg article on how COVID vaccines don’t protect people from getting the virus.
According to the article:
“People inoculated against COVID-19 are just as likely to spread the Delta variant of the virus to contacts in their household as those who haven’t had shots, according to new research.”
The article cited research, published in the Lancet Journal of Infectious Disease, showing “the peak viral load of COVID patients was similar regardless of vaccination status.” The researchers wrote:
“The ongoing transmission we are seeing between vaccinated people makes it essential for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated to protect themselves.”
Commenting on the research, Dore said:
“So you get vaccinated to protect yourself. That’s what the science says … but the medical establishment is telling you to get vaccinated to protect other people and so we can reach herd immunity and this study proves that this narrative which says if we vaccinate everyone there will be no more COVID … it’s not actually true.
“Even if you vaccinate 100% of the population, according to the science, people will still be giving and getting COVID … the idea that the unvaccinated are a threat to you is ridiculous because the vaccinated are just as likely to spread COVID as the unvaccinated.”
Dore also cited a recent Harvard study showing countries and counties with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of transmission.
“So we’re against mandates on principle and because they’re unscientific and guess who was also against mandates?” Dore asked.
Dore played a clip from an August 2020 interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Biden, in which Fauci said, “I don’t think you’ll ever see a mandating of [COVID-19] vaccines for the general public … you would never mandate it.”
When the interviewer asked Fauci what the contingency plan would be for those who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Fauci said people who refuse the vaccine “have every right to refuse and I don’t think you even need a contingency plan.”
Dore also played a clip, from April, of Nancy Pelosi, echoing a similar point: “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated and it’s a matter of privacy to know who is or who is not vaccinated.”