https://www.bitchute.com/video/FnEUFYG0w7uY/
Amazing Polly | October 23, 2021
Researcher Jay Dyer goes through Jonas Salk’s book “Survival of the Wisest.” Salk was the ‘father of mass vaccination’ and a big inspiration for Bill Gates.
He also happens to want depopulation and genetic manipulation of human beings. Salk and his friends, of course, are among the ‘Wisest’ and they will rule the rest of us. Are his fantasies coming true with the COVID shots?
See the video and discussion here.
To support Amazing Polly’s work please go here: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | October 27, 2021
The people who none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate & business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”
They are the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) and while elected representatives are within their ranks, they don’t set either the agenda or policy. We need to both recognise who the GPPP are and understand the implications of their gambit. How are this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons and why should we resist them?
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policy makers mean by the global commons we can begin to appreciate the jaw dropping magnitude of their ambitions.
They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like ‘inclusive,’ ‘sustainable,’ ‘equity’ and ‘resilience’ are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.
While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), who orchestrated the chaos, have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).
This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.
laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID 19. This was planned.
The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by US President Clinton following the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.
We will need to consider UN Agenda 21 and 2030 in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources, but for now we can reference it to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will explain why politicians around the world have used it.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:
By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards… adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:
The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk;
[…] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership […] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels […] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation…
Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed.. and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.
“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post “disaster” reconstruction. It means the global participation of relevant stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships in order to implement instruments to achieve sustainable development.
SDG 11 (b) was a plan to substantially increase the global number of human settlements adopting “build back better” polices by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.
Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – SCM – were devised by the World Economic Forum, who describe themselves as the international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP to seize the entire Earth, all its resources and everything on it, including us.
In order to control us we are being transitioned into a technocracy with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security and centralised control of the entire system has been established during, and as a result of, the pseudopandemic.
The news IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI or similar state payments) which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC.)
This will ensure our compliance, as Central Banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.
The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” How it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up the Earths resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.
Throughout the pseudopandemic the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Their Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea hundreds, if not thousands of years old.
It is the self-serving belief that some special people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate “democratic” mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption.
The WEF have claimed the supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy. They intend to do this by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”
They have put themselves forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF are not alone in their ambitions, but rather the leading proponents for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of their self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.
The United Nations (UN) acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.
In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013 the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.“
They wrote:
International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space… Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity – have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons… while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace… Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”
This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020 The Rothschild backed bank the Global Environment Facility offered a more extensive list of the shared resources all life relies upon:
In order to protect our global commons… humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”
That coalition is the GPPP and citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they agree to promote the agreed policy agenda.
In December 2020 the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept.
Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the development of Technocracy, he said:
To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken… human activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos… the recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity… It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it… We must turn this momentum into a movement…
Everything is interlinked – the global commons and global well-being…This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas… Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries… More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries… From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line…From classroom education to community engagement…From voting booths to places of work…
We cannot go back to the old normal…We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change… Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world – and with each other.
Again we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us, we are a pestilence that must be controlled; Covid-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same and everything must be transformed.
Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breath), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.
Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), where we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and system, education, the communities we live in and even our relationships, are all to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.
The “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything. All life, all resources, all land, all water, the air, the stars and all of us. It is their intention to have dominion over all.
The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. In June 2021 the WEF wrote the Case for a Digital Commons. Whenever they want to include something else in the list they use the language of sustainable development. It doesn’t matter that this makes no rational sense, the point is to sell the notion with the right buzz-words:
COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”
Now they claim the authority to rule the Internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the tax paying cash cows that will fund the construction of the empire:
In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress… Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems.. as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”
It is truly remarkable that a low mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation.
The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, the authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:
One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years… the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild… It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”
At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019 Schwab wrote What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want.
The “we” referenced in that title was not “us” but rather the GPPP, though the article assumed we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:
Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”
Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. It has a specific legal definition:
The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”
It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with our society. Many of us would disagree which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked. There is no justification for Schwab’s claim.
I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?
Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.
Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and their leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are just people, no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.
They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they imagine this is hard to say.
We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.
There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations. These incorporate global logistics, international finance and cross border regulatory alignment. These world-wide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few, senior board level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same.
However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.
However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader,” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.
The title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that her article was not intended to describe her “utopia” and that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near term future:
Everything you considered a product, has now become a service… When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people… Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me… We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”
The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons) they will take care of us.
Why, is the obvious question. If they control all of the Earths resources, everything is free and AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly loosing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.
We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID 19 opportunity, a response to a set of crises which gives rise to doing “things differently.”
We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.
As Schwab noted, there was no existential threat. The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not a respiratory disease.
It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. However, when we look at Agenda 21 and 2030 an uncomfortable realisation dawns.
While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect.
The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet, it is that, in Agenda 21 and 2030, the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists.
Make no mistake, the GPPP intend to control every aspect of the Earth and our lives. That is the transformation they are working towards and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.
Combined with SDGs, while we have been preoccupied with a low mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP have not only started building, they have partly completed the new global monetary and financial system.
Once installed this will finalise their coup d’état and enable them to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.
We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part Two.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
By Chris Menahan | InformationLiberation | October 26, 2021
An FDA vaccine advisory panel on Tuesday voted unanimously 17-0 in favor shooting up kids aged 5-11 with Pfizer’s experimental mRNA injection with panelist Dr Eric Rubin stating, “we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”
Full context:
https://twitter.com/politicalwilli/status/1453082309201117199?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1453082309201117199%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationliberation.com%2F%3Fid%3D62628
“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it,” Dr Rubin said, urging other panelists to vote for it. “That’s just the way it goes.”
The panel voted in favor of experimenting on tens of millions of helpless children with zero long-term data on side effects because 94 children between 5 and 11 have died with COVID-19 (they claimed “of”) and “all have names. All of them had mothers,” to quote the emotional gobbledegook uttered by panelist Patrick S. Moore.
From The Washington Post :
“To me, it seems that it is a hard decision but a clear one,” said Patrick S. Moore, a University of Pittsburgh microbiologist and committee member. He noted that 94 children between 5 and 11 have died of covid-19, and “all have names. All of them had mothers.”
As the WSJ reported:
Members of the FDA’s vaccine-advisory panel supported Moderna’s booster dose even though the evidence for it was from a small study and had mixed results.
“It’s more a gut feeling rather than based on really truly serious data,” said Patrick Moore, a member of the committee and a professor of molecular genetics and biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “The data itself is not strong, but it is certainly going in the direction that is supportive of this vote.”
This is how they “follow the science.”
A deeper look at a decisive limitation of our adaptive immune systems
eugyppius | October 26, 2021
To review: We have now had ten months of mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Nearly 7 billion doses have been administered worldwide. This unprecedented campaign has not eradicated Corona; it has not even suppressed infections. Instead, case statistics have ballooned almost everywhere. While the vaccinated appear to enjoy some protection against severe outcomes, skyrocketing transmission means most countries have seen little benefit, on balance, from their universal vaccination campaigns. The most pressing question has become, simply: What is going on?
I’ve explored a few different possibilities. First, there seems to be a Marek Effect at work. We might imagine that all viruses have an optimal level of population-wide virulence – an advantageous degree of aggression at which they can spread effectively, while not driving their hosts underground too soon. Certain Delta sub-strains, previously punished for their excessive aggression in unvaccinated populations, have likely been favoured by the vaccines, which reduce symptoms in the vaccinated without preventing infection for more than a few months. Our vaccines reduced the average virulence of SARS-2, and the virus adapted to reattain the prior, optimal balance.
But the virus and its interactions with human hosts constitute a complex system. In such systems, it is very unlikely that any effect can be put down to a single cause. The Public Health England data provide powerful reasons to suspect that the vaccines may be compromising immunity to SARS-2 via Original Antigenic Sin. This is not a crazy internet fantasy, but a well-observed limitation of human immunity. It is the primary reason that respiratory viruses like influenza return again and again. Despite multiple reinfections across the whole population, we are never quite immune to the flu, because its strategy is to exploit the way our immune systems learn.
The mechanisms of Original Antigenic Sin are not fully understood, but we have a rough idea of what might be happening. When a virus infects your body for the first time, your naive memory B cells imprint on specific virus proteins, or antigens, presented to them. These B cells then become either memory B cells or plasma cells. Forever after, they specialise in producing antibodies against those specific antigens. When a slightly mutated form of the virus arrives, these memory B-cells begin pouring forth the antibodies they learned to produce during the first infection. These antibodies bind to multiple epitopes on the virus particles, and in the process they give the slower-moving naive B-cells little chance to learn about any new, mutant virus features.
Original Antigenic Sin was most influentially described by Thomas Francis in 1960. He noted that, regardless of whatever influenza A strains were in circulation, subjects tended to have dominant antibody responses to the strains that were current in their early childhood:
The antibody of childhood is largely a response to … the virus causing the first Type A influenza infection of the lifetime. As the group grows older and subsequent infections take place, antibodies to additional families of virus are acquired. But … the antibody which is first established continues to characterize that cohort of the population throughout its life. The antibody forming mechanisms have been highly conditioned by the first stimulus, so that later infections with strains of the same type successively enhance the original antibody to maintain it at the highest level at all times in that age group. The imprint established by the original virus infection governs the antibody response thereafter. This we have called the doctrine of original antigenic sin.
An important consequence of this childhood conditioning, is that different age cohorts within the population have overlapping or layered immunity to different influenza strains. This is an important if subtle aspect of our population-wide immunity to influenza A. It looks like this:
As older cohorts die, their immunity to older strains dies with them. These old strains, long suppressed, are then positioned to return, for very few human immune systems remember them any longer. Francis believed this was the mechanism underlying periodic cycles of pandemic influenza. The 1957 influenza pandemic, for example, featured a strain of flu against which only the oldest cohorts – those in their 70s – had specific antibodies. As these “immunological veterans” disappeared, this older, long-suppressed type of influenza was free to return and cause another pandemic event.
In conclusion, Francis proposed that optimised influenza vaccines might be administered to children before their first infection. He envisioned vaccines designed to confer immunity against “known or anticipated recurrent strains” and hoped that “In this manner the original sin of infection could be replaced by an initial blessing of induced immunity.”
Strategic vaccination conferring immunity against likely future strains is of course exactly the opposite of our current efforts to give every last living human multiple vaccinations against an extinct strain of SARS-2.
*
The existence of Original Antigenic Sin has been confirmed by generations of research, and the literature is full of curious findings. A major reason flu shots don’t work, for example, is that they are powerless to redirect adult immune systems against novel influenza strains. Most people who get flu shots are adults, with immune systems long since primed by childhood infection. Hence this old Lancet case study of influenza outbreaks among boys at Christ’s Hospital in Sussex in the 1970s:
In each outbreak, the protective effect of inactivated influenza-A vaccine was limited to those boys, not already immune, who were vaccinated for the first time with the most up-to-date strain. Revaccination with the same strain did not increase the degree of protection, and revaccination with a later strain did not afford protection against subsequent challenge.
The flu vaccines, in other words, work great if you’ve never had the flu before. Otherwise they don’t do anything.
And consider these remarks, from a 2005 article in Nature Medicine:
It is often difficult to further increase antibody levels, specificity and the quality of the immune response in individuals who have been repeatedly immunized through either vaccination or recurrent exposure to infectious agents or cross-reacting microbial antigens. This has been a particular concern for aging adults in the context of the antigenic drift of influenza virus, in view of their annual exposure to antigens of new but related influenza variants through either infection or vaccination. After exposure to a new but cross-reacting antigenic variant, such individuals may respond by producing antibodies that are primarily directed at antigens characterizing influenza viruses encountered during earlier epidemics.
The authors go on to write that the “impact” of Original Antigenic Sin “on protection is far from established,” noting earlier research showing substantial all-cause mortality reductions from flu shots. Later work, though, has shown that the mortality reduction of influenza vaccines is largely an illusion of selection effects. For a variety of reasons, those most likely to die of influenza are far less likely than healthier groups to be vaccinated.
Original Antigenic Sin has been famously implicated in dengue fever. This is considered to be an extreme case of the phenomenon, with “considerable bearing on vaccine strategies.” Here the conclusions are ominous and full of implications for our own situation:
Once a response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will need to be established with the first vaccine dose.
The danger is that immunity to one strain alone may lead to permanently impaired immune response to the three other serotypes, causing worse and longer illness.
*
Influenza had been infecting humans for generations before anybody came up with the notion of influenza vaccines. Despite the efforts of public health authorities everywhere, most people catch the flu before they are ever vaccinated, and so flu shots have little opportunity to undermine population-wide immunity to influenza A.
The complex system constituted by SARS-CoV-2 and its interactions with the human immune system, on the other hand, remains barely understood. In chasing an empty fantasy of herd immunity, authorities are denying human populations everywhere the opportunity to develop the layered, population-wide resistance against successive SARS-2 strains that is the foundation of our immunity against other respiratory viruses. Aside from the minority that have managed to recover from natural infection before the vaccinators got to them, most humans will have their crucial, primary immune response conditioned by the spike protein of SARS-2 in its vintage 2020 configuration.
It is a near certainty that this immunity will attenuate antibody responses to the spike protein of current and future variants, forever. Mutant spike proteins will increasingly escape vaccine-conferred immunity, and breakthrough infections will elicit only partial response to the new epitopes. Insofar as the data also suggest that our vaccines will attenuate immunity to other virus proteins beyond spike, mass vaccination will lead to ever more volatile waves of infection – in exchange for limited and fading protection against severe outcomes.
The most dangerous thing to do, at this point, would be to vaccinate children. The virus is not a threat to them, and if they are infected by the new forms of SARS-2 that are sure to emerge every winter, we will begin to establish – through them and the as yet unvaccinated – the layered immunity that is the only way of coming to terms with SARS-2 in the longer term. As long as the vaccinators are permitted to continue their radical and increasingly insane campaign, though, nothing will improve. Indeed, their policies threaten to bring about a semi-permanent pandemic state for generations to come.
By Toby Rogers | October 25, 2021
Where to even begin with the FDA’s preposterous risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” in children ages 5 to 11?
Let’s start with my bona fides. I have a year of undergraduate statistics at one of the best liberal arts colleges in America (Swarthmore). I have a year of graduate statistics at the masters program rated #1 for policy analysis (UC Berkeley). And I have a Ph.D. in political economy from one of the top universities in the world (University of Sydney). My research focus is on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry so I’ve read scientific studies in connection with vaccines nearly every day for 5 years. Earlier in my career I worked professionally tearing apart shoddy cost-benefit analyses prepared by corporations that were trying to get tax breaks, contracts, and other concessions from local government. Suffice it to say I’ve thought a lot about risk-benefit analysis and I’m better equipped than most to read one of these documents.
The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject children ages 5 to 11 with their COVID-19 vaccine is one of the shoddiest documents I’ve ever seen.
Let’s take it from the top:
🚩 COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750). So any claims you see in the press about the Pfizer vaccine being “90% effective” in children are meaningless because they are referring to mild cases from which children usually recover quickly (and then have robust broad spectrum immunity). So there is literally no emergency in this population for which one could apply for Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer’s application should be dead on arrival if the FDA actually followed the science and their own rules. We will return to this topic below.
🚩 Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms. This is a well known trick of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA even called them out on it earlier this summer and asked Pfizer to expand the trial and Pfizer just ignored them because they can. (Pfizer fudged it by importing data from a different study but this other study only monitored adverse outcomes for 17 days so if anything the new data polluted rather than clarified outcomes). To put it simply, if the rate of particular adverse outcome in kids as a result of this shot is 1 in 5,000 and the trial only enrolls 1,518 in the treatment group then one is unlikely to spot this particular harm in the clinical trial. Voilà “Safe & Effective(TM)”.
🚩 Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government? Pfizer has no idea because children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this trial. This was by design. Toxic polluters have learned to not ask questions that they do not want the answers to, lest they wind up staring at their own smoking gun in a future court case.
According to an analysis by Alex Berenson:
“What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably). It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.”
🚩 Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants? The FDA risk-benefit document states: “Among Cohort 1 participants, 95.1% had safety follow-up ≥2 months after Dose 2 at the time of the September 6, 2021 data cutoff.” So what happened with those 4.9% who did not have safety follow-up 2 months after Dose 2? Were they in the treatment or control group? We have no idea because Pfizer isn’t saying. Given the small size of the trial, failing to follow up with 4.9% of the participants potentially skews the results.
🚩 The follow up period was intentionally too short. This is another well-know trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days. Many harms from vaccines including cancer and autoimmune disorders take much longer to show up. As the old saying goes, “you can have it quick or you can have it done right, but you cannot have both.” Pfizer chose quick.
🚩 The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis. But we know that the real world harms from the Pfizer mRNA shot go well beyond myocarditis and include anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, heart attack, thrombocytopenia/ low platelet, permanent disability, shingles, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, and autoimmune disorders may show up later. But the FDA does not care about any of that because they have a vaccine to sell so they just ignore all of those factors in their model.
🚩 Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo. They claim that they are doing this for “ethical reasons”. But everyone knows that Pfizer’s true aim is to wipe out any comparison group so that there can be no long term safety studies. Wiping out the control group is a criminal act and yet Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ do this as standard practice with the blessing of the FDA/CDC.
🚩 Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:
Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay).
Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity. And the antibodies in the blood of these 5 to 11 year old children tell us nothing because again, there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in this study (none in the treatment group, none in the control group). So Pfizer had to get creative! What they came up with is “immuno-bridging”. Pfizer looked at the level of antibodies in the bloodwork of another study, this one involving people 16 to 25 years old, figured out the level of antibodies that seems to be protective in that population, then figured out how many kids ages 5 to 11 had similar levels of antibodies in their blood, and then came up with a number for how many cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths would be prevented by this shot in the 5 to 11 population in the future, based on the antibody levels and health outcomes from the 16 to 25 year old population. If your head hurts from that tortured logic, it should, because such chicanery is unprecedented in a risk-benefit analysis.
So when the FDA uses this tortured logic at the beginning of their briefing document, all of the calculations that stem from this will be flat out wrong. Not just wrong but preposterous and criminally wrong.
The whole ballgame comes down to Table 14 on page 34 of the FDA’s risk-benefit document. And there the red flags come fast and furious.
🚩 The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.
First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome. As Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche points out, mass vaccination turns kids into shedders of more infectious variants.
“Under no circumstances should young and healthy people be vaccinated as it will only erode their protective innate immunity towards Coronaviruses (CoV) and other respiratory viruses. Their innate immunity normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity. If you are vaccinated and get the disease, you may develop life-long immunity too but why would you take the risk of getting vaccinated, especially when you’re young and healthy? Firstly, there is the risk of potential side effects; secondarily, there is the ever increasing risk that your vaccinal antibodies will no longer be functional while still binding to the virus, thereby increasing the likelihood of ADE or even severe disease….”
Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated.
Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology notes that the FDA is admitting that children will be injected twice a year forever (hence the six month time frame in the FDA risk-benefit model). But the risks of “adverse events such as cardiomyopathy will be cumulative.” So any model that only looks at a six month time frame is hiding the true adverse event rate.
🚩 The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis. First they estimate “excess” (read: caused by the shot) myocarditis using data from the private “Optum health claim database” instead of the public VAERS system (p. 32). So it’s impossible for the public to verify their claims. Then, when it comes to estimating how many children with vaccine-induced myocarditis will be hospitalized and admitted to the ICU they use the Vaccine Safety Datalink (see page 33). Why switch to a different database for those estimates? Finally, there is no explanation for how they calculated “excess” myocarditis deaths, so they just put 0. Red flag, red flag, red flag.
The FDA estimates that there will be 106 extra myocarditis cases per 1 million double-jabbed children 5-11. There are 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 in the U.S. The Biden administration wants to inject Pfizer mRNA shots into all of them and has already purchased enough doses to do just that (even though only 1/3rd of parents want to jab their kids with this shot). So (if the Biden administration has its way) 106 excess myocarditis cases per 1 million x 28.38 million people would be 3,009 excess myocarditis cases post-vaccination if the Pfizer vaccine is approved.
And over the course of several years many of those children will die.
Dr. Anthony Hinton (“Consultant Surgeon with 30 years experience in the NHS”) points out that myocarditis has a 20% fatality rate after 2 years and a 50% fatality rate after 5 years:
So the FDA has it exactly backwards — they want to prevent mild COVID in children which reduces herd immunity and they just flat out lie about the harms from myocarditis.
I’ve taken the liberty to correct the FDA’s Table 14 with actual real world data and extended it over 5 years. It looks like this:
A study by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that VAERS only captured 1% of actual vaccine injuries. Steve Kirsch has done elaborate modeling that puts the Under-Reporting Factor of COVID-19 vaccine deaths at 41 (so multiply the above numbers by 41). And myocarditis is just one of a multitude of possible harms from COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Jessica Rose recently calculated an Under-Reporting Factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.
Conclusion
The Pfizer vaccine fails any honest risk-benefit assessment in connection with its use in children ages 5 to 11. The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 is shoddy. It used tortured logic (that would be rejected by any proper academic journal) in order to reach a predetermined result that is not based in science. The FDA briefing document is a work of fiction and it must be withdrawn immediately. If the FDA continues with this grotesque charade it will cause irreparable harms to children and the FDA leadership will one day be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | October 26, 2021
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee today endorsed Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, despite strong objections raised during the meeting by multiple scientists and physicians.
The vote passed with 17 supporting it and one abstention.
Before the shots can be rolled out, the FDA will have to formally authorize the vaccine, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must also weigh in with its own recommendations — but the Biden administration’s announcement last week that it has already ordered 68 million doses of the pediatric vaccine suggests Pfizer’s request will sail through.
During today’s meeting, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Committee (VRBPAC) heard evidence from Pfizer and regulators, and listened to concerns from numerous experts.
According to the FDA website, as of Oct. 25, the agency had received 139,470 comments from the public prior to today’s meeting — a number federal officials described as strikingly high.
As he opened the meeting, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), said, “I want to acknowledge the fact that there are strong feelings that have clearly been expressed by members of the public both for and against” authorization.
Marks stressed the only question before the experts was whether shots should be allowed, not whether to mandate them, the New York Times reported.
The dose for younger children would be one-third the strength given to people 12 and older, with two shots given three weeks apart.
Based on CDC data presented during the meeting, among children 5 to <12 years of age, there have been approximately 1.8 million confirmed and reported COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, and only 143 COVID-related deaths in the U.S. through Oct. 14.
In this same age group, there were 8,622 COVID-related hospitalizations through Sept 18.
“This translates to cumulative incidence rates of approximately 6,000 and 30 per 100,000 for confirmed COVID cases and COVID-related hospitalizations, respectively, among children 5 to <12 years of age,” Pfizer’s application said.
Children with underlying medical conditions, such as asthma, diabetes and obesity, made up two-thirds of severe COVID cases.
Pfizer provided safety data on two study cohorts of children ages 5 to 11, both of roughly equal size. The first group was followed only for about two months, the second for only two-and-a-half weeks.
The two-month cohort included 2,268 children ages 5 to 11. Of the 2,268 children, 1,518 received the vaccine and 750 received a placebo. Each received two shots spaced three weeks apart.
Pfizer’s study found its vaccine was about 91% effective against symptomatic COVID in children, based on 16 cases of COVID in the placebo group and three cases in the vaccinated group over the brief follow-up period.
Most side effects occurred within a couple of days and included pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle pains and chills, Pfizer said.
According to Pfizer, the number of participants in the current clinical development program was “too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination.”
Long-term safety of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine “to evaluate long-term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis” in participants 5 to <12 years of age will not be studied until after the vaccine is authorized for children,” Pfizer’s application noted.
Pfizer data insufficient, kids’ risk of vaccine injury greater than COVID risk, experts say
Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is “almost nil” — at all.
According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.
“Three thousand children received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company’s safety analysis,” Nass said. “Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient.”
Nass said, “All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine.”
During the meeting and in its FDA application, Pfizer argued children should be vaccinated to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, yet the company did not assess asymptomatic transmission.
Dr. Ofer Levy, a VRBPAC member, asked for evidence that Pfizer’s vaccine prevents transmission.
Dr. William Gruber, senior vice president of Pfizer Vaccine Clinical Research and Development, said they did not assess whether the vaccine prevents transmission, but said there is evidence the vaccine prevents transmission in adults.
When questioned further, Gruber was unable to cite specific evidence to back his assertion.
Steve Kirsch, founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, asked the panel how they could do a risk-benefit analysis with Pfizer’s COVID vaccine if they did not know the CDC’s VAERS under-reporting factor (URF).
Kirsch asked:
“How can you do a risk-benefit of analysis of COVID vaccines if you don’t know the URF? This is extremely, extremely important. You have been assuming it has been one. It is not one. Using a URF of 41, which is calculated using CDC methodology, we find over 300,000 excess deaths in VAERS. If the vaccine didn’t kill these people, what did?”
“How many Americans have to die before you pull the plug?” Kirsch asked.
Kirsch also questioned the panel on why Maddie de Garay’s severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine, which left her paralyzed, was not reported by the company to the FDA.
Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment.
“There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,” Rose said.
In a peer-reviewed study co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout.
In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates.
“In an act of censorship, this paper has been temporarily removed and it has now been killed without criticism of the work,” Rose said, noting the timing of the removal was strange.
Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18.
Rose explained:
“In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that “product administered to patient of inappropriate age was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.”
Dr. Josh Guetzkow, a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said expanding the EUA to children is unnecessary, premature and will do more harm than good.
Guetzkow said there is no emergency for children, especially healthy ones whose risk of severe illness and death is “almost nil.”
Guetzkow said kids with pre-existing conditions and prior COVID infections were not included in Pfizer’s study, so including them in the EUA is negligence.
“Pfizer’s trial is woefully underpowered to detect specific safety concerns, such as myocarditis, just like the adolescent study was, and if they weren’t able to detect an unexpected safety concern there, they wouldn’t be able to here,” Guetzkow said.
Guetzkow said:
“In Pfizer’s study, only .5% of controls were dropped due to important protocol violations, versus 3% in the treatment group. The odds of that happening by chance are 1 in 10,000. This deviation is poorly explained with no ITT analysis. The study is not double-blind and may be subject to bias. Most VSD safety monitoring programs have not reported results, why not wait?”
Guetzkow said, “from CDC reports, we can expect that for every 18 child hospitalizations prevented, at least 43 will end up in the hospital for all causes following vaccination,” yet, the “FDA’s risk-benefit analysis only counts myocarditis hospitalization.”
“Why ignore the V-safe data, and shouldn’t FDA verify Pfizer’s efficacy and immunobridging analysis first?” he asked.
Guetzkow said VAERS shows alarming safety signals, which cannot be attributed to increased vaccination, simulated reporting or COVID infections.
“We calculated the ratio of adverse events reported per million Pfizer vaccinations to reports per million flu vaccinations among teenagers to see what to expect in children. Serious events are reported 51% more often for Pfizer, deaths 47 times, life-threatening conditions 49 times,” Guetzkow said.
Guetzkow asked the panel to look at the data on COVID vaccines compared to flu vaccines. Pointing to the data on reproductive organs, Guetzkow asked, “why would we expect children to take these risks to protect adults?”
There are more than 900 types of adverse events reported after Pfizer vaccination that have never been reported after flu vaccines, including 11 cases of multisystem-inflammatory syndrome (MS-C) that occurred without previous history of COVID infection, Guetzkow said.
He added that if the panel was considering authorizing Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to prevent MS-C — as Pfizer’s application suggested as one of the reasons they should — the panel should reconsider.
During another part of the meeting, Julia Barnes-Weise, director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliance Accelerator, said pharmaceutical companies have concerns.
“One of them is, especially for a not-yet-approved vaccine, that they could be held liable for any injury that that vaccine seems to have caused,” Barnes-Weise said.
In a preliminary analysis last week, FDA reviewers said protection would “clearly outweigh” the risk of a very rare side effect in almost all scenarios of the pandemic, PBS News Hour reported.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said yesterday it would take legal action against the FDA if it granted EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children 5- to 11- years old.
In a letter signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Nass, Kennedy and Nass wrote:
“CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke, and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.”
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.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Lies are Unbekoming | October 2, 2026
The genes the field promised were never there.
The genetic story of disease is a cover story.
The twenty-first century runs on it. Paediatric clinics. Cancer centres. Forensic laboratories. Family-planning counsel. It is used to explain illness, to assign blame, to foreclose questions. It protects the industries whose products and practices are what actually caused the harm.
It isn’t true.
In 2010, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson looked at over seven hundred genome-wide association studies covering some eighty common diseases. The genes the field had promised were not there. The field invented a term, “missing heritability”, to explain the absence, and has quietly worked to bury the finding ever since.
The Genetic Deception is a book about what Latham and Wilson found. What the field did with it. And what the public was told instead. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
