Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

FDA Grants Emergency Use of Pfizer Vaccine for Kids 5 to 11, as Reports of Injuries After COVID Vaccines Near 840,000

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | October 29, 2021

Data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 22, 2021, a total of 837,595 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The data included a total of 17,619 reports of deaths — an increase of 491 over the previous week. There were 127,457 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,624 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 622,743 adverse events, including 8,068 deaths and 51,532 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 22, 2021.

Of the 8,068 U.S. deaths reported as of Oct. 22, 11% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 27% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 411.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Oct. 15. This includes: 242 million doses of Pfizer, 154 million doses of Moderna and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

The data come directly from reports submitted to VAERS, the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:  

The most recent death involves a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Another recent death includes a 15-year-old male who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. According to his VAERS report (VAERS I.D. 1764974), the previously healthy teen complained of brief unilateral shoulder pain five days after receiving his COVID vaccine. The next day he played with two friends at a community pond, swung on a rope swing, flipped into the air, and landed in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed and told his friends “Wow, that hurt!” He then swam toward shore underwater, as was his usual routine, but did not re-emerge.

An autopsy showed no external indication of a head injury, but there was a small subgaleal hemorrhage — a rare, but lethal bleeding disorder — over the left occiput. In addition, the boy had a mildly elevated cardiac mass, increased left ventricular wall thickness and small foci of myocardial inflammation of the lateral wall of the left ventricle with myocyte necrosis consistent with myocardial infarction.

  • 58 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 539 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 531 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 125 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 22, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

FDA grants Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer Vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old, The Associated Press reported.

The announcement followed Tuesday’s recommendation by the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee that the agency grant Pfizer’s request. The advisory committee vote passed with 17 in support, and one abstention.

Reporting on today’s news, STAT noted:

“The vaccine was not granted FDA approval, but instead an emergency use authorization. Emergency authorizations are used when the secretary of health and human services has declared a public health emergency to more quickly clear the use of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tests. These authorizations lapse when the state of emergency ends. Pfizer’s vaccine was fully approved for those age 16 and older in August, and was previously granted an emergency use authorization for use in adolescents ages 12 to 15.”

The dose for younger children will be one-third the strength given to people 12 and older, with two shots given three weeks apart. Before the shots can be rolled out, the CDC must weigh in with its own recommendations.

During Tuesday’s meeting, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Committee heard evidence from Pfizer and regulators, and listened to concerns raised by multiple scientists and physicians.

Based on CDC data presented during the meeting, among children 5 to <12 years of age, there have been approximately 1.8 million confirmed and reported COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, and only 143 COVID-related deaths in the U.S. through Oct. 14.

Pfizer provided safety data on two study cohorts of children ages 5 to 11, both of roughly equal size. The first group was followed for only about two months, the second for only two-and-a-half weeks.

Pfizer said “post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis” in participants 5 to <12 years of age will not be studied until after the vaccine is authorized for children.

Pfizer vaccine ‘failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children,’ scientist says Brian Dressen, Ph.D., is one of the scientists who testified Tuesday during the FDA advisory committee’s 8-hour hearing. Dressen is also the husband of Brianne Dressen, who in 2020 developed a severe neurological injury during the Utah-based portion of the U.S. AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.

During his 3-minute testimony, Dressen, a chemist with an extensive background in researching and assessing the degree of efficacy in new technologies, told the FDA advisory panel Pfizer’s vaccine “failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children.”

Dressen said the decision to authorize for 5- to 11-year-olds is being rushed and is based on “incomplete data from underpowered trials, insufficient to predict rates of severe and long-lasting adverse reactions.”

Dressen urged the committee to reject the EUA modification and direct Pfizer to perform trials that decisively demonstrate the benefits outweigh the risks for children.

Dressen’s wife was severely injured last November after receiving her first and only dose of a COVID vaccine administered during a clinical trial.

“Because study protocol requires two doses, she was dropped from the trial, and her access to the study app deleted,” Dressen said. “Her reaction is not described in the recently released clinical trial report — 266 participants are described as having an adverse event leading to discontinuation, with 56 neurological reactions tallied.”

CDC updates guidance allowing immunocompromised to get a fourth COVID shot

Immunocompromised adults who received a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine will become eligible for a fourth booster shot six months after receiving their third dose, according to CDC guidance issued Monday.

“In such situations, people who are moderately and severely immunocompromised may receive a total of four vaccine doses,” with the fourth coming at least six months after the third, the CDC’s new guidelines said.

In August, the CDC authorized a third dose of either Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna mRNA vaccine — but not Johnson and Johnson’s (J&J) adenovirus vaccine — for certain immunocompromised people 18 and older.

However, a third dose is now considered part of the primary series, rather than a booster. The earliest that immunocompromised people who received a third mRNA vaccine shot can get a fourth shot as a booster would be February.

The agency said people could select that booster from any of the three COVID vaccines available in the U.S, including J&J, but specified a fourth dose of Moderna’s vaccine should be half the size of a normal dose.

Double-vaccinated can still spread the virus at home

Fully vaccinated people are catching COVID and passing it on to those they live with, warn experts in the UK. A British study published in the Lancet Oct. 29, showed individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.

Even if they are asymptomatic or have few symptoms, the chance of transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%. This drops to one in four, or 25%, if housemates are also fully vaccinated.

“By carrying out repeated and frequent sampling from contacts of COVID-19 cases, we found that vaccinated people can contract and pass on an infection within households, including to vaccinated household members,” said Dr. Anika Singanayagam, co-lead author of the study.

“Our findings provide important insights into … why the Delta variant is continuing to cause high COVID-19 case numbers around the world, even in countries with high vaccination rates.

Vaccinated contacts who tested positive for COVID on average received their shots longer ago than those who tested negative, which the authors said was evidence of waning immunity and supported the need for booster shots.

Neil Ferguson, an Imperial epidemiologist, said the transmissibility of Delta meant that it was unlikely Britain would reach herd immunity for long.

“That may happen in the next few weeks: If the epidemic’s current transmission peaks and then starts declining, we have by definition in some sense reached herd immunity, but it is not going to be a permanent thing,” Ferguson told reporters.

16-year-old girl develops severe vulvar ulcers after second Pfizer shot

case report published Oct. 25 in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology revealed a new potential novel side effect of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine that doctors say warrant further investigation.

According to the report, a 16-year-old non-sexually active female presented to the pediatric gynecology clinic with vaginal pain six days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine, the girl developed fever, fatigue, myalgias and “sores” in her vaginal area. Over the next two days, right-sided lesions in her vaginal area coalesced and became more painful. The teen went to the urgent care with a fever of 105 degrees. She was diagnosed with a Bartholin gland abscess.

Despite antibiotic therapy, her symptoms worsened and her lesions were covered in exudate with a necrotic, ring-like border. In the gynecology clinic, the patient’s lesions were exquisitely painful, resulting in difficulty with urination, defecation and walking. She had no respiratory symptoms and no history of COVID exposure.

The report said the findings “were consistent with vulvar aphthous ulcers in association with influenza-like symptoms following Pfizer BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination.”

“Our patient had typical clinical features of aphthous ulcer, including an influenza-like prodrome and characteristic dermatologic manifestations which occurred after receiving the Pfizer COVID vaccine,” the authors wrote. According to the report, the girl’s case was submitted to VAERS “due to the temporal relationship with COVID vaccine administration.”

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Covid Test Swabs Found Contaminated With Aluminium, Silicon and Dangerous Chemicals

By Will Jones  • The Daily Sceptic • October 27 2021

A public sector trade union in Cyprus has called for the suspension of rapid lateral flow tests after analysis found multiple times the permissible trace level of ethylene oxide.

The analysis by Cyprus-based Food Allergens Lab found 0.36 mg/kg of ethylene oxide in one swab, over seven times the limit of 0.05 mg/kg imposed by E.U. regulations.

According to the European Chemicals Agency, ethylene oxide is toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic, including when inhaled. It is used to coat and sterilise PCR and rapid test nasal swabs.

A separate analysis by A-D Research Foundation in California found aluminum and silicon at concentrations as high as 7.25% and 14.06% respectively in some spots on PCR test swabs. The author, Peter Grandics, explains that aluminum and silicon can both be hazardous to health, and suggests this may explain the “rapid-onset nasal bleed and strong and lasting adverse reactions reported by the tested individuals”.

It follows concerns about why the bristles in LFT swabs so easily break away and remain in the body, as shown in this video.

As reported in the Daily Sceptic in August, Professor Anthony Brookes and Dr Kees Straatman from the University of Leicester put some material from a LFT swab under a powerful laser microscope and sent us the videos showing what they found. They explained:

To shed further light on the bristle structure of the swabs provided in LFD testing kits, we examined examples via confocal microscopy. The bristles were easy to separate from the swab itself, about 15 micrometres in diameter (the size of a large nucleus in a human cell), and clearly comprised an outer tube layer with an inner filling. The inner material does not seem to exude or flow or deviate from a cylindrical shape when the bristles are dissected, and so we would provisionally conclude this inner material is solid or semi-solid in nature.

In his paper, Peter Grandics is scathing about the standards of the manufacturers:

Our results revealed a disturbing pattern of noncompliance with regulatory requirements, combined with the lack of concern for the well-being of test subjects. It is ironic that the medical establishment that now strives to control human health is incapable of producing a safe and simple product in conformance with current regulatory standards.

Considering how widely these tests are being used and how often, Government ought to be taking much greater interest in how safe they are for human use.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments

Yale Epidemiologist Cautions About Child Vaccination

By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | October 29, 2021

The next wave of vaccination mandates will involve children. Since anyone raising concerns about this is considered an enemy of society, it’s been impossible to have a rational discussion about it.

Here’s what Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and the Yale School of Medicine had to say about it this week.

“As far as I can tell, it’s a top-down structure, and most doctors do not get their information by going back and reading the original studies and making up their own minds. They get fed the information from pharma reps or from what they’re told from societies. The conflicts are legion. So it’s no surprise that most doctors don’t pay attention and think what they’re told…

“If the child has chronic conditions that make their risk appreciable, then there is a reason that they should be considered for vaccination. Other than that, if it were my child, I would homeschool them. Honestly, I would organize with other parents to take them out of the school and create a homeschooling environment.

There is no choice. Your child’s life is on the line.

“It’s not a high risk. Vaccination is not a high risk that’s going to kill every child by doing so. However, it’s enough of a risk that on the average the benefit is higher for homeschooling than it is for vaccination and being in school.”

Martin Kulldorff of Harvard is saying something similar:

“I don’t think children should be vaccinated for COVID. I’m a huge fan of vaccinating children for measles, for mumps, for polio, for rotavirus, and many other diseases. That’s critical. But COVID is not a huge threat to children….

“They can be infected, just like they can get the common cold, but they’re not a big threat. They don’t die from this, except in very rare circumstances. So if you want to talk about protecting children or keeping children safe, I think we can talk about traffic accidents, for example, which they are really at some risk…. And there are other things that we should make sure [of] to keep children safe. But COVID is not a big risk factor for children.”

Kulldorff points to the experience of his native Sweden. Beginning with the first wave in the spring of 2020, Sweden “decided to keep daycare and schools open for all children ages 1 to 15.

And there are 1.8 million such children who got through the first wave without vaccines, of course, without masks, without any sort of distancing in schools.

If a child was sick, they were told to stay home. But that was basically it. And you know how many of those 1.8 million children died from COVID? Zero. Only a few hospitalizations. So this is not a risky disease for children.”

He concludes: “If you’re a child, even if you haven’t had COVID, the risk of serious disease or death is minuscule … So it’s not at all clear that the benefits outweigh the risks for children.”

Try discussing this with friends and relatives on social media, and you run the risk of being silenced.

We are not even allowed to discuss these things. And when in our lifetimes has free discussion been more urgently needed?

There’s no censorship in my group, the Tom Woods Show Elite.

Here we discuss important matters like adults.

If you’re in a position where you don’t need such a thing, you are among the lucky few.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

New York City’s New ‘Public Health’ Plan: Let Garbage Pile Up on the Sidewalks

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | October 29, 2021

In the name of “public health,” the New York City government this week has been telling city employees to take the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots by Friday at 5 p.m. or be fired, or as the city government terms it, “placed on leave without pay.” Plenty of city workers of all types upset by this attack on their freedom have been taking to the streets in large numbers to protest, often admirably joined by leaders of their unions.

Apparently, New York City garbagemen upset with their mistreatment have chosen to skip days of work as well. The result, detailed in a Thursday article by Jean Lee at NBC News is trash piling up in parts of the city as regularly scheduled trash collection fails to occur.

What to expect after the Friday deadline? Continued piling up of trash on New York City sidewalks, right next to where millions of people in the densely populated city live, work, shop, and play each day is a good bet. Lee quotes the president of the Sanitation Officers Association:

Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers Association, fears the trash pileups might foreshadow a possible worker shortage on Monday if vaccination rates among sanitation workers don’t increase by Friday. He said that the sanitation department has been moving to snow season shifts — 12 hours instead of eight — in anticipation of a possible worker shortage.

‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best,’ Mannion said.

But Mannion is skeptical and said that he knows many sanitation workers are “hardened in their beliefs” and will refuse vaccination, even if it means being put on unpaid leave.

‘I know more people are getting vaccinated, but is it going to change around 60 percent to 80 percent?’ asked Mannion. ‘I don’t know. I don’t think so.’

More and more people in New York City must be asking themselves which is a healthier, and more pleasant, option: (A) letting trash continue to pile up on sidewalks while 100 percent of garbagemen are confirmed to have taken the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, or (B) having trash regularly cleared from sidewalks while letting garbagemen choose whether they take the shots? My guess is that most people will choose option B, especially if the trash keeps piling up for weeks or even months on end.


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

22 Studies and Reports that Raise Profound Doubts about Vaccine Efficacy for the General Population

By PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | Brownstone Institute | OCTOBER 28, 2021

The evidence is pouring in that the COVID-19 vaccines are not as efficacious as advertised against the Delta variant that became dominant in the fall of 2021. The Delta is learning how to thrive. The evidence has further accumulated to show that the vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated, and the vaccinated are equally as infectious.

The gestalt of the findings implies that the infection explosion globally – post double vaccination e.g. Israel, UK, US etc. – that we have been experiencing may be likely due to the possibility that the vaccinated are driving the epidemic/pandemic and not the unvaccinated. We have been vaccinating against the wild-type virus that is no longer a pressing concern, even if the vaccine data so far suggests effectiveness for the demographic most susceptible to severe outcomes.

The data seems to suggest that the infection is 50:50 (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) while the UK is reporting 70% of deaths in the vaccinated (Delta variant) though there is debate on differential based on < 50 versus >50 years old. It appears that it is the vaccinated who are  getting infected and thus transmitting the virus at a far greater rate. This unravels the demand for universal vaccine passports.

The Marek’s disease (‘leaky’ non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing imperfect vaccines that reduce symptoms but do not stop infection or transmission) in chickens model, and the concept of the Original antigenic sin (if an initial exposure or priming of the immune system is sub-optimal (Eugyppius) e.g. vaccination with the 2020 spike protein epitopes, then the sub-optimal priming is basically “fixed.” That is to say, it prejudices the life-long immune response with re-exposure due to the immune memory or learning.

Here I present a combination of 22 studies and stories that underscore just how big a problem this is for the NIH, CDC, FDA, and vaccine developers. It certainly highlights the problems with vaccine mandates that are currently threatening the jobs of millions of people. It raises further doubts about the case for vaccinating children.

Cases in point:

1) Gazit et al. out of Israel showed that “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected.”

2) Acharya et al. found “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta.”

3) Riemersma et al. found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”

4) Chemaitelly et al. reported a Qatar study which showed that the vaccine efficacy (Pfizer) declined to near zero by 5 to 6-months and even immediate protection after one to two months were largely exaggerated.

5) A Siri reporting suggests that as high as 90% of hospitalizations in the US are among the vaccinated.

6) Riemersma et al. reported Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit (ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated). They found an elevated viral load in the unvaccinated and vaccinated symptomatic persons (68% and 69% respectively, 158/232 and 156/225). This implied no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of carriage and transmission (symptomatic). Moreover, in the asymptomatic persons, they uncovered elevated viral loads (29% and 82% respectively) in the unvaccinated and the vaccinated respectively. This suggests that the vaccinated can be infected, harbour, cultivate, and transmit the virus readily and can be doing this unknowingly.

7) Subramanian reported that observed increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination when they looked at 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. In other words, there is no clear discernable relationship (maybe a marginally positive association, where higher vaccination did not reduce the transmission).

8) Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh), looked at transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers in Vietnam, and their findings further ransacks the COVID-19 injection landscape and throws it into turmoil in terms of disastrous findings. 69 healthcare workers were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 62 participated in the clinical study. Researchers reported “23 complete-genome sequences were obtained. They all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers. 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”.

9) A CDC report by Brown in the MMWR (Barnstable, Massachusetts, July 2021) found that in 469 cases of COVID-19, there were 74% that occurred in fully vaccinated persons. “The vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”

10) Finland nosocomial hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients): “In conclusion, this outbreak demonstrated that, despite full vaccination and universal masking of HCW, breakthrough infections by the Delta variant via symptomatic and asymptomatic HCW occurred, causing nosocomical infections.”

11) Israel nosocomial hospital outbreak (also spread among HCWs and patients) both revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. The index cases were usually fully vaccinated and most (if not all transmission) tended to occur between patients and staff who were masked and fully vaccinated, underscoring the high transmission of the Delta variant among vaccinated and masked persons.

12) UK’s Public Health England Report # 42 on page 23 raised serious concerns when it reported that “waning of the N antibody response over time and (iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”

13) This UK report #42 (Table 2, page 13), as well as those reports 36 to 41, show a pronounced and very troubling trend, which is that the double vaccinated persons are showing greater infection (per 100,000) than the unvaccinated, and especially in the older age groups e.g. 30 years and above.

14) CDC’s Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the vaccines are not stopping transmission which is an admission limits vaccine effectiveness.

15) Levin et al. “conducted a 6-month longitudinal prospective study involving vaccinated health care workers who were tested monthly for the presence of anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies”…they found that “six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older….”

16) 40% of local Covid-19 cases in Syracuse, New York, are in the vaccinated.

17) Israel: One leading Israeli health official reported that the vaccinated are accounting for 95% of severe and 90% of new hospitalizations for COVID-19.

18) Suthar et al. examined the durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. They “analyzed antibody responses to the homologous Wu strain as well as several variants of concern, including the emerging Mu (B.1.621) variant, and T cell responses in a subset of these volunteers at six months (day 210 post-primary vaccination) after the second dose…data demonstrate a substantial waning of antibody responses and T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, at 6 months following the second immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine.”

19) Nordström in Sweden report on their study which shows that (cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated individuals) “vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07).”

20) CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s and Dr. Fauci’s call for boosters basically tells you all you needed to know, that the vaccine has failed to live up to its most elaborate promises.

21) Yahi et al. reported that “in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).”

22) Israel is prepping for a 4th booster shot; it reveals that the vaccine has not to live up to its inflated promise.

In conclusion, many people want the vaccine and they should be free to accept it as individuals. The public benefit of universal vaccination is now is grave doubt, and, as such, should not be expected to contribute to eliminating the social cost of the virus, much less be mandated by governments.


Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Nov. 3: Join the ‘Worldwide Walkout,’ a Global Protest Against Government Overreach

Children’s Health Defense

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Nov. 3 will join organizations and individuals in “Worldwide Walkout” by calling in sick or taking a personal day to protest the unprecedented loss of freedom that has occurred the world over since the COVID pandemic began.

Parents will also pull their children out of school for the day to protest the many restraints that have applied directly to children.

“No government in history has ever surrendered power in the absence of a demand,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “We need to tell these governments and their friends in the technocracy, the Silicon Valley billionaire boys club, the mainstream media and the pharmaceutical industry that we will no longer tolerate their trampling of citizens’ rights.”

Emboldened by reports of a recent walkout of Southwest employees — which led the airline’s management to drop plans to put unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave — nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers are expected to participate in the protest.

Coercive mandates of shoddily tested medical products and segregationist passports violate international human rights law,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland.

Holland added:

“We need brave citizens to peacefully refuse to comply with unlawful and unethical edicts that for the past year-and-a-half have been allowed to trump individual rights and freedoms. Those days are over. There will be no business as usual until segregationist and coercive medical policies advanced by government authorities end once and for all.”

Organizers announced the protest after the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on Tuesday recommended the agency authorize Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old.

The vote to recommend authorization of this vaccine, despite evidence that COVID does not pose a threat to young people, is causing even more unrest among those concerned with the safety of COVID vaccines in all age groups.

From mid-December 2020 through Oct. 15, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) received 818,044 reports of injury following COVID vaccination, including 17,128 deaths.

“This vote by VRBPAC to put young children at risk of serious injury, and even death, is one more reason people need to stand up to tyranny, and let businesses and governments know we will no longer comply with reckless decisions that threaten the health of our children,” said CHD Executive Director Laura Bono.

CHD chapterscoalition partners and local community organizers are planning mass gatherings of people in peaceful noncompliance to take place in high-exposure areas in many cities and states. Visit “Worldwide Walkout” for locations and details. If you don’t see one for your area, reach out to others in your community to plan an event. Choose a location that is easy to get to and can be seen by many.

Once your date, location and time are in place, tell us your plans so we can help amplify your message.

CHD.TV will carry live coverage of the day’s events.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , | 2 Comments

Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 1

By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | October 27, 2021

The people who none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate & business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”

They are the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) and while elected representatives are within their ranks, they don’t set either the agenda or policy. We need to both recognise who the GPPP are and understand the implications of their gambit. How are this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons and why should we resist them?

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policy makers mean by the global commons we can begin to appreciate the jaw dropping magnitude of their ambitions.

They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like ‘inclusive,’ ‘sustainable,’ ‘equity’ and ‘resilience’ are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.

While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), who orchestrated the chaos, have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).

This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.

laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID 19. This was planned.

The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by US President Clinton following the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.

We will need to consider UN Agenda 21 and 2030 in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources, but for now we can reference it to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will explain why politicians around the world have used it.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:

By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards… adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:

The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk;

[…] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership […] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels […] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation…

Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed.. and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.

“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post “disaster” reconstruction. It means the global participation of relevant stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships in order to implement instruments to achieve sustainable development. 

SDG 11 (b) was a plan to substantially increase the global number of human settlements adopting “build back better” polices by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.

Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – SCM – were devised by the World Economic Forum, who describe themselves as the international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP to seize the entire Earth, all its resources and everything on it, including us.

In order to control us we are being transitioned into a technocracy with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security and centralised control of the entire system has been established during, and as a result of, the pseudopandemic.

The news IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI or similar state payments) which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC.)

This will ensure our compliance, as Central Banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.

The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” How it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up the Earths resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.

Throughout the pseudopandemic the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Their Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

It is the self-serving belief that some special people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate “democratic” mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption.

The WEF have claimed the supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy. They intend to do this by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”

They have put themselves forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF are not alone in their ambitions, but rather the leading proponents for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of their self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.

The United Nations (UN) acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.

In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013 the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.

They wrote:

International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space… Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity – have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons… while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace… Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”

This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020 The Rothschild backed bank the Global Environment Facility offered a more extensive list of the shared resources all life relies upon:

In order to protect our global commons… humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”

That coalition is the GPPP and citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they agree to promote the agreed policy agenda.

In December 2020 the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept.

Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the development of Technocracy, he said:

To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken… human activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos… the recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity… It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it… We must turn this momentum into a movement…

Everything is interlinked – the global commons and global well-being…This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas… Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries… More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries… From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line…From classroom education to community engagement…From voting booths to places of work…

We cannot go back to the old normal…We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change… Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world – and with each other.

Again we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us, we are a pestilence that must be controlled; Covid-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same and everything must be transformed.

Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breath), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.

Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), where we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and system, education, the communities we live in and even our relationships, are all to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.

The “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything. All life, all resources, all land, all water, the air, the stars and all of us. It is their intention to have dominion over all.

The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. In June 2021 the WEF wrote the Case for a Digital Commons. Whenever they want to include something else in the list they use the language of sustainable development. It doesn’t matter that this makes no rational sense, the point is to sell the notion with the right buzz-words:

COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”

Now they claim the authority to rule the Internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the tax paying cash cows that will fund the construction of the empire:

In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress… Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems.. as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”

It is truly remarkable that a low mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation.

The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, the authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:

One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years… the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild… It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”

At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019 Schwab wrote What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want.

The “we” referenced in that title was not “us” but rather the GPPP, though the article assumed we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:

Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”

Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. It has a specific legal definition:

The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with our society. Many of us would disagree which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked. There is no justification for Schwab’s claim.

I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?

Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.

Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and their leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are just people, no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.

They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they imagine this is hard to say.

We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.

There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations. These incorporate global logistics, international finance and cross border regulatory alignment. These world-wide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few, senior board level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same.

However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.

However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader,” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.

Ida Auken

The title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that her article was not intended to describe her “utopia” and that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near term future:

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service… When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people… Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me… We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”

The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons) they will take care of us.

Why, is the obvious question. If they control all of the Earths resources, everything is free and AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly loosing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.

We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID 19 opportunity, a response to a set of crises which gives rise to doing “things differently.”

We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.

As Schwab noted, there was no existential threat. The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not a respiratory disease.

It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. However, when we look at Agenda 21 and 2030 an uncomfortable realisation dawns.

While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect.

The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet, it is that, in Agenda 21 and 2030, the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists.

Make no mistake, the GPPP intend to control every aspect of the Earth and our lives. That is the transformation they are working towards and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.

Combined with SDGs, while we have been preoccupied with a low mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP have not only started building, they have partly completed the new global monetary and financial system.

Once installed this will finalise their coup d’état and enable them to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.

We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part Two.


You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Nuclear States Unwilling to Live up to Disarmament Commitments: Iran Envoy

Al-Manar – October 29, 2021

Iran’s permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi slammed the states and regimes who hold nuclear weapons while seek justifications for not abiding by their commitments.

Takht-Ravanchi made the comments after the UN Disarmament and International Security (First Committee) approved the resolution presented by Iran on Thursday, according to IRIB.

“Unfortunately, nuclear weapons holders are unwilling to live up to their nuclear disarmament commitments and only try to justify that the necessary ground is not ready for nuclear disarmament,” the Iranian envoy said, as quoted by Mehr news agency.

He said that their justification cannot be bought and added, “They committed themselves to nuclear disarmament in 1970, and this is not justifiable.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a resolution the follow-up on the implementation of the agreements reached at the NPT Review Conferences of 1995, 2000 and 2010″, and was adopted with the support of a majority of the members of the UN Disarmament and International Security (First Committee).

In part of the resolution proposed by Iran, the implementation of the decision of the NPT Review Conference in 1995 to establish a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East is emphasized. The decision calls on Israeli regime to join the NPT and accept the International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

October 29, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 4 Comments