Secret Israeli dossier contained no proof to declare Palestinian NGOs ‘terrorists’
RT | November 4, 2021
A classified dossier which Israel used to brand six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist outfits reportedly contains no concrete evidence to prove their involvement in violent activities or to otherwise justify the designation.
The document, which bears the logo of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service, is the result of its inquiry into six West Bank civil society groups accused of securing foreign funding for a Palestinian militant group.
Despite the severity of the charges, however, Israel has yet to publicly release any evidence backing up its decision to brand the NGOs as terror organizations. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz prompted international backlash last month after he officially placed a terror designation on the six groups on the basis of the Shin Bet investigation.
Accessing the dossier, The Intercept and Israeli outlets +972 and Local Call found that the information used was based chiefly on interrogations of two accountants from another Palestinian NGO, the Health Work Committees, which was also labelled a terrorist organization last year.
The accountants’ lawyers told the outlets that Israeli authorities had “distorted” their testimonies, which were allegedly gathered under threats to family members and harsh interrogation methods that might be considered “torture.”
Shin Bet reportedly used a single statement from one accountant, about forging fake receipts for Health Work Committees, to accuse the other organizations of being involved in a similar scheme to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) militant group. The men apparently described a number of educational and humanitarian initiatives which could be affiliated with the organization as “PFLP activities,” but they did not describe any financing of violent activities.
The outlets said that none of the testimonies cited in the 74-page dossier were backed up by any documents or receipts. The dossier was apparently delivered in May to a number of EU countries that have funded the organizations, prompting independent audits and public criticism from Dutch and Belgian ministers, who stated that the allegations did not contain “even a single concrete piece of evidence.”
“Since the Europeans didn’t buy the allegations, [Israel] used unconventional warfare: declaring the organizations terrorist groups,” Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer representing Al-Haq, one of the accused Palestinian NGOs, told The Intercept. He added that the charges were a “political [attack] under the guise of security.”
Meanwhile, senior officials from two unspecified European countries told the outlet that since Gantz’s announcement, Israel has ignored all requests for more information. While the Israeli Ministry of Defense did not comment, two US sources told the outlets that an Israeli delegation had presented similar dossiers on Capitol Hill.
The six NGOs accused by Israel are Al-Haq, Addameer, Bisan Center, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, Defense For Children International-Palestine and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees.
Your child’s education will be safeguarded by common sense, facts, political will and a new bill.
By Laura Dodsworth | November 5, 2021
This is a rapid response to a video released on Twitter by the Department of Health and Social Care which states that “Your child’s education will be safeguarded by them being vaccinated.”
“Your child’s education will be safeguarded by them being vaccinated.” @VHSchool teacher Stephanie explains how the #COVID19 vaccination is helping to keep 12-15 year olds in school and learning. Watch 👇 More info: nhs.uk/conditions/cor…
This video is an example of logical fallacy. Here are few facts to support alternative reasoning:
- Locking down schools was a political decision. The UK had the second longest school closures in Europe. In contrast, Sweden only closed upper secondary schools (16 years+).
- Schools did not play a significant role in driving transmission of Covid-19, but rather they reflect the level of transmission in the community.
According to Dr Shamez Ladhani, Consultant Paediatrician at PHE, the latest results of the School Infection Survey show that infection and antibody positivity rates of school children did not exceed those of the community. Dr Ladhani commented, “This is reassuring and confirms that schools are not hubs of infection.”
This was also indicated by the PHE study from England’s school re-opening in August 2020, which concluded that “infections in the wider community likely driving cases in schools.” - The vaccines do not stop transmission or infection, although they may reduce the risk of transmission, and they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of hospitalisation. There are too many conflicting reports and papers to offer one definitive link, but there is broad consensus for these points.
- Covid is not a serious illness for children and young people and symptoms are normally very mild.
- The key point: Three quarters of children aged between five and 14 have already been infected with Covid, and as a result cases are now falling. Overall, Covid cases are falling.
- Closing schools was incredibly damaging to children and young people, and there’s now a proposed ‘triple lock’ bill, The Schools and Education Settings (Essential Infrastructure and Opening During Emergencies) Bill, to prevent such a terrible disaster befalling the younger generation again.
Vaccination should be chosen by parents and their children for the medical benefits it confers, and based on an informed consideration of the benefits and risks. Parents and children should not be subtly threatened with further school closures.
Pfizer Is Calling The Shots To Jab Kids
Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 1, 2021
In late February 2021, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported1 that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.
While at least two countries, Argentina and Brazil, initially rejected the demands, calling them abusive, many others accepted Pfizer’s terms from the start.
Public Citizen has now reviewed and published the secret contracts2,3 between Pfizer and Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, the European Commission, Peru, the U.S. and the U.K. These contracts reveal nations have handed over unprecedented power to Pfizer. In virtually all scenarios, Pfizer’s interests come first.
Pfizer Is Calling The Shots
Public Citizen points out six ways in which nations are allowing Pfizer to call the shots. For example, Albania, Brazil and Colombia have handed over unilateral authority to the company for the delivery schedule and other key decisions. As reported by Public Citizen:4
“As a condition to entering into the agreement, the Colombian government is required to ‘demonstrate, in a manner satisfactory to Suppliers, that Suppliers and their affiliates will have adequate protection, as determined in Suppliers’ sole discretion’ … from liability claims.
Colombia is required to certify to Pfizer the value of the contingent obligations (i.e., potential future liability), and to start appropriating funds to cover the contingent obligations, according to a contribution program.”
Pfizer also maintains tight control over vaccine supplies, and dictates who can buy their vaccine, when, and who can give and receive vaccine donations. If there are shortages, Pfizer decides which countries get priority.
Bypassing Pfizer can be costly. For example, if Brazil were to accept vaccine donations from another country without Pfizer’s approval, the company can terminate the contract and force Brazil to pay the full prize for all remaining contracted doses. Meanwhile, Pfizer incurs no penalty if its delivery is late, even if it’s so late that the shots are no longer needed.
Some countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, also ended up agreeing to Pfizer’s demand to put up sovereign assets as collateral for vaccine injury lawsuits, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings.
In short, theses governments are guaranteeing Pfizer will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it, so the company won’t lose a dime if its COVID shot injures people — even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice!
At the same time, government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown. This is the ultimate corporate maleficence, using their leverage to force the kill shot down these countries’ throats and avoiding any personal responsibility for damages.
Secret Arbitration
The contracts also dictate how contractual disputes will be settled. As reported by Public Citizen:5
“What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators — not a U.K court — is empowered under the contract to make the final decision. The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret:
‘The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.’
The Albania draft contract and Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru agreements require the governments to go further, with contractual disputes subject to ICC arbitration applying New York law. While ICC arbitration involving states is not uncommon, disputes involving high-income countries and/or pharmaceuticals appear to be relatively rare
Private arbitration reflects an imbalance of power. It allows pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer to bypass domestic legal processes. This consolidates corporate power and undermines the rule of law.”
Pfizer Secured Intellectual Property Rights
Amazingly, the contracts not only secure Pfizer’s intellectual property rights, but should Pfizer be found guilty of stealing the intellectual property rights of others, some of the contracts shift the responsibility away from Pfizer onto the government purchasers! What this means is that Pfizer can steal the intellectual property of others without consequence in at least four countries.
“For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill,” Public Citizen writes.6 “Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.
Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.”
Pfizer Given Right To Silence Governments
Perhaps most egregious of all, some of the contracts give Pfizer the right to muzzle government. In Brazil, government officials are prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” without the written consent of the company.
The gag order also includes commenting on the government’s relationship with Pfizer in general. Similar nondisclosure provisions are included in the contracts with the European Commission and the U.S. government. The only difference, Public Citizen notes, is that the nondisclosure rules apply to both parties.
Pfizer Can Prevent Use Of Other Remedies
Equally shocking, though, is that countries are forced to follow through on their vaccine orders even if other drugs or treatments emerge that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.7 Is it any wonder, then, that governments around the world have suppressed the use of drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?
If these drugs were allowed to be used and could be proven to work, the COVID injections would be completely unnecessary, yet governments are on the hook for hundreds of millions of doses. While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.50 per dose. In Albania, the cost of each dose is $12, and in the EU, $14.70.
In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine.
As noted Public Citizen, Pfizer is being allowed to profit from this self-inflicted global disaster in unprecedented ways. In many instances, a nation’s laws will not apply to Pfizer.
These secret contracts grant Pfizer total control over its product and ensures full payment, regardless of whether the shots are needed or usable, while simultaneously eliminating all liability. In short, Pfizer wins, no matter what the outcome of the vaccination campaign might be.
At the same time, Pfizer is also controlling media through its advertising dollars. As you’ve probably realized by now, media companies in most instances will not report on anything that might jeopardize the profits of its advertisers.
As illustrated in the short video above, it couldn’t be more obvious that Pfizer is bankrolling the media, which in turn will refuse to bite the hand that feeds it. You can see the wide spectrum of media programming being sponsored by Pfizer, including “Nightline,” “Making a Difference,” “CNN Tonight,” “Early Start,” “Erin Burnett Out Front,” “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” “CBS Sports,” “Meet the Press,” “CBS This Morning” and “60 Minutes.”
The terms of these contracts are all the more disturbing when you consider how dangerous the Pfizer shot is turning out to be. No wonder the company refused to accept any liability.
According to Pfizer’s own data, one COVID death per 20,000 fully vaccinated individuals is prevented. That means 10,000 lives are saved if 200 million are fully vaccinated.
But how many lives are lost from the shots? This is the other side of the equation that simply demands to be analyzed before any governmental authority can make a decision as to whether the mass vaccination campaign is of benefit or not.
Here, we find that Pfizer’s data10 show the shots are actually killing more than they save. To look at this information yourself, click on “Supplementary Material” on the right-hand side of the paper, then, beside Supplementary Appendix, click on supplements/261159 and scroll down to page 12, Table S4.
In the vaccine group, 15 died; in the placebo group 14 died. Two people died from COVID-19 in the placebo group, while only one died from COVID pneumonia in the vaccine group. That’s how you get a net false positive impact — one life is spared from COVID. However, the all-cause mortality was actually higher in the vaccine group (15, compared to 14).
So, while the shots saved one person from dying from COVID, they also killed one extra person. So, the net effect is nil. There’s no mortality benefit at all. Other investigations using different data strongly suggest the net effect is profoundly negative, and the shots are doing FAR more harm than good.
We Face Looming Vaccine-Induced Public Health Catastrophe
For this, Kirsch cites a paper11 by Dr. Bart Classen, published in the August 2021 issue of the journal Trends in Internal Medicine. Classen points out that Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are all using a “dangerously misleading” clinical trial design. The problem is that they’re all using a surrogate endpoint for health, namely “severe infections with COVID-19.”
Disease specific primary endpoints are no longer used in many fields of medicine, for the fact that it can hide problems. If a person dies from the treatment or is severely injured by it, even if the treatment helped block the progression of the disease they’re being treated for, the end result is still a negative one.
For this reason, the appropriate endpoint that should be used is all-cause mortality and morbidity. When Classen reexamined the clinical trial data from all three manufacturers using all-cause severe morbidity as the endpoint, a disturbing picture emerged.
As explained by Classen in his paper, “US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, ‘All Cause Severe Morbidity’”:12
“‘All-cause severe morbidity’ in the treatment group and control group was calculated by adding all severe events reported in the clinical trials. Severe events included both severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events in the treatment arm and control arm respectively.
This analysis gives reduction in severe COVID-19 infections the same weight as adverse events of equivalent severity. Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statistically significant increase in ‘all-cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.
The Moderna immunized group suffered 3,042 more severe events than the control group. The Pfizer data was grossly incomplete but data provided showed the vaccination group suffered 90 more severe events than the control group, when only including ‘unsolicited’ adverse events.
The Janssen immunized group suffered 264 more severe events than the control group. These findings contrast the manufacturers’ inappropriate surrogate endpoints:
Janssen claims that their vaccine prevents 6 cases of severe COVID-19 requiring medical attention out of 19,630 immunized; Pfizer claims their vaccine prevents 8 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 21,720 immunized; Moderna claims its vaccine prevents 30 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 15,210 immunized.
Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.”
To make the above numbers more clear and obvious, here are the prevention stats in percentages:
- Pfizer 0.00036 percent
- Moderna 0.00125 percent
- Janssen 0.00030 percent
CDC Claims COVID Shots Lower All-Cause Mortality
Despite all of that, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now claims Americans “vaccinated” against COVID-19 have lower all-cause mortality rates.13 As reported by Forbes:14
“Partially and fully vaccinated people died from non-coronavirus causes at a lower rate than their unvaccinated peers, according to the study,15 which looked at millions of patients at seven U.S. health organizations from December to July.
All three vaccines approved by U.S. regulators were tied to lower non-COVID death rates, though the difference in mortality among people who took Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was slightly smaller than for recipients of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines …
This result suggests the vaccines don’t increase a patient’s risk of death, which ‘reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines,’ the study said.”
October 26, 2021, the FDA unanimously voted to grant emergency use approval of the COVID shots for children between the ages of 5 and 11.16 This despite acknowledging they have no idea what the long-term risk to children might be. As noted by one voting member, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”17
All we have at present is two Pfizer trials, one in which 5- to 11-year-olds were followed for two months and another with just six weeks of follow-up. Both were too small to detect potential risks such as myocarditis. That won’t be studied until AFTER the shot is authorized for children. As reported by The Defender :18
“Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is “almost nil” — at all.
According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.
‘Three thousand children received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company’s safety analysis,’ Nass said.
‘Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient … All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine’
Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment. ‘There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,’ Rose said.
In a peer-reviewed study19 co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout. In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates …
Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18. Rose explained: ‘In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that ‘product administered to patient of inappropriate age’ was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.’”
During the meeting, Dr. Cody Meissner noted we don’t know whether the shot is safe for this age group, and the risk of COVID is extremely low. If the shot is authorized, mandates will likely follow, which would be “bad.”
Brownstone Institute is also objecting to the authorization. In an October 20, 2021, article,20 Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D., a former assistant professor of evidence-based medicine and research methods, called the plan to vaccinate young children “absolutely reckless” and “dangerous based on lack of safety data and poor research methodology.”
Meanwhile, data show not a single child has died from COVID-19 who did not have a serious underlying health condition. Alexander reviews a lot of that data in his article.
Staggering Conflicts Of Interest
When you look at the roster of the FDA’s committee members21 who reviewed and voted to authorize the Pfizer shot for children as young as 5, the unanimous “yes” vote becomes less of a mystery. As reported by National File,22 they have staggering conflicts of interest. Members include:
- Gregg Sylvester — A former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines
- Arnold S. Monto — A paid Pfizer consultant
- Archana Chatterjee — A recent Pfizer research grant recipient
- Myron Levine — Mentor to Raphael Simon, senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer
- James Hidreth — President of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer vaccines
- Geeta Swamy — Chair of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program
- Steven Pergam — Proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine
- Several people who are already on the record supporting coronavirus vaccines for children, including Ofer Levy, Jay Portnoy and Melinda Wharton
In addition to that, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb is currently on Pfizer’s board of directors.
FDA Buries Data On Seriously Injured Children
With these shots now being pushed on young children, it’s more imperative than ever to understand how data are being massaged and manipulated to support the ongoing lunacy. Of particular concern is evidence that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is burying data on children who were seriously injured in the vaccine trials. As reported by Aaron Siri on Substack:23
“Pfizer’s clinical trial for children aged 12-15 included only 1,131 children who were vaccinated and at least one of those children suffered a devastating, life-altering injury which, despite incontrovertible proof and the cries of both the victim and her parents, has not been appropriately acknowledged by Pfizer or the FDA.
Putting aside that one serious injury in a small trial should alone raise blaring alarm bells, one must ask: what other serious adverse events have been hidden and ignored by regulators?”
Siri tells the story of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, who along with her two brothers were enrolled by her parents in Pfizer’s clinical trial. That decision has changed the lives of the entire family, possibly forever. Within 24 hours of her second dose, Maddie suffered crippling pain and systemic injuries.
Maddie is now wheelchair-bound and requires a feeding tube. Pfizer’s principal investigator initially claimed Maddie’s injuries were unrelated to the shot and treated her as a mental patient. Eventually, her injury was listed as “functional abdominal pain” in Pfizer’s report to the FDA.
“For a virus that rarely harms children, the need to assure safety of the Covid-19 vaccine is high. A study with only 1,131 children is underpowered. It will not pick up anything but the most common adverse events.
If what Maddie suffered will occur in 1/1,000 children, that would result in 75,000 children in this country suffering this serious injury. If it happens 1/10,000 children, that is 7,500 suffering this serious injury.
“It could be that the cure is worse than the disease. But that will only be known if there is a properly powered (a.k.a., sized) clinical trial with children,” Siri writes, adding that:
“International scientists have declared that ‘inadequately powered studies should themselves be considered a breach of ethical standards.’24 Without a clinical trial of sufficient size that reviews all potential adverse events, such as that experienced by Maddie, for a sufficient duration, this potentially catastrophic result will not be identified prior to authorization or licensure …
The real lesson is not that pharmaceutical companies, or the FDA should act better or do a better job. That just won’t always be the case. The real lesson is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Never.
Preserving those rights to choose whether to get a medical product, without any government coercion, is the final and ultimate safeguard.
Removing that right results in dangerous authoritarianism because just as the FDA will not admit to Maddie’s serious injury after having promoted this vaccine, politicians that mandate the vaccine will not want to later admit a mistake by repealing the mandate.”
FDA Sued To Access COVID Jab Trial Data
We’re now in a position where it’s near-impossible for many to refuse the COVID jab, and if injured, they cannot sue anyone for damages. Adding insult to injury, we don’t even have access to all the data governments are supposedly relying on to mandate these hazardous products.
To address this last point, an organization called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) is now suing25 the FDA after the agency refused to release the data on which it based its decision to approve Comirnaty.26
The FDA denied the PHMPT request for expedited processing of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the basis that no “imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual” existed. Per the complaint:27
“… in an effort to ensure that the FDA acts in furtherance of its commitment to transparency, PHMPT seeks to obtain the data and information relied upon by the FDA to license the Pfizer Vaccine.
The importance of releasing to the public this information is also recognized under federal law which provides that: ‘After a license has been issued, the following data and information in the biological product file are immediately available for public disclosure unless extraordinary circumstances are shown: (1) All safety and effectiveness data and information. (2) A protocol for a test or study …’”
‘Just Say No’ To The COVID Shot
While U.S. authorities are doing their best to hide incriminating data and manipulating the rest to show some sort of benefit, common sense, medical facts and available data all point in the opposite direction. It’s crystal clear to me that children do not need the COVID shot, as their risk of serious COVID-19 infection and death is virtually nonexistent.
On the other hand, children are quite likely to be seriously injured by these injections. The reason you’re not getting the truth from the media is explained by Dr. Peter McCullough in the video above. In short, it’s a planned propaganda campaign — “the promotion of false information by the people in charge.”
According to McCullough, anyone under the age of 50 has a less than 1 percent chance of a bad outcome if they come down with COVID-19. “Why would you take the vaccine?” he asks. “My advice,” he says, “is just say no to this [shot], especially young people who are not at risk.”
Sources and References
- 1 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism February 23, 2021
- 2, 4, 5, 6 Public Citizen October 19, 2021
- 3 Twitter Zain Rizvi October 19, 2021
- 7 COVID19up.org August 17, 2021
- 8 SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources
- 9, 10 MedRxiv July 28, 2021
- 11, 12 Trends in Internal Medicine 2021; 1(1): 1-6 (PDF)
- 13, 15 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report October 22, 2021: 70
- 14 Forbes October 22, 2021
- 16 ZeroHedge October 26, 2021
- 17 Twitter Techno Fog October 26, 2021
- 18 The Defender October 26, 2021
- 19 Curr. Probl. Cardiol. September 30, 2021; 101011
- 20 Brownstone Institute October 20, 2021
- 21 FDA Members Office of Vaccine Research and Review Meeting Roster
- 22 National File October 26, 2021
- 23 Aaronsiri.substack.com October 22, 2021
- 24 PLOS Medicine August 2008; 5(8): e172
- 25, 27 US District Court Northern District of Texas Case 4:21-cv-01058-P
- 26 Aaronsiri.substack.com October 11, 2021
Biden blames Russia & OPEC for high oil and gas prices in US
RT | November 3, 2021
President Joe Biden has called out Russia and OPEC countries for causing US energy prices to rise, even as he implements policies to curtail domestic oil and natural gas production.
“If you take a look at, you know, gas prices and you take a look at oil prices, that is a consequence of, thus far, the refusal of Russia or the OPEC nations to pump more oil,” Biden told reporters on Tuesday at the COP26 climate summit in Scotland. “We’ll see what happens on that score sooner than later,” he added.
Prices for the leading US crude benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), have surged to around $84 per barrel from $48 per barrel since the beginning of 2021, contributing to the nation’s highest inflation rate in 13 years. Gasoline prices are at a seven-year high. The key natural gas benchmark, Henry Hub, is nearing $6/mmBtu in Nymex futures trading after starting the year below $2.50/mmBtu.
While the president pointed the finger at Russia and OPEC for failing to help bring down oil prices, he said that inflation more broadly is being spurred by the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on supply chains. US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said on Sunday that the supply-chain woes will continue until the pandemic ends.
The Biden administration called on OPEC in August to help bring oil prices down, raising the ire of major US producers, who argued that he should be encouraging higher domestic supplies.
The day he took office in January, Biden revoked a federal permit for a new pipeline needed to bring more Canadian oil to US refiners. A week later, he suspended the leasing of new oil and gas properties on federal lands and waters as part of his plan to slash reliance on fossil fuels.
The US surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest crude producer in 2018 and became the third-biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2019. That same year, the country achieved net energy independence for the first time since the 1950s – reaching a goal that many observers thought impossible.
But US oil and gas output stumbled last year amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and domestic volumes are projected to decline again in 2021.
CDC Advisors Unanimously Endorse Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine for Kids 5-11 Despite Expert Concerns Over Clinical Data
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | November 2, 2021
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory panel today unanimously recommended Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11, despite concerns raised during the meeting about Pfizer’s clinical data, the fact that children who previously acquired natural immunity to COVID were included in clinical trials and evidence showing COVID poses little risk to children.
If Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director signs off on the decision, children ages 5 through 11 could start receiving COVID vaccines as early as tonight.
The younger age group will receive one-third of the dose authorized for those 12 and older in two shots at least three weeks apart. The doses will be delivered by smaller needles and stored in smaller vials to avoid a mix-up with adult doses.
The CDC’s guidelines for the vaccine’s use are not legally binding, but heavily influence the medical community’s practice.
Prior to today’s decision by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) the Biden administration enlisted more than 20,000 pediatricians, family doctors and pharmacies to administer the vaccines — with 15 million doses already packed with dry ice, loaded into small specialized containers and shipped via airplanes and trucks to vaccination sites across the country, federal officials said on Monday.
Walensky sent a clear signal during the ACIP meeting about where she stands, CNN reported. “We have been asking when we will be able to expand this protection to our younger children,” Walensky said in opening comments to the committee.
“As you review the data today, it will be key to keep in mind the specific risks to children from this virus and the pandemic, and to put that risk into context of other vaccine-preventable diseases,” Walensky said.
Walensky noted that children are routinely vaccinated against diseases like chickenpox — which results in far fewer hospitalizations and deaths in children compared to COVID.
During today’s meeting, ACIP members reviewed and discussed the science behind the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authorization last week of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in all children 5-11 years old.
That authorization was based mostly on a Pfizer-BioNTech study of 4,600 children worldwide, of whom approximately 3,100 got the low-dose vaccine and about 1,500 got a placebo.
These studies showed the vaccine is about 91% effective against COVID. The immune system response to the vaccine, as measured by antibodies, was comparable to the response seen in 16- to 25-year-olds, NPR reported.
During the meeting, the CDC said 745 children under 18 have died of COVID since the beginning of the pandemic — although the COVID-19 team admitted 79% were confirmed to be hospitalized for COVID, while the rest were hospital admissions for other causes.
“The chance that a child will have severe COVID, require hospitalization or develop a long-term complication like MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome] remains low, but still the risk is too high and too devastating to our children, and far higher than for many other diseases for which we vaccinate children,” Walensky said.
Efficacy of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in children
The CDC said Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was 90.9% effective against symptomatic COVID and none of the adverse events experienced during clinical trials were assessed by “the investigator” as related to the vaccine.
To determine the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine, Pfizer measured the blood of 264 children for antibodies.
“There were 3,000 vaccinated children in the trial. Why isn’t blood from the other 2,700-plus being measured for antibodies?” asked Dr. Meryl Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel.
“Pfizer never explains why, when they have an important clinical trial in which over 3,000 children were injected in this age group, only a subset of less than 10% were used to assess efficacy,” Nass said.
Nass explained:
“Pfizer claims three cases of COVID in the vaccinated group versus 16 in the placebo group show efficacy of the vaccine. But the FDA did not accept this claim. Note that all cases were mild, none hospitalized or died. So are they planning to vaccinate 28 million kids to prevent colds?”
Nass noted Pfizer also enrolled kids who had prior evidence of having had COVID in the clinical trial, “which should never have been allowed.”
“Of the kids who were already immune at the start of the trials, none developed COVID,” Nass said. “About 150 kids in the placebo group were recovered and none got COVID.”
Nass said kids with preceding COVID infection did not have their antibody levels checked after the first dose, as Pfizer stated they did not collect the data because they “tried to minimize blood draws in children.”
“The real reason they did not want to collect data is because it might support the fact that kids who already had COVID might only need one vaccine dose, or none at all,” Nass said.
During the brief public comment session, Patricia Neuenschwander, a registered nurse noted there was no prevention of hospitalization, death or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children — a condition being used to justify vaccinating younger children against COVID, despite numerous cases of MIS-C having been reported after receipt of a COVID vaccine.
Neuenschwander reminded the ACIP that vaccinations do not prevent infection or transmission. It is a mild illness in the vast majority of children, she said, and prior immunity is being ignored — the expansion group was only followed for 17 days.
David Wiseman, a research scientist with a background in pharmacy, pharmacology and experimental pathology, asked the CDC panel why the efficacy study was not validated by the FDA, and why Pfizer changed the buffer [see page 14] in the vaccine but did not test it in animals or kids — planning to use an untested version of the vaccine in 5 to 11-year-olds.
Wiseman said the FDA abandoned its responsibility, and he asked if the ACIP would do the same.
Myocarditis and COVID in 5- to 11-year-olds
One side effect that generated considerable discussion at today’s meeting was myocarditis — a form of heart inflammation.
The CDC said 1,640 cases of myocarditis have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people under age 30 after having received a COVID vaccine, but only 877 met the CDC’s case definition.
The CDC said there were nine reported deaths in people with myocarditis, but then the agency reduced the number to three, with two cases pending evaluation and one case without adequate information.
“I have to say that it is beyond belief that CDC could whittle down 877 cases reported in young people to three actual cases. Where did the rest go?” Nass asked.
“According to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, 7 of 16 12- to 17-year-olds with myocarditis were still on exercise restriction three months after diagnosis — that is 44% could not exercise three months later,” Nass said. “This is huge.”
Nass further noted 25% of 250 myocarditis cases were still symptomatic at three months, and only 74% of cases were designated by cardiologists as definitely resolved at 3 months.
As it pertains to safety, some who testified during a public comment period, as well as other commentators, questioned whether the study used by the FDA to grant Emergency Use Authorization is large enough to assure parents that the vaccine is safe in young children.
“The bottom line is getting COVID, I think, is much riskier to the heart than getting this vaccine,” said Dr. Matthew Oster, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Atlanta.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro covered vaccine safety monitoring from the CDC’s surveillance system in children. Shimabukuro said COVID is getting the “most intensive vaccine monitoring program in history,” yet he did not go into detail on surveillance data.
Acknowledging that some parents are hesitant about vaccinating their children right away, Dr. Matthew Daley, a member of the ACIP said, “we hear you loud and clear and of course you only want what’s best for your child. I encourage you to talk to your family physician or pediatrician, they can walk through this with you.”
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.
The EU is not revealing the details of its contracts with vaccine makers. Why?
By Robert Bridge | RT | November 3, 2021
As some Europeans continue to resist mandatory vaccine measures, a group of parliamentarians have upbraided the Commission for allowing pharmaceutical companies to ‘run roughshod over democracy.’
One of the most important lessons people learn early in life is to never plunk down hard-earned cash on a product before reading all of the fine print contained in the contract. ‘Caveat emptor,’ as every subject of the Roman Empire instinctively understood.
Yet, it seems that few bureaucrats in Brussels have purchased a new home, used car or some newfangled device lately, because that’s exactly what these bumbling fools have done. In an effort to ‘protect the health of their constituents,’ they bought millions of batches of Covid vaccines from various pharmaceutical companies without letting lawmakers sneak a peek at the contracts.
As it turns out, entire pages of these documents – the few that have been made public, that is – have been heavily redacted. This has raised more than one eyebrow in the European Union, and perhaps none more conspicuously than that of Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes.
At the weekend, Terhes appeared at a press conference in Brussels with several other EU lawmakers at this side, all visibly shaken by the news that they would be required to produce, starting on November 3, a digital ‘green pass’ to gain entry into Parliament. Like many EU citizens, these lawmakers have declined to get the vaccine not because they are ‘anti-vaxxers’ but because they have been denied critical information regarding the product and procedures. Now they will be refused entry into Parliament, the place where the will of their people is (supposedly) represented.
Terhes revealed that, back in January, EU lawmakers were demanding “full access to the contracts signed between these companies that produce the vaccines and the European Union.” To say the parliamentarians were disappointed would be a gross understatement.
The Romanian MEP, who represents the Christian-Democratic National Peasants Party, quoted from a Euractiv article that reported: “The contract, signed between pharmaceutical company CureVac and the European Commission in November, was made available to MEPs [on January 12, 2021] in a redacted format after the company agreed to open the contract up to scrutiny.”
That is really putting the cart before the horse, for how can something that has been so grossly redacted be opened up to scrutiny? Terhes railed that Brussels is “imposing a medical product on European citizens without them knowing what’s in these contracts.” That’s simply inexcusable and should be easily struck down by even a third-rate lawyer.
More astonishing is that not even the EU members of Parliament know the details of the agreements.
To prove his point, the Romanian MEP held up individual pages of the CureVac contract, each one heavily redacted like some kind of imitation of artist Kazimir Malevich’s ‘Black Square.’ It doesn’t get any less concerning when we drill down to which parts of the contract were blacked out. According to an analysis conducted by Euractiv, “4.22% of the liability section and 15.38% of the indemnification section was found to be redacted, while 0% of the section on the processing of personal data was redacted.”
Meanwhile, the contract’s annexes, which delve into the nitty-gritty details of the agreement, were redacted by some 61%. In total, almost 24% of the contract was hidden. Now ask yourself this simple question: Would you sign up for a home mortgage if it was discovered that one-quarter of the agreement was missing? I’ll crawl out on a limb and guess ‘no.’ Nor would anyone think you were ‘anti-mortgage’ or ‘mortgage hesitant’ if you did so.
The truth is that you, and millions of other rational people exactly like you, are simply ‘pro-transparency.’ Yet these medical consumers are being treated like second-class citizens for simply wanting more information before they agree to be injected with something. ‘My body, my choice’ is a battle cry that no longer applies, as millions of people are quickly discovering, in the current authoritarian climate.
Keep in mind that it is on the basis of these contracts that Europeans must come to a decision, based on “informed consent,” that they will ‘voluntarily’ take the jab so as not to be ostracized from polite society. Unless they agree to take one of the available vaccines, citizens of the EU face potentially being denied the right to work, enter a store, buy medicine, take their children to school and freely travel from one country to another.
Naturally, this makes the stakes for not taking the jab incredibly high, but that only makes it worse that details are being deliberately withheld from the public. It is no secret that the pharmaceutical giants enjoy full indemnity in the event that an individual suffers death or injury after receiving a Covid shot. And although such unfortunate occurrences appear to be rare, even Pfizer-BioNTech, which has been granted approval to extend vaccinations to 12 to 15-year-olds in the EU, seems uncertain as to what the long-term effects of the vaccines may be.
“Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine,” it clearly states on its website.
In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released a damning report on Pfizer, saying negotiators for the drug company had behaved in a “bullying” manner with several Latin American countries. In Argentina they demanded “additional indemnity” against civilians seeking legal compensation after suffering adverse effects from their vaccines. In the agreements, Pfizer takes great care to ensure that all financial responsibility for compensating citizens injured from the inoculations is that of the respective government.
The company also enjoys the protection of non-disclosure agreements with many of its nation clients, including the European Commission and the US government. With regards to the EU, Brussels is forbidden from disclosing information that would be “material to Pfizer without the consent of Pfizer,” Public Citizen reported.
In fact, CureVac was being quite generous with the EU Commission, considering it was the only pharmaceutical company that agreed to release its contract to the light of day. Of course there wasn’t much to inspect with all of the redactions, but beggars can’t be choosers, right?
In light of the steady pressure bearing down on Brussels, much of it happening behind closed doors, the European Commission has obliquely admitted – almost one year too late, and after the rights and freedoms of European citizens have been crushed underfoot – that they failed to use good judgment when ramming through these emergency vaccines.
Last week, in an overwhelmingly passed resolution (458 in favor, 149 against and 86 abstaining), the EU Parliament demanded legislation that would make “the process of researching, purchasing and distributing Covid-19 vaccines more transparent, stating:
“This would enable MEPs to effectively scrutinize EU vaccine policies. At the same time, the Commission should be discussing these policies more openly with citizens.”
This shocking statement by the EU Parliament shows how little respect Brussels had for democratic principles when it was negotiating with the vaccine makers, who have, incidentally, reaped a windfall from the pandemic. The parliamentarians, who are coming under fire at home, demanded that “the Commission discloses who negotiates vaccine purchases on its behalf. It should publish purchase agreements made with vaccine suppliers, including details of public investments and vaccine costs, and publicise any potential breaches of contract.”
Then, in what comes off as the understatement of the century, the MEPs are of the opinion that “more information could help counter vaccine hesitancy and disinformation, and pharmaceutical companies should also release extensive clinical trial data and reports.”
Oh, you think so?
The following question is not an idle one: Why are MEPs ONLY NOW talking about the total lack of transparency and democracy that occurred between the EU Commission and Big Pharma? A more cynical person would be tempted to say it’s because the draconian vaccine mandates have finally reached the very door of Parliament, where the power brokers find themselves locked out of their offices, much like thousands of people on the street. Welcome to the club.
In any case, the fact that Brussels has withheld the details of its agreements with the vaccine makers for almost a year, while at the same time casually destroying the civil liberties of its citizens, totally disqualifies them from punishing those people who are ‘hesitant’ about receiving the vaccine. ‘Informed consent’ is essential to any functioning democracy, and Europeans were clearly denied that right. Do the right thing, Brussels, and release these heavy chains from your people. The world is watching.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.
America’s dramatic rise in ‘hate crimes’ has a surprisingly logical explanation
By Frank Furedi | RT | November 3, 2021
The gubernatorial election in Virginia saw another example of a ‘racism hoax’ that caused media outrage before the truth emerged. It’s little wonder these stunts are becoming more common in a country fixated on identity politics.
At a time when the mere hint of a badly worded sentence invites accusations of racism, many race entrepreneurs feel incentivised to fabricate claims of incidents that can provoke howls of outrage.
This week’s election for the post of governor of Virginia saw just how the phenomenon of a race hoax works. Supporters of the Lincoln Project – an anti-Trump advocacy group – dressed up as Neo-Nazi white supremacists and, clutching tiki torches, photographed themselves next to the campaign bus of the Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin. Chanting “we’re all in for Glenn,” they sought to promote the impression that a vote for Youngkin was a vote for racial hatred.
The hoax provoked the intended reaction of outrage. “To my fellow Virginia residents,” tweeted NBC’s legal analyst, Glenn Kirschner, “please vote against this blatant display of racism, hatred and intolerance. Please vote FOR a kind, welcoming, diverse Virginia. Please vote @TerryMcAuliffe for governor. Because #JusticeMatters.” The tweet was subsequently deleted.
The Lincoln Project’s dirty trick soon got the Jewish Democratic Council of America on board. It published a tweet – also subsequently deleted – demanding that Youngkin condemn the tiki torchbearers or risk being denounced for endorsing anti-Semitism.
More broadly, Democrats were quick to exploit the performance of the Lincoln Project as an illustration that their opponents’ political base was steeped in white supremacy. America’s cultural fixation with race means that they are primed to perceive episodes of racism in the most innocuous of settings. The race hoax perpetrated by the Lincoln Project was designed to feed the American media’s voracious appetite for sensational incidents of hate crimes.
In recent times, the most widely reported alleged race hoax involved the black American actor Jussie Smollett, who claimed he was assaulted in the early hours of the morning in Chicago by two men wearing MAGA hats. He insisted that he was subjected to homophobic and racial slurs and that some unknown chemical substance was poured on him and a noose tied around his neck.
Smollett’s account of this ‘lynching’ provoked anger, and numerous well-known public figures – including the now-Vice President Kamala Harris – lined up to demonstrate their support. Once the police discovered that Smollett apparently made up the attack – he is facing a criminal case – an embarrassed media moved on to find other instances of hate crime.
As it happens, the manufacturing of a race hoax is far from a rare event. Inventing victimhood is not uncommon, particularly within higher education. For example, in September 2017, five black students at the US Air Force Academy Preparatory School discovered racial slurs written on their doors. An investigation later found that one of the students supposedly targeted was responsible for the vandalism.
In his book, ‘Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War’, published in 2019, Wilfred Reilly examined over 100 high-profile incidents of so-called hate crimes that never actually occurred. He pointed out that he was “able to rather easily assemble a data set of 409 hate hoax cases,” concentrated heavily in the previous five years. According to Reilly, his data set has since swelled to become a list of 608 unique hate hoax case studies, containing more than 800 individual incidents of hoaxes.
The fake reporting of hate crimes is encouraged by the singular focus of criminal justice agencies on this issue. In effect, hate crime has turned into a political weapon used to promote the dogma of systemic racism. The eagerness with which claims of hate crime are publicised to prove a point has created an incentive to present oneself as its victim. The proliferation of the phenomenon of race hoax is the inexorable consequence of cultural attitudes that perceive the world through the prism of racism.
The constant obsession with white privilege, whiteness, and systemic racism has created a cultural terrain that is hospitable to the flourishing of race hoaxes.
So, next time you hear that racism is on the rise and society is facing an epidemic of hate crime, take a reality check – because it may turn out that what is at issue is an epidemic of fake news.
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.
What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate to prevent a single COVID fatality in kids 5 to 11 based on Pfizer’s EUA application?
And what are the risks that go along with injecting that many kids?
By Toby Rogers | October 31, 2021
Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV), the standard policy tool that Pharma, the FDA, & CDC no longer want to talk about
A funny thing happened this afternoon. Not funny as in “haha”. More like funny as in, “ohhhhh that’s how the FDA rigs the process.”
I was reading the CDC’s “Guidance for Health Economics Studies Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2019 Update” and I realized that the FDA’s woeful risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s EUA application to jab children ages 5 to 11 violates many of the principles of the CDC’s Guidance document. The CDC “Guidance” document describes 21 things that every health economics study in connection with vaccines must do and the FDA risk-benefit analysis violated at least half of them.
Today I want to focus on a single factor: the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV). In four separate places the CDC Guidance document mentions the importance of coming up with a Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV). I did not recall seeing an NNTV in the FDA risk-benefit document. So I checked the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis again and sure enough, there was no mention of an NNTV.
Because the FDA failed to provide an NNTV, I will attempt to provide it here.
First a little background. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, is a standard way to measure the effectiveness of any drug. It’s an important tool because it enables policymakers to evaluate tradeoffs between a new drug, a different existing drug, or doing nothing. In vaccine research the equivalent term is Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV, sometimes also written as NNV) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death (those are 4 different NNTVs that one could calculate).
Pharma HATES talking about NNTV and they hate talking about NNTV even more when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines because the NNTV is so ridiculously high that this vaccine could not pass any honest risk-benefit analysis.
Indeed about a year ago I innocently asked on Twitter what the NNTV is for coronavirus vaccines.
Pharma sent a swarm of trolls in to attack me and Pharma goons published hit pieces on me outside of Twitter to punish me for even asking the question. Of course none of the Pharma trolls provided an estimate of the NNTV for COVID-19 shots. That tells us that we are exactly over the target.
Various health economists have calculated a NNTV for COVID-19 vaccines.
- Ronald Brown, a health economist in Canada, estimated that the NNTV to prevent a single case of coronavirus is from 88 to 142.
- Others have calculated the NNTV to prevent a single case at 256.
- German and Dutch researchers, using a large (500k) data set from a field study in Israel calculated an NNTV between 200 and 700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA shot marketed by Pfizer. They went further and figured out that the “NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate.”
You can see why Pharma hates this number so much (I can picture Pharma’s various PR firms sending out an “All hands on deck!” message right now to tell their trolls to attack this article). One would have to inject a lot of people to see any benefit and the more people who are injected the more the potential benefits are offset by the considerable side-effects from the shots.
Furthermore, the NNTV to prevent a single case is not a very meaningful measure because most people, particularly children, recover on their own (or even more quickly with ivermectin if treated early). The numbers that health policy makers should really want to know are the NNTV to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. But with the NNTV to prevent a single case already so high, and with significant adverse events from coronavirus vaccines averaging about 15% nationwide, Pharma and the FDA dare not calculate an NNTV for hospitalizations, ICU, and deaths, because then no one would ever take this product (bye bye $93 billion in annual revenue).
Increased all cause mortality in the Pfizer clinical trial of adults
As Bobby Kennedy noted in personal correspondence with me, Pfizer’s clinical trial in adults showed alarming increases in all cause mortality in the vaccinated :
In Pfizer’s 6 month clinical trial in adults — there was 1 covid death our of 22,000 in the vaccine (“treatment”) group and 2 Covid deaths out of 22,000 in the placebo group (see Table s4). So NNTV = 22,000. The catch is there were 5 heart attack deaths in the vaccine group and only 1 in placebo group. So for every 1 life saved from Covid, the Pfizer vaccine kills 4 from heart attacks. All cause mortality in the 6 month study was 20 in vaccine group and 14 in placebo group. So a 42% all cause mortality increase among the vaccinated. The vaccine loses practically all efficacy after 6 months so they had to curtail the study. They unblinded and offered the vaccine to the placebo group. At that point the rising harm line had long ago intersected the sinking efficacy line.
Former NY Times investigative reporter Alex Berenson also wrote about the bad outcomes for the vaccinated in the Pfizer clinical trial in adults (here). Berenson received a lifetime ban from Twitter for posting Pfizer’s own clinical trial data.
Pfizer learned their lesson with the adult trial and so when they conducted a trial of their mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 they intentionally made it too small (only 2,300 participants) and too short (only followed up for 2 months) in order to hide harms.
Estimating an NNTV in children ages 5 to 11 using Pfizer’s own clinical trial data
All of the NNTV estimates above are based on data from adults. In kids the NNTV will be even higher (the lower the risk, the higher the NNTV to prevent a single bad outcome). Children ages 5 to 11 are at extremely low risk of death from coronavirus. In a meta-analysis combining data from 5 studies, Stanford researchers Cathrine Axfors and John Ioannidis found a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.0027% in children ages 0-19. In children ages 5 to 11 the IFR is even lower. Depending on the study one looks at, COVID-19 is slightly less dangerous or roughly equivalent to the flu in children.
So how many children would need to be injected with Pharma’s mRNA shot in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death?
Let’s examine Pfizer’s EUA application and the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis. By Pfizer’s own admission, there were zero hospitalization, ICU admissions, or deaths, in the treatment or control group in their study of 2,300 children ages 5 to 11.
So the Number Needed to Vaccinate in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, according to Pfizer’s own data, is infinity. ∞. Not the good kind of infinity as in God or love or time or the universe. This is the bad kind of infinity as in you could vaccinate every child age 5 to 11 in the U.S. and not prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death from coronavirus according to Pfizer’s own clinical trial data as submitted to the FDA. Of course Pfizer likes this kind of infinity because it means infinite profits. [Technically speaking the result is “undefined” because mathematically one cannot divide by zero, but you get my point.]
Estimating an NNTV and risk-benefit model in children ages 5 to 11 using the limited data that are available
Everyone knows that Pfizer was not even trying to conduct a responsible clinical trial of their mRNA shot in kids ages 5 to 11. Pfizer could have submitted to the FDA a paper napkin with the words “Iz Gud!” written in crayon and the VRBPAC would have approved the shot. They are all in the cartel together and they are all looking forward to their massive payoff/payday.
But let’s not be like Pharma. Instead, let’s attempt to come up with a best guess estimate based on real world data. Over time, others will develop a much more sophisticated estimate (for example, Walach, Klement, & Aukema, 2021 estimated an NNTV for 3 different populations based on “days post dose”). But for our purposes here I think there is a much easier way to come up with a ballpark NNTV estimate for children ages 5 to 11.
Here’s the benefits model:
- As of October 30, 2021, the CDC stated that 170 children ages 5 to 11 have died of COVID-19-related illness since the start of the pandemic. (That represents less than 0.1% of all coronavirus-related deaths nationwide even though children that age make up 8.7% of the U.S. population).
- The Pfizer mRNA shot only “works” for about 6 months (it increases risk in the first month, provides moderate protection in months 2 through 4 and then effectiveness begins to wane, which is why all of the FDA modeling only used a 6 month time-frame). So any modeling would have to be based on vaccine effectiveness in connection with the 57 (170/3) children who might otherwise have died of COVID-related illness during a 6-month period.
- At best, the Pfizer mRNA shot might be 80% effective against hospitalizations and death. That number comes directly from the FDA modeling (p. 32). I am bending over backwards to give Pfizer the benefit of considerable doubt because again, the Pfizer clinical trial showed NO reduction in hospitalizations or death in this age group. So injecting all 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 with two doses of Pfizer (which is what the Biden administration wants to do) would save, at most, 45 lives (0.8 effectiveness x 57 fatalities that otherwise would have occurred during that time period = 45).
- So then the NNTV to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45). But it’s a two dose regimen so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550. It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.
If you inject that many children, you certainly will have lots and lots of serious side effects including disability and death. So let’s look at the risk side of the equation.
Here’s the risk model:
- Because the Pfizer clinical trial has no useable data, I have to immuno-bridge from the nearest age group.
- 31,761,099 people (so just about 10% more people than in the 5 to 11 age bracket) ages 12 to 24 have gotten at least one coronavirus shot.
- The COVID-19 vaccine program has only existed for 10 months and younger people have only had access more recently (children 12 to 15 have had access for five months; since May 10) — so we’re looking at roughly the same observational time period as modeled above.
- During that time, there are 128 reports of fatal side effects following coronavirus mRNA injections in people 12 to 24. (That’s through October 22, 2021. There is a reporting lag though so the actual number of reports that have been filed is surely higher).
- Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford (2021) estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41 which would put the total fatal side effects in this age-range at 5,248. (Kirsch et al. represents a conservative estimate because others have put the underreporting factor at 100.)
- With potentially deadly side effects including myo- and pericarditis disproportionately impacting youth it is reasonable to think that over time the rate of fatal side effects from mRNA shots in children ages 5 to 11 might be similar to those in ages 12 to 24.
So, to put it simply, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus.
For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.
The Pfizer mRNA shot fails any honest risk-benefit analysis in children ages 5 to 11.
Even under the best circumstances, estimating NNTV and modeling risk vs. benefits is fraught. In the current situation, with a new and novel bioengineered virus, where Pfizer’s data are intentionally underpowered to hide harms, and the FDA, CDC, & Biden Administration are doing everything in their power to push dangerous drugs on kids, making good policy decisions is even more difficult.
If the FDA or CDC want to calculate a different NNTV (and explain how they arrived at that number) I’m all ears. But we all know that the FDA refused to calculate an NNTV not because they forgot, but because they knew the number was so high that it would destroy the case for mRNA vaccines in children this age. Your move CDC — your own Guidance document states that you must provide this number.
Is it Really True, as Climate Change Activists Claim, That 97% of Scientists Agree With Them?
By Luke Perry • The Daily Sceptic • October 27, 2021
Our Government is imposing draconian limitations on our lifestyles, our economy and our finances in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions to supposedly save the planet from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), now renamed as climate change. Probably one of the most repeated arguments you’ll hear, over and over again, in support of the need to achieve net zero is that “97% of scientists agree CAGW is happening”.
Former President Barack Obama is just one of many who have made this claim: “97% percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
So did President Joe Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, when he warned of the “crippling consequences” of climate change and that: “97% percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”
This claim is widely accepted. Yet, in spite of the damaging effects reaching net zero will have on Western economies, not a single politician or journalist seems to have made the effort to find out where this ‘97%’ figure came from and how accurate it actually is.
Statistical smoke and mirrors?
The main author of the paper which came up with the famous 97% figure was an Australian former web programmer and blogger who later gained a PhD in Philosophy at the School of Psychology, University of Western Australia and then founded what could be seen as a climate alarmist website.
He assembled a group of volunteers as part of a ‘citizen science’ project and tasked them with”‘examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’”. Note that the volunteers didn’t read the actual scientific papers, they just looked at the abstracts – a summary paragraph or two describing what was in the papers. The volunteers then classed the abstracts into one of seven categories according to their opinions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):
1. Explicit endorsement of AGW with quantification
2. Explicit endorsement of AGW without quantification
3. Implicit endorsement of AGW
4. No position or Uncertain
5. Implicit rejection of AGW
6. Explicit rejection of AGW without quantification
7. Explicit rejection of AGW with quantification
The reviewers then ‘simplified’ results into four main categories as follows:
Endorse AGW 3,896 32.6% of abstracts
No AGW position 7,930 66.4% of abstracts
Reject AGW 78 0.7% of abstracts
Uncertain on AGW 40 0.3% of abstracts
So, this gave only 32.6% who, the reviewers concluded, endorsed AGW. This was clearly not quite the stunning super-majority of 97% which the study claimed to have identified. Now comes the clever bit. Instead of admitting that just 32.6% of papers (actually just abstracts of papers) endorsed AGW, the group decided to remove all the 7,930 abstracts which didn’t take a position on AGW. Then, hey presto, magic happened. That left just 4,014 abstracts of which 3,896 (97%) supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW.
But that’s not the end of the magic employed to reach that wondrous 97%. The reviewers decided to lump together three categories of abstracts – Explicit endorsement with quantification; Explicit endorsement without quantification and Implicit Endorsement. But in the paper claiming 97% support for AGW, the reviewers don’t tell us how many papers fitted into each of these three categories. An independent researcher managed to get hold of the original data file and claimed to have found that in 3,896 abstracts which supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW, just 64 were in the Explicit endorsement with quantification category; 922 were in the Explicit endorsement without quantification; and the vast majority – 2,910 (out of 3,896) – were in the Implicit endorsement of AGW category. Deciding from an abstract of a scientific article that the article ‘implicitly’ supports AGW is a bit like walking down a high street and deciding you know how people will vote based purely on looking at the kind of clothes they wear. To propose this as a serious survey is beyond ludicrous.
Thus, if this independent researcher’s figures are accurate, when you dig down into how the ‘97% of scientists’ figure was actually conjured up, you find that only 986 of 11,944 – that’s just 8.2% – of abstracts actually explicitly said they agreed with the theory of man-made global warming. And that’s clearly not the kind of figure the apocalypse-threatening climate catastrophists would really want to publicise too widely.
So, this ‘97% of scientists’ claim is based on about 11 to 12 volunteers, whose scientific credentials have not (as far as I know) been released and all of whom were probably firm AGW believers, each having to look at around 1,000, often quite obtuse, scientific abstracts. During this review, they decided whether they thought the scientific papers (which they hadn’t read as they had only looked at the abstracts) explicitly or implicitly supported the AGW theory. To claim such an approach is statistically valid is beyond farcical. Given the damage reaching net zero will do to our economies and our lives, it is beyond incredible that not a single politician, mainstream-media journalist or editor seems to have had either the ability or the inclination to expose the more than dubious origins of the almost ubiquitous ‘97% of scientists endorse AGW’ claim.
Media Kinda-Sorta Forgets to Mention Doctor’s $2 Million From Pfizer
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 02, 2021
A Canadian doctor pushing COVID-19 vaccine shots for children ages 5 years and up who’s been featured in numerous media reports received nearly $2 million in Pfizer funding for vaccine research.
Whether it was intentional or if the media kinda-sorta forgot to mention the conflict, or if they simply didn’t bother doing their own research before using Dr. Jim Kellner as a lead adviser on the COVID shot isn’t clear. But what is clear is that Pfizer has given the University of Calgary professor and pediatrician $1.9 million, with $787,004 of it still being allocated until 2022.
Kellner didn’t attempt to hide his conflict of interest; it’s easily found in his publicly posted curriculum vitae, with the current funding explicitly stated.
Yet, according to True North news, “Kellner’s name turns up over 41 times and appears in numerous videos and articles on the topic of vaccination without any indication of how much money he has received from the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer.”
Featured Video
AIDS Inc. by Gary Null (2007)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Mauritius denies landing permit to flight from Israel, forcing cancellation: Tour operator
- Israeli finance minister calls for genocidal war on West Bank, annexation of south Lebanon
- 12 Things Your Psychiatrist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- Ukrainian Soldiers, Potential Mercenaries: Have Gun, Will Travel!
- Burnham’s UN debut… A masterclass in British disinformation
- Iran flights continue despite US aviation sanctions
- If Americans Knew
- Israel forces Gazans to live in constant peril – Daily Update
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
