GAIN OF FUNCTION ON POX VIRUSES CONFIRMED
Amazing Polly | May 23, 2022
I cover the US’s leading Orthopox Virus researcher who conducted at least 2 rounds of gain of function research on viruses related to smallpox. Other revelations about bio-terror ‘research’ in here too. Support my work: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php THANKS! References below.
NYT Mousepox Gain of Function: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/us/bioterror-researchers-build-a-more-lethal-mousepox.html
Buller Says Vaccine for Monkeypox (using smallpox vax) NOT recommended: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17661673
Buller paper on Monkeypox Outbreaks up to 2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23626656/
Judicial Watch re James Leduc / Wuhan: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wuhan-lab-fauci-grants/
National Biocontainment Training Center report by Leduc: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1022067.pdf
The Rise of Hepatitis
By Carla Peeters | Brownstone Institute | May 23, 2022
The number of previously healthy children younger than 16 years of age with mysterious hepatitis cases have doubled in two weeks to 450 cases worldwide, including 11 deaths. Most cases have been reported in the UK (160) and the US (currently, 180). In Europe most cases are found in Italy (35) and Spain (22). Over 8-14% of the patients needed liver transplantation. These children will be on lifelong medication. Until now the real cause of a sudden spark in hepatitis is not clear.
Although 50-72% of the cases tested positive with a PCR test for Adenovirus, tissue and liver samples taken in the UK do not show any typical features that might be expected with a liver inflammation due to this virus.
In the UK, 18% of the reported cases tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus and three cases had tested positive 8 weeks prior to admission. The most plausible cause of hepatitis traces to a viral origin. Brodin and Aditi hypothesize a SARS-CoV-2 superantigen mediated immune activation in an Adenovirus-sensitized host.
At this point many of the children with hepatitis are too young to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. So far, no common environmental exposure has been found.
Jaundice is characteristic for all children with hepatitis, which could have many reasons including toxins and malnutrition. A search into the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the toxicology of nanoparticles, microplastics, disinfectants and hypercapnia/hypoxia, children have been extensively exposed to during the pandemic makes bio corona formation and accumulation of toxic substances a reasonable explanation for disruption of the liver homeostasis.
The capacity for excessive activation of liver inflammatory pathways has been described for these materials prior to the pandemic. Effects of the complex mixture of these materials and associated chemical pollutants presented have not yet been assessed. Understanding how these materials interact with its biological surroundings during long-term and frequent exposure is of utmost importance.
Pandemic Measures and Liver Toxicity
Early in the pandemic several researchers warned of the unsafe use of facemasks, tests, and disinfectants and their weakening effect on the immune system. Many institutions are starting research on harmful chemicals due to air pollution as they pose a known threat to public health and the economy, representing 10% of global GDP in health costs and 3.75 billion lost working days at the global level in 2060.
Unfortunately, almost no funded research has been started in the area of the safe, cost/benefit use of the mandates. Instead, during the pandemic large amounts of money were spent on less urgent research on non-pandemic related issues.
While Covid-19 was originally thought to be a respiratory infection, various research papers have indicated myocardial inflammation, hepatitis, or neurological experiences independent of severity of Covid-19 and sometimes without evidence of a viral infection. Other researchers found that cardiac damage was more related to clotting and microthrombi were frequent. Almost 25% of people hospitalized develop myocardial injury and many develop arrhythmias or thromboembolic disease.
Lockdowns, with many people experiencing an ongoing state of fear and anxiety and frequent exposure to nanoparticles, microplastics, high CO2 exposure and toxic substances impaired the innate immune system even more.
Furthermore, several studies have indicated a remarkable suppression of the innate immune system after injections with PEGylated lipid nanoparticle (LNP) modified mRNA vaccines. In vivo studies for cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of these vaccines, prior to their release under EUA and being mandated for many people and children, have been neglected.
Unfortunately, more than two years into the pandemic an alarming stage of mysterious rises in infectious and noncommunicable diseases and sudden non-Covid deaths have been reported, even neonatal deaths. The Observer reported one in three people in the UK are experiencing long-term illness.
The Liver Is an Immune Surveillance System
The liver is an important organ responsible for the storage, synthesis, metabolism and redistribution of carbohydrates, fats and vitamins and numerous essential proteins. It is the main detoxification center of the body. A most important organ for generating an effective innate immune response and covering a robust and long-lasting immunity, it works to keep virus, bacteria and excessive inflammations in check.
About 30% of the total blood passes through the liver every minute and is scanned by the mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS) in the liver. The microenvironment in the liver shapes and functions the antigen specific CD4+ T cell population with the capacity for longevity/self-renewal for more than a decade.
High amounts of CD8, Natural Killer T cells, dendritic cells and macrophages (Kupfer cells) in the liver play an important role in the protective innate immune system during injury and infection deciding for tolerance or excessive inflammation. Specific liver cells, hepatocytes, produce 80-90% of the circulating innate immunity proteins in the body including acute phase proteins, complement, bactericidal proteins and more.
Neutrophils, the most abundant leukocytes in the blood, present in the liver perform important functions in inflammation and act as a functional bridge between the innate and adaptive immunity (B cells and T cells) activating antigen specific immune responses.
Homeostatic inflammation is a normal part of a healthy liver. In the complex microenvironment of the liver, the hepatic immune system tolerates harmless molecules while at the same time remaining alert to possible infectious agents, malignant cells or tissue damage. Inflammatory processes are required to rid itself of pathogens, cancer cells or toxic products of metabolic activity. The inflammatory processes are intimately linked to mechanisms that resolve inflammation and promote tissue regeneration.
Excessive and dysregulated inflammatory activity are key drivers of liver pathology, associated with systemic inflammation: chronic infection, autoimmunity and cancer. Mechanisms to resolve liver inflammation are essential to maintain local organ and systemic homeostasis. It is the balance between activation and tolerance that characterizes the liver as a frontline immunological organ. Disrupting this precious surveillance system increases the risk for severe disease and death.
Immune-Liver Disruptors
A possible role of the pandemic measures in excessive inflammation in the human body by immune-liver disruptors is realistic. Independently they may each cause problems of the liver. Serious drawbacks of the measures have become most visible in children, the obese and immunocompromised and the poor.
Nanoparticles (i.e. inhaled graphene oxide, titanium dioxide, Ag from facemasks or swabs) present in the body are cleared from the blood and will preferentially accumulate and sequester in the liver, up to 30-99% from those present in the blood and at much higher quantities as compared to other organs.
Studies in recent years have shown that nanomaterials can modulate and activate neutrophils and other immune cells. Nanomaterials may be considered as a particular case of danger signals that are able to trigger sterile inflammatory responses. Rapid accumulation of nanoparticles in the resident liver macrophages can change the expression of anti-inflammatory genes. Changes of genes related to detoxification and cell cycle have been observed.
Systematically administered nanoparticles may directly interact with circulating erythrocytes leading to erythrocyte aggregation and or hemolysis that is accompanied by hemoglobin release. Surface properties of the nanoparticles are known to play a critical role in nanoparticle-erythrocyte interaction. Most nanoparticles have been known to activate complements by either themselves or through serum proteins. Activation of complements and complement activation pathways could further promote tumor growth.
Nanoparticles develop a specific bio-corona comprising complex and dynamic layers of biomolecules that endow nanoparticles with a new immunological identity.
Studies on polystyrene microplastics (which can be present in facemasks and swabs) showed hepatotoxicity and dysregulation of the lipid metabolism, causing oxidative stress and inflammatory responses. This implicated a potential risk for liver steatosis, fibrosis and cancer and macrophage foam cell formation, a characteristic feature observed during atherosclerosis posing a serious threat to human health.
Another study demonstrated that fish exposed to a mixture of polyethylene with chemical pollutants bioaccumulate the chemical pollutants and suffer liver toxicity and pathology. Moreover 0.1 um microplastics could enter hepatocytes from circulation and result in liver damage even at a low concentration.
Microplastic exposure could induce DNA damage in both nucleus and mitochondria indicating a potential risk of hepatotoxicity and fibrosis. Microplastics are found in the human blood of 80 % of the people tested, in deep lung tissues and human feces.
Covid-19 mRNA vaccines use Acuitas’ PEG (Poly Ethylene Glycol) ylated lipid nanoparticles (LNP). The PEGylated lipids support prolonged circulation and shield the highly inflammatory and cytotoxic effects of the cationic lipids used. If insufficiently shielded by PEG they have been shown to mediate aggregation and interact with and damage the membranes of erythrocytes resulting in hemolysis. PEG content, surface density and conformation of the nanoparticle influence the binding of proteins to a bio corona and the uptake by immune cells.
Despite achieving high dense surface coatings of PEG, no NP formulation has been developed that can completely resist interaction with blood components. Of concern is that 22-25% of individuals who were never exposed to PEGylated therapeutics were found to have PEG antibodies, which is more than two decades ago. PEG coating can improve the penetration of biological barriers including reducing interactions with tissue extracellular matrix cellular barriers and biological fluids such as mucus leading to improved delivery.
After injection of Moderna LNP very low levels could be detected in the brain, potentially indicating that the mRNA LNP could cross the blood brain barrier and reach the Central Nervous System (CNS). Unfortunately, the potential inflammatory nature of these LNPs was not assessed.
In preclinical studies a strong induction of adaptive immune responses by CD4+ T-cell activation and protective humoral immune responses was found. The synthetic ionizable lipid is speculated to have approximately 20-30 days of half-life in humans. It has been shown that plasma protein absorption occurs very rapidly and that it affects hemolysis, thrombocyte activation, cellular uptake and endothelial cell death. The bio corona formation of the PEGylated nanoparticle may change over time.
The increasing number of side effects and reported high potency for eliciting antibody response may partially stem from the LNP’s highly inflammatory nature characterized by leukocyte infiltration and activation of different inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Antigen-presenting cells presenting vaccine derived peptides/protein might cause tissue damage and exacerbate side effects, which have been linked to autoimmune diseases.
More severe and systemic side effects after the booster shot might be related to an amplification effect of the adaptive immune response induced by the vaccine resulting in high antibody responses. Neutrophils were found to preferentially internalize PEGylated particles in the presence of human plasma. Also, further studies of complement activation in relation to PEG nanoparticles merit rigorous evaluation for immune safe materials. Observational studies found a greater risk for complications following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. A study of the University of Lund has indicated by in vitro studies that the BNT162b2mRNA vaccine has a fast take-up into human liver cells. In 6 hours of exposure the RNA was reverse transcribed into DNA.
Sennef et al. describes the disruption of the innate immune system by the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines caused by an impaired interferon signaling, release of large amounts of exosomes containing Spike protein, potential disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance of and their potential direct link to liver disease (with over 2,000 reports in VAERS December 2021) and other inflammatory diseases. The presence of Spike protein has been detected in the blood and 60 days after mRNA vaccine injection in the lymph nodes.
A functional reprogramming of the innate immune responses after BNT 162b2 injection was also observed by Fohse et al. with a lower response of innate immune cells, while the fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger. A study on Biovrix by Nguyen et al. demonstrated an impaired lipid metabolism and increased lipotoxicity by the Spike protein. Jiang et al observed that the Spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein recruitment to a damaged site. A mechanism by which the spike protein might impede the adaptive immunity explaining the potential side effects. Suraswaki et al. stated that the virus itself may dysregulate the innate cellular defenses using various structural and nonstructural proteins.
Taking Back Control of Our Bodies
The European Commission Statement from May 12, 2022, announces to shorten (from 300 to 100 days) the product to market cycle to develop safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics following the identification of new threats and work to make them widely available.
As discussed, the Covid-19 pandemic measures have shown to be far from safe. All materials are known to interact and bind proteins forming bio corona’s depleting the body of essentials for processes to function properly.
Subtle changes in materials and biological fluids of persons can significantly change the protein composition of the bio corona and can either lead to an excessive inflammation or resilient homeostasis. Especially in children who need more proteins, vitamins and minerals for mental, physical, and immune system development, the accumulation of toxic substances in the liver and formation of bio corona can be a serious threat to health.
At this stage, it is not known whether the mysterious rises in diseases are caused by a virus or an intoxication and/or depletion of essentials that result in impaired signaling routes. The Covid-19 routine diagnostic tests used for mass testing have major flaws which make it impossible to ensure the presence of an infectious virus as a single cause of symptoms.
An increasing number of doctors and researchers agree: the pandemic is over. All pandemic measures need to be halted immediately. The highest priority is lifting the mandates for children. Healthy children always had a very low risk for severe Covid-19 and are protected by a strong robust and long-lasting natural immunity. There is no added value to vaccinate any person with natural immunity. Moreover, the risk for side effects of the mRNA vaccine for children is high. mRNA Covid vaccine accumulates in the liver 30 minutes after it is injected.
Deep investigations on quality, reproducibility and contaminations of the materials of personal protective equipment, facemasks, tests, disinfectants and vaccines, being used with their effects on the human body and the environmental ecosystem need to be prioritized and funded.
During the past two years, the immune system of many people has been harmed and even broken. We need programs to regenerate the liver and immune system so people can face with trust and confidence any possible wave of virus attacks.
Carla Peeters is founder and managing director of COBALA Good Care Feels Better. She obtained a PhD in Immunology from the Medical Faculty of Utrecht, studied Molecular Sciences at Wageningen University and Research, and followed a four-year course in Higher Nature Scientific Education with a specialization in medical laboratory diagnostics and research. She studied at various business schools including London Business School, INSEAD and Nyenrode Business School.
FDA Dumps More Pfizer Documents: Why Were So Many Adverse Events Reported as ‘Unrelated’ to Vaccine?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 17, 2022
The latest release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents raises questions about how frequently adverse events experienced by clinical trial participants were reported as “unrelated” to the vaccine.
The 80,000-page document cache released May 2 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer trials conducted at various locations in the U.S.
The documents also include the “third interim report” from BioNTech’s trials conducted in Germany (accompanied by a synopsis of this report and a database of adverse events from this particular set of trials).
The FDA released the documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, submitted the FOIA request.
Adverse events during Pfizer vaccine trials in the U.S. usually reported as ‘unrelated’ to vaccination
Pfizer conducted a series of vaccine trials at various locations in the U.S., including the New York University Langone Health Center, Rochester Clinical Research and Rochester General Hospital (Rochester, New York) and the J. Lewis Research, Inc. Foothill Family Clinic (Salt Lake City, Utah).
The Pfizer documents released this month by the FDA included a series of CRFs for patients who suffered some type of adverse event during their participation in the COVID-19 vaccine trials.
As the documents reveal, despite the occurrence of a wide range of symptoms, including serious cardiovascular events, almost none were identified as being “related” to the vaccine.
Such serious yet “unrelated” adverse events included:
- Acute asthma exacerbation
- Aortic aneurysm (listed as a pre-existing condition)
- Appendicitis (requiring hospitalization)
- Atrial defibrillation
- Cardiac arrest and acute respiratory failure, requiring hospitalization, sustained by a patient who then was “lost” (could not be located for continued participation in the trial)
- Chest pain (requiring hospitalization, later listed as cardiac ischemia)
- Coronary artery occlusion (listed as both serious and life-threatening)
- Injuries sustained from a fall
- Intermittent non-cardiac chest pain (requiring hospitalization)
- Left breast cancer (listed as a pre-existing occult malignancy)
- Neuritis (peripheral nerve Injury), listed as “unrelated” to the vaccine but related to the blood draw during vaccination
- Pulmonary embolism and bilateral deep venous thrombosis
- Respiratory failure (requiring hospitalization)
- Right ureteropelvic junction obstruction (requiring hospitalization, listed as congenital)
- Small bowel obstruction, listed as “unplanned,” and a panic attack
Of the CRFs found in the documents released this month, only one adverse event is clearly specified as being related to the vaccination: a participant who suffered from psoriatic arthritis, with no prior history of the condition.
In addition, several CRFs indicated exposure during pregnancy (see here and here), or during a partner’s pregnancy (see here and here). However, the documents provided do not appear to have provided any follow-ups regarding any outcomes or potential adverse events for the participants, their partners or their newborn babies once born.
In some instances, while the CRFs claimed the adverse events suffered by patients were not related to the vaccine, their cause was unspecified, simply indicated as “other,” while in another case, a participant’s “unplanned” small bowel obstruction and panic attacks were listed as being unrelated to the vaccination despite no relevant medical history pertaining to the SAEs (severe adverse events) in question.
Did Pfizer hide critical information from regulators?
It is difficult to draw concrete conclusions about any specific case from the data provided by CRFs and vaccine trial summaries.
However, what raises eyebrows is the very large number of adverse events — often serious and often requiring the hospitalization of the patients involved — that were determined to be “unrelated” to the administration of the COVID vaccine.
Previously released Pfizer documents also included discrepancies in the recording of adverse events.
According to investigative journalist Sonia Elijah, these discrepancies include:
- Trial participants were entered into the “healthy population” but were, in actuality, far from healthy.
- SAE numbers were left blank.
- Barcodes were missing from samples collected from trial participants.
- The second vaccine dose was administered outside the three-week protocol window.
- New health problems were dismissed as “unrelated” to the vaccination.
- A remarkable number of patients with an observation period of exactly the same duration — 30 minutes, with very little variety in observation times and raising questions as to whether patients were adequately observed or were put at risk.
- Oddities pertaining to the start and end dates of SAEs – for instance, a “healthy” diabetic suffered a “serious” heart attack on October 27, 2020, but the “end” date for this SAE is listed as the very next day, even though the patient was diagnosed with pneumonia that same day.
- Impossible dating: in the aforementioned example of the patient who sustained a heart attack and pneumonia, the individual in question later died, but the date of death is indicated as the day before the patient was recorded as having gone to a “COVID ill” visit.
- Unblinded teams, who were aware of which patients received the actual vaccine or a placebo, were responsible for reviewing adverse event reports, potentially leading to pressure to downplay COVID-related events in the vaccinated, or to indicate that adverse events were related to the vaccine.
- Other adverse events were indicated as “not serious” despite extensive hospital stays, of up to at least 26 days in the case of one patient who suffered a fall which was classified as “not serious,” yet facial lacerations sustained as a result of the fall were attributed to hypotension (low blood pressure).
Many of these practices seem to appear in the trial-related documents released this month.
Medical and scientific experts who spoke to The Defender expressed similar concerns about what this month’s tranche of documents reveals, and addressed cases of “disappearing” adverse events.
Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, remarked:
“I’m most concerned about ‘disappearing’ patients. One cannot conduct a valid trial and simply omit the results that they don’t like!
“With the stories about Maddie de Garay and Augusto Roux surfacing, I have to wonder how many other participants were dropped in order to hide vaccine adverse events/effects.
“If you look at the data in VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System], COVID-19 vaccines are the most dangerous ever introduced into the population.”
Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, said:
“The ‘unrelated’ label the investigators use to divert attention from AEs [adverse events] is a powerful point that stands on its own. We haven’t pushed back on this enough.
“Equivalently, we can say that the meager and short-lived benefit of these shots is also ‘unrelated’ using their ‘standards.’ On what grounds can they say that their product is preventing infection (which it isn’t anymore), or death (marginally)?
“They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim a benefit through short-term outcomes while denying that side effects of any kind are related to their product.
“That’s the whole point of doing a trial. You cannot prove causation, only statistically significant correlation.”
Setty provided further context for his remarks in an April 2022 article for The Defender and in a March 2022 presentation, in which he discussed the number of these adverse events and how Pfizer swept them away (timestamp 24:00).
In Setty‘s view:
“There’s a high likelihood of malfeasance going on. [Pfizer whistleblower] Brook Jackson says the PIs [principal investigators] were unblinded. If true, it would make it very easy for the investigators to bump up the AEs in the placebo group while ignoring some of the AEs in the vaccine group.
“Pfizer claims that 0.5% of placebo recipients suffered a serious adverse event compared to 0.6% in the vaccine group. This is how these events were obscured.”
The extant body of evidence indicates Pfizer “is hiding critical information from regulators,” Setty said:
“The clincher is in the memorandum to the VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] (Table 2, efficacy populations), where they show us that five times more people in the vaccine group were pulled out of the trial than the placebo within seven days of their second shot for ‘important protocol deviations.’
“In a trial that big the chances that could have happened coincidentally is infinitesimally small (less than 1 in 100,000).
“Moreover, months later, the same thing happened in the pediatric trial (Table 12). This time, six times more children were pulled from the trial after their second dose.
“There are, of course, procedural differences when administering a placebo versus the mRNA vaccine, but why didn’t it happen after the first dose as well?
“Mathematically, that is about as close as you can get to eliminating any ‘shadow of doubt.’ With a formal allegation by a trial coordinator that states the same thing [referring to whistleblower Brook Jackson], we can be assured Pfizer is hiding critical information from regulators.”
BioNTech trials in Germany claim few adverse events ‘related’ to vaccine
The BioNTech trial in Germany tested various dosages of two COVID-19 vaccine formulas, labeled BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 — the latter granted EUA by the FDA.
The latest cache of Pfizer documents suggests a pattern, similar to the one in the U.S. trials, of not reporting adverse events as related to the vaccine.
According to the third interim report, dated March 20, 2021, among trial participants who were administered the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine granted EUA in the U.S.:
- 87% of younger participants reported solicited local reactions, and 88% reported solicited systemic reactions, with 10% reporting solicited systemic reactions of Grade 3 or higher.
- 87% of younger participants experienced “mild” solicited local reactions, and 35% experienced “moderate” solicited local reactions.
- 88% of younger participants experienced “mild” solicited systemic reactions, and 38% experienced “moderate” solicited systemic reactions. As stated in the report:
“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were fatigue (n=40, 67%), followed by headache (n=32, 53%), malaise (n=24, 40%), and myalgia (n=23, 38%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.
“For nausea, headache, fatigue, myalgia, chills, arthralgia and malaise each symptom was assessed as severe in <10% of participants.”
- 43% of younger participants reported a total of 51 unsolicited TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events, referring to conditions not present prior to treatment or that worsened in intensity after treatment) within 28 days of the first or second dose, nine of which were deemed to be “related” to the vaccination. One participant in this category sustained a TEAE assessed as Grade 3 or higher, but “which was assessed as not related by the investigator.”
- TEAEs among younger participants included hypoaesthesia, lymphadenopathy, heart palpitations, external ear inflammation, blepharitis, toothache, non-cardiac chest pain, cestode infection, oral herpes, tonsillitis, neck pain, insomnia, anosmia and dysmenorrhea.
- No unsolicited treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) or deaths were reported among younger participants, but one discontinued participation due to moderate nasopharyngitis.
- One younger participant “discontinued due to a moderate AE (nasopharyngitis).”
- 86% of older participants reported solicited local reactions, with 6% reporting solicited local reactions of Grade 3 or higher, 78% reporting “mild” solicited local reactions and 36% reporting “moderate” solicited local reactions.
- 72% of older participants reported solicited systemic reactions, with 11% of these participants sustaining solicited systemic reactions of Grade 3 or higher, 69% sustaining “mild” solicited reactions and 36% sustaining “moderate” solicited reactions.
- 33% of older participants reported a total of 20 unsolicited TEAEs, four of which were determined to be “related” to the vaccination. Among older participants, 8% reported a TESAE of Grade 3 or higher, with “one event assessed as related by the investigator.”
- One older participant was reported to have sustained a “not related TESAE” (an ankle fracture).
- TESAEs among older participants included back pain, chest pain, facial injury, increased lipase, increased amylase, muscle spasms, musculoskeletal pain, tendon pain, orthostatic intolerance, renal colic, seborrhoeic dermatitis and “painful respiration.”
Among trial participants who received the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine (not granted EUA):
- 86% of “younger participants” reported solicited (expected) localized reactions (remaining in one part of the body), with 18% reporting Grade 3 or higher solicited local reactions, 86% of younger participants reporting “mild” solicited local reactions and 54% reporting “moderate” solicited local reactions.
- 92% of younger participants reported solicited systemic reactions (spreading to other parts of the body), with 44% reporting Grade 3 or higher solicited systemic reactions, 90% reporting “mild” solicited systemic reactions and 74% experiencing “moderate” solicited systemic reactions.
The report states:
“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were fatigue (n=68, 81%), headache (n=66, 79%), myalgia (n=51, 61%), malaise (n=50, 60%), and chills (n=47, 56%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.
“For nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia, arthralgia and fever each symptom was assessed as severe in ≤10% of participants.”
- 45% of younger participants reported a total of 83 unsolicited (unexpected) TEAEs within 28 days of receiving the first or second dose.
A total of 51 of these unsolicited TEAEs were reported as “related” to the vaccination, while 2% of participants sustained Grade 3 or higher TEAEs (four in total), “of which three events were assessed as related by the investigator.”
No unsolicited TESAEs or deaths were reported in this category.
- According to the report, among younger participants, TEAEs included:
“‘General disorders and administration site conditions’ reported by 9 participants (11%),” including influenza-like illness and injection site hematoma.
“‘Nervous system disorders’ reported by 10 participants (12%),” including presyncope, hyperaesthesia, paraesthesia, and headache.
“‘Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders’ reported by 9 participants (11%),” including cough and oropharyngeal pain.”
Other symptoms included back pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, cervicobrachial syndrome, taste disorder, sleep disorder, depression, hallucination, dysmenorrhoea, pruritus and pityriasis rosea, while one participant required the excision (removal) of a papilloma.
- One younger participant discontinued participation in the trial, “due to a moderate AE (malaise),” while another participant discontinued participation “due to dose-limiting toxicity.”
- 83% of “older participants” reported solicited local reactions, but none were reported as Grade 3 or higher, while 83% of solicited local reactions were “mild” and 42% were “moderate.”
- 92% of older participants reported solicited systemic reactions, with 28% of participants experiencing Grade 3 or higher solicited systemic reactions, 89% experiencing “mild” solicited systemic reactions, and 61% experiencing “moderate” solicited systemic reactions.
According to the report:
“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were headache (n=29, 81%), fatigue (n=27, 75%), myalgia (n=18, 50%), and malaise (n=18, 50%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.”
- 36% of participants reported a total of 24 unsolicited TEAEs within 28 days of the first or second dose, nine of which were assessed as “related” to the vaccination.
Of the participants in this category, 11% reported TEAEs of Grade 3 or higher (four events in total), with one of these events assessed as “related” to the vaccination.
- TEAEs reported by older participants included oropharyngeal pain, nasopharyngitis, bladder dysfunction, sleep disorder, musculoskeletal pain and musculoskeletal chest pain, pollakiuria, migraine, syncope and alopecia.
- One older participant receiving the BNT162b1 candidate sustained a TESAE (syncope), and there were no deaths in this category.
Of note, none of the participants for either vaccine candidate were pregnant, which raises questions about recommending and administering the vaccine to pregnant women despite the absence of any clinical trial data.
As the documents show, a wide range of adverse effects were reported, including cardiovascular and nervous system conditions, most of which were determined to be unrelated to the vaccination itself.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
© 2022 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.
Pandemic 2: Monkeypox Madness

OffGuardian | May 21, 2022
Monkeypox – it’s the hip new disease sweeping the globe. Allegedly appearing almost simultaneously in over a dozen different countries on four different continents.
As we wrote in the early days of the Covid “pandemic”, the only thing spreading faster than the disease is fear.
The media reported the first UK case of monkeypox on the 7th of May. Less than two weeks later, we’re seeing some very familiar headlines. Just like that…Pandemic 2: Monkey Pox!! begins playing at all your favorite fear porn outlets.
Sky News tells us that UK Monkeypox “cases” have “doubled(!)”… from 10 to 20.
The BBC went real subtle with it, blaring: “Monkeypox: Doctors concerned over impact on sexual health”
The New Scientist has actually used the P-word, asking “Can Monkeypox become a new pandemic?”, before answering, essentially, “probably no, but also maybe yes!”. Keeping their options open.
Science warns that “Monkeypox outbreak questions intensify as cases soar”
The Mirror has gone full paranoid already, headlining:
Russia looked into using monkeypox as biological weapon, claims ex soviet scientist
So that’s one direction the story might go.
To be clear, “monkeypox” (whatever that even means in this context), is NOT a Russian bio-weapon. It’s not a Western bio-weapon either. Or Chinese bio-weapon. It’s just another scare story. And a rushed, half-hearted one at that.
One of the signs that marked the Covid “pandemic” as a psy-op from an early stage was the sheer speed with which the hysteria spread. Far from learning from their mistakes, the powers-that-be have decided to go even faster this time.
Despite “cases” numbering barely in the dozens, the World Health Organization has called an emergency meeting, a strange thing to do when their annual Assembly starts literally tomorrow. But I guess when your launching a new product you need to do everything you can to get the hype going.
Despite just two “cases” in the entire United States (and indeed the fact they still don’t work), New York is bringing back mask recommendations.
Nobody has said “lockdown”… yet. But Hans Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe, is “concerned” that transmission could accelerate if people attend mass gatherings:
as we enter the summer season … with mass gatherings, festivals and parties, I am concerned that transmission could accelerate”.
(As inflation soars and the cost of living crisis only gets worse, it’s probably handy for them to have a new “public health” reason to ban protests or clampdown on civil unrest. Just a thought.)
There’s some good news though… for vaccine manufacturers, anyway. As Whitney Webb reports, two struggling pharmaceutical companies have already seen a big stock boost from the “outbreak”:
Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent Biosolutions and SIGA Technologies. Both companies essentially have monopolies in the US market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent Biosolutions climbed 12% on Thursday, while those of SIGA soared 17.1%.
Just as with Covid, and despite rumours they would be leaving the World Health Organization, Russia appears to be lining up with the WHO agenda. Already they are “tightening border quarantine” rules, vaccinating healthcare workers and supplying quick bedside tests internationally.
Looks like we might be in for an epic summer of scare-mongering, panic-buying & bucketloads of cringe.
💢Are the new jabs already prepped & ready to go?
💢Are the “our hospitals are overwhelmed videos” being filmed as we speak, complete with “monkey pox” moulage and crying nurses who turn out to have IMDB pages & multiple acting credits?
💢Are the sleepy masses going to be fooled yet again?
Watch this space…
The WHO Changes Guidelines to Favor Lockdowns
BY WILL JONES | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | MAY 18, 2022
The World Health Organisation intends to make lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to curb viral spread part of official pandemic guidance.
The revelation comes in a report scheduled to go to the WHO’s World Health Assembly later this month. This is not part of new pandemic treaty and does not require the endorsement of member states. The report says the implementation is already underway.
Many have raised the alarm about a new WHO pandemic treaty. However, as I’ve noted previously (and as Michael Senger notes here), there isn’t a new pandemic treaty on the table. Rather, there are amendments to the existing treaty, the International Health Regulations 2005, plus other recommendations (131 in all) put forward in a report from the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.
Most of these amendments and recommendations relate to information and resource sharing and preparation for future pandemics; none of them directly interferes with state sovereignty in the sense of allowing the WHO to impose or lift measures. However, that doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous, as they endorse and codify the awful errors of the last two years, beginning with China’s Hubei lockdown on January 23rd 2020.
The recommendations in the report originate from WHO review panels and committees and were sent out in a survey in December 2021 to member states and stakeholders to seek their views.
Non-pharmaceutical interventions appear three times in the recommendations, once under “equity” and once under “finance,” where states are urged to ensure “adequate investment in” and “rapid development, early availability, effective and equitable access to novel vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and non-pharmaceutical interventions for health emergencies, including capacity for testing, scaled manufacturing and distribution”.
While rapid development and early availability of non-pharmaceutical interventions sounds worrying in itself, it could be interpreted in a number of ways by states.
Where it really gets alarming, however, is in the “leadership and governance” section. LPPPR 29 states (emphasis added):
Apply non-pharmaceutical public health measures systematically and rigorously in every country at the scale the epidemiological situation requires. All countries to have an explicit evidence-based strategy agreed at the highest level of government to curb COVID-19 transmission.

The requirement that a country’s pandemic strategy must aim to curb viral transmission is a major change from the current guidance. The U.K.’s existing pandemic preparedness strategy, prepared in line with previous WHO recommendations, is completely clear that no attempt should be made to stop viral transmission as it will not be possible and will waste valuable resources:
It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.
It almost certainly will not be possible to contain or eradicate a new virus in its country of origin or on arrival in the U.K. The expectation must be that the virus will inevitably spread and that any local measures taken to disrupt or reduce the spread are likely to have very limited or partial success at a national level and cannot be relied on as a way to ‘buy time’.
It will not be possible to stop the spread of, or to eradicate, the pandemic influenza virus, either in the country of origin or in the U.K., as it will spread too rapidly and too widely.
But now the WHO says that curbing viral transmission is to be the aim of pandemic response. This is a disaster.
Worse, the report says this recommendation will be incorporated into the WHO’s “normative work,” meaning it will be part of official WHO guidance to states in responding to a pandemic. Worse still, it says it’s already being implemented – it doesn’t need a treaty or the agreement of member states to do this, it’s already happening.
Expect to see new guidance appearing at the international and national levels over the coming months and years which incorporate this presumption that restrictions should be imposed to curb viral spread. This is despite the last two years only confirming the wisdom of the WHO’s previous guidance that this is not possible and not worth the attempt.
This matter must be raised at the highest levels so that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions are kept out of all pandemic planning.
Sign the parliamentary petition against the latest moves by the WHO here – now at over 121,000 signatures.
Why the World should be very concerned about New Zealand under the Jacinda government
By Guy Hatchard | Waikanae Watch | May 19, 2022
The New Zealand government relies upon a science body known as Te Punaha Matatini (Centre for Science in Society) whose work is funded directly by the office of the Prime Minister and cabinet.
Yesterday, Te Punaha Matatini published a 21-page document entitled “The Murmuration of Information Disorders” (see attached release from the Science Media Centre) designating those opposed to the government’s pandemic policies as violent right wing insurrectionists planning the weaponised storming of parliament and the execution of public servants, academics, journalists, politicians, and healthcare workers.
This is an utterly false characterisation worthy of the worst excesses of historical propaganda.
This 21-page document, represented to the public as a scientific paper, contains not a single discussion of the scientific concerns being raised in opposition to government pandemic policy.
It omits for example analyses of the government’s own official figures which show that the vaccinated are more vulnerable to infection, hospitalisation, and death than the unvaccinated, a fact that has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern introduced yesterday’s Te Punaha Matatini report with the words:
“One day it will be our job to try and understand how a group of people could succumb to such wild and dangerous mis- and disinformation. And while many of us have seen that disinformation and dismissed it as conspiracy theory, a small portion of our society have not only believed it, they have acted upon it in an extreme and violent way that cannot stand. We have a difficult journey in front of us to address the underlying cause.”
Since when do reasonable scientifically-based questions asked of the government in good faith constitute violent insurrection?
I am tempted to think that Ardern could just as well be talking about her own government. The Prime Minister and the social scientists(?) working at Te Punaha Matatini might do well to read the New York Times, (although they probably don’t do so because the official policy of the New Zealand government is to discourage any information that is not sanctioned and edited by themselves).
A NYT article on 10 May 2022 entitled “Emergent Hid Evidence of Covid Vaccine Problems at Plant” reports that
“Emergent BioSolutions, a longtime government contractor hired to produce hundreds of millions of coronavirus vaccine doses, hid evidence of quality control problems from Food and Drug Administration inspectors in February 2021 — six weeks before it alerted federal officials that 15 million doses had been contaminated.”
A reasonable observer might conclude that early (and later) concerns being voiced about vaccine safety were justified, but the New Zealand government is far from reasonable.
A succession of scientific papers published in reputable journals during recent weeks (which we and many others have reported extensively and communicated directly to the government) have in fact fully justified concerns about safety and efficacy, but unbelievably our government is in denial and still moving ahead with propaganda advertising of their mRNA vaccination agenda for all ages and, as today’s Te Punaha Matatini report shows, labelling any opposition as a conspiracy with violent aims.
How Did the Transformation of the NZ Government Come About?
New Zealand has a small population of 5 million, but it has been used to trial new products in order to gauge what the public reaction and acceptance might be in bigger markets overseas. Never more so than during the pandemic. Take up of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccination has reached up to 95% of the eligible population.
This has been achieved through a transformation in the style of government, media control, science funding, intellectual standards, and international relations unprecedented in the western world, along with the coercion of draconian employment mandates and the pursuit of dissenters through compliant courts.
This has been engineered under the leadership of a person with a bachelor’s degree in communication who grew up in a strict rural Mormon household and cut her political teeth under the Blair administration in London. In keeping with her upbringing and education, Ardern is a leader who is sure she is right and is prepared to enforce her orthodoxy against all opposition and reason.
Her international perspective is one of unquestioning acceptance of the authority and right to rule of global institutions. Her top confidant and mentor Helen Clark, former NZ Labour Prime Minister, is closely associated with this outlook. Ardern recounts that she begins her day with a discussion with Clark over breakfast.
Like Ardern, Clark is renowned for her iron fist management style. She ruffled feathers at the United Nations Development Programme, which she led from 2009 to 2017, reportedly undermining human rights and supporting China’s Belt and Road initiative.
On 9 July 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed Clark as co-chair of a panel reviewing the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response of governments to the outbreak. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPR) examined how the outbreak occurred and how future pandemics can be prevented.
Nothing says more about the overt global agenda of Ardern and Clark than this 11 May 2022 statement of the New Zealand government:
“The establishment of a pandemic treaty/instrument was a key recommendation of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and is one of New Zealand’s foremost global health priorities”
Like China, New Zealand’s fading international reputation for successful management of the pandemic was actually built on a single policy—control the borders, restrict entry, and impose lengthy quarantine.
The Current Situation in New Zealand is Deeply Concerning
Ardern controls the media and the science dialogue through a mixture of government funding and exclusion of dissent. The government has spent big on saturation advertising advising complete safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, and continues to do so.
It has instituted funding of cultural groups, GPs, and commercial organisations who promote vaccination. The level of funding is so generous that it has distorted prior long standing economic and political relationships.
So far the government has spent on the order of $100 billion on the pandemic in addition to normal expenditure. To put this in stark perspective, that is equal to the total annual government budget prior to the pandemic—more than $20,000 for every man, woman, and child. This is borrowed money which will have to be repaid through increased taxation of an already struggling population.
We Have No Constitution in New Zealand, the Power of the Government Is Absolute.
The control that Ardern’s government exercises over the courts, government agencies, parliament, media, independent regulators, and over the vast majority of the population is staggering and rigidly enforced. Dissenting medical professionals are excluded from practicing and in some cases prosecuted also. They are also mercilessly hounded and vilified by bought mainstream media.
In an atmosphere of strict government control, more worrying aspects of information control have emerged. In some cases noted by my scientific colleagues, policy and pronouncements that they have demonstrated are in conflict with published research have disappeared from the public record.
Even rare court rulings in favour of caution have been rapidly bypassed by simply passing new laws without debate. Court rulings about mandates have also been openly flouted, as happened when the military vaccine mandate was ruled illegal. With the support of the government, the military said the courts had no jurisdiction over its operation and went ahead anyway.
Ardern has introduced her policies in such a dedicated, persuasive, secretive, and complete way that almost the whole population of New Zealand has complied. They have accepted limitations on medical choice, judicial protections, human rights, press freedom, freedom of information, privacy, employment conditions and opportunities, standard of living, and social interaction.
Ardern’s successful efforts to persuade the population that government should be your only source of truth, have all but negated any of the longstanding mechanisms of government accountability. A majority of the population have all but concurred with Ardern that the unvaccinated may be safely blamed for every government failing and omission; and for all Covid case loads, hospitalisations, and deaths contrary to all evidence.
The opposition parties have apparently accepted that they will in future go about their business using the same Ardern doctrines and techniques. Accordingly they have failed to sound the alarm, investigate Covid science publishing deeply, or oppose draconian legislation. They have joined Ardern in labelling peaceful protest as unacceptable and illegal.
Ardern on the Global Stage
Ardern is about to deploy her international political capital to promote the globalisation of her policies and outlook. Her public persona can be deceptively mesmerising. You should be worried.
The world’s economy also has no constitution. So far Ardern appears to be happy to allow it to be controlled by global economic predators. Pfizer has been uncritically promoted by her, and the notion of WHO control over New Zealand’s sovereign rights is being welcomed with open arms. It fits with her strict hierarchical perspective.
Ardern may be viewed by naive foreign governments as a pandemic success story unfairly criticised in her own country. Stop for a moment and consider that she is about to lend her support to the promotion of a new world order on the global stage using her trademark persuasive techniques of propaganda, coercion, and control of information.



