The government has refused to release the minutes of the meeting in which its vaccine advisory committee decided not to recommend vaccinating all 12-15 year olds against covid-19.1
The UK Health Security Agency, which replaced Public Health England, rejected a freedom of information request for the document on the grounds that it intended to publish the minutes “in due course.”
The agency argued that it was in the public interest to withhold the information until it could be released in a “simultaneous, coordinated manner” and that disclosing the minutes before they were finalised could “result in a false impression of the contents of the meeting.” The decision is being appealed.
On 3 September the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said that it would not be recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds because although the health benefits of vaccination were “marginally greater than the potential known harms,” the margin of benefit was considered too small.2 The committee did not explain what factors its conclusion was based on, and neither the minutes nor the data behind the decision have been made public.3
The JCVI asked ministers to seek further advice from the UK’s chief medical officers on the wider potential benefits of vaccination. The government later (13 September) accepted the chief medical officers’ recommendation to vaccinate all 12-15 year olds on the basis of an assessment that included transmission in schools and the effect on children’s education.4
In a letter dated 5 October academics from Independent SAGE wrote to the JCVI highlighting the fact that, despite the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting, the last publicly available minutes were from February 2021.5
They urged the JCVI to “abide by its code of practice and be open and transparent through rapid publishing of all agendas, supporting papers and minutes,” arguing that “public confidence in vaccination programmes is assisted by clear and consistent processes and messaging.”
They added, “In that spirit, we wish to have a public assurance from JCVI that all future considerations of covid-19 vaccines, including the extension of vaccination to children under 12 years of age, will be conducted openly and transparently.”
Footnotes
- bmj.com View and Reviews—Helen Salisbury: Official hesitancy is not helping (BMJ 2021;374:n2366; doi:10.1136/bmj.n2366)
October 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
Americans may be under the illusion that the Hippocratic Oath compels doctors to do no harm to their patients. Unfortunately, that is not an ironclad injunction that protects patients from harm. There are several reasons for this. First, there is not a universal “Hippocratic Oath” to which all doctors must adhere. Indeed, according to the National Institutes of Health, the Hippocratic Oath is not required by most modern medical schools, and doesn’t expressly state “First, do no harm.” Actually, in the oath’s third paragraph, it does state the physician would do no harm. Leaving out the word “first” changes nothing. Interestingly, the oath’s fourth paragraph explicitly states, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
Putting aside the idea of an oath sworn to mythical characters known as Greek gods and goddesses, and the subject of abortion, why would physicians even need to take any oath to not harm their patients? Up to current times, patients have held their doctors in the highest regard. It would not be a stretch to say people held their doctors and medical staff with inviolate trust at the center of their relationship. Sadly, that almost sacred relationship between doctor and patient has, over the past almost two years, been eroded and blown up by COVID-19 and the Left’s weaponizing of it. Every day we are learning more and more how this virus came about. However, the genesis of COVID-19 is not now the main concern of most people.
What concerns more and more people is the alarming and growing demand being pushed by corporate federal proxies for experimental gene therapies (aka “vaccines”) to be mandated for all Americans. To use the medical profession as a tyrannical tool against the most vulnerable is beyond unconscionable. There are some doctors and medical scientists pushing back and doing what the whole medical profession should be doing.
For full disclosure and trust in the vaccines, the main question is what are all the substances in the vaccines? Are data safety sheets for the Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines being provided to medical personnel and patients? If so, are 100% of the ingredients listed? What about the reported graphene oxide or aborted fetal cells in any of the vaccines? What about all the deaths and injuries caused by these vaccines? These are some of the many questions that must be fully addressed. There is something deadly going on and it is more than a virus with a cure rate of 99% for most people.
While the ugly politics play out, the medical profession must get back to basics and stand united against any and all efforts made to dissuade them from putting patients first. If a patient wants one of the vaccine shots, first, do no harm! Educate yourselves on what is in the vaccines. Then give patients all the information they need for informed consent for the shot. Medical personnel must stand against any order which may mandate all people have to get a COVID shot. Every person has the right to exercise his or her own free will and should never be coerced by government or anyone else to do or not do something that impacts their lives. Allowing medical tyranny to rule the day will have vast consequences for everyone. In Colorado, a woman in stage 5 renal failure is denied a transplant because neither she nor her donor was vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus. What a tragedy for this woman whose very life depends on a kidney transplant!
If medical professionals bow to any edict other than their own conscience and good medical practice, they should be shunned. We may need to start taking personal responsibility and making better decisions that affect our well-being. After all, we are the first responders to our own health!
October 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
A study published Sept. 30, in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology Vaccines found “no discernible relationship” between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases.
In fact, the study found the most fully vaccinated nations had the highest number of new COVID cases, based on the researchers’ analysis of emerging data during a seven-day period in September.
The authors said the sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences “needs to be re-examined,” especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants.
They wrote:
“Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines.”
As part of the study, researchers investigated the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases across 68 countries and 2,947 U.S. counties that had second dose vaccine, and available COVID case data.
For seven days preceding Sept. 3, researchers computed COVID cases per one million people for each country, as well as the percentage of population that was fully vaccinated.
Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021
Notably, Israel with more than 60% of its population fully vaccinated, had the highest COVID cases per 1 million people during the seven-day period.
Iceland and Portugal, with more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, had more COVID cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa, where only about 10% of the population is fully vaccinated.
Across U.S. counties, the median new COVID cases per 100,000 people during the seven-day period was similar across the categories of percentage of population fully vaccinated.
Percentage of counties that had an increase of cases between two consecutive 7-day time periods by percentage of population fully vaccinated across 2947 counties as of Sept. 2, 2021
The researchers found a substantial county variation in new COVID cases within categories of percentage of population fully vaccinated. There also appeared to be no significant signaling of COVID cases decreasing in counties where a higher percentages of the population was fully vaccinated.
Of the top five counties with the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9% – 84.3%), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified four as “high” transmission counties.
Three of the four counties classified as “high” transmission had fully vaccinated rates of 90% or higher. Conversely, of the 57 counties classified as “low” transmission by the CDC, 15 had fully vaccinated rates of 20% or lower.
The findings also showed no discernible association between COVID cases and fully vaccinated rates when a one-month lag was considered, to account for the 14-day period it takes for a vaccine to be considered effective.
The authors suggested a correction to the policy narrative is warranted, as increasing vaccination rates is not enough. “Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines,” they wrote.
The authors cited data from the Ministry of Health in Israel showing the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine against preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported to be 39% — substantially lower than the reported trial efficacy of 96%.
Emerging research also shows immunity derived from Pfizer’s COVID vaccine may not be as strong as natural immunity acquired through infection.
A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months post immunization has also been reported along with an increasing number of breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated, the researchers said.
The authors said stigmatizing populations over vaccines can do more harm than good, and non-pharmacological prevention efforts need to be renewed in order to learn to live with COVID “in the same manner we continue to live 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”
Breakthrough cases significantly underreported as FDA reviews booster data
The number of vaccinated people testing positive for COVID is on the rise, and doctors in Ohio are reporting more breakthrough cases across hospital systems.
However, only certain types of COVID breakthrough cases are reported at both the state and federal level, leaving patients with mild cases underreported.
“We estimate anywhere from two to 10 times as many positives that are being reported is the real situation,” said Dr. David Margolius, division director of internal medicine at MetroHealth in Cleveland.
“It’s still rare, but I get a dozen COVID positive cases a day in my basket, and usually three or four of them have been vaccinated,” said Margolius.
The Ohio Department of Health and the CDC only report breakthrough cases in patients requiring hospital admission, or cases that resulted in death.
The CDC said it made the change in May in order to “maximize the quality of data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public importance.”
As of Sept. 27, the CDC had received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories of 22,115 patients with COVID vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
The CDC said the number of COVID vaccine breakthrough infections reported to the agency are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections.
In addition, national surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data are not complete or representative, according to the CDC.
Massachusetts health officials on Tuesday reported nearly 4,000 new breakthrough cases over the past week, and 46 more deaths, according to NBC Boston.
In the last week, 3,741 new breakthrough cases were reported, with 125 more vaccinated people hospitalized.
This brings the total number of breakthrough cases in Massachusetts to 40,464 — out of 4.63 million vaccinated people — and the death toll among people with breakthrough infections to 300.
According to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, which cited statistics from Vermont’s Department of Health, 76% of the state’s COVID fatalities in September were breakthrough cases, with just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died being unvaccinated.
As of Tuesday, 88% of all eligible Vermonters age 12 and over had been vaccinated with at least one shot.
Health Department spokesperson Ben Truman said most of the vaccine “breakthrough” fatalities were elderly. Because they were among the first vaccinated, Vermont’s elderly “have had more time to potentially become a vaccine breakthrough case,” he said.
According to The Washington Post, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said Tuesday updated data might make a strong case in support of everyone 18 and older being eligible for COVID vaccine boosters, but the agency will have to see whether its outside advisers agree.
The remarks from Marks came during a webinar as the FDA prepares to meet Oct. 14 and 15 with its outside advisers to discuss authorizing Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID booster shots.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
October 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union, United States |
Leave a comment
GAINESVILLE, Florida – Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Friday that the city of Gainesville has withdrawn a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers after pressure from his administration and a court ruling against the policy last month.
“We are not going to allow our first responders and government employees, many of whom have been on the front lines for over a year and a half, to be cast aside by local politicians’ mandates,” DeSantis said in a press release. “This reversal by the City of Gainesville is a victory for liberty.”
According to the press release, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) received a letter from Gainesville last week informing the department that city commissioners “voided” a recent vaccination mandate for all public employees.
The FDOH had written to Gainesville mayor Lauren Poe days earlier, threatening to enforce a law signed by DeSantis in May that bans government entities, schools, and businesses from demanding COVID vaccination status. The law, S.B. 2006, allows up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
Gainesville told the health department in response that there are now “zero employees who are subject to a City COVID-19 employer vaccination requirement.”
“Please be advised that on September 23, 2021, the City Commission of the City of Gainesville took action to rescind their August 5th action related to COVID-19,” city manager Lee Feldman wrote, adding that the vaccine rules “have been voided.”
The day before the FDOH notice, a Florida judge temporarily halted Gainesville’s vaccine mandate following a lawsuit brought by city workers and backed by the DeSantis administration.
“The city failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest,” Circuit Judge Monica Brasington ruled September 22. Gainesville, in fact, “did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing,” she noted.
The City Commission of Gainesville voted to rescind the rule the next day.
More than 200 city workers, including police officers, firefighters, and other first responders, sued to block the mandate, with the backing of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, a Republican who filed a brief in support of the workers in September.
Last month, Gov. DeSantis announced that Florida would move to penalize violations of the state’s ban on COVID-19 vaccine requirements, such as those in Gainesville, with “millions of dollars” in fines.
“If a government agency in the state of Florida forces a vaccine as a condition to employment, that violates Florida law, and you will face a $5,000 fine for every single violation,” the governor declared at a press conference near Gainesville. “If you look at places here in Alachua County, like the city of Gainesville, I mean, that’s millions and millions of dollars potentially in fines.”
“We will certainly move to impose the fines as the law requires when we see people that are denied access,” he said.
The DeSantis administration continues to fight local vaccine mandates in multiple counties, including Leon County, where city officials confirmed this weekend that they fired 14 employees who refused to disclose their vaccination status by Friday, in violation of S.B. 2006.
The FDOH had warned the county last week that it must “immediately rescind” the coercive vaccine policy and “refrain from terminating any employees who decline to produce proof of vaccination.”
“Fines may be assessed based on each employee who was required to submit proof of vaccination as a condition of continued employment,” wrote Doug Woodlief, FDOH division director for Emergency Preparedness and Community Support. Those fines could cost Leon County over $3.5 million, according to the Tallahassee Democrat.
Orange County also faces potential fines due to an ongoing COVID vaccine mandate, which prompted a lawsuit from dozens of firefighters last week, local news reported. The county downgraded the mandate days after Gov. DeSantis’ press conference last month, but has harassed unvaccinated employees and impeded them from being promoted, firefighters have said.
The Gainesville workers’ victory against compulsory COVID vaccination follows similar recent successes in other states. In Arizona, the city of Tucson backed down on a vaccine mandate last month after Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich threatened to withhold up to $175 million in funding from the city, citing state laws enacted by Republicans earlier this year.
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Three US medical certifying boards have warned doctors that they risk losing their certification and licence if they spread covid vaccine misinformation.
Internists, family doctors, and paediatricians received an email on 9 September that quoted a warning from the Federation of State Medical Boards in July1 which read: “Providing misinformation about the covid-19 vaccine contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities, and therefore may subject a physician to disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical licence.”2
Richard Baron, president and chief executive of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), told The BMJ that the move was an attempt to establish a standard of care. “As standard setting organisations, we thought it was important to be on record, in a public way, to make clear that putting out flagrant misinformation is unethical and dangerous during a pandemic.” Baron said that the statement has been well received—“4 to 1 positive.” But community physicians contacted by The BMJ thought differently.
“When I got that email I thought I’d better not put anything on social media about vaccines,” said Shveta Raju, a community physician in the Atlanta, Georgia, area, who has treated covid patients and led the vaccination effort at her outpatient clinic.
“The email was sent more as a veiled threat to keep doctors on the official, established narrative, and that’s what I find chilling,” said a paediatrician who pseudonymously blogs under the name Elizabeth Bennett. “Pandemic or no, there is a problem with having an ill defined concept of misinformation that’s tied to public health messaging that hasn’t been consistent. How are physicians supposed to figure out what is misinformation when public health messaging swings so wildly?” Bennett asked.
Undefined offence
Baron said that the statement was also intended to signal the certifying boards’ support for physicians “trying to do the right thing.”
“We wanted to support that group and say ‘hey, we do have a standard of care here and you are doing the right thing when you uphold it,’” he said.
Raju responded, “If that was their intent, they should have defined misinformation. By leaving it undefined, the message was that we can’t talk about this at all.” She said that physicians are, by and large, a conservative group. “If they’re not sure what can be deemed misinformation, physicians would rather be quiet.”
Bennett concurred: “The thing I find most alarming is that they don’t define misinformation, but if they strip you of your board certification, you would lose your means of earning a living.”
Doctors spreading misinformation?
Official and social media company efforts to target “vaccine misinformation” predate the pandemic.3 But the new statement from ABIM, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the American Board of Paediatrics is one of several recent statements putting doctors in the spotlight for the first time.
In Canada, warnings about physician information began earlier, when in April the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario declared that physicians “have a professional responsibility not to communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements or promote unsupported, unproven treatments for covid-19.”4
The Canadian statement triggered an outcry, leading to a clarification that the statement was “not intended to stifle a healthy public debate about how best to address aspects of the pandemic.” But concerns continued. In June, a Canadian member of parliament held a press conference on censorship of Canadian clinicians and scientists. YouTube removed the video of the meeting.56
The BMJ asked ABIM about the size of the problem of board certified physicians spreading misinformation.
“We don’t have a sense of numbers of physicians spreading misinformation,” Baron said. “We’re at the beginning.” He believed it was only a “small number of doctors.” The medical boards opted to send the statement to all doctors, he said, because focusing on just the offending individuals would “miss the impact they’re having because of how much their voices are being amplified.”
As an example of “unprofessional or unethical behaviour,” Baron cited the case of a Florida doctor offering medical exemptions from mask wearing for $50 (£37; €43).7
Personalised medicine—or one-size-fits-all?
The BMJ asked whether physicians expressing doubt about the need for booster doses or vaccination of patients with natural immunity—two matters that have been the subject of debate and changing official guidance—would qualify as misinformation.8 “I don’t think we have concerns with doctors wrestling with areas where the science is unclear,” Baron said, “but there is no debate about whether people should get a primary vaccination series.”
Raju worries about the impact on personalised care. “The job of physicians is to take guidelines and apply them to the patient in front of them.” But now “physicians are basically being told that when it comes to covid vaccines it’s one-size-fits-all.”
Baron said, “We’re not trying to stifle conversations between doctors and patients. We understand that different people may look at evidence in different ways, but when you have an overwhelming preponderance of medical consensus in a certain area, you need at least to tell patients that there is an overwhelming professional consensus here.”
Cautious approach
Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, said that in the context of the pandemic, he was “not opposed to certain levels of misinformation triggering a decision to question somebody’s licence.” He said, “I can see this being an appropriate remedy at a time of public health emergency.
“But this is not how the system for licensure and certification has traditionally worked, and creates many opportunities for mistaken judgment about what is and is not misinformation, and those decisions would have to be rendered with extreme caution.”
Flier added, “We have to remember that there are legitimate areas of debate, and such matters should not fall within the scope of disciplinary actions.”
“There are reasons to be concerned that state boards might be unprepared for these kinds of decisions at a time when so many aspects of covid policy have been enmeshed with political views.”
Footnotes
-
This article was updated on 4 October to make clear that it was medical certifying boards, rather than licensing boards, that emailed physicians. The email quoted an earlier warning from the Federation of State Medical Boards.
-
Competing interests: PD gave a public statement at a 17 September 2021 FDA advisory committee to discuss covid-19 vaccines, where he highlighted the joint statement. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.
-
Provenance: commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage
View Abstract
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Imagine you’re a doctor. You go into work every day for long hours and figure out how to treat Covid. You are saving lives and doing so patient by patient. Each patient has individual needs that sometimes require custom care, but you know early treatment works.
Suddenly, faraway bureaucrats demand that you abandon your best practices and fall into line around their grand plan. Suddenly your patients can’t get what you prescribe. Media apparatchiks diminish, invalidate or mock everything you’ve learned and are doing.
And all of it is being carried out in the name of “science.”
The Physicians’ Rebellion
More than 10,000 physicians and medical scientists have signed onto a Declaration that accuses public health authorities of, well, doing it wrong–and to devastating effect.
“WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;”
The Declaration goes on to assert that “thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies” and that “These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.”
Local Knowledge
Such statements might strike non-physicians as hyperbolic. But consider that many of these doctors, such as Dr. Brian Tyson have each saved thousands of lives through early intervention and best practices developed in the field through trial-and-error, observation, and active communication among peers.
“We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explains.
“We saw blood clots, so we used anticoagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications… It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.”
Despite treating more than 6,000 patients, Tyson can count the patients he’s lost to Covid on three fingers. And yet non-practicing officials are interfering with the work of doctors like Tyson.
The physicians and medical scientists who have signed the Declaration are also frustrated with the authoritarian measures supported by career bureaucrats such as Anthony Fauci. Indeed as more information trickles out, more and more observers suspect Fauci approved funding for dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then colluded with the bioethically disturbed Peter Daszak to propagate the unlikely “natural origins” theory.
Barriers to Treatment
Public health authorities have erected huge barriers to early treatment by:
- Putting pressure on major pharmacies not to fill essential prescriptions,
- Putting pressure on insurers not to cover proven therapies, and
- Putting pressure on Big Tech giants to censor and suppress eminent physicians such as cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, who has expressed concerns about vaccinating children.
Declaration signatories include physicians who figured out how to successfully reduce the death toll while public health authorities dithered and delayed their grand plan to roll out mRNA vaccines for everyone — including, apparently, low-risk populations.
All the doctors agree that greater access to early treatment could have saved thousands of lives–and could save thousands more. The Declaration suggests that public health authorities are trying to steamroll over clinical practitioners when these camps should complement each other.
“We are in a pandemic of undertreatment,” said intensive care specialist Pierre Kory, M.D., winner of the British Medical Association’s President’s Choice Award.
“Everything else that we’ve discovered, everything that’s in our protocols is because we have used good clinical sense, lots of experience, and we’ve used trial and error using our best judgments of risks and benefits.”
Clinicians or “Experts?”
Why should anyone trust thousands of doctors and medical researchers over public health authorities and other so-called experts trotted out in media campaigns?
- Physicians figured out how to save lives and control Covid by talking to each other and developing best practices.
- Physicians have more local knowledge and more direct experience with real patients.
- Physicians are not as beholden to pharmaceutical companies as public health authorities, particularly as these authorities have gone as far as mandating pharma products for millions.
- Physicians have learned to scale up their practices, including telemedicine, to avoid ‘hospital overwhelm.’
- Physicians have learned that early treatment and natural immunity is an effective way to reduce the dangers of a pandemic whose virus was probably funded by… public health authorities.
It’s no wonder these doctors are in open rebellion against authoritarian public health bodies who seek to implement monolithic mass behavioral control in place of a dynamic multi-pronged approach that includes clinical best practices.
Intimate, repeated, in-person care, which includes both observational and randomized control studies, has an underappreciated advantage over armchair analysis and “exciting, soul-capturing abstractions,” which have “extended themselves over the perception of world and self like plastic pillowcases.” And yet the doctors of the Physicians Declaration soldier on.
Nevermind. Fall into line. The government is here to help.
Note: The Declaration by the International Physicians and Medical Researchers is not affiliated with The Great Barrington Declaration hosted by AIER. Yet there are striking similarities in that each group represents a groundswell of opposition to authoritarian public health policies worldwide.
Max Borders is author of After Collapse: The End of America and the Rebirth of Her Ideals and The Social Singularity: A Decentralist Manifesto.
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
A study appeared in the Lancet this week confirming that vaccine effectiveness against infection is fading fast.
The study involved 3,436,957 people over the age of 12 who are members of the healthcare organisation Kaiser Permanente Southern California. It sought to assess the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions for up to six months, with a study period covering December 14th, 2020, to August 8th, 2021.
Comparing fully vaccinated to unvaccinated, and controlling for confounders such as prior infection, the researchers found that effectiveness against infection plummeted from 88% (95% confidence interval 86-89%) during the first month after double-vaccination to 47% (43-51%) after five months. The variation by age (depicted above) was largely within the margins of error.
Among sequenced infections, the researchers found vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection was 93% (85-97%) during the first month after double-vaccination but dropped to 53% (39-65%) after four months. Effectiveness against infection from other variants the first month after double-vaccination was 97% (95-99%), but declined to 67% (45-80%) at 4-5 months.
Pfizer vaccine effectiveness by Covid variant
Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for Delta infection held up at around 93% (84-96%) for the six months across all ages.
Pfizer vaccine effectiveness against Covid hospitalisation
However, the researchers note that the latest data from Israel “suggests that some reduction in effectiveness against hospital admissions has been observed among older people (65 years and over) roughly six months after receiving the second dose of [Pfizer]”.
One question that’s arisen recently is to what extent vaccine effectiveness estimates are affected by whether more people who have been previously infected decide not to be vaccinated. According to this study the answer is: not very much at all. Among the unvaccinated, 2.3% had one or more previous positive PCR tests, only slightly more than the 2% of the double-vaccinated who did.
Number and percentage of individuals with one or more previous positive PCR tests
It’s also worth noting that although this study adjusts its raw estimates for no fewer than 22 potential confounding variables, the adjusted figures differ very little from the unadjusted figures in almost all cases. This suggests that unadjusted estimates from large population samples are often a fair approximation in the absence of sophisticated statistical analysis.
Given that the adjusted figures were little different to the unadjusted figures, however, it’s not immediately clear why the vaccine effectiveness estimates in this study, while low and declining, are so much higher than the latest unadjusted estimates derived from Public Health England data (namely, negative vaccine effectiveness in the over-40s, including minus-66% in those in their 40s). It doesn’t appear to be merely a matter of additional time elapsing, as most people in the U.K. weren’t double vaccinated until April, May or June, meaning only four or five months have elapsed until September, the same time period as in the study.
Could it be because the study period ended on August 8th, when the Delta surge in California was just getting going (see below)?
In the U.K. the vaccine effectiveness didn’t plunge until the second half of the Delta surge, the first part being dominated by infections in the unvaccinated (for reasons still not entirely clear). Did the new study finish too early to see the dramatic effect we’ve seen in England?
The authors say their study indicates that the decline in vaccine effectiveness is primarily a function of time rather than variant-related. However, the evidence from England would suggest otherwise, as in the same period of time, but later in the Delta surge, the decline has been far greater.
The decline in vaccine effectiveness in England was confirmed last week in a new Government-funded study (not yet peer-reviewed), which found that the reduction in transmission “declined over time since second vaccination, for Delta reaching similar levels to unvaccinated individuals by 12 weeks for [the AstraZeneca vaccine] and attenuating substantially for [Pfizer]”. In other words, within just three months AstraZeneca did nothing to prevent transmission, and Pfizer was scarcely better.
One of the main recommendations of the authors of both studies in light of their findings is for regular booster jabs – in the case of the first, where many of the authors are employees of and investors in Pfizer, this may be deemed hardly surprising. However, if effectiveness against serious disease is holding up, why give people boosters just to stop them getting and spreading what is effectively a cold, and which bestows more robust immunity as it goes? Furthermore, if the effectiveness declines after as little as three months, is it even possible to deliver enough boosters to have any impact on infection and transmission? Would it not be much better to say that the vaccines, by offering personal protection from serious disease to those who want it, have done their job? Better to move on and abandon any ideas of vaccine passports and mandates and boosters, and in general the now almost wholly pointless obsession with Covid vaccines.
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Right in the midst of a global political effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption, Japan is set to increase its fossil fuel use and imports as an expected colder-than-normal winter approaches.
The country’s meteorological department recently released its weather outlook for the upcoming winter, which expects that most regions will experience either 30-year-average or below average temperatures between December and February.
Climate Narrative vs. Energy Reality
Blind belief in the global warming narrative can catch nations off guard, risking severe energy crises due to unpreparedness. There is an old axiom that says, “Measure twice, cut once.” It reiterates the need for careful planning before embarking on a task. Doing so saves time and energy and prevents mistakes.
The axiom is extremely relevant in energy policy planning. With the ascendancy of the climate global warming narrative, many nations are susceptible to believing climate-model projections that may not reflect real climate, much less actual weather patterns.
On-the-ground weather forecasts contradict the narrative that winters will be milder. A Washington Post article read, “Winters are Shrinking.” Environmental Defense Fund claimed, “Winters are warmer” and “cold streaks are rarer.”
Such false climate forecasts can lead to chaos due to unpreparedness. Texas got suckered into this belief, making the great freeze of February 2021 shocking.
Japan, an energy-intensive country, is one such country where warmer world–milder winters can cause significant disruptions to energy planning. But this country is wise enough not to get caught in this global propaganda. It is aware of the importance of trusting regional weather patterns.
Fossil Fuels Deliver
Fossil fuels are the preferred energy source in many countries for tough winter conditions as they are the only dependable and affordable fuel source—alongside nuclear—in cold and snowy conditions.
Wind turbines work only in certain geographical regions and in certain months when wind speed is optimum. But in cold weather, they are not reliable. According to the government of Canada,
the operation of wind turbines in a cold climate such as Canada’s involves additional challenges not present in warmer locations, such as: Accumulation of ice on wind turbine blades resulting in reduced power output and increased rotor loads; Cold weather shutdown to prevent equipment failure; and Limited or reduced access for maintenance activities.
For these reasons countries like China and Japan depend heavily on coal, natural gas, and oil, instead of the highly unreliable wind and solar. The Japanese authorities know they cannot leave millions to freeze in the cold and have decided to stock up enough fossil fuels to sustain during the winter. S&P Global notes, “Japan’s demand for coal, LNG, crude and fuel oil for power generation as well as city gas and kerosene for heating was robust in January as a result of severe cold spells.” The scenario is likely to repeat this year.
Other Countries Too
Winter energy crises are of great concern the world over. The Japanese are very close to China, a country which in recent years has experienced severe energy shortages during winters due to its reluctance to increase coal consumption. A partial coal ban in northern provinces caused severe winter heating problems in recent years.
This year, news agencies in China predict widespread power blackouts in more than a dozen provinces as the country is critically short of coal and some power plants have stopped producing coal power due to high coal prices.
Japan, which has a bird’s eye view, is aware of the power shortage in China. So, to avoid a similar situation at home, Japan will not restrict the use of coal, natural gas and oil during winter months.
The demand for oil and gas is not just in Japan. The UK, too, is highly reliant on imported natural gas for winter heating needs, and analysts have urged the country to secure its resources before winter induces a power demand surge.
“If the winter is actually cold, my concern is we will not have enough gas for use for heating in parts of Europe. … it won’t only be a recessionary value, it will affect the ability to provide gas for heating. It touches everybody’s lives,” said Amos Hochstein, the US State Department’s senior adviser for energy security.
The Future is Now
The combined rise in demand for fossil fuels from Europe, China, India, Vietnam, and Japan has led to an increase in coal and natural gas prices. Investors see a “natural-gas crunch spilling into crude market, lifting oil prices.” OPEC, in its newly released World Oil Outlook 2045, observes that “oil will be leading energy source for decades (at least until 2045) as crude reaches 3-year highs.”
The demand for fossil fuels and the sharp increase in fossil fuels prices indicate that these energy fuels still dominate the global energy sector. The winter rush for fossil fuels also confirms their effectiveness in delivering reliable energy during cold weather.
COP26 planners, are you listening?
———————————–
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in Bengaluru, India.
October 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | Japan |
Leave a comment
Yesterday I noted that, 18 months after the start of the pandemic, a sizeable chunk of Americans still dramatically overestimate the risks of Covid. In a recent poll, more than one third said the risk of being hospitalised if you’re not vaccinated is at least 50%.
Of course, you’d expect some people to get the answer wrong just because we’re dealing with a small quantity, and there’s always going to be some degree of overestimation. But many people were off by a factor more than 10. What accounts for this?
Interestingly, Democrat voters’ guesses were much higher than Republican voters’ – about twice as many Democrats said the risk of being hospitalised if you’re not vaccinated is at least 50%. This suggests a role for ideology.
Throughout the pandemic, the ‘Democrat position’ has been to support restrictions and mandates, whereas the ‘Republican position’ has been to oppose such measures. This is clearly visible in a plot of U.S. states by average stringency index. Almost all the ‘red’ states are on the left-hand side, while almost all the ‘blue’ states are on the right.
Given that partisans (on all sides) like to avoid cognitive dissonance, they tend to adopt beliefs that are consistent with their party’s platform. Since Democrat politicians have been busy imposing all sorts of restrictions and mandates, Democrat voters have adopted beliefs that imply those measures were justified.
Most survey respondents don’t know numbers like ‘the risk of hospitalisation for people who aren’t vaccinated’ off the top of their head. Instead, they probably make a guess based on all the relevant information they can recall.
Democrat voters, who’ve spent the pandemic consuming media like MSNBC, CNN and NPR, will recall numerous incidents of pundits saying that Covid is extremely dangerous, and we have to do whatever we can to stop the spread.
They will also recall that they were locked down for months, that their kids’ schools were closed, and that they had to wear a mask whenever they went to the grocery store.
Putting all this information together, they will tend to assume that the risk of being hospitalised from Covid is extremely high. ‘Why else,’ they might ask, ‘would there have been so many restrictions?’
Note: Republicans also overestimated the risk of being hospitalised from Covid, albeit to a lesser extent than Democrats. This indicates that people’s skewed risk perceptions cannot be blamed solely on the content of left-wing media (or the policies implemented in ‘blue’ states).
The psychological quirk that may account for people’s skewed risk perceptions has a name in psychology: the availability heuristic. As Steven Pinker notes, “people estimate the probability of an event or the frequency of a kind of thing by the ease with which instances come to mind”.
Because plane crashes always make the news, people tend to overestimate the risks of air travel. And they may overestimate the risks of Covid for the same reason.
Since the start of the pandemic, we’ve been treated to morbid ‘daily death numbers’ – but for only one cause of death. Perhaps if these figures had been reported for all causes of death, people’s risk perceptions would be slightly less skewed. (Or perhaps they’d just be terrified of everything…)
During a pandemic, we obviously do want people to take precautions; we don’t want them nonchalantly walking into a care home when they have a high fever and a nasty cough. Yet – contrary to what some in government seem to believe – we don’t want people to be utterly terrified either.
There’s been so much attention on people claiming Covid is “just the flu” that the media has largely ignored the other end of the spectrum: people who believe Covid is the bubonic plague!
We can agree it’s bad if people underestimate the risks. But it’s also bad if they overestimate the risks. We want them to have the right risk perceptions. That way, they can make informed decisions.
October 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
CNN reporter Randi Kaye visited my home unannounced, then tracked me down as I bicycled around my home town in August 2021. Her purpose was to publish a hit piece further labeling me as a “super-spreader of COVID-19 misinformation,”1 based primarily on the opinions of foreign agent Imran Ahmed, founding CEO Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH),2 which is a recently spun up front group funded by dark money.
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1445192038845227008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1445192038845227008%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.mercola.com%2Fsites%2Fvitalvotes%2Farchive%2F2021%2F10%2F05%2Fsee-my-latest-response-to-cnns-hit-piece.aspx
After that story aired, she again contacted me, this time via email, to request an interview regarding my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal.” Interview questions were provided via email, as were my responses. CNN ran this new story October 4, 2021.
In the interest of transparency, below I’ll post the email exchange so you can read my response to her questions firsthand. You can tell from the leading questions that this “story” isn’t true journalism but rather another hit piece manipulated to fit a preformed agenda.
CNN Interview Request for My Latest Book
August 26, 2021, Kaye emailed, “Here are the questions we would like answered about Dr. Mercola’s new book. We would welcome responses by 5pm tomorrow, please.” The questions, which are clearly accusatory, are as follows:
“You say in your book that “A large amount of data strongly suggests the COVID – 19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary, which means the global population is being bamboozled into participating in a dangerous and unprecedented experiment for no good reason whatsoever.” Can you please point us to that data that suggests the covid vaccines are unnecessary or dangerous?
You say in your book that “vaccine trials are rigged.” What proof do you have of that? Which trials? How many? Who rigged them and for what purpose?
You say in your book, “Common sense dictates that if the vaccines cannot prevent or reduce infection and transmission, hospitalization, or death, then they cannot possibly end the pandemic.” And that “There’s no telling whether they will ultimately prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
Can you please provide us with the source and support for your statements since the CDC says vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing severe disease and death and greatly reduce infection.
How do you explain statements from hospitals and government officials that nearly all those who are getting sick and dying now are the unvaccinated?
Do you feel responsible for the spread of misinformation by writing a book full of conspiracy theories and false claims?
What were you paid for this book deal by the publisher?
Are you donating 100% of the earnings from your book?
If so, to which organization? Are you concerned this book will cost people their lives?”
My Response to CNN
Media organizations contact Mercola.com regularly, sometimes to challenge us on the researched, fact-checked articles we post for our readers. In CNN’s case, the information they were seeking was directly related to my book, which was the No. 1 best seller in all categories for four straight days with thousands of five-star ratings.
Much like the information on Mercola.com, the information in my book is thoroughly referenced, but Kaye, ironically, engaged in the dissemination of misinformation herself by describing my book as being “full of conspiracy theories and false claims.” My response to her questions follows:
“Many studies and other literature offer support for my position in answering several of your questions, which are combined since they can be answered with the same literature. Here are the important points that drive my book:
The vaccines are just 39% effective and waning, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has now advised booster doses to the mRNA vaccines in immunocompromised persons. CDC’s goal is to begin offering booster doses to everyone else beginning this fall.3,4,5,6
Additionally, breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated persons are becoming more and more prevalent around the world. Evidence is beginning to mount that people with breakthrough infections can spread the Delta variant more easily.7,8,9,10,11,12,13
Most recently, researchers in Israel report that fully vaccinated persons are up to 13 times more likely to get infected than those who have had a natural COVID infection.
As explained by ScienceMag: The study “found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus.
In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.”14
The study also said that, while vaccinated persons who also had natural infection did appear to have additional protection against the Delta variant, the vaccinated were still at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those without the vaccine, but who were previously infected.
Vaccinees who hadn’t had a natural infection also had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.
“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity,” study authors said.15
A majority of gravely ill patients in Israel are double vaccinated.16 A majority of deaths over 50 in England are also double vaccinated.17 Also, mass vaccination of the population with the highly mutating coronavirus will only evolve perfectly vaccine-resistant strains of the virus.”18
Injection Trials Included COVID-19 Infections as Successes
The next part of my response focused more specifically on the vaccine trials, which were problematic from the start since they did not include prevention of infection as an endpoint. Instead, all study endpoints required infection with SARS-CoV-2, and “successes” included subjects with confirmed COVID-19 cases. The difference measured wasn’t whether or not the vaccines prevented COVID-19 but whether, and how, they modified symptoms among those infected.19
Also problematic is the unblinding of the vaccine trials, which means the placebo groups were removed. As medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer wrote in the BMJ, “The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”20 This is the next section of my response to Kaye:
“Regarding the vaccine trials: The vaccine trials were designed specifically to succeed for profit. The public health authorities and media like CNN are utilizing fear of the virus to induce psychological stress that promotes obedience and servitude.21
Additionally, proof that the trials are “rigged” can be shown by virtue of the fact that they’ve done away with the control groups — who were getting a placebo but who were then offered the vaccine, which virtually does away with the ability to compare adverse reactions including deaths. Pfizer’s own vaccine insert for Comirnaty admits that the control group hasn’t existed since December 2020:
Section 6.1 — “Upon issuance of the Emergency Use Authorization (December 11, 2020) for COMIRNATY, participants were unblinded to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY. Participants were unblinded in a phased manner over a period of months to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY.”22
NPR has noted that removing the placebo groups from vaccine trials will prevent accurate data from long-term studies from being known.23
Additionally, the CDC is being dishonest by utilizing data from the beginning of this year when the vaccine campaign had just been initiated to conflate their claim. They are using data that were scant early in the year because so few were vaccinated, as opposed to using current information.24
Proceeding with the FDA approval of Comirnaty this week was unprecedented. No other vaccine has ever received approval this fast — and without public comment being allowed through ACIP [the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] or VRBPAC [the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] before approval was issued.
The approval is unconscionable because over 600,000 adverse reactions and 6,000 deaths [now over 14,500 deaths25] have been reported in the U.S. to VAERS. A majority of these reports are filed by medical professionals.
This shows that the safety of these vaccines is not proven. Besides, the experiments are continuing through 2027 as the FDA APPROVAL requires Pfizer to submit study results analyzing risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, and risk to long-term infant development in pregnant women. Study results will be submitted to the FDA for review on Oct 31, 2025 and May 31, 2027 respectively.”26
Lifesaving Information That CNN Won’t Share
CNN and other media outlets have the power to share lifesaving information that could turn the pandemic around and save lives in the process — but they won’t. Instead, the media are ignoring the basics of healthy immune function and the importance of early COVID-19 treatment to continue to push the narrative that the only solution is to get an injection.
The last part of my response to Kaye includes empowering steps that virtually everyone can take to support their health and reduce their risk of infectious disease. This includes having supplies from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) I-MASK+ protocol on hand in the event you do get COVID-19.
FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,27 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19. FLCCC also has protocols for at-home prevention and early treatment, called I-MASS, which involves ivermectin, vitamin D3, a multivitamin and a digital thermometer to watch your body temperature in the prevention phase and ivermectin, melatonin, aspirin and antiseptic mouthwash for early at-home treatment.
I also recommend getting a nebulizer, and the moment you feel a sniffle or something coming on, use nebulized hydrogen peroxide. Having a pulse oximeter on hand is also wise, as it’s a noninvasive way to measure the oxygen levels in your blood, allowing you to monitor your levels and help gauge whether a trip to the ER is truly in order.
As I told Kaye, taking control of your health continues to be the “secret” that I strive to share with the masses. The remainder of my response to CNN follows:
“I am donating all proceeds to the National Vaccine Information Center. I encourage every person to fully educate themselves to make individual decisions about medical risk-taking by talking with their personal physician and comparing the risks and benefits to make an informed decision that includes all the information on how these vaccines are working (or not working) and what all the possible side effects may be.
This pandemic is a direct reflection of the health of our population: 95% of COVID deaths have multiple comorbidities. Obesity, vitamin D deficiency and metabolic dysfunction are at the core of this pandemic and can be resolved by taking control of your health by following science-based dietary and lifestyle recommendations.
Since building up your health can’t be done overnight, what you can do beginning right now is avoid linoleic acid, check to ensure your vitamin D levels are above 40ng/ml, exercise, get fresh air and proper sun exposure, and restrict your eating window to a 6- to 8-hour time frame each day.
If you do get COVID-19, early treatment is crucial. Follow the Front Line Critical Care Alliance iMASK+ or MATH+ treatment protocols.”28
Sources and References
October 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
- Nick Karl, Pfizer Scientist: “When somebody is naturally immune — like they got COVID — they probably have more antibodies against the virus…When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus… So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the [COVID] vaccination.”
- Chris Croce, Pfizer Senior Associate Scientist: “You’re protected for longer” if you have natural COVID antibodies compared to the COVID vaccine.
- Croce: “I work for an evil corporation… Our organization is run on COVID money.”
- Rahul Khandke, Pfizer Scientist: “If you have [COVID] antibodies built up, you should be able to prove that you have those built up.”
[NEW YORK – Project Veritas released the fourth video in its COVID vaccine investigative series today which exposed three Pfizer officials saying that antibodies lead to equal, if not better, protection against the virus compared to the vaccine.
Nick Karl, a scientist who is directly involved in the production of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, said that natural immunity is more effective than the very vaccine he works on, and Pfizer produces.
“When somebody is naturally immune — like they got COVID — they probably have more antibodies against the virus… When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus… So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the [COVID] vaccination,” Karl said. Notwithstanding, Karl still believes that vaccine mandates are positive for society.
“The city [of New York] needs like vax cards and everything. It’s just about making it so inconvenient for unvaccinated people to the point where they’re just like, ‘F*ck it. I’ll get it.’ You know?”
A second Pfizer official, Senior Associate Scientist, Chris Croce, corroborated Karl’s assertion about COVID immunity derivative of antibodies:
Veritas Journalist: “So, I am well-protected [with antibodies]?”
Chris Croce, Pfizer Senior Associate Scientist: “Yeah.”
Veritas Journalist: “Like as much as the vaccine?”
Croce: “Probably more.”
Veritas Journalist: “How so? Like, how much more?”
Croce: “You’re protected most likely for longer since there was a natural response.”
Croce expressed dismay with his company’s direction and moral compass:
Veritas Journalist: “So, what happened to the monoclonal antibody treatments?”
Croce: “[It got] pushed to the side.”
Veritas Journalist: “Why?”
Croce: “Money. It’s disgusting.”
…
Croce: “I still feel like I work for an evil corporation because it comes down to profits in the end. I mean, I’m there to help people, not to make millions and millions of dollars. So, I mean, that’s the moral dilemma.”
Veritas Journalist: “Isn’t it billions and billions?”
Croce: “I’m trying to be nice.”
Veritas Journalist: “No, I hear you. I hear you. I do. I mean, I’ll still give you a hard time about it.”
Croce: “Basically, our organization is run on COVID money now.”
The third Pfizer scientist, Rahul Khandke, admitted his company demands that its employees keep information from the public.
“We’re bred and taught to be like, ‘vaccine is safer than actually getting COVID.’ Honestly, we had to do so many seminars on this. You have no idea. Like, we have to sit there for hours and hours and listen to like — be like, ‘you cannot talk about this in public,’” Khandke said.
Khandke also signaled that proof of antibodies is on par with proof of vaccination.
“If you have [COVID] antibodies built up, you should be able to prove that you have those built up,” he said.
Project Veritas will be releasing more Pfizer tapes in the very near future. To receive updates straight into your email inbox, click here.
October 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, Pfizer |
Leave a comment
