This investigative documentary begins its journey in the US Embassy located in Tbilisi, the capital of the former Soviet republic of Georgia, where reports are circulating about the trafficking of frozen human blood and pathogens under the guise of diplomatic cargo for a secret Pentagon-funded military program.
Internal documents, leaked to Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva by Georgian insiders, implicate US scientists in a highly opaque operation involving dangerous pathogens – carried out under the cover diplomatic immunity.
According to documents, the Pentagon has been funding a chain of bio labs across the former Soviet bloc, with one of the largest programs happening at the Lugar Center in Tbilisi. The military facility is just one of the many Pentagon bio laboratories located in 25 countries across the world. Watch:
Run time: 27 min
Writer and Director: Dilyana Gaytandzhieva
Narration: Patrick Henningsen Broadcast on Al Mayadeen TV (2018)
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Sunday told CBS “Face the Nation” a fourth dose of its COVID-19 vaccine will be necessary to maintain manageable levels of hospitalizations and mild infections.
The company plans to submit data on a fourth dose to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working on a vaccine that protects against all COVID variants for at least a year.
“I think we’re going to submit to FDA a significant package of data about the need for a fourth dose, and they need to make their own conclusions, of course, and then CDC also. […] to see that clearly there is a need in an environment of Omicron to boost the immune response.”
Bourla said a fourth dose is “necessary for right now” because protection after three doses of Pfizer’s vaccine is “not that good against infections” and “doesn’t last very long” when faced with a variant like Omicron.
Bourla said Pfizer is making a vaccine that covers Omicron and all other variants and is optimistic about the preliminary data he’s seen so far.
“There are so much trials that are going right now, and a lot of them we’ll start reading by the end of the month,” he added.
Bourla told CBS he foresees Americans needing to prepare themselves every fall for a COVID booster just like they do with the flu vaccine.
A third dose of Pfizer’s vaccine is currently available to anyone 12 and older who received a second dose at least five months prior to seeking the third dose.
Pfizer always planned for yearly boosters to boost profits
As The Defender reported Feb. 26, 2021, just two months after the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Bourla was already telling media outlets the company’s plan long-term was to have yearly vaccine boosters.
“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said during an interview with NBC News. “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.”
That will mean even more sales — and more profits — from the vaccine, reported WRCBtv, a CBS subsidiary.
During a February 2021 earnings call, Bourla told analysts, big banks and investors the company could make significant profits by charging higher prices and implementing routine booster doses for new variants of the virus.
During the Barclays’ Global Health Conference in March 2021, CFO Frank D’Amelio said Pfizer didn’t see this as a one-time event, but “as something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.”
At the time, Pfizer had already launched a study of a third vaccine dose to address variants, called for annual boosters and told investors to expect a revenue stream similar to that of flu vaccines.
The FDA said at the time it was willing to authorize booster shots based on small clinical trials, accepting data on how well vaccines prime the immune system rather than holding out for long-term safety and efficacy results on protection against COVID.
Pfizer said last month it expects 2022 sales of its COVID vaccine and antiviral pill, Paxlovid, to yield $54 billion, Reutersreported.
Pfizer said its vaccine is projected to bring in $32 billion in 2022 — a 13% decline from 2021 levels.
New UK data suggest vaccines aren’t effective
According to data published on Substack by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter, hospitalizations and deaths in the UK “remain stubbornly high and overwhelmingly occur in vaccinated people.”
Last month, 90% of the 1,000 Britons who died each week of COVID were vaccinated. During the four weeks ending Feb. 27, 397 unvaccinated people in Britain died of COVID compared to 3,512 who were vaccinated.
“Using a broader definition, which may include more incidental deaths unrelated to COVID infections, the numbers are even worse, with 5,871 vaccinated people dying compared to 570 unvaccinated. (The United States does not publicly provide this data; it is not even clear American public health authorities collect it comprehensively.)
“The report also shows for the first time that adults under 50 are now just as likely to be hospitalized for COVID whether they are boosted or unvaccinated. The report does not provide a similar hospitalization estimate for people who were vaccinated but unboosted, but based on the raw numbers it does provide, those rates are the highest of all.
“Meanwhile, new Covid infections have nearly doubled in Britain in the last two weeks, and now top 60,000 a day.”
According to data, even boosters appear to “offer no protection against hospitalizations in younger people,” Berenson wrote.
Pfizer shot for kids under 5 could be authorized by May, company says
According to The New York Times, more than 22 million people in the U.S. under 18 are fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine, but the number of people getting vaccinated is tapering off. Yet, there is still a demand to vaccinate children under the age of 5.
Last month regulators pressed Pfizer and BioNTech to submit preliminary results from its three-dose pediatric trial. The FDA was poised to begin vaccinating the youngest age group with two doses even though it did not yet have final results on three doses.
While it’s still not clear why the effort collapsed, data from Pfizer showed overwhelmingly that two doses failed to adequately protect against symptomatic infection.
“The data that we saw made us realize that we needed to see data from a third dose, as in the ongoing trial, in order to make a determination that we could proceed with doing an authorization,” Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, told reporters on a call.
Marks said he hoped the decision would “reassure” people the FDA was “making sure that anything that we authorize has the safety and efficacy that people have come to expect from our regulatory review of medical products.”
Asked about the situation on Sunday, Bourla said FDA officials were “very keen” for the company to send the data over but Pfizer executives were “a little bit reluctant to submit on two doses because we felt that the three-dose [regimen] is what kids will need.”
Bourla said data on how a three-dose regimen works for children as young as 6 months will probably be available in April, with authorization granted in May, “if it works.”
Pfizer asked FDA to waive reporting of some safety data
While Pfizer doesn’t know if its vaccine will prove effective enough for the youngest age group, the company says its research shows the vaccine is safe.
According to the most recent data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. — a total of 1,168,894 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022.
Of the total adverse events reported, 667,973 are attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine. Of the 25,158 reported deaths following COVID vaccines, 16,475 are attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
According to Pfizer data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the company applied for an FDA waiver to avoid recording certain safety data on the injections because the company claimed the VAERS system was adequate in revealing any safety issues with the injections.
In its waiver request, Pfizer stated VAERS is a “robust” system that is “designed to detect safety concerns with vaccines.”
Pfizer documents also revealed the company paid $2.87 million when it submitted its COVID vaccine application to the FDA, which has been reluctant to release the documents forming the basis of approval for Pfizer’s vaccine.
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.
UNTIL now in our regular MHRA adverse effects reports we’ve focused quite heavily on myocarditis and acute cardiac disorders, not least for the dramatically increased risk of the vaccine for younger age groups, young men in particular. In terms of numbers recorded, however, these are eclipsed by what the MHRA classifies as nervous system disorders and about which we hear little.
Adverse events for this ‘category’ now stand at an astonishing 282,041, which is possibly less than 10 per cent of the real figure, 182,251 of them associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Nor does the overall figure include the further 12,769 ‘tremor’ events. Eugyppius, written about elsewhere in these pages today, has been recording his readers’ reports of their adverse vaccine reactions. He recently reported the response, commenting on the ‘many letters describing shingles and Bell’s Palsy following vaccination; and of more puzzling and potentially more serious neurological problems, from vertigo to muscular tremors to seizures’.
We hope to be able to report on a breakdown of the nervous disorder data in weeks to come.
It’s high time the NHS, the MHRA and individual doctors came clean about what they have seen. We need to know about ALL the ‘coincidences’.
Here is the latest Yellow Card summary, a little late from us this week. Once again, overall deaths are up and overall reactions are heading for the half million mark. If this is only 10 per of the real numbers (as the MHRA itself suggests) I leave you to do the maths.
MHRA Yellow Card reporting summary up to February 23, 2022 (published March 3)
Calling the US a “hacking empire” of the world, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged Washington to stop “malicious” cyber activities following reports that American hackers subverted a network in China to launch attacks on Russia and Belarus.
“China is gravely concerned about cyberattacks against other countries that originate from the US and use China as a springboard,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters at a press briefing on Monday.
Zhao was commenting on recent Chinese media reports that hackers, mainly from the US but also from NATO allies Germany and the Netherlands, recently hijacked a Chinese computer network for cyberattacks, 87% of which targeted Russia.
“Against the background of the Ukraine situation, such a move may produce the negative effect of misleading the international community and spreading disinformation,” Zhao said, pointing out that “a former US senior official called publicly for launching cyberattacks on Russia not long ago.”
This appeared to be a reference to Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state and presidential candidate, who made the calls in an MSNBC interview at the end of February.
While Beijing doesn’t know the exact role of the US government in the attack, or if it is linked to the “long practice of smearing China in cyberspace” by the US, Zhao called for Washington to “adopt a more responsible attitude.”
Meanwhile, the White House said on Monday that the US has threatened China with “significant consequences” if it helps Russia in any way, during lengthy talks in Rome between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Chinese envoy Yang Jiechi.
Multiple Western outlets claimed over the weekend that Moscow had asked Beijing for military aid for the conflict in Ukraine. Zhao called the claims “disinformation” coming from the US.
In response to Western media reports that Moscow requested military aid from Beijing to conduct its operation in Ukraine, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China has accused US officials of spreading disinformation with sinister intent.
“The United States has been spreading false information against China on the Ukraine issue recently, with sinister intentions,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on Monday, answering a foreign reporter’s question on whether China will assist Russia with arms.
“China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear, and we have always played a constructive role in persuading peace and promoting talks,” he added. Zhao also called on the belligerent parties to exercise restraint and de-escalate tensions rather than fueling them, while insisting that all countries should push for a diplomatic solution.
On Sunday, the Financial Times reported that Moscow asked China “for equipment and other kinds of unspecified military assistance” to support its military operation in Ukraine. The report added that the White House was concerned “Beijing may undermine western efforts to help Ukrainian forces defend their country” if it chooses to grant the alleged request.
Earlier, Washington threatened to shut down Chinese chip manufacturers if Beijing assists Moscow in overriding US sanctions.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Russia has sufficient military resources to conduct the operation in Ukraine without requesting aid from other countries.
“Newspapers write a lot these days. You shouldn’t take it as a primary source. Russia has an independent potential to continue the operation, as we said, it is developing according to plan and will be completed on time and in full,” he stated.
The US and its EU allies have imposed unprecedented sanctions on Moscow in response to the military operation in Ukraine. Russia announced its decision in late February, following a seven-year standoff over Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics in Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to regularize the status of the two regions within the Ukrainian state.
Moscow has now demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join NATO. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
Pfizer’s Bourla says we need a 4th shot. Pfizer sold $36.8 billion dollars’ worth of COVID vaccines in 2021, making its vaccine the top-selling pharmaceutical product in history. Pfizer has estimated its COVID vaccine sales for 2022 at $32 billion.
Albert Bourla says we need a 4th dose of his magic money-making elixir, but his company is also working on a universal coronavirus vaccine (a 2nd magic elixir), which we will only need once a year.
Albert Bourla, PhD, CEO of Pfizer, said a second booster shot of the COVID-19 vaccine is necessary for protection against infection, according to a March 13 interview with CBS News.
Dr. Bourla said the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine provides protection from hospitalization and death, but “it’s not that good against infections” and the protection is relatively short-lived. Pfizer is preparing data for the FDA about the need for a fourth dose.
“Many variants are coming,” Dr. Bourla told CBS. “And omicron was the first one that was able to evade in a skillful way the immune protection that we were giving. But also, in all that the duration of the protection, it doesn’t last very long.”
… In February, the CDC published a study showing the efficacy of booster shots of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines waned after about four months, but still provided significant protection from hospitalizations during the omicron surge.
Dr. Bourla also told CNBC that Pfizer is developing a vaccine that will protect against all COVID-19 variants, including omicron, for at least a year. He expects to review data from trials on the long-term vaccine by the end of the month.
But Dr. Marco Cavaleri, a top regulator at Europe’s FDA, called the European Medicines’ Agency (EMA), says this may weaken the immune response. According to Reuters:
The European Union’s drug regulator on Tuesday expressed doubts about the need for a fourth booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine and said there is currently no data to support this approach as it seeks more data on the fast-spreading Omicron variant.
“While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy,” the European Medicines Agency’s Head of Vaccines Strategy, Marco Cavaleri, told a media briefing.
The EMA official raised concerns that a strategy of giving boosters every four months hypothetically poses the risk of overloading people’s immune systems and leading to fatigue in the population.
Cavaleri also said more data on the impact of the new variant on vaccines and a better understanding of the evolution of the current wave were needed to decide whether an Omicron-specific vaccine was needed.
“It is important that there is a good discussion around the choice of the composition of the vaccine to make sure that we have a strategy that is not just reactive … and try to come up with an approach that will be suitable in order to prevent a future variant,” he said.
The EMA said it was currently in conversation with vaccine developers in case there is a need for an updated vaccine but added that any such change would need to be coordinated globally.
Documentary evidence of Washington’s aggressive plans for developing and manufacturing biological weapons in secret US biological laboratories in Ukraine, banned by international conventions, has been uncovered during the Russian special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, and it is frankly horrifying! Although suspicions of such US activities have already been repeatedly published by many media outlets and their verification and official confirmation of such criminal anti-human plans by Washington was one of the goals of Moscow’s special operation to demilitarize Ukraine.
In this regard, the former weak position in bringing clarity to the exposure and suppression of such forthcoming US crimes is highly surprising. First of all, the international community and international institutions should have long ago initiated an independent inspection of some 400 such secret Pentagon biological laboratories scattered around the world, whose location in specific countries is clearly linked to the theatres of future US military action against “adversaries.”
The unconditional involvement of Britain, which has long collaborated with the US in the development of chemical and biological weapons, has also surprisingly been ignored in relation to such criminal plans.
Thus, the US Federal Contractor Registry shows that the Pentagon has spent more than $70 billion in recent years alone on experiments with deadly viruses and nerve agents at the Porton Down military biological laboratory, which is located near Salisbury in Great Britain. The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), led by the US Department of Defense, has funded a number of defense projects at this so-called “Defense Science and Technology Laboratory” (DSTL) at Porton Down. These include experimental infection of primates with anthrax, Ebola, Marburg, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, western and eastern equine encephalitis viruses, and poisoning of animals with mustard gas and phosgene. It is well known that experiments with LSD have been “incapacitating” British troops during exercises. The testing of chemicals on humans, however, was not out of the ordinary for Porton Down. According to El Pais, in 1963 Porton Down staff decided to test the vulnerability of public infrastructure to chemical and biological attacks by spreading a bacterium on the London Underground, which was initially thought to be harmless but turned out to be quite capable of causing septicemia.
The DTRA has full access to all scientific and technical developments at the Porton Down “laboratory.” Such experiments involving animals are considered secret in Great Britain and it is a criminal offence under Chapter 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to reveal information about such experiments.
According to information received by the media, military experiments with chemical and biological weapons have increased at Porton Down in recent years. Thus, between 2005 and 2016, 122,000 animals were infected with deadly viruses or poisoned with chemicals. The “laboratory” uses mice, guinea pigs, rats, piglets, ferrets, sheep and monkeys in its research.
It is also known that British military “scientists” received funding from the DTRA to develop a chemical testing system from 2012 to 2017, with experiments on the effects of VX and VM poisoning agents being conducted at Porton Down in 2015.
In 2013, scientists from Porton Down sprayed gas on the London Underground, which the British government tried to keep quiet about and not tell its citizens. At the time, thousands of persons were gassed without their knowledge, and no one asked for their consent to take part in such barbaric “research” against their own people. Nevertheless, data about this is recorded in a British Home Office document, telling also about other programs conducted jointly by the United States and Britain.
Information about the UK’s Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) testing of the chemical poison VX on guinea pigs was posted on the US National Center for Biotechnology Information website on August 9, 2018. And on September 1, 2018, a report emerged on behalf of 10 more researchers at the DSTL about testing Bioscavenger, which is an effective delayed therapeutic intervention for VX chemical weapons poisoning. The DSTL itself officially admitted in mid-2016 that they were producing the poisonous substance and testing it on animals. The DTRA is a major foreign client of the UK’s DSTL. Between 2012 and 2017, British military scientists received $39.7 million for the Pentagon’s chemical system testing program, and judging by the US Federal Procurement System, the DSTL and DTRA collaboration continues.
The Porton Down secret laboratory has repeatedly been at the center of scandals involving human experimentation. Up to 20,000 people participated in litigation with the DSTL from 1949 to 1989. And in 2008, the UK Ministry of Defense paid 360 veterans £3 million without admitting responsibility.
According to The Guardian, in the late 2000s, the US and Britain experimented with biological weapons in Afghanistan, using a specially bred fungus called fusarium oxysporum and pleospora papaveracae to kill poppy crops. In 2000, the international NGO Sunshine Project published a report on the danger of this fungus infecting and killing not only coca, poppy and cannabis, but also other plants in environmentally sensitive areas of Asia and the New World. An indication of the dangers of such fungi is the fact that their use is banned in the US. According to the Sunshine Project report, genetically modified strains of the fungus have been bred in the US, which means that the deliverables can be classified as biological weapon.
Given this information alone, the extent of Britain’s involvement in the possible development with the US of biological weapons already needs to be investigated in detail.
Washington should prove that the global network of biolabs funded by the Pentagon does not conduct nefarious research by subjecting the facilities to international scrutiny, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said during a daily briefing on Monday.
“If the US wants to prove their activity is benign, why not open those biolabs to independent examination by international experts?” he asked.
There are dozens of biolabs funded by the US through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) scattered throughout the globe. The US insists they act as early warning outposts collecting data on potentially dangerous infections in various parts of the world.
Skeptical nations, including China and Russia, believe the labs may also serve darker purposes by conducting bioweapon studies on behalf of the US. The work is allegedly conducted on foreign soil for extra secrecy, and to circumvent Washington’s international commitments to refrain from this type of military research, critics claim.
The network was brought back into the spotlight this month amid Russia’s military attack against Ukraine. Moscow released documents allegedly proving that Washington ordered labs in Ukraine to destroy samples of highly dangerous pathogens and other materials. US officials offered an array of explanations in response.
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland confirmed under oath that Washington gave instructions to Kiev to destroy lab materials, saying her government was concerned that the research could fall into Russia’s hands.
State Department spokesperson Ned Price rejected Russia’s suspicions that the US and Ukraine were violating the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which bans bioweapons. He accused Russia of breaking the treaty itself by running active germ warfare research, without offering any evidence.
US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield told a UN Security Council meeting called by Russia on Friday that the US does not support bioweapons programs in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed on Wednesday that Russia may be preparing a “false flag” biological or chemical weapons attack in Ukraine to further escalate the armed conflict.
Zhao Lijian said that statements from US officials about biolabs have been “contradictory and confusing,” and the lack of clarity causes concern for Beijing. The US infamously opposed attempts in the 1990s to establish an international mechanism to verify compliance of individual nations with the BWC, he noted.
Meanwhile, the US has “for decades” been “pointing fingers at every turn, accusing other nations of failing to comply with their obligations [on non-development of weapons of mass destruction], demanding they accept verification missions and even imposing sanctions on them,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
He added that Washington has double standards regarding international inspections when it denies transparency for its own research. He said the US should come clean about what the hundreds of millions of dollars – which it reportedly poured into Ukrainian biolabs – was spent on.
After a Texan court ordered the FDA to release the documents used to approve the covid vaccine the first 150 documents have now been published. These include the medical notes for a selection of patients at five different trial sites. Sonia Elijah has carried out part 1 of a forensic analysis of the patient notes and noted some disturbing findings, for a number of patients.
The story of patient 11281009 is just one example. Patient 11281009 was a white male who would have turned 66 years of age in 2020. By piecing together the entries in the system and the audit log querying errors in those entries it is possible to recreate a timeline of events (see below).
In summary, after two doses of either vaccine or placebo by 9th August, he presented to the emergency room with cough and shortness of breath. This presentation was recorded as suspected covid. He had a myocardial infarction and developed a pneumonia during his stay. No details of covid testing were recorded but the family reported a single negative test taken during his hospital stay. He was discharged home where he died sometime between the end of October and beginning of February. No explanation was given for why hospital treatment was abandoned; remember you had to be “healthy” to enroll in the trial. The death certificate was said to have recorded the cause of death as “pneumonia”.
His last contact with the trial site was 16th September 2020. The trial protocol included participants having an app on their device to enter any covid-like symptoms but there is no entry of this in trial medical record. His family phoned the site on or around 8th December and relayed the details of his last weeks. These were entered in a “potential covid 19 form” by the site. However, the date of this entry was after death. For this reason all the details of the clinician’s concerns around him having had covid were expunged retrospectively from his records in the trial.
To reiterate, this patient had a cough, shortness of breath and presented to hospital with suspected covid, developed pneumonia, died of it and all records of this presentation except hospitalisation then death from “due to infection” were removed from the trial.
The inability to ensure accurate records are kept and to test people with suspected covid raises real concerns about the accuracy of the trial data. Even after 6 months, up to March 2021, only 2.2% of people enrolled in the trial were said to have had covid. However, there were 3410cases of “suspected covid” (7.3% of the vaccine arm and 8.4% of the placebo arm). For comparison, Public Health England estimated that 15% of the population had had covid over the year up to end of March 2021, based on antibody testing which may underestimate the total. Why enroll 44,000 people into a trial and then fail to diagnose the disease of interest? How much bias was introduced by failure to test?
We recommend you read the timeline of events below. It tells a disquieting story and as yet, we do not know how many other details of the trial might ultimately be seen as ‘troubling’ at best. With billions of dollars at stake, involving the company who once paid a fine of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion of which was a criminal fine, let us not be naive enough to think that ‘health and well-being of the nations’ was Pfizer’s primary goal in their rushed product roll-out.
TIMELINE
27th July 2020: Pfizer selects molecule for testing.
31st July 2020: He was screened, consented, enrolled, randomized, swabbed and injected with a first dose. This may have been placebo or vaccine. Something odd happened with his consent which was described as “unknown or N/A” (see pg 352) but marked a “obtained” eventually.
19th August 2020: He had a further nasal swab and received a second dose.
Nothing is then entered in the record until 8th December. When this entry appears:
27th October 2020: He had a Myocardial Infarction and was hospitalized. This was recorded as a serious adverse event. In response to the question “Is this event related to treatment?” was the response “Not related. Due to – other – failed cardiac stent.”
28th October 2020: The following day he remained in hospital with life threatening pneumonia. In response to “Is this event related to treatment?” was the response “Not related. Due to – other – infection.”
At some point between the end of October and 9th December 2020 the patient died at home (pg 333). The entry saying he died at home is still in the audit trail but the form where this information was uploaded is not present in the patient record. The cause of death was entered on 13th January 2021 as “pneumonia”. There is no record of the length of hospital stay or why he was discharged before death.
18th Nov 2020: Pfizer published a press release claiming over 94% efficacy of the vaccine.
2nd December 2020: MHRA authorises vaccine for emergency supply.
8th December 2020: Four issues were raised.
That the adverse event had been recorded as “fatal” but no death form was recorded (pg 349).
No serious adverse event number had been entered for either the myocardial infarction or the pneumonia (pg 345)
It was suggested that the myocardial infarction entry should be changed from a serious adverse event to a “worsening adverse event” on the basis that he had had a previous myocardial infarction in 2017 (pg 337).
It was noted that the serious adverse event had been marked as “recovered or resolved” in the safety database despite the death of the patient (pg 341).
9th December 2020: The file is marked as “discontinued”.
13th December 2020: The gentleman’s relatives telephone the centre to tell them about the lead up to his death (pg 301 to 303). It seems someone is unsure how to enter this information and is advised:
“Potential COVID-19 related PNEUMONIA should have please triggered a COVID Illness Visit irrespective of perceived etiology or clinical significance. Please complete the COVID-19 CRF forms. Please complete the potential COVID-19 Illness Visit CRF forms with all information available. Should be captured only on the SOD CRF form and a NASAL SWAB will not be collected. Please the data should still be captured on the appropriate CRF pages (as for any late data, we will still capture it and not ignore it) but a swab will not be required” (pg 345-6)
14th December 2020: The person wanting to record this information opens up a “potential covid 19 visit form”. The audit trail then spits out a complaint that no swab was taken, no sign or symptom form was completed and this form was dated after the file had been discontinued. Someone patiently filled out the explanation that the patient was deceased and these were not possible for each of these entries.
The audit trail shows that the data entered on this date included that the patient had a cough, shortness of breath but no loss of smell or taste, diarrhoea or vomiting, (pg 308) and had been seen in the emergency room (pg 324) for a “potential covid 19 illness” (pg 329).
31st Dec 2020: Pfizer released their NEJM paper of the trial results. No covid deaths were reported to have taken place.
19th January 2021: Query raised that the covid illness form was dated 14th December 2020 after the subjects death. The site responded to this saying,
“The symptoms were reported to site after subject’s death via subject’s family, per medical monitor, this data is to be entered.”
22nd January 2021: He was due to be unblinded in the trial and offered a vaccination if he had been in the placebo arm.
26th January 2021: The site were told:
“There cannot be a date later than the date of death. Please remove data from the COVID Illness visit and add COUGH and SHORTNESS OF BREATH as AEs… COVID_A visit should then be marked as ERRONEOUS.”
28th and 29th January 2021: Attendances for nasal swab and antibody testing were marked up individually as “not applicable” and then an entry stated that he had “withdrawn consent” presumably to prevent these repeated requests for more data.
15th February 2021: The site were told:
“For correct attribution of Pneumonia; please update AE term to COVID Pneumonia or Pneumonia secondary to COVID-19 else clarify as per guidance from Clinical Monitor” (pg 344)
And
“We need to remove the COVID Illness visit which was originally requested. Please mark Erroneous and remove the data from within the visit using FORM Level comments of NOT APPLICABLE.” (pg 299)
27th February 2021: The site responded:
“SITE HAS NOT BEEN MADE AWARE THIS EVENT WAS COVID PNEUMONIA. PER PI PNEUMONIA WAS RELATED TO INFECTION, HOWEVER SITE HAS NO RECORDS THAT STATE COVID, THEREFORE TERM CANNOT BE UPDATED TO SUCH.” (pg 344)
2nd March 2021: “Site has not received MR (medical record) and cannot confirm a COVID test was done, however per family of subject, there was a negative COVID done, sometime during hospital stay, not sure which day or which test.” (pg 316)
I have avoided writing anything on recent events in Ukraine thus far, partly because I wanted to see how events were panning out, partly because I still don’t quite understand how this all fits in with the two year Globalist PsyOp that ended abruptly on 24th February – the same day as the Russian military operation started, as coincidence would have it – but mainly because the experience of trying to write rational analysis in the midst of propaganda that would have made the editors of Pravda blush is no easy task.
As a brief defence against those who will inevitably smear my attempts to analyse the context behind all this as somehow pro-Russian, let me ask them not to bother. I really don’t even understand the frame of reference, since I don’t view the world in the absurd black hat/white hat terms that lead to such jibes. And in any case, I am pro-God and pro-Truth, as well as being a patriotic Englishman who writes on such topics because he believes this once green and pleasant land is now run by terminally foolish clowns and Globalist ideologues who do not govern for the people but in the interests of others. I would also point out that I was writing about atrocities committed against Ukrainians years before it became fashionable to do so. However, unfortunately it seems I was supporting the wrong Ukrainians — the ones nobody cares about — in the Donbass, who have been killed, terrorised and forced to leave the country by their own brutal Government for eight years, with some even deliberately burned alive by the neo-Nazis formations that apparently don’t exist. Those caveats aside, let’s press on.
For most Westerners, it appears that the current conflict suddenly dropped from the sky one morning in February 2022. They woke up to hear about a Russian invasion, and without any prior knowledge or context, having been denied this for years by their so-called free press, simply accepted the narrative thrown at them that this invasion was utterly unprovoked — the brainchild of a madman who wishes to recreate Hammer and Sickle Land again.
None of this is remotely true. Whatever the actual reasons for invading at this particular time — and I don’t believe for one moment that we have the full picture yet — this conflict most certainly did not drop out of the sky or from the ravings of a lunatic on 24th February 2022. No, it is part of a sequence of events that was set off years ago, particularly in 2014, which were clearly destined to reshape the world. As I wrote back in September 2014:
“I believe this crisis to be the defining crisis of the 21st Century so far. … It is also something that may well define the shape of the planet for the rest of the century — whether we are left with a unipolar world … or whether we see a new multipolar world emerging … It is in a very real sense the key battle between globalisation and national sovereignty.”
That sequence of events has a long history, but behind it all is an ideological fanaticism that overtook certain elements of the Western powers – and I’m thinking here in particular of the cult known as neoconservatism (the name is a misnomer as they have their roots in Trotskyism, not conservatism) – who saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportunity not for peace and stability, but for the establishing of a US-led Globalist hegemon, with “Full Spectrum Dominance”, as one of their number once put it.
It was this ideological fanaticism that led to the carpet bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, the war against Iraq, the dismemberment of Libya, and the arming of jihadists to destabilise Syria — wars which killed or displaced hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, yet which curiously attracted none of the sort of response we are seeing now.
It was this ideological fanaticism that also led to the continuance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), long after the ostensible reason for its existence ceased to exist. NATO was a military alliance against the Soviet Union, and since then it is a military alliance against Russia. This is undeniable, and it gives rise to two questions. Firstly, why was it deemed necessary to continue this alliance at a time when Russia itself quite obviously desired to be on good terms with the West (despite the pilfering of the country during the so-called Shock Therapy of the 1990s)? Secondly, since the alliance remained and was quite obviously aimed at Russia, isn’t it obvious and indeed reasonable that they would see it as a threat?
This should not be hard to understand. If, say, an anti-Russian military alliance crept up to its borders, in five successive waves, despite assurances given to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 that this would not happen — all of which has come to pass — why on earth would anyone think that the Russians wouldn’t see this as a threat, and why on earth would anyone think that there would not be a major pushback at some point? This is not rocket science!
In 2007, Vladimir Putin warned very starkly at the Munich Security Conference of the long-term consequences of the continuance of this policy. Not only did the warnings go unheeded, the very next year NATO upped the ante significantly with the Bucharest Summit Declaration:
“NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”
Again, it fails me to see how can any rational person can look at this and not see the clash that was inevitably on its way from such a policy, and how easily it could have been avoided. It’s not as if the consequences were unknown. Amongst other foreign policy realists, the great US diplomat, George Kennan, observed the following about NATO expansion towards Russia:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”
Indeed. And I’ll give you three guesses who agreed with that assessment back in 1997, calling out what the reaction might be should the Alliance move into the Baltic States, let alone Ukraine.
“The only thing that can provoke Russia into a hostile and vigorous response is the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states.”
Did you get it? Why, it was none other than Joe Biden, who apparently understood then what he pretends not to understand now.
It was therefore all extremely predictable what would eventually happen if this expansion occurred, and yet the expansion and promises of further expansion did continue nonetheless.
We then fast-forward to 2014, where we find what was perhaps the most blatant coup d’etat in history, when the US and EU conspired together to foment regime change in Ukraine. The coup itself relied heavily on neo-Nazi groups such as Pravy Sektor, whose leader at that time, Dmytro Yarosh, stood on the stage in Maidan Square in Kiev and, flanked by some sinister looking Nazi goons, informed the crowd that his organisation was rejecting the deal brokered by the French, Germans and Poles for a gradual and peaceful handover of power, and that if then President Viktor Yanukovych hadn’t vacated his premises by the following morning, they would depose him — violently. The rest is history. The coup took place, the French, Germans and Poles slunk away apparently forgetting the deal they had brokered, and Victoria Nuland at the State Department gleefully rubbed the cookie crumbs from her hands and set about realising her dream of what to do with that poor country, including the installation of biological weapons laboratories, it would seem. That’s her legacy: She came, she saw, she bought them Cookies and Plague.
One of the first things the new illegitimate regime did was announce a ban on Russian as an official language — despite the fact that it was the predominant language throughout most of the East and South East of the country, where the majority of people were historically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically Russian. Which explains why some of these regions rejected this new hostile, illegitimate government and decided to secede. Again, there is no rocket science here.
What then took place was eight years of conflict, in which the West turned a blind eye to continued atrocities — even blaming them on Russia, when it was the Western backed coup government that was carrying them out. For eight years, with varying degrees of intensity, that people were subjected to bombardment, and being terrorised both by the regular Ukrainian Army and the unashamedly Nazi Tornado, Azov, and Aidar Battalions, which the Western governments helped to train, whilst the Western media pretended it wasn’t happening. But it did happen, and here was the former Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, boasting early on in the hostilities that the bombardment he authorised would see the children of Eastern Ukrainians cowering in basements. Even when a peace process was agreed, with the first and then second Minsk Accords, the shelling of those areas never ceased, over a million refugees fled to Russia, and the Western powers put absolutely no pressure on the Ukrainian Government to fulfil the obligations it had signed to seek a peaceful settlement with the two republics.
Why was this allowed to happen, and why was there no international outcry as those children were holed up in basements and as innocent civilians lived under the constant threat of bombardment by their own Government? The simple reason is that despite their current fake bleeding heart blue and yellow social media profiles, Western governments and the media don’t give a stuff about the people of Ukraine, but have instead led them up the garden path with their phoney promises of Westernisation and NATO membership, when in fact their entire plan was and is very simply to use that country as a stick to poke the bear next door. Here’s a quote from a piece I linked to back in 2014, which very succinctly explains the strategy:
“The Eurasian-wide plan of strategic destabilization and state fracturing owes its genesis to Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Eurasian Balkans concept. The US is flexible in practicing this concept, and it does not meet a dead end if the destabilization encounters an obstacle and cannot be advanced. Should this occur, as it has in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, and possibly soon in the South China Sea, the stratagem evolves into maximizing the chaos within the launch pad states that are positioned on the doorsteps of the Eurasian Powers. The idea is to create ‘black holes’ of absolute disorder in which Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ intervene.”
Which is basically where we’re at. The pathetic drivel put forward by the Western powers, in which Ukraine is the Shire, full of nothing but peaceful Hobbit folk with nary a neo-Nazi to be seen, but who unfortunately live next door to Mordor and its Orc hordes, is tripe of the tripiest dimensions. They care nothing about the people of Ukraine, but have simply used it as their Globalist Plaything, bleeding it dry via shell schemes in which sons of US Presidents magically get paid whacking great salaries for jobs they’re not remotely equipped to do, and where they arm and fund some of the worst people imaginable — in this case neo-Nazi battalions, just as they did the Mujahideen back in the day, and al-Nusra Jihadists more recently — to create permanent chaos on Russia’s borders.
But as I said earlier, we certainly haven’t been told the whole reason for the current invasion, and I’m sure there’s much more to come. Because ultimately this is not really about Ukraine, but about an inevitable conflict between ideological fanatics and stone cold realists, with the poor Ukrainians sadly caught in the middle of it.
I want to finish this piece with seven very brief points, some of which I may return to in the future.
Firstly, the reaction to the Russian intervention has been on a level of hysteria that I’ve only ever seen once before in my life — last year, in fact, with the absurd reaction to an eminently treatable virus with a 99.9% Survivability Rate. The fact that we are witnessing a reaction that never occurred during the US/NATO wars of aggression throughout the last few decades, or indeed during the Russian intervention in Syria (although there was some) should alert thinking people to the following conclusion: this military operation is about something much bigger than the reasons that have been stated either by the Russians or the West.
Secondly, the Western media has entirely deceived people into what is really going on, with their heroic but fake tales of Ghost pilots, Snake Islands, and massive Ukrainian resistance. The fact is that the bulk of the action has been in the East, not in Kiev as the media leads people to believe, and the Ukrainian armed forces are now basically trapped there in a number of military cauldrons, where they will either lay down their weapons or die. For an ongoing analysis of the situation, I recommend the excellent videos put out by The Duran.
Thirdly, the ONLY solution to this crisis that has any hope of bringing lasting peace, is for Ukraine to declare itself a neutral country between the NATO alliance and Russia. However, the Neocon Globalist cult will never accept this solution, and so unless other more sensible heads in the West understand this simple point and are able to prevail, the conflict will inevitably continue and quite possibly escalate even further at some point, which is a very scary thought.
Fourthly, the economic sanctions that have been placed on Russia by the Western countries will rebound spectacularly, and end up hurting European countries especially, far harder than they will hurt Russia. Again, the analysis at The Duran is excellent for those who want to learn more.
Fifthly, when the monumentally ignorant MPs in the British Parliament stood up to applaud President Zelensky, did they have the remotest clue that his closing words — “Glory to Ukraine” — was the official slogan of Stepan Bandera’s OUN-B, the Ukrainian Nazi group that fought alongside the Waffen SS in World War II, and which horrifically massacred 100,000 Poles in Volhynia in 1943, or that this same slogan is used by the openly Nazi heirs of Bandera today? I somehow doubt it.
Sixthly, the existence of US funded Biological laboratories on the territory of Ukraine, which was yesterday’s conspiracy theory, is in fact true and was even confirmed by none other than the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States, Victoria “Cookies” Nuland, who is apparently very concerned that the contents of these places might escape or fall into the hands of the Russians. Why is she so concerned, and why has the US tried to delete or burn the records of these places? For those interested in finding out, I recommend the work of a very brave proper journalist (remember them), George Webb who can be found on Twitter at @RealGeorgeWebb1. Should all this turn out to be as bad as it looks, it might just put a very different perspective on things and explain the unhinged reaction we’ve seen in the Western media. It would also be mighty ironic: many of the Western leaders and media that still justify the invasion of Iraq, even though it turned out not to have the Bioweapons that were claimed as the pretext, are now howling with outrage at a conflict in an area where they do exist.
Seventhly and lastly, why do I get the feeling that Klaus Schwab is one of the few people who is enjoying the economic repercussions of this war?
Drug harm reporting systems, like the MHRA’s yellow card system, are designed to alert the regulator to a potential issue. They are not designed to measure the size of the problem. If an issue is highlighted then the regulator has a responsibility to carry out an audit and see whether the incidence of the condition of concern has been higher than historical levels in the population who were vaccinated.
The Government appears to be treating the yellow card reports as if they are a record of every occurrence of a condition in the country, comparing the number of reports with background levels in the whole population. It is well known that reporting systems only capture a fraction of cases and it is very odd that the Government is treating this data as comprehensive.
As an example, let’s take Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) which is a rare condition where the immune system attacks the nervous system. It is usually caused by a viral infection but has been attributed to vaccination adverse reactions in the past. There are 1,300 cases every year and 608 cases have been reported on the yellow card system.
A study by Hanson et al in the USA of 10 million patients showed that in the first 21 days after the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine the rates of GBS were 15 times higher than expected levels. Extrapolating from this figure we would expect 500 AZ vaccine related cases in the UK. There have been a total of 488 reported in the yellow card system but it is not clear whether these were within 3 weeks of vaccination.
In a three week period we would expect 29 background cases to have occurred co-incidentally. Based on the Hanson data of 500 cases after 24.9 million doses, the cause of someone having GBS within 3 weeks of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would be the vaccine 95% of the time and coincidental 5% of the time. The morally right thing to do for these people, is to accept that they have been vaccine injured and be wrong 5% of the time rather than claim these were coincidental and be wrong 95% of the time.
The Government appears to want to claim coincidence. A few of these patients have filed claims with the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. None of the claimants have been helped, even patients whose deaths have been investigated at inquest and where a coroner has determined the vaccine as the cause of death. When rolling out a £12bn vaccine programme it is naive not to set aside a budget for vaccine injury. The current claims system requires proof of “60% disability”, a ‘proof of cause’ and does not compensate for lost earnings or costs of care. Maria Caulfield, the minister for patient safety and primary care, said that they were employing people to look through the claimant’s medical records for a “causal link” as if vaccines write confession notes. Surely, this is the real waste of public funds and seems to point to a reluctance to compensate deserving victims.
This past week saw two high-profile Australians – cricketer Shane Warne and Labour senator Kimberley Kitching – both die of sudden heart attacks aged 52.
As such, heart disease is back in the headlines. Again.
We predicted in our new-years post that explaining heart attacks would be a big part of 2022’s news cycle, and only three months in it has been a torrent.
It actually started in December of 2021, with medical doctors theorising that the stress and anxiety of dealing with Covid was going to cause a huge spike in heart problems due to “post-pandemic stress disorder”.
At the beginning of February, a new reason was added to the list. As energy prices began to spike – do remember, that happened before the war – we were told the increased cold and stress could also cause heart disease.
Then, in mid-February scientific papers appeared claiming that “even a mild case of COVID” causes your “heart attack risk to soar”.
In short, and for many reasons, you’re much more likely to have a heart attack this year than you were last year.
Well, now the Sydney Morning Herald has joined in, with this article headlined “‘This is our biggest killer’: Shock deaths put spotlight on heart disease”, which warns:
The shock deaths of cricketer Shane Warne and Senator Kimberley Kitching should serve as a wake-up call to Australians about the prevalence of heart disease, doctors say, as a study shows COVID-19 may increase the risk for what was already one of the nation’s biggest killers.
Yes, having had covid – even if you just tested positive and had no symptoms – makes it more likely you’ll have a heart attack.
On top of that, warn the doctors quoted in the article, thousands of people will have missed their heart screenings due to lockdown, or have been sedantry and gained weight, not to mention the anxiety and stress.
All in all, Australians can expect a “rise in preventable heart disease deaths over the next five years”, according to health modellers.
But don’t worry, none of that is anything to do with the untested vaccines they’ve injected into literally millions of people.
Yes, all the major Covid vaccines are known to have “rare” side effects that impact the heart, such as blood clots and myocarditis, but clearly, that’s just a coincidence.
After all, the Sydney Morning Herald article doesn’t even use the word “vaccine”, not one single time. And they wouldn’t ignore anything that important, would they?
Lawsuits accusing top US universities of harboring antisemitism all originate from one source: a corporate law firm that fielded the pro-settler ex-US ambassador to Israel, and which was registered as a foreign agent of an Israeli principal as recently as 2021.
The firm now represents professional Israel lobby activists posing as victimized “Jewish students” and seeking to crush the free speech rights of Palestine solidarity activists. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.