1

CDC Changes the Definition of Vaccines

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com 

Story at-a-glance

  • In a surreptitious move to support the vaccine narrative, the CDC quietly changed the over 20-year definition of a vaccine, so it no longer says that vaccines produce immunity
  • The World Health Organization changed the definition of a pandemic, so it no longer says there are “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses,” only that there is a new virus without known human immunity
  • Health experts are pushing the vaccine program based on the premise of herd immunity. However, the NIAID has said that you can have breakthrough infections and spread those infections to others
  • The WHO defines herd immunity from vaccines as those that protect you from getting the disease and passing it on. This means by the WHO definition the shots will never provide herd immunity; how long will it take for the WHO to change the definition again?

In a surreptitious move to support the vaccine narrative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed the definition of a vaccine,1,2 which they have held since at least February 24, 2011.3 At first glance, it might seem like a small change, but it has massive repercussions.

The meaning of words can change over time and can be influenced by social, economic, political, religious, and technological factors. Many of the words we use today have vastly different meanings than they did 10 or 100 years ago.4 However, changing medical words and definitions has a significant impact on bias in perception. One study demonstrated that a simple switch in terminology could result:5

“… in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy.”

For example, the medical literature has redefined the meaning of “health” over several decades to move from the absence of disease to a state of well-being. That definition continues to evolve in light of value-based health care, which some recommend should now include “specific patient needs, and the organizational, value-based system required to satisfy those needs.”6

This change in definition then affects health care delivery, public perception, and interpretation of the meaning of health. This strategy was not lost on the CDC when they removed critical words from the definition of a “vaccine” to change the public perception of any administered therapy that may impact a person’s immune system.

This opens the door to the administration of other “products” or “preparations” that may affect your immune system, still while calling it a vaccine. And, let’s face it, for much of the public, the word “vaccine” continues to have positive implications.

CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition

To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple of decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

  • Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
  • No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
  • Does not produce immunity
  • Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
  • No longer protects a person from the disease

These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA, and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

Organizations Are Changing the Goal Posts

Alex Berenson was once a reporter for The New York Times and is now an award-winning author. He published a timeline of events on a Substack page that he calls “A Lawsuit in Three Acts.”15 In Act I is August 26, 2021, the screenshot of the CDC website, with the prior definition of a vaccine as you can see above. Act II is a screenshot of a tweet Berenson posted on August 28, 2021:

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”

Following the release of that tweet, Twitter ruled the information misleading and suspended his account16 for “violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”17 As Berenson writes, “This defamatory act prevents me from using my account anywhere in the world.”18

Within days of Berenson’s ban, Act III occurred. The CDC changed the definition of vaccine, removing the standard that had been in place for at least 20 years that vaccines produce immunity. In his last comment, Berenson alludes to the acts of censorship that have been ongoing in social media platforms since the beginning of this pandemic, writing, “Discovery’s gonna be awesome!”19

September 8, 2021, one of Berenson’s followers, Carol Jones, commented, “LOL!!! My lawyer husband just laughed when he read this. That is a slam dunk.” As a side note, Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of a vaccine once was:20

“… a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”

However, before the CDC changed its definition, Merriam-Webster had already changed theirs, which now includes a secondary description of the experimental COVID-19 genetic therapy.21 Interestingly, when they made the change, the definition evolved from a simple, single line to a much more complex 12-paragraph definition that is a reflection of the times we live in.

The movement toward changing the definition of a vaccine may help protect the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies from violating a Federal Trade Commission act that regulates deceptive practices in medical claims. According to this, it is unlawful to say:22

“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

And further, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Currently, the COVID-19 genetic therapy injection program does meet the vaccine definition of the CDC and Merriam-Webster — but only after the definitions changed.

What Is a Pandemic?

The definition of a vaccine is not the only thing that has changed since 2020. To continue promoting mandates, lockdowns, and emergency use authorization of genetic therapy injections, the infection must be causing a pandemic.

According to the World Health Organization, their original definition of a pandemic specified that there must be simultaneous epidemics experienced worldwide “with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses.”23

While the published documents with the definition of a pandemic have since been pulled offline and cannot be accessed any longer through the Wayback machine, the WHO published a paper refuting the allegations that they had changed the definition “for the simple reason that it has never formally defined pandemic influenza.”24

They argued that while they had described pandemic influenza, it was never a “formal definition.” In their explanation, they say that since 2003 their pandemic preparedness page had contained this statement:25

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

They claim that was changed in response to a query from a CNN reporter just weeks before they declared a swine flu pandemic after only 144 people died from the infection worldwide. The new statement removed the phrase “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses” and was revised to:26 “An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”

The Council of Europe apparently had the same question and cited this alteration in their page as evidence that the WHO could declare a pandemic without demonstrating the severity of the disease against which we didn’t have immunity.27

Unfortunately, the number of excess deaths that can be attributed directly to COVID-19 is likely not the result of the infection itself, but from the CDC’s and NIAID’s suppression of successful treatment modalities that can save lives.28,29,30,31,32

Vaccine Sales Pitch: Herd Immunity

Health experts promote the idea of herd immunity, hoping 100% of the public will become vaccinated. However, in July 2021 the news reported that 100 fully vaccinated crew members aboard the British defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth had tested positive while onboard. At the time, it was unclear whether any had symptoms.33

This was one of the first reports that vaccinated individuals could have breakthrough infections, aka, “vaccine failure.” Vaccine failure would indicate that herd immunity is impossible. But, of course, that depends on your definition of herd immunity.

In June 2020, WHOs definition was posted on their COVID-19 Q&A page and was in line with widely accepted standards for infectious diseases. Courtesy of the Wayback machine, the original definition was:34

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

Since humans have been alive, immunity has developed from the previous infections. Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent, not to a vaccine. However, since October 15, 2020, the WHO believes this is no longer the case, as they updated their definition of herd immunity to a “concept used for vaccination” or, rather, to support vaccination:35

“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”

The page was again updated on December 31, 2020:36

“’Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination …

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission.

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

As you can see from the areas I put in boldface in the two definitions above, the WHO definition of a vaccine and the CDC definition are not congruent. In this statement, the WHO says that vaccines protect the individual from getting the disease or passing on the pathogen. The current CDC definition37 says that vaccines merely “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases” without mention of immunity, protection, or passing pathogens.

This means the definition of a vaccine by the WHO does not cover the function of the COVID-19 genetic therapy program since the mRNA gene therapy’s purpose is only to lessen symptoms. The NIAID admits that after the mRNA shots people can still get breakthrough infections38 (so they aren’t protected from getting the disease) and will have enough pathogens in their nasal cavity to spread the disease39 (they are passing on the pathogen).

Even with the changes the WHO made to their definition of herd immunity, it is apparent that the COVID-19 injection program will never meet the standards of herd immunity set by the WHO. The only question is how long will it take the WHO to change their definition again?

Living in a World Where Goal Posts Are Constantly Changing

In this short video, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, gives an accounting of Dr. Anthony Fauci vacillating on his recommendations regarding masking in public. Fauci was appointed as the director of the NIAID in 1984 which, by 2020, should have made him an expert on the transmission of infectious diseases.

Yet, as is apparent by this historical recounting, the recommendations evolve depending on the current climate, just as the definitions of herd immunity, vaccines, and pandemics have evolved.

These definitions have been changed to fit the new narrative being churned out by public health officials and mainstream media that promote fear and ignore science. In many ways, you’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.40

During such a fog, “It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality.”41 Seeing through the fog is the first step to coming out of the battle unscathed.

I would encourage you to copy the content from this article and save it to your hard drive so you can share this information and help others see through this fog of misinformation and lies that is threatening our way of life.

Sources and References



MUST MUST MUST WATCH: Rise of the Resistance | The HighWire With Del Bigtree

https://rumble.com/embed/vkb0l9/?pub=omyzz

Sorry, the video that was originally posted here was taken down off rumble, and then the same video was re-posted with a different web address, which you can watch above. You can always watch a high-quality version on the HighWire website:
https://thehighwire.com/watch/

Del Bigtree reports: Firefighters fight mandates in NJ; Explosive FDA advisory committee testimony; vaccine immunity wanes; new Peter Daszak video revelation;  ICAN’s Demand to Pfizer; Dr. Cole & the Covid Vaccine-Cancer Connection; Unrest in Australia

 @ 00:01:00 Rise of the Resistance

Organizations across the U.S. are saying HELL NO to Biden’s vaccine mandate – including: “Ohio and 24 other state attorneys general tell Biden to drop vaccine mandate or be sued”; 12 states have banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates

 @ 00:02:30 Interview with Chuck West, president of the Newark NJ Firefighters Union

Newark NJ Firefighters Union president Chuck West talks about resisting the mandate that requires all city employees to get COVID-19 vaccine or face discipline. West, who IS vaccinated, supports “my body, my choice”: “We stand behind a vaccine and/or a choice of being tested. When you put in the fact that you’ll be disciplined for not having it, that’s where we have some problems.

 @ 00:17:30 The Jaxen Report on FDA Advisory Committee Testimony

Jeffery Jaxen discusses the following super important topics:

  • Explosive testimony at the FDA advisory committee meeting on whether Pfizer’s booster shot should be approved – including absolutely brilliant testimony from Dr. Peter Doshi. Also, studies that back up his concerns.
  • Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, head of public health services in Israel, told the FDA panel that 60% of the patients who were hospitalized in serious or critical condition were fully vaccinated as were 45% of the people who died. READ MORE HERE.
  • Del points out that the number of deaths could likely be significantly reduced if the hospitalized patients were treated with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, etc
  • Reports that Covid vaccine immunity is waning, and that repeatedly stimulating the defenses can lead to “immune exhaustion.”
  • Dr. Joseph B Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician, stated that over 65% of the highly educated medical professionals where he works are NOT vaccinated and that larger trials are needed to prove vaccine efficacy. “We need your help on the front lines to stop vaccine hesitancy. Demand that the booster trails are large enough to find a reduction in hospitalization. Without this data, we the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-covid-vaccine activists who claim that the vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy. The fact that we don’t have the clinical evidence to say that these activists are wrong should terrify us all.”
  • Joseph A. Ladapo, MD is announced as Florida’s New Surgeon General. You need to hear what he said.

 @ 00:51:00 Wuhan Scientists Planned to Release Coronavirus Particles Into Bat Caves 18 Months BEFORE the First Coronavirus Cases Appeared

More great stuff here — just don’t have time to capture it all right now. Sorry.

 @ 01:17:30 Dr. Ryan Cole Interview

Dr. Cole explains how the vaccine lowers your immune system in such a manner that it causes a proliferation of dormant ailments like shingles and herpes. And, it prevents the T-Cells and other serious immune system defense-fighters in your body from doing their job, which can cause people to develop different forms of cancers.




Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient
  • Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks
  • The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives
  • The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death
  • Hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID-19

While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”1 we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.3

As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population was still unvaccinated.4

But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.

Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.5 Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!

How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases

According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:

“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital, and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.

For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version7 of the vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,8 which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”

But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.

Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

It’s not just the CDC’s definition of a breakthrough case that skews the data. Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40.9 This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives,10 essentially rendering the test useless.11,12,13

In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots.14 So, if you have received a COVID injection, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run at a CT of 28 or less. If you are unvaccinated, your PCR test is to be run at a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection.

The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested are FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab are more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.

Only Hospitalization and Death Count if You’re COVID Jabbed

Even that’s not all. The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.

In other words, if you got your second COVID shot more than 14 days ago and you develop symptoms, you do not count as a breakthrough case unless you’re admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID-19 in the hospital, even if you test positive. So, to summarize, COVID breakthrough cases count only if all of the following apply:

  • The patient received the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna shot at least 14 days ago (or one dose in case of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose injection)
  • The patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a CT of 28 or less, which avoids false positives
  • The patient is admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or dies in the hospital

Vaccinated Probably Makeup Bulk of Hospitalizations

If vaccinated and unvaccinated were not treated with such varying standards, we’d probably find that the vaccinated now make up the bulk of hospitalizations, making the COVID pandemic one of the vaccinated. An August 30, 2021, exposé by The Epoch Times reveals what’s really happening on the front lines:15

“After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case … The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people … Is that what’s really going on?

It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward … The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: ‘Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,’ she said. How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports?”

The heart of the problem is that the U.S. is not even trying to achieve an accurate count. As noted by The Epoch Times, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.”

So, when you hear that cases are rising and that most of them are unvaccinated, you need to ask: “Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on,” The Epoch Times says.16

All we do know, according to one doctor who spoke with The Epoch Times, is “the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. ‘This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.’”

Counting Non-COVID Illness as COVID Cases

On top of all of that, hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID-related illnesses as COVID. As reported by The Epoch Times:17

“Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials …

And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID … To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.

Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.

Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.

In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.”

No Need to Fear the Delta Variant if You’re Unvaccinated

In a June 29, 2021, interview,18 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it. Alas, in the real world, the converse is turning out to be true, as the Delta variant is running wild primarily among those who got the COVID jab.

In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out that “It is very clear from the U.K. Technical Briefing19 that was published June 18 that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant.”20

The reason for this is because the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity, which is much broader.

Even so, the Delta variant is far milder than previous variants, according to the U.K.’s June 18, 2021, Technical Briefing.21 In it, they present data showing the Delta variant is more contagious but far less deadly and easier to treat. As McCullough told Fox News:

“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Contrast that with the following statement made by President Biden during a CNN town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, in late July 2021:22

“We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die. You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

However, Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency doctor and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., contradicted the president, saying he had led the American astray by telling them you don’t need a mask if you’re vaccinated, or that you can’t get it or transmit it. As reported by CNN Health:23

“In particular, Wen took issue with Biden’s incorrect claims that you cannot contract Covid-19 or the Delta variant if you are vaccinated. ‘I was actually disappointed,’ Wen said. ‘I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground. I think he may have led people astray.’”

CNN added that Wen had told their political commentator Anderson Cooper that “many unknown answers remain related to Covid-19, and that it is still not known how well protected vaccinated individuals are from mild illness … [or] if you’re vaccinated, could you still be contagious to other people.”

Vaccinated Patients Flood Hospitals Around the World

The U.K. data showing the Delta variant is far milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 viruses deflates the claim that avoiding severe illness is a sign that the shots are working. Since the Delta variant typically doesn’t cause severe illness in the first place, it doesn’t make sense to attribute milder illness to the shot.

But if Delta is the mildest coronavirus variant yet, why are so many “vaccinated” people ending up in the hospital? While we still do not have clear confirmation, this could be a sign that antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is at work. Alternatively, it could be that vaccine injuries are being misreported as breakthrough cases.

Whatever the case may be, real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show a disturbing trend. For example, on August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.24 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.25

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.26

In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021,27 and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.28

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.29

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6, 2021, through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.30,31 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.32 The same was found in a British study, a preprint of which was posted mid-August 2021.33,34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Interestingly, a Lancet preprint study35 that examined breakthrough infections in health care workers in Vietnam who received the AstraZeneca COVID shot found the “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”

What’s more, they found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms. According to the authors:

“Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”

Not All Vaccinated Are Confirmed Vaccinated

As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s yet one more confounder. Just because you got the COVID shot does not mean you’ve been confirmed as having gotten the shot. You’re only confirmed “vaccinated” if your COVID injection is added to your medical record, and this sometimes doesn’t happen if you’re going to a temporary vaccination clinic, a drive-through, or pharmacy, for example. As reported by CNN:36

“If you are among the countless people who didn’t get the doses at a primary care doctor’s office, there may not be any record of the vaccination on file with your doctor.”

To actually count as a “confirmed vaccinated” individual, you must send your vaccination card to your primary care physician’s office and have them add it to your electronic medical record. If you got the shot at a pharmacy, you’ll need to verify that they forwarded your proof of vaccination to your doctor. Primary care offices are then responsible for sharing their patients’ immunization data with the state’s immunization information system.

Patient-recorded proof of vaccination is only accepted for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, not COVID-19 injections.37 What this all means is that, say you got the shot several weeks ago at a drive-through vaccination clinic and get admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms. Unless your COVID shot status has actually been added into the medical system, you will not count as “vaccinated.”

This too can skew the statistics, because we know the CDC ascertains vaccination status by matching SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance and CAIR2 data using person-level identifiers and algorithms.38

As noted by John Zurlo, division director of infectious disease at Thomas Jefferson University, “the lack of reliable vaccine records complicates efforts to precisely understand vaccine effectiveness and determine how many local hospitalizations and deaths are resulting from COVID-19 breakthrough infections.”39

We’re in the Largest Clinical Trial in Medical History

In closing, it’s worth remembering that the COVID injection campaign is part and parcel of a clinical trial. As noted by Dr. Lidiya Angelova in a recent Genuine Prospect article:40

“Many people are unaware that they are participating in the largest clinical trial test of our times. It is because World Health Organization, healthcare authorities, politicians, celebrities, and journalists promote the experimental medical treatments (wrongly called COVID-19 vaccines) as safe and efficient while in fact these treatments are in early clinical research stage.

It means that there is not enough data for such claims and that the people who participate are test subject.”

As shown in a graph on Genuine Prospect, under normal circumstances, clinical research follows a strict protocol that begins with tests on cell cultures. After that comes tests on animals, then limited human testing in four phases. In Phase 1 of human testing, up to 100 people are included and followed anywhere from one week to several months.

Phase 2 typically includes several hundred participants and lasts up to two years. In Phase 3, several hundred to 3,000 participants are tested upon for one to four years. Phase 4 typically includes several thousand individuals who are followed for at least one year or longer. After each phase, the data is examined to assess the effectiveness and adverse reactions.

The timelines for these stages and phases were not followed for the COVID “vaccines.” Most Phase 3 trials concluded by the end of 2020, and everyone who got the shots since their rollout under emergency use authorization is part of Phase 4 clinical trial, whether they realize it or not.41 And since the trials are not completed, you simply cannot make definitive claims about safety, especially long-term safety. As noted by Angelova:42

“When I worked at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) … I went to the course Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research … The first rule we learnt was ‘Clinical research must be ethical’ … All ethical aspects of clinical research are dismissed with the COVID-19 vaccines.

People should know that nobody can require such to participate in everyday activities like using public transportation, shopping, going to school and even hospital. People should know that they should not be punished for refusing to take the experimental medical treatments.

COVID-19 vaccines mass use and COVID-19 measures are an infringe[ment] of the Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”

Sources and References



How CDC Manipulated Data to Create ‘Pandemic of the Unvaxxed’ Narrative

Story at-a-glance:

  • According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House, and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” with 95% to 99% of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths being attributed to the unvaccinated.
  • To achieve that statistic, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June. The vast majority of the U.S. population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.
  • By Jan. 1 only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”
  • Natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. The reason for this is because when you recover from the natural infection, you have both antibodies and T cells against all parts of the virus, not just the spike protein.
  • According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants, but real-world data show it is actually weaker and far less dangerous, even though it does spread more easily.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House, and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

According to the official narrative, 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations are occurring among the unvaccinated. In a July 16 White House press briefing, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed: “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”

But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” “that statistic is grossly misleading,” and in an Aug. 5 video statement, Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.

Grossly misleading data manipulation

As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the U.S.population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.

By Jan. 1, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots, and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.” Keep in mind that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot. This is according to the CDC.

So, those receiving an initial dose in June, for example, won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, sometime in July or August.

By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental gene modification injection.

Selective pressure promotes the emergence of new variants

Here’s what Canadian viral immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle told Ingraham about the claim that we’re in a pandemic of the unvaxxed, and that the unvaccinated are hotbeds for dangerous variants:

“Absolutely, it’s untrue to be calling this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.

“The reality is, the nature of the vaccines we are using right now, and the way we’re rolling them out, are going to be applying selective pressure to this virus to promote the emergence of new variants. Again, this is based on sound principles.

“We have to look no further than … the emergence of antibiotic resistance … The principle is this: If you have a biological entity that is prone to mutation — and the SARS-CoV-2, like all coronaviruses, is prone to mutation — and you apply a narrowly focused selective pressure that is nonlethal, and you do this over a long period of time, this is the recipe for driving the emergence of novel variants.

“This is exactly what we’re doing. Our vaccines are focused on a single protein of the virus, so the virus only has to alter one protein, and the vaccines don’t come close to providing sterilizing immunity.

“People who are vaccinated still get infected, it only seems particularly good at blunting the disease, and what that tells you, therefore, is that these vaccines in the vast majority of people are applying a nonlethal pressure, narrowly focused on one protein, and the vaccine rollout is occurring over a long period of time. That’s the recipe for driving variants.”

Natural immunity offers far superior protection

Bridle also explains why natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. When you acquire the infection naturally, your body develops antibodies against ALL of the viral proteins whereas the COVID shots only trigger antibodies against one, namely the spike protein.

As mentioned above, when you have antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the virus only needs to mutate that one protein in order to evade your immune system. When you have natural immunity, on the other hand, your antibodies will recognize all parts of the virus, so even if the spike protein is mutated, your body will recognize other parts of the virus and mount an attack against those.

That SARS-CoV-2 works the same way other viruses do was shown in a Nature Reviews Immunology study by Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty, published in October 2020. The study, “Cross-Reactive Memory T Cells and Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2” argued that naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is potent, long-lasting, and very broad in scope, as you develop both antibodies and T cells that target multiple components of the virus and not just one.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, data around the world show vaccine-induced protection is waning rapidly in the face of new variants, and Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.

How dangerous is the Delta variant?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants. July 4, 2021, he told NBC News:

“It is more effective and efficient in its ability to transmit from person to person. And studies that we’ve seen where they have been the variant that’s dominated in other countries, it’s clear that it appears to be more lethal in the sense of more serious — allow you to get more serious disease leading to hospitalization, and in some cases leading to deaths.”

In a June 29 interview, Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it.

Remember, Fauci is not a clinician and has never treated someone infected with SARS-CoV-2. Other health experts and practicing physicians who treat COVID-19 patients disagree with Fauci’s claims, arguing that not only is the Delta variant not more dangerous, it’s certainly not more dangerous for the unvaccinated.

As reported by Ingraham in June 2021 (video above), there’s an evolutionary genetics theory called Muller’s Ratchet, which states that as an outbreak starts to peter out, the virus tends to mutate into a more transmissible form, but at the same time it grows weaker, causing far less serious infection. According to epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, this is exactly what we’re seeing. He told Ingraham:

“The good news is on the 18th of June, the United Kingdom presented their 16th report11 on the mutations — and they’re doing a great job, much better than our CDC — and what they demonstrated is that the Delta is more contagious but it’s far less deadly, far less worrisome. In fact, it’s a much weaker virus than both the U.K. [Alpha] and the South African [Beta] variants.

Spike mutations render vaccinated vulnerable to delta

Importantly, the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This, McCullough explains, allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs — but not those who have natural immunity which, again, is much broader. In a June 30 appearance on Fox News, McCullough stated:

“It is very clear from the UK Technical Briefing13 that was published June 18th that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant. It’s a very mild variant.

“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., has echoed McCullough’s sentiments. The Defender quotes Hooker:

“What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101. Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too. For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.

The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus.

“Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

Real-world data show most of the infected are fully ‘vaccinated’

Real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of what media, the CDC, and White House officials are telling us. In addition to the British Technical Briefing No. 16, cited above, we have additional data from Israel, Scotland, Massachusetts, and Gibraltar:

  • Aug.1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated. Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, on Aug. 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall. As of Aug. 2, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection, which is used exclusively in Israel; 62.2% had received two doses.

  • In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.
  • A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated. Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected. This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

  • In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1.

While those who benefit from keeping the pandemic going would like you to cower in fear at the thought of the Delta variant, there’s really no evidence that it’s any worse than the original. It’s more transmissible, yes, but far less dangerous, as its primary symptoms are that of a regular cold.

According to Harvard and Stanford professors, the actual number of Americans dying from or with COVID-19 are actually at an all-time low, so alarmism is uncalled for.

And, as for viral social media posts by doctors and nurses claiming hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated COVID patients, don’t believe them. Most are bots. We’ve repeatedly seen evidence that fearmongering is being spread not by real people but by fake accounts run by artificial intelligence. This includes blue check accounts. Here’s a sampling of recent bot farm tweets trying to scare everyone:

Fear tweets

Fear tweets

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious But Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine saying the shot has been linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a “serious but rare” autoimmune disorder. The Washington Post attributed the news to “four individuals familiar with the situation.”

According to The New York Times, the chances of developing GBS after receiving the J&J shot is three to five times higher than would be expected in the general population in the U.S.

About 100 preliminary reports in the U.S. of GBS have been detected after receiving J&J’s vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement to CNN today. Most cases were reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men 50 and older.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to discuss the GBS cases during an upcoming meeting, the CDC said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

While the cause of GBS is not fully known, it often follows infection with a virus and has been linked to other vaccines.

The FDA has concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any danger but will include the proviso in fact sheets about the drug for providers and patients.

“It’s not surprising to find these types of adverse events associated with vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former acting chief scientist at the FDA. The data collected so far by the FDA, Borio said, suggest the vaccine’s benefits “continue to vastly outweigh the risks.”

Reports of GBS are rare, the CDC said, “but do likely indicate a small possible risk of this side effect following” the J&J vaccine.

Federal officials identified the 100 suspected cases of GBS among recipients of the J&J shot through the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — a federal monitoring system that relies on patients and health care providers to report adverse effects of vaccines.

According to the most recent data from VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 2, there were 398 reports of GBS with 187 cases attributed to Pfizer, 159 to Moderna, and 76 cases to J&J.

No link has been found between GBS and mRNA COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna despite reports in VAERS.

The VAERS database indicates the onset of GBS symptoms after the J&J vaccine within about three weeks of vaccination, The New York Times reported. One recipient, a 57-year-old man from Delaware who had suffered both a heart attack and a stroke within the last four years, died in early April after he was vaccinated and developed GBS.

As The Defender reported July 8, a third-grade teacher-developed GBS three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. Stacie [last name unknown] went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room. Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

In April, The Defender reported on a Texas teenager diagnosed with GBS a few weeks after his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The teen said he believed the vaccine was to blame, according to a local Houston news channel KPRC2 report.

“I wanted to get the vaccine,” said Wyatt McGlaun, a high school senior from The Woodlands. “I felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to travel and enjoy my last summer before college.”

A few weeks after receiving the vaccine, McGlaun became weak and had difficulty walking. He was admitted to CHI St. Luke’s Health where he was diagnosed with GBS. News reports did not disclose which vaccine the teen received.

J&J linked to blood-clotting disorders

This is the second time J&J’s COVID vaccine has been linked to a severe adverse reaction. On April 13, federal officials temporarily paused the J&J shot after confirming health officials were investigating six cases of blood clots in the U.S.

During the April 23 meeting, the ACIP said it had found 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died. Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.

The CDC advisory safety committee said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh the risks and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

On April 26, the FDA amended its EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.




Pfizer to Seek Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Booster Shots — But CDC, FDA Say Science Is Lacking

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Pfizer announced Thursday it will seek Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August for the third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. The drugmaker predicted those who have been fully vaccinated will need a booster shot within six to 12 months of receiving their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But hours later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a joint statement by the FDA and Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) saying, “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time.”

The statement did not explicitly mention Pfizer but said: “a science-based, rigorous process” headed by the CDC, FDA and the National Institutes of Health would determine when or whether boosters were necessary.

According to the HHS statement:

“FDA, CDC, and NIH are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data, and cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively.”

In a statement to CNN Friday, the World Health Organization said:

“We don’t know whether booster vaccines will be needed to maintain protection against COVID-19 until additional data is collected,” adding, “limited data [is] available on how long the protection from current doses lasts, and whether an additional booster dose would be beneficial and for whom.”

Scientists “applauded the statement” from HHS, The Washington Post reported, saying boosters were not imminent and the science isn’t clear on if or when they will be needed.

“My opinion right now … is that current vaccination seems to be large‘ holding,’” said E. John Wherry, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. “But the companies seem to suggest their continued follow-up of their trial patients shows concerning levels of the waning of immunity. Not much of these data from the companies are publicly available yet. I agree we need as much independent data and assessment as possible on this topic.”

John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, said:

“No one is saying we’ll never need a booster, but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now. The decisions that are going to be made will be made by federal agencies.”

The HHS statement followed recommendations made June 23 by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices (ACIP). Members of the ACIP COVID-19 working group said they would recommend booster shots only if there were a demonstrated decline in efficacy — not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Dr. Sara Oliver, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. Sharon Frey, ACIP member and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School, said:

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time. There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Pfizer CEO insists boosters are needed

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

All U.S. pharmaceutical companies involved in making COVID vaccines are working on formulating and testing booster shots to prepare for the possibility, The Washington Post reported.

Pfizer argued that as antibody blood concentration wanes, boosters will be required to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus. This would quench the epidemic faster, the company said.

Pfizer said its vaccine’s effectiveness had eroded, citing two lines of evidence outside scientists have not seen in detail. This included an Israeli government analysis that showed reduced efficacy with Pfizer’s vaccine and the Delta variant and data from Pfizer’s continued follow-up of people who were vaccinated last summer.

“While protection against severe disease remained high across the full six months, the observed decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time, and the continued emergence of variants, are key factors driving our belief that a booster dose will likely be necessary to maintain highest levels of protection,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer said it would submit data to regulators within weeks showing the third dose of its vaccine at six months caused antibody levels to shoot up to five to 10 times higher than the original two-dose regimen. Moderna announced similar data in May.

Pfizer motivated by profit margins

Less than 24 hours after Pfizer announced plans to seek emergency use authorization of a third dose, the drugmaker’s stock was up 1.6%.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that it’s current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

“Now, let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price,” D’Amelio said. “So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”

Pfizer said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants.




CDC Experts Disagree With Pfizer on COVID Boosters, Threatening Pharma Giant’s Billion Dollar Revenue Stream

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

As Pfizer makes plans to keep its billion-dollar revenue stream going — by assuring investors yearly COVID booster doses will be needed long after the pandemic ends — a group of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said there isn’t enough data to recommend COVID booster shots to the general population.

The COVID-19 working group of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) said on June 23, they would only recommend booster shots if there’s a demonstrated decline in efficacy –– not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may also be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Sara Oliver, M.D., a medical epidemiologist with CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Currently, there’s no evidence to suggest a booster is needed, the experts said. Boosters may be appropriate for special risk groups in the future, including elderly people and transplant recipients. To be sure, the nation’s top public health officials said they would continue to monitor the situation.

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time,” said Dr. Sharon Frey, member of the ACIP and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School. “There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Dr. Grace Lee, chair of the ACIP safety panel and professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, said she would like to see more evidence of breakthrough cases before recommending a booster shot.

“I would want greater certainty on the safety data if we’re talking about boosting before it’s clear what the risk data will look like,” Lee said. “If we’re seeing severe breakthrough cases then I think the decision-making moves forward even if there’s uncertainty with the safety data.”

CDC expert recommendations threaten Pfizer profits

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer executives have assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need — a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant, Fierce Pharma reported.

No one is completely sure when a booster will be needed, but it’s possible that some of those who were vaccinated early on may need an extra jab as early as September, or roughly 8 to 12 months after their initial regimen, CEO Albert Bourla told Axios in May.

Pfizer has argued that boosters would be required “as antibody blood concentration wanes to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus and thus quench the epidemic faster,” the Bernstein analysts, led by Ronny Gal, wrote to clients. That’s not the industry’s standard, and it’s also not what the CDC’s ACIP suggested at its meeting on June 23, analysts wrote.

A Pfizer spokesperson told Fierce Pharma the company’s “current thinking is that until we see a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 circulation and COVID-19 disease, we think it is possible that a third dose, a boost of our vaccine, could be needed to help provide protection against COVID-19,” subject to regulatory approval.

Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is already the second-highest revenue-generating drug in the world, with a projected revenue forecast of $26 billion in 2021 alone — a 70% increase in its originally projected profits.

The forecast is based on contracts to deliver 1.6 billion vaccine doses this year. The company expects to sign more deals for this year and is in supply talks with several countries for 2022 and beyond.

During an investor conference in March, Pfizer’s CFO Frank D’Amelio said the company sees “significant opportunity” for its COVID vaccine once the market shifts from a “pandemic situation to an endemic situation.”

At that point “factors like efficacy, booster ability, the clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine,” D’Amelio told the analyst.

During the Barclays’ Global Health Conference in March, D’Amelio said the company doesn’t see this as a one-time event, but “as something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.”

Bourla said a third dose of the company’s COVID vaccine was “likely” to be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations.

“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected.”

Like Pfizer, Moderna’s chief commercial officer, Corinne M. Le Goff said during a call with investors in April that Americans could start getting booster shots of its vaccine later this year to protect against COVID variants.

“It is likely that the countries that have already achieved high vaccine coverage are going to be ready to shift their focus to boosters in 2022, and possibly even starting at the end of this year,” Le Goff said.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has said its vaccine will probably need to be given annually, despite being heavily marketed to consumers as a one-dose vaccine.

As The Defender reported in May, pharmaceutical companies and their CEOs have made billions from COVID vaccines, massive compensation packages, and questionable stock sales while reassuring investors that plans were underway for boosters and annual shots.




COVID Vaccine Manufacturer Ordered to Pay $263 Million for Role in Largest Overdose Epidemic in History

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Despite the state spending thousands of dollars a second – ticketing, kidnapping, caging, and killing evil drug users, the rate of lethal drug overdoses in the last 15 years has skyrocketed at near-exponential rates. According to the most recent data on overdose deaths, despite the state’s immoral war on drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 92,000 Americans died of an overdose in the 12-month span ending in November — the highest number ever recorded. To understand how we got to this point, we have to look at how Americans became so addicted to opioids. Spoiler alert, it was not by chance.

Across the board, drug use and deaths associated with drug use have increased at alarming rates. No amount of AR-15s, SWAT police, MRAPs, or any other military gear has had a hand in lowering these statistics. In fact, the increase in overdose deaths nearly perfectly coincides with the increase in militarization of police in the last decade and a half.

Instead of deterring drug use, it’s been expanding, getting worse, and drugs have become more available and more dangerous. How did this happen?

There are legitimate needs for opioids just like there are legitimate needs for cannabis. But when people are taught their entire lives to blindly trust the medical industry, who clearly choose to deceive them, we end up with problems like we have today.

The government making drugs illegal does absolutely nothing when a person puts blind trust in a medical establishment who then deliberately addicts them to opioids to make billions. Even when it’s illegal, after these people have been duped into their addictions, they still seek it out. This is why we see soccer moms overdosing on dangerous black market fentanyl in front of Hobby Lobby.

They put blind trust in the government and medical industry to protect them and instead were turned out for a buck.

Drug manufacturers deliberately deceived patients and doctors about the risks of opioids, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs longer, and aggressively targeted vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and veterans.

One such company was Johnson & Johnson, which was ordered this week to pay $263 million to resolve claims it fueled an opioid epidemic in New York state and two of its largest counties.

“The opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc” across the nation, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Johnson & Johnson helped fuel this fire.”

Indeed, they did. According to the original $465 million lawsuits out of Oklahoma, J&J deliberately deceived doctors and patients about their opioid drugs which played a major role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yes, hundreds of thousands. According to the CDC, nearly 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses from 1999 to 2019.

Given J&J’s history is fueling the opioid crisis, one would be naturally skeptical of blindly receiving a vaccine developed by the same company in record time. What’s more, while the opioid crisis is bad enough J&J’s past is far more insidious than just opioids.

Johnson & Johnson also knew for decades their baby powder was tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and they kept that information from regulators and the public. A government-funded study from the mid-1990s found that Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer in rats and other studies have found an increased risk of cancer in women who used their talc-based products. The potential risks have been known to the company for decades.freestar

What’s more, in 2018, the pharma giant was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to thousands of victims who reportedly developed cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s products. In that case, 22 women alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contained the known carcinogen, asbestos, which caused them to develop cancer. According to reports, there are over 9,000 similar talc lawsuits against the company.

Currently faced with several major lawsuits for fueling the opioid crisis in the United States, Johnson & Johnson also has a history of bribing doctors and government officials. Even more disturbing still, a Reuters investigation found that J&J knowingly sold a baby powder product that they knew had asbestos in it, which causes mesothelioma.

When this information is brought up, those who report on it are fact-checked into oblivion. In April, we discovered that these companies are actually tied to the fact-checkers, providing a possible reason for such massive censorship.

According to their own source, Factcheck.org is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. According to the foundation’s 2019 financial statement, the project holds over $1.8 billion of stock in the COVID-19 manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, no one here is claiming that these vaccines will hurt massive amounts of people or that they will not be beneficial in stopping the virus. No one here at TFTP is telling anyone what to do in regard to vaccinations. We are, however, advocating for safety at all levels of this process. Nevertheless, those who promote vaccine safety are increasingly being treated as outcasts and lawmakers and media alike are calling for them to be silenced.

Skepticism is not dangerous, as the media would have you believe. It is necessary for producing a safe product yet Johnson & Johnson has a highly questionable history of operating procedures that are the antithesis of safety. It’s not just J&J either.

In 2000 the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001 Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs.

Now, the Washington Post is defending the same company in regards to the vaccination.

The pharmaceutical giant also paid out $2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

“Pfizer violated the law over an extensive-time period. Furthermore, at the very same time, Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts said at the time.

But that was only a single case, this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths. Despite making the largest payout in history, Pfizer has continued to be called to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines.

If we applied the “three-strike” rule to these companies as we do to individuals, they would be in prison for life. Instead, they are receiving tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to help push their fast-tracked vaccines on Americans.

Are we supposed to forget the track record of these companies who deliberately misled regulators about the hazards of their products, knowingly contributing to the deaths of more than 125 people? Or who experimented on children? Or who has paid out hundreds of millions in settlements for the deaths of scores of patients?

The fact is that these companies have track records that include bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them.

The ability of Americans to forget the pasts of these companies and blindly line up for a jab that has set off a historical number of adverse reaction reports to the CDC’s VAERS database is uncanny. Yet those who question it are silenced. This is the state of “science” in the modern world.

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
  • The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
  • Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
  • According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86%
  • Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten a EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.

One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up the viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.

Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher, and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.

Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings, and real-world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6

Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7

Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).

Two months later, on March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with a high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.

(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)

Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021, in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8

“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.

Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”

World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin

Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.

Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.

Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for the standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.

Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11

Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored

If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.

Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.

His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”

The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements, and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17

“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.

In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.

The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.

The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”

FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22

As noted by the FLCCC:23

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

  • I-MASK+24 — prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
  • I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
  • I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for the long-haul syndrome

In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.

This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death

The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow-up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicates that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to their residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.

A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.




The Same Shady People Own Big Pharma and the Media

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard
  • Drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that leads the public astray and fosters fear based on lies
  • Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape
  • BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms
  • Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds

What do The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:1,2

“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.

The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.

The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.

A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”

Who Are the Vanguard?

The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.

Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021.3,4 Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded.5 As reported in the featured video:6,7

“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.

In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp.8 and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders.9 Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts, and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma

According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively.10 At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.11

Top 10 Owners of Pfizer Inc

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.

Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.

To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.

As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report12 “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.

In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media

When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).13,14

In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.15,16

Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media

If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.

However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and that’s BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in,17 its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.

Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.

BlackRock and Vanguard Own the World

That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one.18,19 It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.20

BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of a long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet Inc.21 As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below,22 featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.23

Network of ownership by the Big Three in listed US firms

A Global Monopoly Few Know Anything About

To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.

How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:24

“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?

She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.

In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.

To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”

As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at top of the article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.




COVID Vaccine Secrets: What We Know — And May Never Know — About COVID Vaccines

Read Transcript.

Watch the full-size video on BitChute.

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Is the COVID vaccine safe? Has it been thoroughly tested? What are the long-term side effects? Is it even effective?

According to the video below, “COVID Vaccine Secrets,” the government, the media, and even celebrities tell us we must all get the vaccine, that it’s the only way to stay safe from COVID-19.

But missing from those conversations is an open and honest discussion about the potential health risks of the vaccine. How many people have died or been injured after getting the vaccine? And why is it making some people sick? Is it because of the vaccine’s ingredients?

We may never know. According to the video:

“Nothing like this has ever been used before. This is not a vaccine. Vaccines are where a microorganism, such as a virus, is pumped into the body at a small dose so your immune system can respond and begin making antibodies. That’s the theory, anyway. But that’s not what these shots do.”

The COVID shot is a synthetic mRNA vaccine. Once injected into your body, tiny nanoparticles punch holes in your cells to disperse the synthetic mRNA. This process tells your body to make parts of the COVID-19 virus.

“It’s like hacking a computer,” notes the video. “But instead of your computer, they’re hacking your body to make part of a virus.” According to the video:

“The COVID injection bypasses your DNA, the same way a hacker bypasses the security firewall of a computer. The computer hacker spreads a virus. The injection hacker makes part of the virus. But you’re not a machine. So how can you be sure that it’s safe and that the only code they’re uploading into your cells is the code supposedly to fight COVID-19?”

The video also asks: Have these experimental COVID vaccines been rigorously tested for safety? The answer is no. According to the video:

  • No studies were done to see how the injection reacts with other drugs you might be taking.
  • No toxicity studies were done on a single dose.
  • No toxicokinetic studies have been done with the vaccine to see what happens to these chemicals once they are in your body.
  • No genotoxicity studies were done to see what happens to your DNA.
  • No carcinogenicity studies were performed to determine if the substances in the vaccine cause cancer.
  • No studies were done on how the vaccine affects prenatal and postnatal development in moms or newborns.
  • No studies were done to find out what happens when couples get the injection and any subsequent children they may have who will also receive the shot.

Children’s Health Defense provides links to sources backing up all of the facts outlined in the video.

 




Dr. Mercola’s Attackers Sued for Role in ‘Crime of the Century’, Deceptive Opioid Marketing

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Between September 2019 and September 2020 alone, opioid overdoses killed 87,000 Americans — a new record-high
  • Various court cases have demonstrated how Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, systematically misled doctors about the drug’s addictiveness to drive up sales, resulting in an avalanche of opioid addiction and subsequent deaths
  • The Massachusetts attorney general is now suing Purdue’s PR firm, Publicis Health, for its role in creating Purdue’s deceptive marketing
  • Publicis is accused of placing illegal advertisements for OxyContin in the electronic medical records of patients and creating training materials for Purdue sales reps on how to combat doctor’s objections to the drugs
  • Publicis also developed strategies to counter opioid guidelines issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and created “patient stories” to “humanize” the OxyContin brand and counter negative press about addiction risks

In previous articles, I’ve discussed the central role false advertising played in the creation of the opioid crisis.1

To recap, a single paragraph in a 1980 letter to the editor2,3 (not a study) in The New England Journal of Medicine — which stated that narcotic addiction in patients with no history of addiction was very rare — became the basis of a drug marketing campaign that has since led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people or four times the number of Americans killed in Vietnam.

Between September 2019 and September 2020 alone, opioid overdoses killed a staggering 87,000 Americans — a new record-high.4

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, used this letter to the editor as the basis for its claim that opioid addiction affects fewer than 1% of patients treated with the drugs. In reality, opioids have a very high rate of addiction, have not been proven effective for long-term use5 and, in fact, fail to control moderate to severe pain any better than over-the-counter pain relievers.6

Various court cases have demonstrated how Purdue systematically misled doctors about OxyContin’s addictiveness to drive up sales, resulting in an avalanche of opioid addiction and subsequent deaths.7

Unethical to the core, Purdue also cashed in on the addiction trend it manufactured by secretly founding Rhodes Pharma to manufacture generic opioids,8 and getting into the business of creating overdose treatments.9,10

Facing an estimated 2,600 lawsuits11,12 relating to its role in the opioid epidemic, Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2019,13 as a way to avoid litigation losses. Just over a year later they pleaded guilty to three federal criminal charges, including violating a federal anti-kickback law, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, and violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.14,15

The company agreed to pay $8.3 billion in fines, forfeiture of past profits, and civil liability payments to settle the charges,16 but short on cash — having transferred more than $10 billion of the company’s funds into family trusts and offshore accounts17 — the company was dissolved and its remaining assets used to erect a “public benefit company” owned and controlled by the U.S. government.18 Future earnings will supposedly be used to combat the opioid crisis.

Purdue’s PR Company Sued for Deceptive Marketing

While Purdue’s owners, the Sackler family, got off scot-free, states struggling with the exorbitant cost of opioid addiction aren’t ready to bury the hatchet just yet. Instead, some are going after the PR firm Purdue hired to run their deceptive marketing campaigns.

As it turns out, that PR firm is none other than Publicis, a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a Great Reset. As detailed in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” Publicis appears to be coordinating the global effort to suppress information that runs counter to the technocratic narrative about COVID-19, its origin, prevention, and treatment — suppression and censorship that has been repeatedly aimed at this website specifically.

At the beginning of May 2021, the Massachusetts attorney general filed a lawsuit19 against Publicis Health, accusing the Publicis subsidiary of helping Purdue create the deceptive marketing materials used to mislead doctors into prescribing OxyContin.20,21,22,23 As reported by Yahoo! News:24

“The lawsuit alleges that Publicis ‘engaged in myriad unfair and deceptive strategies that influenced OxyContin prescribing across the nation,’ a statement by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office said. Those strategies were carried out through dozens of contracts between 2010 and 2019, worth more than $50 million …

Tactics included combatting doctors’ ‘hesitancy’ to prescribe the medication, and persuading them to prescribe OxyContin over lower-dose, short-acting opioids, thus increasing the risk of addiction. Massachusetts is asking that Publicis Health pay ‘compensatory damages’ of an unspecified amount for having ‘created a public nuisance.’”

Publicis Knowingly Promoted Over-Prescription

Publicis Health argues that its work for Purdue was entirely lawful and limited to “implementing Purdue’s advertising plan and buying media space.” Publicis also claims the specific activities listed in the lawsuit fall outside the statute of limitations.

Some of those activities included placing illegal advertisements for OxyContin in the electronic medical records of patients, creating training materials for Purdue sales reps on how to combat doctor’s objections to the drugs, developing strategies to counter opioid guidelines issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and creating “patient stories” to “humanize” the OxyContin brand and counter negative press about addiction risks.25,26

According to the lawsuit, one patient vignette featured a 40-year-old man who had his dose increased from 10 milligrams a day to 20 mg in just three weeks. It also claims Publicis was responsible for creating and sending thousands of deceptive emails to doctors, encouraging them to not only increase patients’ dosages but also to prescribe the drug to patients who were already on less dangerous pain meds.27

Publicis also instructed Purdue to target doctors who were already writing out dangerously high numbers of prescriptions, even in the midst of a raging opioid epidemic,28 all while agency executives gleefully discussed the record fees they’d collect from the Purdue account. A March 2016 email exchange reveals the Publicis subsidiary was expecting to make up to $12.28 million from Purdue that year alone.

Publicis Also Represented Addiction Center

According to the complaint:29

“Publicis helped create a public nuisance of opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. By design, Publicis’s schemes worked to counter public health measures intended to reduce unnecessary opioid use, because more opioid use generated more profits for Publicis’s opioid clients.”

Like Purdue, Publicis also cashed in on the opioid addiction it helped create by pitching its services to organizations working to end addiction. As reported by Forbes,30 the agency “won the account to work on drugfree.org after touting how it’s been ‘immersed in the evolving national opioid medication dialogue going on between pharma companies, the government and FDA, and the public via inside access as a trusted and informed consulting partner.’”

In an interview cited by Courthouse News, Amanda Pustilnik, a senior fellow on law and applied neuroscience at Harvard Law School who also teaches at the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital, noted that:31

“The story of the opioid epidemic is often misrepresented as a story of irresponsible patients and over-prescribing doctors. This prosecution gets at the heart of the matter.

Patients and doctors were not, on average, irresponsible. They acted under the influence of a concerted plan of misinformation and over-promotion orchestrated up and down the supply chain for these medications.”

Publicis Admits Role in Censorship Push

As mentioned earlier, Publicis appears to be playing an important role in the global censorship of information relating to COVID-19, and Publicis Health admitted its involvement in this agenda as recently as April 27, 2021. In a tweet,32 the agency announced its partnership with NewsGuard, “to fight the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation about COVID-19 and its vaccines.”

In short, Publicis Health is dedicated to suppressing any information that hurts its Big Pharma clients, which include Lilly, Abbot, Roche, Amgen, Genentech, Celgene, Gilead, Biogen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer, just to name a few.

Publicis is more than a partner with NewsGuard, however. NewsGuard actually received a large chunk of its startup capital from Publicis, as detailed in “New Thought Police NewsGuard Is Owned by Big Pharma.” NewsGuard, a self-proclaimed arbiter of truth, rates websites on criteria of “credibility” and “transparency,” ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information.

In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gatekeeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included.

Extensive Propaganda Network Works Against the Public

As detailed in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth” (hyperlinked above), Publicis is part of an enormous network that includes international drug companies, fact-checkers and credibility raters like NewsGuard, Google and other search engines, Microsoft, antivirus software companies like Trend Micro, public libraries, schools, the banking industry, the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum.

Mind you, this is not a comprehensive review of links. It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea of the breadth of connections, which when taken together explain how certain views — such as information about COVID-19 and vaccines — can be so effectively erased.

To understand the power that PR companies such as Publicis wield, you also need to realize that PR has, by and large, replaced the free press. In decades past, pro-industry advertising stood in stark contrast to the free press, which would frequently expose problems with products and industries, thereby serving as a counterbalance to industry propaganda.

When a free press with honest reporting based on verifiable facts actually does its job, ineffective or toxic products are driven off the market. All of this changed in the late 20th century when media outlets started relying on advertisers for the bulk of their revenues.

As intended, journalists quickly came under the control of advertisers, who suddenly had the power to kill stories they didn’t like. Today, news organizations simply won’t run reports that might harm the bottom line of their advertisers, and, not surprisingly, the drug industry is among the top-paying advertisers.

By further partnering with the “big guns” of media — such as the Paley Center for Media, which is composed of every major media in the world33 — Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to virtually eliminate your ability to get the truth on many important issues, including COVID-19.

Seeing how Publicis represents most of the major pharmaceutical companies in the world and funded the creation of NewsGuard, it’s not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard’s ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites. Being a Google partner,34,35 Publicis also has unprecedented ability to simply bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele.

NewsGuard’s health-related service, HealthGuard,36 is also partnered with the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive U.K.-based cancel-culture leader37 with extensive ties to the government and global think tanks that have labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as “threats to national security.”

The CCDH has also published a hit-list of 12 groups and individuals it wants Big Tech to bury, deplatform, and ban for disseminating COVID-19 information that runs counter to status quo propaganda. Not surprisingly, Mercola.com is on that list, and a ramp-up of personal threats that cannot be defended against in a court of law recently forced me to delete many of the articles discussing alternative treatments for COVID-19 from my website.

The Crime of the Century

If you get the chance, I recommend watching Alex Gibney’s HBO documentary “The Crime of the Century,” which details how the opioid epidemic was manufactured. In a Wall Street Journal television review, John Anderson writes, in part:38

“In Mr. Gibney’s two-part ‘Crime of the Century’ … the cinema is as exhilarating as the journalism is exhaustive. Still, the style remains in service to the story: how big pharma lied and bribed its way into billions of dollars while leaving death and devastation behind, through a seemingly conscience-free crusade to sell stronger and stronger opiates to more and more people.

It’s a success story, from the industry’s point of view. It’s also a story of villainy, with a catalog of villains — not just the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma, but their sales representatives; the U.S. congressmen to whom they made outsize donations … former prosecutors hired as lobbyists … and officials of the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration …

‘The business of criminal cartels and pharmaceutical companies are connected,’ Mr. Gibney says in voiceover — the very obvious example being the drift to heroin by addicts thwarted by the increased expense and reduced availability of opioids. The director then goes about establishing how and why that is so.

The default argument of Purdue Pharma and its defenders is that drug users, not drug makers, are responsible for addiction. But as the miniseries points out, the information that was fed to doctors and on which patients based the use of prescriptions — including the claim that delayed-action OxyContin wasn’t addictive — was simply untrue.”

Unethical Behavior Is Par for the Course

While Publicis is trying to downplay its role in what has been described as the crime of the century, the lawsuit against it will hopefully result in a reevaluation of marketing ethics. The agency, knowing full well there was an epidemic of opioid abuse underway, resulting in tens of thousands of premature deaths each year, took on the job of increasing Purdue’s profits by making that lethal trend worse.

Publicis claims they were just doing what advertising agencies do — they created promotional materials that boost client revenue. However, this argument circumvents any notion of ethics and concern about public health. They’re basically admitting that it’s all about making money, regardless of the cost.

So, even if their actions were within legal limits (which the Massachusetts case will eventually establish), their actions were immoral and clearly undermined public health.

They now want you to believe they are protecting public health by supporting COVID-19 censorship, but this too is working against the public good. How can you possibly make an educated decision about whether or not to participate in this gene therapy experiment if you’re not allowed to hear anything about the risks?

What Publicis calls “misinformation” is simply information that contradicts the propaganda being put out by the hands that feed it, i.e., the drug industry. History tells us companies driven by profit interest make poor truth-tellers, as negative information will clearly have a detrimental impact on their bottom line. So, they lie and obfuscate. It’s that simple.

Public relations firms like Publicis are mere arms of these notoriously untruthful industries. They do their bidding because that’s what they’re paid to do. To think that Big Pharma and paid propagandists are looking out for anyone but themselves is dangerously naïve.

It is ironic doublespeak that Publicis claims to defend against misinformation that puts the public at risk, while being clearly guilty of crimes against humanity, having played a crucial role in one of the deadliest health care schemes involving lies and deceit.




Why Does the FDA Get Nearly Half Its Funding From the Companies It Regulates?

By C. Michael White | The Defender

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.

As a pharmacist and medication and dietary supplement safety researcher, I understand the vital role that the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of medications and medical devices.

But I, along with many others, now wonder: Was this move a clever win-win for the manufacturers and the public, or did it place patient safety second to corporate profitability?

It is critical that the U.S. public understand the positive and negative ramifications so the nation can strike the right balance.

The FDA blocks Thalidomide

Americans in the early 20th century were outraged when they found out that manufacturers used poor-quality methods for producing food and medication, and used unsafe, ineffective, and undisclosed addictive ingredients in medications. The resulting Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 gave the taxpayer-funded FDA new authority to protect the U.S. consumer.

One of the FDA’s most shining successes occurred in the late 1950s when the agency refused to approve thalidomide. By 1960, 46 countries allowed pregnant women to use thalidomide to treat morning sickness, but the FDA refused on the grounds that the studies were insufficient to demonstrate safety. Debilitating birth defects resulting from thalidomide arose in Europe and elsewhere in 1961. President John F. Kennedy heralded the FDA in 1962 for its stance. An FDA is driven by the data — and not corporate pressure — prevented a major tragedy.

How AIDS changed how the FDA is funded

The FDA continued its work fully funded by U.S. taxpayers for many years until this model was upended by a new infectious disease. The first U.S. case of HIV-induced AIDS occurred in 1981. It was rapidly spreading, with devastating complications like blindness, dementia, severe respiratory diseases, and rare cancers. Well-known sports stars and celebrities died of AIDS-related complications. AIDS activists were incensed about long delays in getting experimental HIV drugs studied and approved by the FDA.

In 1992, in response to intense pressure, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. It was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer-funded entity to one funded through tax dollars and new prescription drug user feesManufacturers pay these fees when submitting applications to the FDA for drug review and annual user fees based on the number of approved drugs they have on the market. However, it is a complex formula with waivers, refunds, and exemptions based on the category of drugs being approved and the total number of drugs in the manufacturers’ portfolio.

Over time, other user fees for generic, over-the-counter, biosimilar, animal, and animal generic drugs, as well as for medical devices, were created. As time passed, the FDA’s funding has increasingly come from the industries that it regulates. Of the FDA’s total U.S. $5.9 billion budget, 45% comes from user fees, but 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities is derived from user fees. These user fee programs must be reauthorized every five years by Congress, and the current agreement remains in effect through September 2022.

Have user fees worked?

The FDA and the drug or device manufacturers negotiate the user fees. They also negotiate performance measures that the FDA has to meet to collect them and proposed changes in FDA processes. Performance measures include things such as how quickly the FDA responds to meeting requests, how quickly it generates correspondence, and how long it takes from submission of a new drug application until the FDA approves or refuses to approve a drug or product.

Because of the additional funding generated by user fees and performance measures that the FDA has to meet, the FDA is quicker and more willing to discuss what it wants to see in an application with manufacturers. It also offers clearer guidance for manufacturers. In 1987, it took 29 months from the time a new drug application was filed by the manufacturer for the FDA to decide whether to approve a medication in the U.S. In 2014, it only took 13 months and by 2018, it was down to 10 months.

Changes in more recent years have also increased the number of standard new drug applications approved the first time around by the FDA from 38% in 2005 to 61% in 2018. In diseases where there are not many medication options for patients, the FDA has a priority review process, where 89% of new drug applications were approved the first time around and the approvals were completed in eight months in 2018. All this occurred while the number of new drug applications has been increasing over time.

Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen the FDA provide emergency use authorization for potential treatments in a matter of weeks, not months. The infrastructure and capacity to review the available information so rapidly are due in large part to the funding from user fees.

While the number and speed of drug approvals have been increasing over time, so have the number of drugs that end up having serious safety issues coming to light after FDA approval. In one assessment, investigators looked at the number of newly approved medications that were subsequently removed from the market or had to include a new black box warning over 16 years from the year of approval. These black box warnings are the highest level of safety alert that the FDA can employ, warning users that a very serious adverse event could occur.

Before the user fee act was approved, 21% of medications were removed or had new black box warnings as compared to 27% afterward.

Some potential reasons that more adverse effects are coming to light after drug approval include senior FDA officials overturning scientist recommendations, a lower burden of proof for medication approval, and more clinical data in new drug applications coming from foreign clinical trial sites that require additional time to assess in an environment where regulators are rushing to meet tight deadlines.

Lack of money limits FDA

User fees are a viable way to shift some of the financial burdens to manufacturers who stand to make money from the approval and sale of drugs in the lucrative U.S. market. Successes have occurred and provided U.S. citizens with medication more quickly than before.

However, without careful consideration of what is being negotiated, the FDA can become weak and ineffective, unable to protect its citizens from the next thalidomide. There are some signs that the pendulum may be swinging too far in the direction of the manufacturers. Additionally, while drug approval functions at the FDA are well funded, the FDA is insufficiently funded to protect consumers from other issues such as counterfeit drugs and dietary supplements because they cannot collect user fees to do so. In my view, these functions need to be identified and require additional taxpayer funding.

Originally published by The Conversation.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




As COVID Vaccines Drive Record Profits, CEOs Get Ultra Rich Off Massive Pay Packages, Questionable Stock Sales

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

As pharmaceutical companies make billions from COVID vaccines and reassure investors that plans are underway for boosters and annual shots, CEOs of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson (J&J) are pocketing millions with massive compensation packages and questionable stock sales.

In his weekly notes to investors last month, Bernstein analyst Ronny Gal offered shocking revenue estimates for Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines — $24 billion in revenue for Pfizer compared with $14 billion for Moderna.

By the fourth quarter, Gal and his team project industrywide COVID vaccine revenues reaching more than $18 billion per quarter. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna shots will account for roughly $11 billion of that amount with the remaining revenue split equally between J&J, AstraZeneca, and Novavax, Fierce Pharma reported.

Pfizer’s first-quarter revenue report released May 4 showed $3.5 billion in revenue generated during the first three months of this year by the company’s COVID vaccine — making it the biggest source of Pfizer’s revenue. The company now anticipates revenue of $26 billion for its COVID vaccine, up from its previous estimate of $15 billion.

According to a February report by Accountable.US — a nonprofit non-partisan public advocate and watchdog organization that monitors public corruption — executives at five drug companies, including Moderna, Pfizer, J&J, Emergent Biosolutions (contracted to manufacture J&J’s vaccine), and Novavax made $250 million dumping company stocks during the first six months of “Operation Warp Speed.”

According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, from the beginning of September through November 15, 2020, executives and directors at Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax, and Emergent, who received government COVID vaccine funding, made stock transactions valued at a net profit of more than $105 million.

In February, Accountable.US sent letters to PfizerEmergent, and Moderna calling for the release of the 10b5 automatic trading plans used by top executives who made millions of dollars dumping company stock and requested CEOs freeze sales until the SEC could investigate and release updated guidance regarding automatic trading plans for companies receiving taxpayer funding and advance purchase guarantees.

Moderna CEO becomes a billionaire, top executives sold stock before key announcements

Moderna entered 2020 as a clinical-stage biotech company with a focus on messenger RNA technology. Now the company is one of three with an authorized COVID vaccine that could land them among the top vaccine players by revenue this year, CEO Stéphane Bancel said in January.

Bancel is 665 on Forbes’ annual list of the world’s richest people in 2021 and ninth on Becker’s Hospital Review of 35 billionaires in U.S. healthcare. Bancel’s net worth is $5.5 billion.

According to Fierce Pharma, Bancel received a pay package worth $12.85 million in 2020, up from $8.9 million in 2019, according to a proxy filing in March. The chief executive collected a salary of $950,000, a $1.9 million bonus, and stock options worth $9 million.

The total is far below what Bancel reported for 2018, after the company’s $604 million public offerings. That year, the CEO’s pay package amounted to $58.6 million, making him one of the highest-paid biopharma CEOs that year.

As Moderna continues to negotiate deals for its shot, it’s “not impossible” that the company’s 2021 sales could eclipse “the entire revenue of one of the four big vaccine companies,” Bancel said. The company “might be one of the top four, top three,” vaccine companies this year, he added.

In 2020, Bancel came under fire when he tripled the number of company shares to be sold through an executive stock plan that was changed just days after the company announced positive early results for its COVID vaccine.

The Moderna CEO sold more than 72,000 Moderna shares in July 2020, generating nearly $4.8 million. That was more than triple the 22,000 shares he had previously scheduled to sell during the same period through the company’s executive trading plan.

In the past month alone, Bancel has sold more than 79,000 shares of Moderna stock, with his most recent sale generating $2.5 million.

Moderna co-founder and chairman Noubar Afeyan has also cashed in on Moderna’s soaring stock price, selling more than $1.5 billion in shares since the World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

According to news sources, multiple top executives at Moderna adopted or modified their stock-trading plans just before key announcements about the company’s vaccine selling tens of millions of dollars in Moderna stock — even before the company had completed its vaccine trials.

“Once again, drug company executives have been caught playing games with their stock options,” Kyle Herrig, who heads the government watchdog group Accountable.US, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch.

Although no insider trading was alleged, the fact that the plans were changed during the pandemic as the news was emerging about the company’s closely watched vaccine raised questions about how Moderna executives pocketed millions of dollars in the early months of the pandemic.

Moderna’s COVID vaccine is almost entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers. Through its COVID vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna received almost $1 billion for research and development of its vaccine and up to $1.525 billion for delivering 100 million doses of its mRNA vaccine, with an option for another 400 million doses.

Pfizer CEO made questionable stock sales and millions off COVID vaccine

Pfizer paid chairman and CEO Albert Bourla $21 million in total compensation in 2020 — a 17% increase from his compensation in 2019 — as the pharmaceutical giant became the first to gain Emergency Use Authorization for a COVID vaccine, Bloomberg reported.

Bourla’s compensation package included a salary of $1.65 million, cash incentive pay of $5.49 million, and long-term incentive awards worth $14 million in the form of Pfizer options that vest over time.

When Albert Bourla officially took over as Pfizer CEO at the beginning of 2019, his total compensation jumped 82% to $17.5 million from the $9.85 million he made as Pfizer’s COO.

In November 2020, Bourla faced criticism when he sold $5.6 million worth of stock in Pfizer on the same day the pharmaceutical company announced its experimental COVID vaccine was found to be more than 90% effective, prompting stocks to sore.

Bourla sold the stock as part of a controversial 10b5-1 stock-trading plan designed to shield corporate executives from allegations of illegal insider trading. Executives are supposed to adopt these plans only when they are not in possession of inside information that can affect a company’s stock price. The timing of the sale, however, raised questions about what the Pfizer CEO knew and when NPR reported.

On Aug. 19, 2020, Bourla enacted his stock-trading plan, according to a disclosure to the SEC. The next day Pfizer issued a press release featuring “additional Phase 1 safety and immunogenicity data” and confirmed that Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, were “on track to seek regulatory review” for its vaccine candidate by October.

Daniel Taylor, an expert in insider trading and an associate professor of accounting at the University of Pennsylvania, closely monitored stock trades by executives at companies developing COVID vaccines. Taylor said the close timing between the adoption of Bourla’s stock plan and the press release looked “very suspicious.”

“It’s wholly inappropriate for executives at pharmaceutical companies to be implementing or modifying 10b5-1 plans the business day before they announce data or results from drug trials,” Taylor told NPR.

Now the second most lucrative drug in the world, Pfizer received a total of $2.5 billion in public funding for its COVID vaccine.

J&J CEO under fire for $30 million pay package

Shareholders at J&J approved CEO Alex Gorsky’s $29.6 million pay plan for 2020 at the healthcare company’s annual meeting late last month, making him the third highest-paid pharmaceutical CEO.

This was a 17% increase from the previous year and 365 times the company’s median annual employee pay of $81,000, according to International Shareholder Services (ISS) estimates.

Gorsky came under fire earlier last month after it was reported the company increased his salary and excluded from its calculation of stock awards roughly $9 billion tied to the company’s role in the nation’s opioid crisis and for litigation involving asbestos in its talc baby powder that caused cancer.

The state of Illinois, charitable organization OxFam, and several religious organizations filed letters with the SEC opposing Gorsky’s pay and urged shareholders to “vote no” on the pay proposal during last month’s annual meeting, CBS News reported.

Officials in Illinois said it was unfair to exclude the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical company paid to settle legal claims related to its role in the opioid epidemic.

Each year As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes shareholder advocacy on inequality, the environment, and other issues, publishes a report on the “100 Most Overpaid CEOs” that analyzes the amount of pay that should be expected with performance, actual CEO pay, amount of overpaying and percentage of excess pay. The results are calculated by HIP Investor, which analyzes CEO pay amounts to company financial performance.

In 2020, Alex Gorsky made $25,365,777, but based on a series of factors that assess financial performance, was overpaid by $12,122,321.

“I think [Gorsky’s] pay was excessive,” said Rosanna Landis Weaver, CEO program manager at As You Sow. “You have to treat one-off events whether they are positive or negative in the same way. He’s going to want credit for the extraordinarily good things that happen, like developing a COVID-19 vaccine, but that means he should also get a penalty for the extraordinarily bad things that happen as well.”

As The Defender reported on April 12, proxy adviser Glass Lewis also recommended investors reject Gorsky’s nearly $30 million pay package arguing the healthcare company is shielding its top executives from legal costs of poor business decisions.

Gorsky became CEO in 2012 and was at the helm of J&J during the opioid crisis, which claimed nearly 500,000 lives in the U.S. between 1999 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He was also CEO when the company was hit with an $8 billion jury verdict over Risperdal and was forced to pay $2.2 billion for off-label marketing and kickbacks to doctors and pharmacists.

J&J received $456 million in federal funding for vaccine research and development and more than $1 billion to expand manufacturing through Emergent BioSolutions in 2020.

AstraZeneca CEO under fire for a massive pay increase

AstraZeneca is facing scrutiny after plans were revealed to award its CEO, Pascal Soriot, a large increase in bonuses despite the vaccine being linked to numerous cases of blood clots, some of which resulted in death, and litigation over COVID supply shortages and losses during the first quarter.

Soriot has earned approximately £86m during his tenure at the helm of AstraZeneca since 2012. Under plans detailed in the company’s annual report, Soriot’s basic pay is due to increase from £1.289m to £1.327m, while his variable share-based award will rise from 550% of basic pay to 650%, signaling a payout worth up to £6.5m. His maximum cash bonus is slated to rise from 200% of salary to 250%, adding a further £3.3m.

The U.S. investor advisory groups ISS and Glass Lewis, as well as UK counterpart Pirc, urged investors to vote against the pay policy.

The Investment Association on Monday became the latest city shareholders’ group to put the company on notice of a potential revolt over its pay proposals, The Guardian reported. It issued an “amber top” warning — the second most severe in a traffic light system of alerts about corporate governance.

Neville White, head of responsible investment policy and research at EdenTree Investment Management and AstraZeneca shareholder, described the proposed bonus increases as “wrong and ill-judged.”

White said the pride of how AstraZeneca’s leadership handled the pandemic is tarnished by “proposals to once again escalate executive pay to heights rarely seen in the UK” and encouraged others to vigorously oppose proposals that will damage the company’s reputation.

“We will vigorously oppose these proposals and call upon the AstraZeneca remuneration committee to think again given this will surely damage the company’s reputation at a time when we should be focused solely on its achievements,” White said.

On Tuesday, AstraZeneca won approval for its CEO pay package, which required support from shareholders holding more than 50% of the firm’s stock. Investors owning almost 40% shares opposed it.




21-Year-Old University Student DEAD 24 Hours after Johnson & Johnson COVID Injection


By Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

The experimental Johnson and Johnson COVID shot has been halted by the FDA and CDC here in the United States, reportedly because “rare” blood clots were seen in six women following injections, resulting in one death.

However, reports coming in now show the problem is probably much more widespread than what the FDA and CDC are reporting.

As we reported yesterday, WLOX out of St. Martin, Mississippi, reported on a “young and healthy” father of 7 in Mississippi who suffered a stroke and is paralyzed and in the hospital in critical condition following an injection of the Johnson and Johnson experimental COVID shot.

Today, The COVID Blog is reporting the death of a young 21-year-old University of Cincinnati pre-med student who has died within 24 hours of receiving the Johnson and Johnson COVID injection.

Mr. John Francis Foley was a National Honor Society pre-med student at the University of Cincinnati. He made the Dean’s List every semester and volunteered for several organizations in his free time.

Mr. John Francis Foley voluntarily received the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot on Saturday morning, April 10 – two days before the CDC/FDA pause. He felt ill that evening, according to accounts on Facebook.

The 21-year-old college junior went to sleep, hoping he’d feel better after a good night’s rest.

But he never woke up.

Young Mr. Foley died peacefully in his sleep that night, according to his mother, Mary Beth Foley.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT HEALTH IMPACT NEWS