Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CDC Director Violates FDA’s Emergency Use Authorizations and Posts Misinformation about COVID-19 Vaccines

ICAN | June 23, 2022

While Twitter has suspended and permanently blocked numerous individuals for posting so-called “misinformation” concerning COVID-19 vaccines, it has not done so to “health” authorities – those who arguably should be held to an even higher standard – when they blatantly share inaccurate information.

On June 18, 2022, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky posted a tweet with a video of herself discussing the CDC’s recent recommendation of the COVID-19 shots for children under 5.  In the video, Dr. Walensky made the following two claims:

  • “We now know based on rigorous scientific review that the vaccines available here in the United States can be used safely and effectively in children under 5.”
  • “We have taken another important step together on our fight against COVID-19 by making safe and effectivevaccines available for our little ones.”

But as Dr. Walensky should certainly be aware, in issuing Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), the FDA has not(under its ridiculously low standards) made a finding that these vaccines are “safe and effective.”  Instead, the grant of an EUA means only that the FDA has determined “it is reasonable to believe that [each vaccine] may be effective” and that “it is reasonable to conclude, based on the totality of scientific evidence available, that the known and potential benefits of [each vaccine] outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine.”

By claiming – two separate times – that these vaccines are “safe and effective,” Dr. Walensky is misleading the public by suggesting these vaccines have met the legal standard required for licensure.

Worse yet, because her tweet is “descriptive printed matter” that is both advertising and promoting Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the tweet itself is in violation of both EUAs issued to these companies because it does not “clearly and conspicuously” contain the required disclaimer that these products have not yet been licensed as safe and effective by the FDA.

ICAN, through its attorneys, has sent Dr. Walensky a formal letter demanding that she immediately remove the misleading tweet and we will keep you posted on the CDC’s response.

June 25, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments

CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals

By Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 21, 2022

In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.

The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”

Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”

After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.

Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).

I was wrong.

The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).

This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.

If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.

The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”

And yet, in the agency’s response to the FOIA request, it wrote that “no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.”

The agency suggested contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.

CDC officials repeatedly claimed they have not seen safety signals in VAERS.

For example, on April 27, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated the CDC did not see any signals related to heart inflammation.

But a PRR calculation I did using the number of myo/pericarditis reports listed in the first table produced by the CDC obtained via the FOIA request reveals clear and unambiguous safety signals relative to the comparator vaccines mentioned in the briefing document (i.e., flu vaccines, FLUAD and Shingrix).

The table is dated April 2, 2021, almost four weeks before she made those remarks.

In fact, among the 15 adverse events for adults included in that week’s tabulations, PRRs I calculated also show loud-and-clear safety signals for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, coagulopathy, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), stroke and death.

The actual monitoring the CDC did diverges from the one promised in the briefing document in other ways.

For example, the CDC never created tables of the top 25 adverse events reported in the previous week, tables comparing different vaccine manufacturers, or tables of auto-immune diseases.

And it only began monitoring in early April 2021, even though reports from COVID-19 vaccines had been flooding VAERS since mid-December of the previous year.

To be clear, VAERS is not the only database the CDC uses to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety.

For example, the CDC sponsored several studies of COVID-19 safety using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is comprised of millions of medical records from HMO’s across several states.

Those studies do not raise many safety concerns. However, they make many questionable methodological choices.

To give one example, a major safety study based on VSD data published in September 2021, in “JAMA,” compares adverse event rates that occur within 1-21 days of vaccination to the rate of occurrence from 22 to 42 days after vaccination.

It makes no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or before vaccination versus after in the same individuals.

Moreover, the VSD is far from infallible, having failed initially to detect the increase in myocarditis rates.

In contrast, although calculating PRR’s is a blunt pharmacovigilance tool and far from perfect, it nevertheless has the advantage of being straightforward and difficult to manipulate with statistical sleight of hand.

PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.

It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.

Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.

And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.

It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.

But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

June 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Where did Money Pock$ come from?

What a coincidence that FDA approved a sketchy monkeypox vaccine in 2019

By Meryl Nass, MD | June 22, 2022

There are now 2500 moneypox cases diagnosed in the current outbreak, in over 40 countries, and not a single death that anyone can point to, outside of Africa. Maybe ever. One moneypox death is said to have occurred this year in Nigeria, a country of 206 million people, but without any confirmatory details. I think the authorities have been desperate to locate a death.

Only CDC can confirm a case, which means CDC has the ability to decide how many US cases there are.

Canada offered vaccine to high risk men who have sex with men last week, and the UK is doing so now, as reported by the AP on June 21. On June 22, the criteria for vaccinating have already expanded, per today’s Stat:

Yesterday, British authorities recommended taking their monkeypox-fighting tactics one step further: Instead of offering vaccines only to close contacts of those diagnosed with the virus, they suggested broadening the eligibility to anyone at increased risk of exposure. The criteria would be similar to those for pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV, and might include, for instance, men who have sex with men and who have several partners.

This virus has never spread like this before.  I don’t think a rave or two can explain how it suddenly appeared in 20 countries on 4 continents at once. The simultaneous nature of widespread cases, and apparent increased human-to-human transmission suggest it was spread deliberately and may have been engineered.

The initial full genome sequence, performed in Portugal, revealed the current strain most closely matched a strain that had been identified in 2018 and 2019 in Israel, the UK and Singapore. This is suggestive of lab origin, but not definitive proof. Hopefully there are some honest virologists who will continue to study the genome, and more will become clear with time. Hopefully Tony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar have not organized yet another coverup of the origins of the moneypox strain.

Why MONEYPOX??  Could it be because there is a vaccine?

  • Doesn’t anyone else think it odd that this virus just happens to be susceptible (so they claim) to a vaccine that the US Government has stockpiled?
  • Doesn’t anyone else think it is odd that the FDA approved (licensed) a vaccine for moneypox named Jynneos in 2019, when there had only been about 50 human cases diagnosed in the US, cumulatively, during the past 60 years?
  • Why license a vaccine for a rare disease that almost nobody dies from?
  • Why license the vaccine for moneypox when it was never tested to see if it prevented moneypox in humans?

It is hard to believe that FDA gave this vaccine a license when you read the FDA reviewers’ comments in their own report, below. They could not test the vaccine for efficacy against smallpox because there is no smallpox, nor against monkeypox because the disease is so rare. So the FDA relied on neutralizing antibody titers. But at the same time, FDA admitted there is no established correlate of protection. This means that there is no evidence that the titers represent actual immunity to infection. So FDA relied on animal studies to simply guess the vaccine might be effective in humans.

Furthermore, there is very strong suggestive evidence of cardiac damage/myocarditis, which is a well known side effect of other smallpox vaccines. CDC admitted as recently as last November that 5.7 people per thousand recipients (1 person for each 175 recipients) got myocarditis from the ACAM2000 vaccine, the other US-licensed smallpox vaccine.  But FDA acted blind, deaf and dumb about this obvious, serious risk:

Since only one effectiveness study with an active comparator (POX-MVA-006) exists, and vaccinia specific neutralizing antibody titers determined by PRNT vary greatly across studies, we concurred with the applicant that an integrated summary of efficacy (ISE) is not required. p. 23

… Reviewer’s comment: Contrary to the title, the study did not examine efficacy of the vaccine with a clinical endpoint but instead evaluated immunogenicity and take attenuation and no correlation of protection exists. p. 30

Vaccinia specific neutralizing antibody titers among vaccinia-naïve subjects dropped quickly following primary MVA-BN vaccination series. The antibody titer peaked at 2 weeks after the last dose of primary vaccination (GMT 46) and was almost undetectable at 6 months after the last dose of primary vaccination with a GMT of 7 (assay LLOD ≥6). A single dose of MVA-BN at 2 years after the primary vaccination with MVA- BN induced a booster antibody response. However, the neutralizing antibody titer dropped from a peak GMT of 125 at two weeks after the booster dose to 49 at 6 months after the booster dose. No data were available beyond 6 months after the booster dose. It appears that there may be a need for a booster dose after the primary MVA-BN vaccination. p. 196

Up to 18.4% of subjects in 2 studies developed post-vaccination elevation of troponin [a cardiac muscle enzyme signifying cardiac damage–Nass]. However, all of these troponin elevations were asymptomatic and without a clinically associated event or other sign of myopericarditis. p. 198

The applicant has committed to conduct an observational, post-marketing study as part of their routine PVP. The sponsor will collect data on cardiac events that  occur and are assessed as a routine part of medical care. p. 200

This suggests that all those men who receive the vaccine now will be the guinea pigs, the first humans to determine if there is protection, and what the risks may be. Gay and bisexual men in their 20s and 30s will probably be at the highest risk of myocarditis, since males in this age group are at the highest risk of myocarditis from COVID mRNA vaccines.

It is they in whom it will be determined whether elevated cardiac enzymes, seen in two trials in up to 1 in 5 Jynneos vaccine recipients, are associated with cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, hart failure, arrhythmias or heart attacks. Then again, assuming FDA and CDC follow the COVID playbook, this serious side effect is likely to get missed, and sudden deaths in recipients may simply be brushed under the rug.

OTOH, if 1 in 5 recipients gets cardiac inflammation, it may be impossible to airbrush it away.

Let me ask again: WHY moneypox? Here are some reasonable possibilities:

•To induce fear as anxiety about COVID is resolving?

•To reduce sexual activity and encourage physical distancing?

•To push more vaccines on the public?

•To financially benefit politically connected biodefense companies?

•To use up a boondoggle and replenish the smallpox vaccine stocks?

There are two vaccines that FDA has licensed for smallpox in recent years. The US government bought about 290 million doses of ACAM2000 and over 10 million doses of Jynneos, although now CDC will only say there are 100 million doses in the national stockpile. The US government has ongoing contracts for more ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine.

ACAM2000 caused 1 in 220 never previously vaccinated recipients to get myocarditis or pericarditis, and over 3% (1 in 30) to have elevated troponin, in a well done military study in over 1000 vaccinated soldiers. But Jynneos could conceivably cause a lot more myocarditis, if the 2 studies that showed troponin elevations in 11-18% of recipients hold up.

Here’s the bottom line:

a) there is no evidence from any studies that either vaccine prevents moneypox in humans

b) the current moneypox outbreak causes a febrile, flu-like illness followed by rash, then resolves. It is mild. Mortality figures have been way overblown, since no one has died n a western country. The disease seems roughly equivalent to shingles.

c) either vaccine may cause very serious heart damage, much more commonly than COVID vaccines do, based on available evidence, so the risk from the vaccines far exceeds any potential benefit they might convey.

d) the odds so far are that moneypox came from a lab and was deliberately spread.

e) both moneypox and shingles spread via the release of viral particles from the fluid in blisters, aka pocks. Casual spread is rare.

f) FDA and CDC are probably excited that they will finally get some real data in humans to justify their approval of the smallpox vaccine boondoggles.

Remember what the WHO so presciently sang: “Don’t Get Fooled Again!” Please stay safe.

June 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Millions Face New Fluoridation Threats

By Stuart Cooper | Fluoride Action Network | June 21, 2022

The published science over the past decade has taught us a lot about water fluoridation, about both the very real and significant side effects inflicted on the public, but also about the credibility of those who continue to vouch for its safety.

At this point, the question we must ask isn’t whether the overwhelming risks outweigh the theoretical scant benefits, or whether more research is needed to draw strong conclusions. No, the only appropriate question now is: How much more harm will the promoters and regulators of fluoridation allow the practice to inflict on the public?

Without the Fluoride Action Network, our coalition partners, and people like you taking a stand, their answer will be a resounding, “a lot more harm!” With their credibility and influence at stake after defending fluoridation for more than 75 years, they’ve sadly shown that they’ll not only be the last to act, but that they plan to double down until we stop them.

As we speak, tens of millions of residents currently living on community water systems with no added fluoride throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are facing the imminent threat of having their water dosed with hazardous fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has announced a new strategy and helped develop a new technology to fluoridate an addition 19+ million Americans, which will also eventually expand to Canadians, Australians and likely others.

Meanwhile, the governments in the U.K. and New Zealand have exploited the recent pandemic to pass sweeping health care reform bills that effectively include nationwide fluoridation mandates due to decades of strong pushback from residents and elected officials at the local level, keeping fluoridation at bay.

Fluoride Has Already Damaged the Teeth of Millions

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s own data taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) has repeatedly found that our children in the United States are significantly overexposed to fluoride, evidenced by skyrocketing rates of dental fluorosis.

Fluorosis is a biomarker of toxicity from ingested fluoride, and is a permanent tooth defect, causing unsightly discoloration and mottling of the teeth, weakening the enamel and resulting in increased dental decay.

Ingesting fluoridated water — particularly in reconstituted infant formula — and processed foods made with fluoridated water are recognized as the primary sources of exposure, though swallowing toothpaste and fluoride prescriptions also contribute.

2015 review of the practice of fluoridation by the Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard for evidence-based reviews of health interventions, found that “there is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and [water] fluoride level.”

The CDC reported that 41% of adolescents (12 to 15) had dental fluorosis in 2004. At the time this was an increase of over 400% from the rates found 60 years prior. Then the 2012 survey found that the rate jumped significantly to 65+% of adolescents with dental fluorosis.

Now, according to a recent study (Yang, June 2021) published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety using the data from the NHANES 2015-16 survey, the “prevalence of dental fluorosis was 70% in the U.S. children.”

This means that the teeth of millions of children, teens and adults have already been damaged by overexposure to fluoride during development, and the CDC, along with the other promoters of fluoridation are fully aware. However, the teeth are not the only tissues in the body that are harmed by or accumulate fluoride. There is no apparent reason, therefore, why fluoride’s effects on the body would be limited to the teeth. As noted by renowned dentist and researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback:

… it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.

NHANES data has been used in recent published and peer-reviewed studies to link fluoridated water with a number of additional side-effects, including earlier onset of menstruation for black teens, sleep disorders in adolescents, increase uric acid levels in the blood, and kidney and liver impairment in adolescents.

Additional studies on fluoridation have also recently found higher rates of hip fractures, disruption of the endocrine system, and increased rates of hypothyroidism.

Fluoride Is the New Lead

There is now a large body of government-funded research indicating that fluoride is neurotoxic, and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the toxicology have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.

To date, 69 human studies, most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. The highest quality fluoride brain studies have been published since 2017, when the first of five NIEHS-NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded prospective-cohort studies was published (Bashash et al., 2017) finding an association between fetal exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in Mexico.

A year later, another NIH-funded study found an increase in ADHD symptoms associated with in utero exposure to fluoride (Bashash et al., 2018).

Over the next two years, two more of these government-funded studies found similar results, linking fetal exposure to fluoridated water in Canada to lowered IQ (Green et al., 2019), and finding that bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities in Canada had a significantly lowered IQ compared to bottle-fed infants in non-fluoridated communities (Till et al., 2020).

And just last year, the fifth NIH-funded study (Cantoral et al, 2021), found that for every 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.10 to 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys. The authors stated:

“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and … fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels …

These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range.”

I strongly urge you to watch and share this recent 20-minute PowerPoint presentation by professor Christine Till, Ph.D., lead author of some of these landmark fluoride studies, explaining her team’s research and findings.

In 2021, the first benchmark dose analysis conducted on maternal fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity to the fetus was published in the journal Risk Analysis (Grandjean, 2021). Benchmark doses analyses are used by the EPA and toxicologist to determine at what level a substance starts to cause harm. It is well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000.

The analysis confirmed that extremely low fluoride exposure during pregnancy impairs fetal brain development, finding that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of only 0.2mg/L — which coincides with the level in water (0.2ppm) — was enough to lower IQ by at least 1 point.

This is four times lower than the current government “recommended” level of 0.8ppm in fluoridated communities. It’s also six times lower than the level that was recommended as “safe” by the CDC, HHS, and the American Dental Association for over 60-years up until 2011 (1.2ppm).

For perspective, A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies. A recent study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74mg/L. A second study with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06mg/L.

Both studies also found that the UF levels were significantly lower for the participants living in the non-fluoridated communities. The authors of the benchmark dose analysis stated:

“These findings suggest that fetal brain development is highly vulnerable to fluoride exposure … and provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life).

Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

These authors are hardly alone in comparing fluoride’s neurotoxic impact to the well-established harm of lead:

  • Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MPH, and Dr. Frederick Rivara, MPH, editors for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on their podcast (around 4:25): “[The 4.5 IQ loss is] An effect size which is sizeable — on par with lead.”
  • Christine Till, PhD, co-author of several landmark fluoride/neurotoxicity studies, on Canada’s CTV“4.5 points is a dramatic loss of IQ, comparable to what you’d see with lead exposure.”
  • David Bellinger, Ph.D., MSc, Harvard professor of neurology, on NPR“It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.”

Other experts, including Linda Birnbaum PhD, former Director of the National Toxicology Program, stress the need to avoid fluoride:

“Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time [to] protect pregnant women and their children [and recommend they] reduce their fluoride intake.”

There are now nine fluoride mother-offspring studies linking fluoride exposure to harm, and 23 studies published on the association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ since 2017.

How FAN Responded to the Science

Because of the growing list of published fluoride-IQ studies, and the downplaying of their importance by pro-fluoridation advocates such as the Division of Oral Health at the CDC and the American Dental Association, FAN embarked on two initiatives in 2016.

First, we requested the National Toxicology Program undertake a systematic review of ALL the studies (animal, human and cellular) pertaining to fluoride’s potential to damage the brain. The NTP agreed with our request, and they plan to publish the final results of their multiyear review of fluoride neurotoxicity any day now. In the two first drafts the NTP concluded, “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans …”

The review drafts identified over 100 studies showing adverse effects including IQ loss and increased ADHD. Among 27 studies designated as high quality, 15 show fluoride injury at the same exposure levels found in community fluoridation programs.

Second, we petitioned the EPA under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water supply because it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of children. The EPA’s lack of action led to FAN suing them in federal court.

The initial phase of the trial was held in June 2020, concluding with the judge saying, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.” However, the court is awaiting the final NTP report before moving forward with the final phase of the trial. Here is a short video update on the lawsuit from FAN’s attorney.

This past year, FAN embarked on a two more initiatives. We communicated with the U.S. surgeon general about the risk posed by fluoridation to developing children, and asked that he take action to warn parents.

We also initiated a dialogue with CDC officials (see initial letter signed by 112 professionals) that ultimately led to them organizing presentations for their leadership from several fluoride/neurotoxicity study authors, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Christine Till, Ph.D., and Dr. Philippe Grandjean on their research.

How Promoters Have Responded to the Science: A New Threat

It has been six months since the CDC heard the presentations on neurotoxicity from the three veteran researchers, and it’s been over a decade since the CDC acknowledged that fluoridation has damaged the teeth of millions.

Yet, the CDC, along with the EPA, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and their state level peers not only have failed to warn residents about the dangers posed by fluoridation, but have continued advocating for fluoridation expansion in spite of the science.

The CDC has partnered with the chemical industry to target 19 million residents in 32,000 small and medium sized communities across the United States that do not add fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water. Using your tax dollars, the CDC provided upward of $2 million dollars in funds to private business to develop a fluoridation delivery product for water systems serving between 50 and 10,000 people.

The widespread sale and promotion of this new product began in January throughout the U.S., but is also planned for Canada and Australia in the near future. The American Dental Association has joined the CDC in pushing this new strategy.

In July of 2021, the CDC held a “Public Health Grand Rounds” presentation on fluoridation. While there was no mention of the large number of new studies linking low levels of fluoridated water to neurotoxicity, it was an infomercial for a new technology that the CDC and ADA were calling “a game changer” in their efforts to expand fluoridation.

Below is a slide from that presentation, where you can see they intend to increase the percentage of fluoridated water systems from 73% to 77% — representing 19 million people on 32,000 water systems — by 2030.

This goal isn’t exactly new. The CDC and ADA have utilized a number of strategies over the past decade to expand the practice, but largely due to FAN and our network of local volunteers and professionals, the number of fluoridating communities has actually decreased, while the population served has increased slightly due to urban growth.

To accomplish this significant increase over the next eight years, they intend to utilize a new fluoridation system specifically designed to be simple and cheap enough for even the smallest water systems, which could include private systems, or even colleges and public schools.

They’re calling it the “New Wave Fluoridation System.” It utilizes compacted sodium fluorosilicate in a tablet form designed to dissolve over time in a small amount of water, much like the deodorizer tablets used in urinals.

We have learned that this process started in 2013, when CDC’s chief fluoridation engineer, Kip Duchon, suggested that the CDC help develop a product that was feasible for small and rural communities. Soon thereafter the CDC announced a Small Business Innovation Research grant opportunity — providing upward of $2 million — for private business to develop and test the idea.

KC Industries, of Mulberry, Florida, was awarded at least two large grants, one to develop the tablet and the other to develop the injection/feeder system.

KC Industries is a small chemical manufacturer with a handful of employees. According to their website, “The plant was built by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and began producing Sodium Fluorosilicate in 1957 as a raw material to manufacture aluminum.”

KC Industries purchased the facility in 1999 and appears to have focused heavily on the “dry” fluoride drinking water additive market with sodium fluoride. Here is their page on their sodium fluoride product; it’s worth a quick look.

Over the past 20 years, more communities have switched their additive to fluorosilicic acid, which is an incredibly dangerous and corrosive liquid, but is cheaper. This led to a massive decline in sales of dry additives, and KC Industries’ profits.

According to their press release, they were struggling until the CDC’s grant, which they say provided “a new lease on life” for the chemical company. They’re expecting “an immediate return on investment” as communities clamor for the new system.

KC Industry representatives have said that interest in the system has come from around the world. The first community to use the product as part of a free pilot project is Cleveland, Georgia. Other communities that have signed on include Marathon, Wisconsin; Center, Colorado; and Aulander, North Carolina. The Missouri state legislature has also included nearly $4 million in funding over the next few years to go toward grants to expand the program in their state.

The CDC employee who initiated this process, Kip Duchon, has retired from the CDC and is now a consultant to the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee.

The ADA has already called it a “game-changer” and lobbied Congressional members to include taxpayer funding for this technology in the recent infrastructure bill intended to help economy out of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, the CDC also continues to give very large taxpayer-funded grants to states to pay for public relations campaigns to promote fluoridation.

Pandemic Exploited to Mandate Fluoridation in UK, New Zealand

Even worse than what is happening in North America with the new tablet fluoridation system, is the recent passage of legislation in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, transferring authority over fluoridation from local officials (and indirectly the public) to unelected public health bureaucrats who have vowed to mandate the practice throughout their respective nations without concern for what the public wants.

Both nations include fluoridation resolutions as part of a much broader legislative effort to centralize public health decisions in response to the pandemic. The U.K. and New Zealand will now join Ireland and Singapore as the four public health outliers in a world that has overwhelmingly rejected fluoridated water.

Last year, the New Zealand government revived, amended and passed a bill that was introduced in 2016, but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently — to district health boards.

However, the current government amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs.

Like the CDC, government officials and public health officials were warned in advance of the harm their decision would cause, yet they ignored it.

Some local leaders have quickly made their opposition to this proposal heard, including the mayor of Whangarei, Sheryl Mai, who said, “People who drink water from the tap will be mass medicated whether they want to be or not.”

Mayor Greg Lang of Carterton, and Mayor Alex Beijen of South Wairarapa, both opposed the measure because it took councils, consumers and ratepayers out of the decision. Officials in Christchurch and Southland have also recently voiced opposition, saying safety is a greater priority than fluoride. Clearly, there is still a chance for those communities that push back against this proposal.

In the U.K., decades of efforts by the government to expand fluoridation stalled having reached only 10% of the population. Efforts to fluoridate Northern Ireland failed miserably with 22 councils voting against the measure. Scotland too remained unfluoridated. Efforts over the last two decades to fluoridate Southampton, Manchester, and Hull also failed.

As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed an addition to the large Health and Care Act that would effectively mandate fluoridation by giving the health secretary, Sajid Javid, unilateral power to force communities throughout the country to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supplies.

FAN coordinated with locals to mount opposition to this proposal, including a series of public letters from British scientists accusing public health officials of ignoring the science. The opposition culminated on the floor of the House of Lords, where a number of members spoke out against the proposal, including Lord Reay, who warned of the dangers posed to developing children.

Since passage into law, FAN has made an official submission to the government urging the Department of Health and Social Care to perform a health risk assessment on the effects of fluoridated water on the pregnant woman, the fetus and the formula-fed infant, before implementing fluoridation into the U.K. No regulatory agency in any fluoridating country has ever done this.

However, as the U.K. is contemplating expanding fluoridation to the whole country, it is essential that this is done before they embark on this program.

The Last Line of Defense

I want to conclude by asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this article, but rephrased: How much more harm will YOU allow the promoters and regulators of fluoridation to inflict on the public?

As I write this, millions of developing babies and infants are being overexposed to fluoride from their fluoridated tap water. The research has shown that there is no safe amount of fluoride for the fetus or infant. All will be impacted, some significantly more than others.

Please help us defend these vulnerable children and give them the gift of normal brain development. Help us also protect other vulnerable subpopulations, including those with hypersensitivities, dental fluorosis, bone brittleness and kidney, liver, or thyroid impairment.

The Fluoride Action Network is a nonprofit advocacy group set up in 2000 to broaden awareness among citizens, scientists and policymakers on the toxicity of fluoride compounds. It maintains the largest online database for fluoride toxicity studies, and has helped many of the 300+ communities that have ended or rejected fluoridation chemicals since 2010.

We’re amplifying the voices of a growing chorus of renowned international experts in toxicology, neurology and environmental toxins, warning the public about fluoridation, and educating and recruiting more to speak out.

We’ve captured the surgeon general’s and the CDCs’ attention, made progress with our federal lawsuit against the EPA, helped communities come together to fight fluoridation, and worked with state legislators to defeat mandate bills and support prohibition efforts.

Can you help us continue defend our water and our health, and expand our efforts as new threats arise here in North America and around the world in the United Kingdom and New Zealand? Will you stand with FAN?

Fluoride Awareness Week – Your Help Is Needed

On June 20 to June 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

June 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Dr. Clare Craig from the HART group explains the clinical trial used to justify vaccinating kids

Steve Kirsch | June 19, 2022

The HART group is a group of highly respected independent doctors and scientists. My friend, Professor Norman Fenton, is a member of this group.

In this 4 minute video, Dr. Clare Craig, co-chair of the HART group, explains the clinical trial that was used to justify vaccinating our kids. She was appalled.

The only conclusion you can draw after watching this video is that the people running the FDA, CDC and the members of the outside committees approving these vaccines are either completely incompetent or totally bought off.

Everyone should watch this video. It should be required viewing for any parent who is considering vaccinating their child.

Here is the report Pfizer submitted to the FDA referenced in her video. You can see the numbers on page 39 (look in the column headings for the N= numbers).

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Developmental Disorders in Babies born to Vaccinated Mothers?

Pfizer wants Babies to be Exposed to SIX Vaccine Shots!

By Igor Chudov | June 10, 2022

I will explain that

  • Children of Covid vaccinated mothers were never tested for developmental disorders
  • CDC recently revised and lowered developmental milestones, and removed some entirely
  • Newly born babies will be exposed to SIX doses of mRNA vaccines if the FDA’ approves the Pfizer vaccine.

An interesting article came out:

This article found that at one year of age, babies born to mothers who had COVID (not vaccine), had a roughly twice-higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders:

those born to the 222 mothers with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test during pregnancy were more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first 12 months after delivery, even after accounting for preterm delivery.

Considering that COVID is a bad disease for a sizable minority of people, there is no surprise. Covid is bad and gives people all sorts of problems. Then I started thinking: a lot of adverse effects of Covid vaccines mimic the adverse effects of Covid. The younger is the vaccine recipient, the worse some effects of vaccination (such as myocarditis) are.

A great number of expectant mothers received up to three Covid vaccine shots during pregnancy. Did anyone bother testing one-year-old children of vaccinated and boosted (during pregnancy) women for neurodevelopmental disorders, before approving this vaccine for all pregnant women?

The question is, obviously, rhetorical, since “mRNA Babies” of triple-vaxed-during-pregnancy mothers are only beginning to get born right now and are at most a few months old. Not one such baby reached a year of age. So nobody tested them for developmental disorders at one year of age, before approving the three vaccine shots for expectant mothers.

The usual argument of vaccinators that “since Covid does it too, you should take the vaccine” does not hold water. To a woman who decided to take the vaccine, the probability of getting a vaccine is 100%. The probability of her getting Covid is much less. In the above study, out of 7,772 births, only 222 (2.8%) were exposed to Covid during pregnancy. So while vaccination is 100% guaranteed for those who elect to vaccinate, the chance of Covid is over 30 times less likely. And the “vaccine” does not prevent Covid anyway and does not even reduce the viral load.

There is literally zero data on one-year-old children of triple-vaccinated mothers because the oldest ones are 3-4 months old as of today.

However, there are disturbing developments regarding newborns. Vaccination does seem to have an effect on births and pregnancies.

Infant Deaths in Scotland

The best data I found regarding recently born newborns happens to come from Scotland. They have an interesting “wider impacts” page that I am quoting below.

Infant deaths are way above average and exceeded “Alert Limits” twice.

Even pregnancy terminations went up at the end of 2021, possibly but not certainly explained by prenatal vax problems:

Low Apgar score births (for those readers who do not have kids, Apgar score is how healthy is the baby at birth, the best being a score of 10) triggered a green alarm signal:

Mind you, an Apgar score is also a developmental evaluation of sorts — at 5 minutes after birth. What will happen to the developmental milestones of those lucky babies of vaccinated mothers, who survived the pregnancies, did not die postnatally, and lived to one year of age? I literally have no idea and nobody else in the world does — the time has not passed yet.

The data we have is NOT encouraging.

CDC Solution: Remove and Lower Milestones

The CDC possibly caught a whiff of this, because in February of 2022 they literally removed half the developmental milestones, bumped some others to higher ages, and lowered standards for yet more of them. (Hat tip @CLesterwood)

About one-third of milestones like fine motor skills have been bumped up to older ages. Because of the setback, children may worsen their developmental delay, making it harder to provide early intervention, explains Jessica Hatfield, MS, OTR/L, a pediatric occupational therapist for TheraTree Pediatric Therapy.

Removing crawling as a milestone??? Are you kidding us? For those of my readers who are parents, do you think that crawling is unimportant as a milestone?

Vaccinated Infants Exposed to SIX Doses of Covid Vaxx in a Year!

Imagine a vaccine enthusiast mother, who gets three doses during her pregnancy. Say, two doses during month 4 and one during the last week of pregnancy. The unborn baby is, obviously, exposed to all that.

Then the baby is born.

If the June 14-15 FDA meeting goes as planned, FDA will approve a three-dose Pfizer vaccine for infants and toddlers. So shortly after being exposed to THREE doses of mRNA vaccines prenatally, the recently born 6 months old baby will get THREE MORE Pfizer mRNA shots.

That’s a total of, drumroll, six spike protein, and nanoparticle exposures. For a tiny newborn, all during one first year of her life.

And what if the mom has several Covids while being pregnant and vaccinated?

They will ask the mom to vaccinate the baby regardless of those covid infections. This literally amounts to six doses within a year or close to, without even counting actual covids that the vaxed moms have. Pfizer will make $132 from these six shots. Not sure if the baby will eventually need much more expensive treatments.

Do you think that it is a little bit too much? Do you think Pfizer or the FDA care?

June 15, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

They Attempt to Justify Approval for Use in Infants and Toddlers

They want the COVID-19 vaccine approval for children so bad, Peter Marks himself and his cronies published the very study he has to use to evaluate for approval.

By James Lyons-Weiler | Popular Rationalism | June 11, 2022

As promised, the FDA has ginned up a report that ostensibly will be used to try to justify “approval” (whatever they mean by that now) of COVID-19 vaccines for infants and toddlers (children < 5 years old). Here’s the report for your reference.

This report comes after a torrent of massive reports from Moderna and Pfizer that claim to review studies of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children. It is not hard to see what shenanigans the FDA has been up to to try to bolster a vaccine that fewer and fewer adults want. It’s more of the same: exaggerate the apparent risk of the virus and minimizing the perception of risk. In other words, lies.

  1. There is no evidence of clinical urgency. Infants and toddlers (and children in general) do not get COVID-19; they do not (yet) die from COVID-19. All that can change when antibody dependent enhancement kicks in for the vaccinated. FDA’s own reports cites 1,086 deaths “from COVID-19” and 10,700,000 “cases” of COVID-19 in children aged 0-17. There have been 832 days since April 1, 2020 when diagnoses started for COVID-19. For the entire population of children in the US (73,000,000), the risk of COVID-19 infection since the onset of COVID is 10,700,000/73,000,000 = 0.14657. The risk of a child dying if they have a diagnosis is 1,086/10,700,00 or 1086/10700000 = 0.00010149532. The risk of any child dying of COVID-19 over this time period is 1,086/73000000 = 0.00001487671. The per-day risk is on the order of 1.78806611e-8 (0.000000001788). There is no real unmet clinical need and the FDA needs to go back to college to understand how to use RT-PCR correctly. Children do not get COVID-19, and they do not die.
  2. Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccinated”. This has been the pattern from the very first study. FDA, CDC, Moderna, Pfizer, and others pull out whatever definition of “vaccinated” they want. Examples: “Vaccinated” is defined in the original trials as people who received both doses and who did not develop COVID-19 before two weeks passed after the second exposure to the vaccine. In fact, that means that people who developed COVID-19 due to disease enhancement were dropped from the study calculations. First, this is the first time people were dropped from a vaccine trial for getting infected with the pathogen targeted by the vaccine up to 13 or 14 days after being vaccinated. Second, it’s actually five entire weeks – one month and one week – 44 days – after the first exposure. ALL of the vaccine efficacy being cited by FDA is suspect. Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines never achieved >90% true vaccine efficacy; the best estimate is more like 75%.
  3. Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccine efficacy”. Over the time period since the first COVID-19 vaccine trials, various definitions of “vaccine efficacy” have been used. Decreased transmission. Reduction in infection rates. Reduced hospitalization. Presence of neutralizing antibodies. Presence of antibodies. All are used and cited in FDA’s report whenever convenient, all in an ad-hoc manner. It’s more than irritating. It’s moving the goal post and represents reckless (and ineffective) attempts to manipulate public perception. This practice continues in the reports and studies that are cited by FDA. I do not trust the efficacy data FDA cites in their report (why would we given Point 1?).Further evidence of the futility of the evidence used to claim efficacy comes from Moderna’s Sponsor Briefing report to the FDA:“3.3 Regulatory Considerations for Clinical Development of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children

    Effectiveness

    Regulatory precedent with other preventive vaccines provides a basis for inference of vaccine effectiveness in pediatric populations based on immunobridging to a young adult population in which clinical disease endpoint vaccine efficacy has been demonstrated for the same prototype vaccine. The immune marker(s) used for immunobridging do not need to be scientifically established to predict protection but should be clinically relevant to the disease. Based on available data in humans and animal models, FDA considers neutralizing antibody titers (a functional measure of the vaccine immune response against SARS-CoV-2) to be clinically relevant for immunobridging to infer effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pediatric age groups. Because no specific neutralizing antibody titer has been established to predict protection against COVID-19, two immunogenicity endpoints (GMT and SRR) are considered appropriate for comparing the range of neutralizing antibody responses elicited by the vaccine in pediatric versus young adult populations.

    Also embedded in this piece of work is the fact that FDA does not need evidence of long-term immunity; they are settling for something called “immunobridging” – guessing at the efficacy of a vaccine in one clinical population from measurements made from other clinical populaton.

    They also are making people dependent on vaccines… expecting patients to have antibodies from one vaccine to the next. This makes no sense immunologically. We don’t need continuously high antibody levels against any pathogen. We have memory B-cells and T-cells. In accepting this paradigm, FDA is completely off its rocker and will cause immune exhaustion with constant vaccinations every 3-4 months.

  4. Incomplete consideration of the scientific data (Barnstable County, Israel, Ontario). We know that months after vaccination, those who are vaccinated are at higher risk of infection and now of hospitalizations. Data actually show negative vaccine efficacy in children (per Jeremy Hammond). See: “Evidence for Negative COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Children”. From that article:“vaccine effectiveness (VE) in children becomes(sic) negative within several months since receipt of the second dose.Researchers from the New York State Department of Health published a study on the preprint server medRxiv on February 28 noting that the evidence for vaccine effectiveness in children, particularly those aged five to eleven, was “limited”. So, they aimed to provide data to inform policymaking.“During Omicraon variant predominance,” the authors concluded, “VE against infection declined rapidly” for young children in the state of New York, “with low protection by one month following full-vaccination.”Comparing COVID-19 cases during January between unvaccinated and vaccinated children, they estimated initial vaccine effectiveness for children aged twelve to seventeen to be 76 percent, but this dropped to below 50 percent after just five weeks since receipt of the second dose.Moreover, for young children (aged five to eleven), they observed a drop from 65 percent to just 12 percent after only one month.Thereafter, their estimate indicated significantly negative effectiveness for this age group, as shown in Figure 2 of their paper: by 35 to 41 days, VE reached negative 10 percent, and by 42 to 48 days, it reached negative 41 percent.

    Jeremy goes on to report (correctly) that the authors of the article misinterpreted their own data. History will remember Jeremy as a reporter with great integrity.

  5. Moderna and Pfizer reports fail to study long-term risks. Like I said, more of the same shenanigans. In this report, for example, Moderna offers data on myocarditis only up to Day 28 after the vaccine. Why Day 28? Why not “since the vaccine has been administered” to more accurately reflect the real-world clinical situation? They also state that myocarditis in a large concern in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 – but the comparison is to the uninfected, not the vaccinated, and we know that the spike protein is the cause (syncytia among heart muscles caused by the spike protein). The spike protein, of course, is the basis of their mRNA vaccines.
  6. Incestuous COIs/Unjustified Influence by Regulators. Peter Marks is charged with setting the decisions at FDA whether to consider vaccines for specific populations. Why the hell is he involved in a study conducted to bolster the vaccines he is going to have to decide upon? See “Benefit-risk assessment of COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) for age 16–29 years”. That “study” is also guilty of all of the same loose logic as above; it is noteworthy that the study assumes as “worst case scenario” of zero deaths from myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination (Credit: Toby McDonald, who wrote this to me:“I’m reading the Moderna “Sponsor Briefing Document” and they built their benefit-risk assessment off of Funk et al. (2022). So I looked up Funk and it’s a recent paper by six staffers at the FDA including Peter Marks, Richard Forshee, and Hong Yang (who wrote the dreadful benefit-risk assessment for kids 5 to 11 back in October). Quite literally in their “worst-case scenario” they predict 0 deaths from myocarditis in the vaccine group. It’s a stunning work of fiction.”
  7. I’m on an email thread with Steve Kirsch (he considers me part of his “debate team”. Last week, Steve challenged Peter Marks to a debate:“Hi Peter,You are right about the vaccine uptake problem. According to independent survey we just commissioned, only 33% of Americans opted to go further than the first 2 doses.You were quoted in that CNN article:“We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States and anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do,” said Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.Isn’t it time for you to end the misinformation problem by debating us in a public forum?My colleagues and I look forward to hearing from you.

    The only way to end the misinformation is to debate the top misinformation spreaders. You will never win by trying to censor us.

    We would be HAPPY to debate to you to end the misinformation problem. As you can see from this slide deck, all the evidence we’ve been able to find shows there was clinical trial fraud and that the vaccines are very dangerous. We would love to know how we got it wrong

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    -steve

    To my knowledge, Marks has not replied. I replied to Steve and the entire email thread, including Marks, though:

    “Steve,

    History is going to remember one person on this email thread in a manner in which I would not ever care to be seen associating with.

    I would therefore decline to participate in such a debate.

    Sincerely,

    James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

I could continue and debate dozens more points in the report dump by the FDA. I don’t have to. Marks himself provides evidence of being way off-target immunologically and lying about the “need” for COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Here’s an old video of Prevaricating Peter lying about the need for “high antibody titres” for immunity, and that children’s immune response is “not enough for some of these variants” (no data on that, just words):

The comments in that video have not aged well. Call your Senator and Congressional Reps and demand that Peter Marks resign. Email them this article. Marks and the FDA are NOT basing their considerations on independent fact, science and logic. He and his cronies are either incompetent or working for the industry. Either way, he and his cronies have to go.

June 14, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nursing reports from the front lines of the COVID vaccine crisis – A stark reality is finally creeping in

The massive propaganda campaign which led doctors to disassociate from the reality of widespread vaccine injuries is slowly weakening in impact

By Pierre Kory, MD, MPA | Medical Musings | June 13, 2022

I recently posted a deeply referenced compilation of evidence detailing the historic humanitarian catastrophe that has slowly unfolded within most advanced health economies across the world. Caused by a global mass vaccination campaign led by the Pharma masters of BMGF/WHO/CDC that illogically (but profitably) targeted a rapidly mutating coronavirus. They did it with what turned out to be the most toxic protein used therapeutically in the history of medicine. In vials mixed with lipid nano-particles, polyethylene glycol and who knows what else.

I cited studies and reports showing massive increases in cardiovascular deaths and neurologic (and other) disabilities amongst working age adults, beginning in 2021 only. A disturbing signal screaming from the original clinical trials data , VAERS datalife insurance datadisability datareports of cardiac arrests of professional athletesrises in ambulance calls for cardiac arrests in pre-heart attack age young people, and the massive increases in illnesses and data manipulations in Department of Defense databases.

As these events become more and more recognized by the average citizen (and occasional journalist), a new pathetic “Disinformation Campaign” was launched in response trying to blame all the young people dying as simply a need for increased awareness of the rare condition called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), rather than examples of the legions dying from the vaccines. The fact checkers also came out in support of this narrative, branding anyone who thinks the vaccines are the cause of SADS as a conspiracy theorist. Like this self-appointed social media watchdog. Mentions of SADS are popping up from many countries… all in the last few weeks. Herehereherehere and.. oh whatever. This article even listed a dozen such publicized deaths in the past few weeks from all over the world… but blamed them all on SADS. You get it. What is nauseating is the tone of purported good intention within these articles, informing folks that if you are related to someone young who died suddenly you should go see a cardiologist to make sure you don’t have an abnormal EKG. After it turns out normal, they will assuredly tell you to get vaccinated, an absurdity atop a mountain of absurdities caused by our bio-medical-media industrial complex over the past 2+ years.

Ugh, lets move on. In this post, I will move away from numbers and data and studies to give a more qualitative view of how the vaccines’ impacts are manifesting in the “belly of the beast,” (i.e. on the inside of a major academic medical center).

I want to first share a comment made in response to another recent post of mine, by my new partner in our COVID/Long Haul/Vax Injury specialty tele-health practice. Scott Marsland is both a COVID-expert and a Nurse Practitioner Extraordinaire (you should see the reviews he gets by his patients – they are over-the-top). Anyway, Scott wrote:

The most profound reflection of this last week came from a patient who is a physician and therapist. She was hospitalized recently for non-COVID reasons and observed: “I think many of the physicians are exhibiting dissociation. It takes an enormous amount of energy to maintain their narrative and hold off the reality hitting them in the face every day.” I thought of this reading the recent piece you referenced from The Annals of Emergency Medicine.

Wikipedia:“The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis. Research has suggested that dissociation is inversely related to mindfulness, which is a potential treatment.“

TY PK for this dose of mindfulness.

I thought his comment was the perfect introduction to this post, where I will share disturbing “insider info,” compiled largely from recent correspondences with a senior ICU and ER Nurse, both via email and phone. Although she is not working full-time in ICU’s or ER’s anymore, she still does shifts on occasion, particularly night shifts. Night shifts, although brutal, are WAY more fun and relaxed than day shifts. That is, most of the time, unless you get slammed due to less staff being around. Although the worst shifts of my career were night ones, thankfully they were rare.

What is great about night shifts is the camaraderie and closeness that develops among staff that choose to primarily work nights. The pool of such folks is small, and they choose night shifts for various but often similar reasons (preference, child care responsibilities, other jobs, hatred of day shifts etc). The general atmosphere is more “intimate,” as you end up having conversations, longer and deeper than you would or could in the middle of a hospital day. This is because at night there are no families around, no administrators, most patients are sleeping (sort of), no masses of swirling ancillary specialists like dietitians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physician sub-specialists, transporters, social workers, food service workers, maintenance folks etc.

Anyway, this was the first email I received from her (editorial note: I wrote out or translated all her abbreviations but made no other edits to substance – I had to do it as her writing style clearly reflected someone who has been writing myriad nursing notes her whole career :).

On May 12, 2022, at 7:47 PM, L. <XXXX> wrote:

I wish I could have you as my doc. Nurse of 20 yrs + ICU – cardiac, neuroICU/ neurosurgical ICU mostly, and ED at Level 1. Vax injured from 2 Pfizer doses mandated by my major University hospital system. Clotting issues, open bleeding, spontaneous with no ability to stop, weeping down arms and legs. Severe leg clot post-surgery in March. Had to get D-Dimer ordered by force at little ED I was in, and use my own portable doppler I brought in from work, b/c they had no Ultrasound techs or equipment access – TPA (clot buster med) finally. Cervical lymph nodes enlarged since vax especially, for over 1.5 yrs. Cannot biopsy at least one as it sits on my Left carotid, now wrapped around it, . Got Covid originally while working ED in March 2020. “N antibody” still high as of Nov 2021. Hit neuro, never respiratory. Had same issues with H1N1 vaccine which was also mandated and then I got Guillain Barre Syndrome and neurological weakness – out of work 5 months. Will not get any boosters or vaccines this year, but have no exemption as all docs took to the “deer in headlight” look and said nothing. I will lose my career this winter if I refuse. Functional med/family practitioner – she has a long wait list and I have no idea how she sits with this data on vaccine injured. My VAERS report – it was deleted. Pharmacist never entered as required so I did. It has vanished. My batch numbers – significant for bad neurologic responses, clotting. I lost my Hematologist-Oncologist doctor to vaccine injury – he is out and never to practice again – in his early 40s. He was a “true believer” and in denial until it was him who was the injured patient. Our cancer hospital – know most of the case managers and many doctors since they were residents. They now have case loads in the 1000s rather than 250-400 over any given quarter. Not enough bed or infusion space for the cancer patients as outpatients. Radiation treatment backlog. All at a huge cancer hospital monstrosity itself.  All kinds – brain, lymph, stomach, pancreas, blood, AND EYE CANCERS – orbital especially in younger people recently vaxxed.  Microvascular ischemia on rise in vaxxed younger people. Strokes way up in no-risk, no co-morbidities, young to younger-ish. Ask me anything. I’ll tell you inside scoop from the floors and suites. This has to stop. They need to admit the fraud and crime and STOP. The liability must be lifted, mandates ended.  They KNOW NOW and many KNEW THEN. Don’t know if you’ll even read this, but I follow all of you on substack and Twitter – those not banned yet! – and read ALL the data. I’ve been a lab rat myself from an issue from a car accident yrs back – I know the process. So much fraud. Keep going.  Never give up. Never, never, never give up. Thank you for all you do, hope that you inspire and the confirmation of that little voice in me, that said NO way back, everything was off. I did not have an option or data then. I have data now, and it will keep coming. The option is NO.

Follow up:

Lost 4 practitioners to serious side effects of “strongly encouraged” boosters. 2 hospitalized, one in MICU. The irony is, for most staff, completely lost … All in early 30s to mid 40s. They had no need for boosters while BEING OUTSIDE ALL WEEKEND even if they truly believed in efficacy of them. All had Covid previous, N antibodies fully measurable. One female, one male, both inpatient. Female still nursing newborn. 

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:27 AM Pierre Kory <> wrote:

I am stunned by your email. Stunned. We know it’s bad, like real bad but this is the worst inside look I have heard yet. I am on the outside and don’t talk to most former colleagues so don’t have a feel. We should talk. Would you be interviewed on a VSRF (Kirsch’s organization) webinar? I assume not, but who knows, maybe anonymously like with altered voice and blurry screen? This needs to get out. Send me contact… and name? First name is fine… Thanks for this – Pierre


She wrote again before we talked, it was this email below that prompted me to ask her number so we could discuss in more depth:

It’s the inside folks who talk to each other, and you have to speak another language depending on who’s listening. That has been a skill set unto itself. It’s texting, the phone calls from area to area with back stories on patient issues. I was getting texts from my old stat team covering cardiac catheterization lab – the clots. The clots stunned everyone…it continues. My cardiac units – where I spent the bulk of my nursing years – lung and heart transplant included – have so many anomalies presented with patients that never existed before. Re-writing the script for each new problem never encountered. The constant codes (cardiac arrests). Can’t keep up.

Lost quite a few coworkers to either VAX injury itself – took them out of the work force, OR they resigned/accepted firing or retired once mandates were settled. It’s the phone calls I have with my cohorts in the other areas of the system. The real story is in those conversations. The doctors now admitting to injury is growing, but they can’t tell their patients why they are no longer practicing. Losing specialists is big problem not easily solved. 

The signaling coming from management MD/PhD administrators has not been towards what winter will bring, but is focused on congratulating everyone on clinical excellence during the last 2 yrs. I think there is great trepidation in their approach because they see the data, they know the inside info on injury, disability/death of faculty and staff not from Covid itself, but the forced vax. We lost only a few to original Covid, with underlying co-morbidities that made outcomes a given in many cases.

I can’t come on a public show, but I can share info. My name is Linda (not her real name). In my current position, I read many charts and see in depth info – so much boosting and reboosting and not following other protocols – it’s a given now that the explosions in diagnosis of the cancers and cardiac issues especially come from these decisions. In some cases, the first thing you see on a chart is huge letters stating VAXXED alongside the pt’s diagnosis, treatments thus far, which is usually at odds with normal disease course, age and projected outcome, etc. They’re pushing the vax status, in bright letters, to the top of the list so it can be considered – not for every patient,  but the “challenging cases” … That may be for research purposes.


I will explain the above – what Linda is saying is that practitioners are starting to call out the patient’s vaccination status more clearly on the first screen of the medical record in those cases where they know or suspect the vaccine is related to the patients’s new “mysterious” or “complex” problem. Let’s be clear though, the doctor’s don’t necessarily or explicitly include vaccines as a possible cause in their reasoning/impression/plan section of the patient note. But it seems the nurses and junior docs are now calling it out in some small/large way. Disassociation breaking, ever so slowly?

It makes me just stop, and by end of the week, take into account cases of say, ocular orbital cancer in 20-somethings. Have had 6 in last 2 weeks with no Family History or other indicators. Out of the blue, some with brain mets now. All vaxxed unwillingly, all had Covid and recovered fine prior to employer forced vax. The employers, the areas the patients reside in….nothing in common other than the previous. The actuaries are correct. Excess mortality, let along whatever-life-left disability. Stunning numbers. 

I ended up talking to Linda.. about lots of things. She is clearly a fellow spirit, highly experienced in ICU and Emergency medicine, and she told me even more disturbing developments, like the fact that on some night shifts, nurse teams are seeing more cardiac arrests in a single shift than ever before and in unprecedented younger age patients. On some shifts, they have had so many that the “crash carts” are rolled straight from one arrest to another because Pharmacy, especially on night shifts, are not able to re-stock fast enough. This situation has happened maybe once in my whole career… when two arrests happened on the same floor or unit within a short time period.

She also told me that night nurses are more openly discussing the vaccine as the cause of what they are seeing (much more than during day shifts apparently). However, they do this largely in text, and they use “code”. Their code word for a vaccination injury or cause is “that issue,” i.e. in reference to a 22 year old who suddenly arrested on the hospital ward, “he is having that issue.” Note these are nurses.. not the docs.. but some of the docs are talking to her, like the one above who performed 6 enucleations (eyeball removals) this year already in young people (very rare to have to do this, especially in this age group). She also told me about how her interventional cardiologist nurse friends related that some patients are coming in with massive heart attacks, and during the angiogram the interventional cardiologists are seeing such extensive thrombi filling the entire artery (as documented by some embalmers), that they say “I can’t stent or remove this, this guy needs surgery, like now.”

In that conversation with Linda, I was also finally able to confirm a fraud that I had suspected was occurring within U.S hospitals regarding the accuracy (or willful inaccuracy) of the vaccination status listed in the medical record of a patient newly admitted to the hospital. It has long been my strong belief that this fraud drove the U.S data used to support some of the last remaining false narratives (i.e narratives #6 and $7 below) . Note these ever-shifting narratives were all directed at combatting vaccine hesitancy, which as some of you may know, was the primary military objective of the vaccinators.

BMGF/WHO/NIH et al. had clearly identified vaccine hesitancy as the main enemy in the battle plans they drew up and distributed after their viral pandemic simulation exercises over the past decade. In this prominent medical journal publication on addressing viral pandemics, they state “the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy among the greatest threats to global health, calling for research to identify the factors associated with this phenomenon.” Vaccine hesitancy is why the HHS gave $1 Billion to U.S media to support a relentlessly positive public relations campaign supporting the uptake of vaccines.

Now let’s get back to this fraud. First, note that during all of 2021, (well, up until late November when I was let go from my last pandemic ICU job on a completely fabricated accusation), I had only taken care of one ICU patient that was officially documented in their medical record as “fully vaccinated.” I knew that it could simply not be true that only one patient that I took care of the entire year was fully vaccinated. I knew this was false based on data from countries that more transparently (mistakenly?) reported vaccination status and hospital outcomes. In multiple reports starting in February 2021, the majority of hospitalizations and deaths (even when adjusted to rates per 100,000) had long been the vaccinated.

One of the more ridiculous attempts to cover this fraud up in the U.S was a media narrative launched in June/July of 2021, created from statements by Fauci and Wollensky, that 99% of patients in hospital and dying were the unvaccinated. They literally did this with a straight face, knowing that they were including in their numerator all the deaths that occurred prior to the start of the vaccination campaign. Yup, if you died in 2020, you were reported as dying in an unvaccinated status. Not subtle. But that was not the only lie. We must never forget the famous slip by the NY times.. when they suddenly and surprisingly called out the CDC for “withholding large amounts of COVID data” throughout the pandemic. Umm.. their actual job is to collect and disseminate data. Not subtle. Even crazier is that at the time of that narrative launch, during a lecture, a CDC slide deck mistakenly showed a slide which revealed that 26% of patients in U.S hospitals were vaccinated. But this number was falsely and fraudulently lower than the actual number. By a long shot.

Here is how I think they falsely suppressed the real rate of vaccinated patients entering U.S hospitals and dying:

In the most popular electronic medical record system in the U.S (EPIC), on the sidebar of every page in the chart are the name, demographics, room number, provider team, and COVID vaccination status of the patient. What I found weird from the outset was that, in EPIC, there were only two categories under the COVID-19 vaccine status section, “Vaccinated” or “Unknown.” There was no “Unvaccinated” status. Also realize that “Unknown” was interpreted by all providers and official data as akin to being “Unvaccinated”. Everyone I took care of in the ICU in 2021, except one, had an “Unknown” vaccination status. How could that be? How come only one ICU patient of mine in the entire year was reported as being “fully vaccinated?” Even if the vaccines worked really well (which I knew they didn’t), something was off, like really off.

There was only one hypothesis I could come up with to reconcile these observations. I suspected that during the admission process to the hospital, there must have been some sort of barrier to deeming someone “vaccinated.” I hypothesized that in order to be documented as vaccinated on admission, you had to have received the vaccine from a primary care physician’s clinic who worked for that same hospital system in a system office, and that they had already documented in the electronic medical record. If you got a vaccine from anywhere else outside that hospital system’s clinic, you were assigned an “Unknown”, i.e. “Unvaccinated” status in the electronic medical record.

And lo and behold, Linda confirmed this was the case in one major health system she worked at. What I found most striking is that she worked in two different hospital systems, in one (the smaller one) it was very easy to document a patient in the record as vaccinated. The admitting nurse could accept any documentation, from a Walgreen’s card to even a verbal report from the patient or family and they could put it in the record on admission and the patient would show up as “vaccinated” on the main screen sidebar.

In the other, larger, major (and I mean major) health system she worked in, if the patient received the vaccine from anywhere but an employed provider’s clinic within the health system (even if the patient had a vaccine card on them), she was forced to put it in an “open field” buried on page 2 of the initial nursing assessment not where nobody, and certainly no physician looked for it. All these patients were automatically documented on the main screen as “Unknown”, i.e “Unvaccinated”, even if the dates of each shot were entered into that nursing note field.

This process is what led the vast majority of U.S doctors to become convinced that the only people dying in hospitals were the unvaccinated. Which made perfect sense, I mean, the vaccinators did not want anyone to know the vaccines were not preventing hospital or death, so it would be helpful to their mission if they could make everyone think that all hospital patients were unvaccinated. This way, all the health care workers would get vaccinated out of fear of dying and would also aggressively insist that all their patients and family members get vaccinated. Which is what happened. It is also why a large percentage of the population (at least the ones I meet at lectures, conferences, and symposia) no longer want to see a “system doctor” or go to a “system hospital,” no matter how grand their brand/reputation once was. Fun fact: a long-time donor of large annual gifts to the Mayo clinic.. decided to direct their donation to the FLCCC this year because they felt the Mayo Clinic had departed from their founding principles and mission. Go FLCCC.

The system docs behaved this way because they saw with their own eyes, “the (false) reality” of what would happen if you were unvaccinated. This, combined with the medical journal propaganda publishing only favorable and selective analyses of vaccine efficacy and safety drove nearly all the nation’s doctors to go completely mad.

Their fervor to vaccinate everyone and everything, even in patients who just recovered from COVID, was something to behold. I saw overt hectoring, harassment and even rage. Twitter was one of the most terrifying places to watch doctors arrogantly propagate the need to be vaccinated.. even for folks who had (often hard-earned) natural immunity. I almost feel bad for some of those docs as history will not judge them kindly. Forgive them for they know not what they do. They were literally screaming across Social Media, Media, and Medical Journal editorials, that you will be OK if you just get vaccinated. The high profile docs were the worst, except I have little sympathy for them as some/many/most were likely complicit in the deception rather than just fooled like the rest. Folks like Eric Topol, Peter Hotez, Alastair McAlpine, Tom Friedan (who I used to deeply admire as NYC Health Department Commissioner), Eric Feigl-Ding-(bat), Jeremy Faust (probably the biggest ignoramus on Twitter, having taken an early lead in that competition since the pandemic broke in 2020), and Monica Gandhi. Leana Wen deserves particular ire as she is the most active prostitute for the Pharma-captured federal health agencies on mass media. A media darling as it were.

Then you started to see doctor walk-outs protesting the unvaccinatedincreasing numbers of doctors publicly stating they would start refusing to see unvaccinated patients, heck, the Pharma controlled outlet called Medscape even got an ethicist to argue that it was OK to refuse to treat the unvaccinated. Yup. Crazy town. Clown World. One of my patients who is a hospital pharmacist even told me that at her hospital, the hospitalists were vaccinating patients admitted for COVID..as they were being discharged from the hospital. That’s right, as the patients were being discharged after having recovered from COVID, they were recommending and administering vaccines for the same illness. I even heard of one case where a team of clinicians decided to vaccinate a severely ill COVID patient in the ICU.

I also witnessed aggressive attacks in one of the nation’s largest medical-centers staff physician email forum. Doctors “screaming” that everything would be fine if everyone just got the damn vaccine. Deriding anyone bringing forth arguments about untested safety, suspicious efficacy data, and concerns about mandates violating patient autonomy and medical ethics. Anyone who brought forth “adverse data” towards the vaccines were treated with dismissal and a retaliatory posting of selectively favorable data with the imprimatur of the Pharma captured agencies and Pharma captured journals. I will never forget this time in the history of medicine. Ever.


Some other “insights” into the medical system I haver come across, from another ER nurse:

I have no research to offer but first hand experience from working as an RN
in an ER.

Ringing in ears and hallucinations have followed vaccinations in 3 of my
patients. Family members at a loss. I mention the vaccine but most don’t
even hear it…

The gentleman with the ringing in the ears (just had his 4th booster the day
before) I suggested he didn’t get any more boosters as ringing in the ears
is an adverse reaction to the vaccine. His wife looked at me and yelled
“his doctor told him he won’t survive the anti-virals for COViD” I was
speechless. The patient continued on and told me about his experience with
the vaccines 1st shot-he had a seizure, doctor recommended 2nd shot. After
2nd shot he was very sick, doctor recommended 3rd shot and he was
hospitalized 4th shot ringing in ears, abdominal bloating and months away
from dialysis. Wife added that she also had seizure after first vaccine and
she had that attitude that it was no big deal.

I have said this before, it’s criminal what is happening. I have cried on
my way home from shifts, I tell whoever will listen. The information I have
collected over the last 7 months (time of vaccine/booster in relation to
chief complaint) is jaw dropping.

I took a break from working for the summer but continue to keep in touch
with the nurses…

My friend told me about an 80yr old man, 4 strokes in the last year and
they all line up with his 4 shots but the doctors response is “he’s 80,
he’s going to have strokes”

Has anyone come across research in regards to GI bleeds and low hgb? I have
a lot of this patients, GI bleeds out of the blue… and they are young!

I had 28yr old black obese young woman… new diagnosis of enlarged heart
and CHF. Vaccine was roughly 1 month prior to ER admit and I suggested no
more vaccines for COViD and her response was “my doctor told me this
happened because I got the vaccine and a tattoo on the same day”

60ish lady…….just got over COViD (after have 3 COViD vaccines) and she told
me she was going in for second booster next week!!!!!!

Kids are having random seizures and are put on anti-seizure medication for
2 years…when I ask parents what caused the seizure, the neurologist has no
idea. All these children vaccinated for COViD-100%. NO ONE CONNECTS THE
DOTS.

The screenshot below is of 3 days I worked and I’m in the ER for 12 hours
and don’t see all admits. I’m also super busy so it’s hard to check status
of all admit patients… of course this is very limited information but a lot
of the patients have some issue 2-3 months post vaccine/booster.
I’m still shocked we don’t have a “vaccine team” monitoring all the
patients as they come into the ER but no one cares. Not the ER medical
director, not the doctors, not the COViD response team…..no one. Nurses see
it and they are talking but many are fearful of getting fired.

Thank you for all that you are doing! Although I can’t read all the emails,
I am just happy to know that there are others out there that are in the
same boat as I am.

I’m disgusted with the AMA and AAP. I don’t trust a thing they say. I don’t
trust them with my four children as they have not protected our children
over the past 2 years.

Thank you!


And another:

May 26 05:28PM -0400

Katie (not her real name),
Thank you for sharing your story! This is what I live every day and I tell my husband how hard it is to see so much damage. I have had more patients diagnosed with aggressive cancers than I have seen in the last two decades.

… I’ve been so especially concerned about the clotting effects with Total joints treated with Tranexamic Acid. I’ve been keeping track of my patients (that I would consider) have had mild/moderate vax injury. i.e. – reactivation of latent viruses, (oral herpes (not just one or two lesions, but their whole mouth broke out – something that had never happened before) shingles – affecting their eyes, that took more treatment than normal) – Histoplasmosis; *blood clots/Cardiac problems – Stroke from new onset Atrial fib in a patient on blood thinners within 12 hr post injection, Atrial fibrillation in a healthy, athletic 34 yr old male, new onset hypertension without prior history; * Persistent cough, months of diarrhea, migraine, neuropathy of upper extremity to the extent she could not write/type  – all extensively checked out without cause. But, all within a few days/weeks/couple months of injection. All my practitioners are still advocating the Vax!!! What do you think we should do??? I’ve got to get the guts to gently visit with our Chief of Staff.  CRNA, Colorado


Last one, from a colleague:

Just had dinner with my friend, a colleague friend of his here, Dr XXX renowned YY Physician . PRO Vaccine. Was adamant all physicians should get the vaccine and should not be able to practice without it. Was a trailblazer for the vaccine here. He got boosted around Christmas time, had a stroke less than a week after, lost his eyesight in one eye, lost his practice, cannot be a doctor any longer, and said undoubtedly it was from the Pfizer vaccine and encouraged all of his doctor friends to max out their disability insurance to protect themselves. I know not surprising to you, but this guy was so pro vaccine and clearly admits his stroke and his loss of eyesight from the vaccine!!


And then there is this doozy – another nurse sent me a case history below of an elderly woman whose blood thinner was highly “supra-therapeutic” (i.e. very thin blood at risk of major bleeding), yet she had a massive stroke caused by a blood clot. This simply does not happen.

El Fin.

June 14, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

The sole purpose of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots in kids is to eliminate the control group

There are no health benefits, only harms. The FDA is willing to sacrifice the health of 19 million little kids to cover up evidence of a crime

By Toby Rogers | June 13, 2022

On Friday, the FDA released its risk benefit assessment of Moderna’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject mRNA into kids 0 to 17 years old. I’ve been reading it for the past two days and here are the things that stood out to me.


I. Introduction, a shell game to hide the bad data

The risk benefit document for Moderna is 190 pages single-spaced. It was released two business days before the June 14-15 VRBPAC meeting. A similar risk benefit assessment for Pfizer’s EUA application for kids under 5 will be released tomorrow (just 24 hours before the meeting). This guarantees that NONE of the members of the VRBPAC will have read either of these documents prior to the meeting — which is exactly what the cartel wants.

One of the ways that Moderna and the FDA rig the game is by adding endless layers of complexity to hide how bad the data really is. This should have been four separate documents — Moderna in adolescents 12 to 17, Moderna in kids 6 to 11, Moderna in kids 2 to 5, and Moderna in kids 6 months to 23 months. Looked at individually, the shot fails in each of these four age groups. But by lumping them together it creates noise that makes it difficult to understand what’s going on.

Another really pernicious thing that Moderna does is to further subdivide these populations into eight different subpopulations (Randomization Set, Full Analysis Set, Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Set for Efficacy, Modified Intent-to-treat Set, MITT1 Set, Safety Set, Solicited Safety Set).

See what they did there? The public just wants to know — does the product work and what are the side effects? By dividing the data into eight subcategories involving four different age groups now you have to wade through 32 different tables to try to make sense of what happened in the clinical trial.

They do something similar with the adverse events by dividing it across five tables x four age groups = 20 adverse event tables in all.

Subdividing the data in this way also allows Moderna to eliminate or hide data that it does not like. This is what people call “massaging the data” and it is unethical and a violation of scientific norms. We’ll return to this topic below.


II. No actual health benefits so Moderna/FDA use the immunobridging trick

The risks of Covid-19 are so low in the childhood population that there were ZERO severe cases of Covid-19 in either the treatment or the control group.

Therefore, the number needed to vaccinate, to prevent a single severe case of Covid-19 in the childhood population is infinity. (Technically it’s undefined because you cannot divide by zero, but you take my point). The FDA and CDC guidance documents for how to write a risk benefit assessment state that one must provide a number needed to treat, the absolute risk reduction, and the relative risk reduction. Moderna just skipped all that because the cartel makes its own rules.

Moderna is in a race against natural immunity. But natural immunity has already won because 74.2% of kids had natural immunity by February — so by now the number is probably closer to 100%. The God-given immune system in kids has already done its part to stop the pandemic and now the FDA wants to mess that up to enrich the cartel and keep the pandemic going forever.

So how does Moderna/FDA claim that this shot was “effective”? They use an unethical statistical trick called “immunobridging.”

It makes me mad that I even have to explain it because it’s such junk science. But we all need to know exactly how the FDA rigged the process so that we can explain to the jury at Nuremberg 2 why these monsters should be convicted so here goes:

Remember, the Moderna shots produced NO reductions in severe outcomes because the risk of Covid-19 in this age group is infinitesimally small (see studies: hereherehere, and here). So Moderna ignored the actual health outcomes and switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In the process, they engaged in two egregious sleights of hand:

First, Moderna claims that the sample size for each of the four subgroups of children is about 3,000. But when it came to looking at antibodies in the blood, Moderna threw out about 90% of the sample and only looked at the bloodwork of about 300 kids in each age group. No explanation was given for the criteria they used to exclude 90% of the sample from their analysis. We know that up to 30% of kids have no antibody response at all to Covid-19 shots so perhaps they actually started with a much larger sample and then threw out the data that showed no effect from the shot?

The second sleight of hand is that “no placebo recipients were included in the Immunogenicity Subset” (p. 26). Do you realize how huge this is? This is no longer an RCT at all — they did not include the bloodwork from anyone in the placebo group. So the study cannot rule out the possibility that the increase in antibody levels was not from the vaccine at all but could have been from natural immunity. Just astonishing.

After these sleights of hand, Moderna then compares the antibody levels in the blood of about 10% of the children against the antibody levels in a sample of about 300 adults ages 18 to 25 enrolled in a previous clinical trial. If the antibody levels are similar (which they are), Moderna claims, ‘And therefore it will prevent disease in the future in kids!’

A few problems with that claim:

The Moderna study only measured antibody levels two months after the second dose — the time period when the antibody levels are at their peak (what Berenson calls “the happy valley”). But real world experience with these vaccines shows that any efficacy quickly wanes to zero by six months and then goes NEGATIVE after that.

The second problem, and this is unresolvable and instantly disqualifying for Moderna, is that at the April 6, 2022, meeting of the FDA’s “expert advisory committee” one member after another acknowledged that there are no “correlates of protection” for these vaccines. What that means in plain English is that you cannot use antibodies (or B-cells, T-cells, or any other proxy) to predict whether someone is immune or not.

Eric Rubin, who serves on that committee and is also the editor of the NEJM stated it bluntly, “We know what kind of antibody response can be generated, we just don’t know if it works.” You can watch it yourself on video:

The third problem is that the Moderna study was completed back in mid-2021 — when the original Wuhan and Alpha strains were prevalent. Since then, the Omicron variant has entirely replaced the original strains and real world data show that both Moderna and Pfizer shots are not effective against the Omicron variant. So in spite of all of the chicanery (discarding 90% of the sample, immunobridging, claiming correlates of protection that are not valid) Moderna cannot show any evidence that this shot will be effective against SARS-CoV-2 as it exists now.


III. It’s all harms

Let’s talk about harms from this shot (and remember, it’s all harms in this population because the shot made no difference on real world health outcomes). And there, things get really weird really fast.

The median study follow-up duration was just 53 days after dose 2. After that they wiped out the control group. Here’s how they justified it:

Following authorization of an alternative COVID-19 vaccine for this age group on May 10, 2021, participants in the study were permitted to unblind to study treatment. Crossover vaccination with mRNA-1273 of participants initially randomized to placebo began in October 2021. (p. 26)

For each age category, Moderna spreads the adverse events across 5 different tables to increase the noise to hide the signal. But the bottom line is that the adverse events are off the charts.

In the adolescent population 99.2% of vaccine recipients reported at least one adverse reaction after any injection with 25.3% reporting a reaction that was Grade 3 or higher. (p. 54).

Holy sh*t those numbers are high. Grade 3 means: unable to return to work or school the next day because the person is so sick.

A different FDA staffer must have written the summary statements for the other three age groups because they don’t say it this plainly but the adverse event rates are similar across all of the children.

This adverse event data is so high it’s disqualifying.

But then things get even weirder — the adverse event rates in the placebo group were also very high in many, but not all, categories. Moderna used this to say, ‘well yes, the adverse event rate in the treatment group was higher than anything anyone has ever seen before but the rates were also somewhat high in the placebo group and so therefore nothing-to-see-here(TM).’

My strong suspicion in that Moderna rigged the placebo. Why wouldn’t they — the FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos (see Golomb 1995 and Golomb et al. 2010). The dirty little secret of the vaccine program is that manufacturers almost always use rigged placebos to create an artificially high “background rate” to hide adverse events. The brilliant quant Jessica Rose made a similar observation yesterday in her analysis of the FDA risk benefit document:

I still have a very strong suspicion that these ‘placebos’ are not saline and rather empty LNPs. [Lipid nanoparticles — the delivery vehicle that Moderna uses to get mRNA into the cell. An “empty LNP” would be the nanoparticles without the mRNA antigen.]

I’m almost certain this is what Moderna did. In the 2- through 5-year-old age group 37.5% of placebo recipients reported unsolicited adverse events as compared with 40% of vaccine recipients (see p. 139). A number that high in the placebo group would have been impossible if Moderna had used an inert saline placebo.


IV. The way that the FDA rigged the myocarditis data is absolutely sinister

I know that this article is already long but I need to flag one more essential point.

FDA review of the Moderna mRNA shot in adolescents has been held up for a year because the Moderna shot causes myocarditis in this age group — particularly in boys.

So I was curious to see how the FDA would attempt to get around this. And it’s all right there on pages 19 and 20. It’s one of the most chilling things I’ve ever read. The FDA’s argument goes like this:

‘Yes, by spring and summer of 2021 there were already seven high quality studies from around the world showing that mRNA shots increase myocarditis risk. By fall of 2021, the reports continued to come in from the U.K., Europe, Canada, and Nordic countries showing a 2x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from mRNA shots. Yes, the CDC’s own study of the Vaccine Safety Datalink showed a 2x higher risk of myocarditis from Moderna shots. By May of 2022, we have additional studies from the U.K., Denmark, several Nordic countries, Italy, and France showing a 3x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from the Moderna shot.’

In all, the FDA cited TWENTY-SIX STUDIES showing that mRNA shots in general, and Moderna in particular, increase the risk of myocarditis.

‘But not to worry!’ the FDA announces in the 4th paragraph in this section. The FDA, CDC, and Kaiser Permanente put their fixers on the case in February and March of this year and made the safety signal shrink down to a more manageable 7% to 50% increased risk of myocarditis and even those results were massaged to make sure that they were not statistically significant, so, nothing-to-see-here(TM). It was the same fixers who they always use — Tom Shimabukuro and John Su — whose entire job is making vaccine safety signals disappear. Those guys are absolutely going to hell.

‘So that’s that,’ the FDA announces. ‘Just ignore those 26 high quality studies from around the world showing an increased risk of myocarditis. Our fixers laundered the data for Moderna so we’re all good.’


V. What is to be done

Children’s Health Defense just launched an excellent 1-click call to action that I highly encourage you to do (and please share it with all of your friends).

Up until Monday night (June 13) at 11:59 p.m. eastern time you can officially register your profound displeasure with the FDA by submitting a formal comment (here) — look for the blue Comment button in the upper left corner of the website. 129,397 comments have already been received — let’s see if we can get that number above 140,000.

If you want to write to public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members, all of their email addresses are here:

sean.mccluskie@hhs.govcommissioner@fda.hhs.govDeanofPublicHealth@brown.eduAux7@cdc.govPeter.Marks@fda.hhs.govHong.Yang@fda.hhs.govRichard.Forshee@fda.hhs.govHuilee.Wong@fda.hhs.govLeslie.Ball@fda.hhs.govDoran.Fink@fda.hhs.govCBERVRBPAC@fda.hhs.govhanae@bcm.edupaula.annunziato@merck.comadam.berger@nih.govhbernstein@northwell.eduacohn@cdc.govanc0@cdc.govhjanes@fredhutch.orghgans@stanford.edudavid.kim@hhs.govasmonto@umich.eduoffit@chop.eduspergam@fredhutch.orgJportnoy@cmh.eduerubin@hsph.harvard.eduerubin@nejm.orgashane@emory.eduswamy002@mc.duke.edufullerao@umich.edubgellin@rockfound.orgRandyHawkins@cdrewu.eduofficeofthepresident@mmc.eduJYLee@uams.eduofer.levy@childrens.harvard.eduwayne_marasco@dfci.harvard.educmeissner@tuftsmedicalcenter.orgmrn8d@virginia.edustanley-perlman@uiowa.edureingold@berkeley.edumhsawyer@ucsd.edumew2@cdc.gov

Please be polite but let them know that they absolutely must vote NO on the EUA applications from Moderna and Pfizer.


VI. Conclusion

The FDA risk benefit document in connection with the Moderna mRNA shot in kids is dishonest. The public health establishment has abandoned science, logic, reason, rationality, empathy, health, and medicine. The FDA is more than happy to sacrifice children in order to ingratiate themselves further with the cartel. The proposal to expand the Moderna EUA to kids 0 to 17 is a crime against humanity.

We are absolutely going to win this fight, either in the short term or in the long term. These shots will eventually be withdrawn from the market because they do not work and they cause catastrophic harms. The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee can save themselves a lot of misery (and additional criminal charges at Nuremberg 2.0) by rejecting these applications from Moderna and Pfizer this week.

June 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

WHY ARE SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE DYING?

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 10, 2022

A growing number of young healthy adults are mysteriously dying. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del try to make sense of, what is now being called, “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS).

COVID VACCINE INJURIES OVERWHELM COURTS

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is overwhelmed and understaffed with the amount of injury claims being filed from the Covid-19 Vaccines. The program is now on life support and is on the verge of collapse.

CDC’S MONKEYPOX MESS

The CDC has walked back it’s initial recommendation to mask for Monkeypox, which triggered a firestorm of criticism from the medical and scientific communities.

June 12, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | 1 Comment

The FDA’s proposed “Future Framework” is the worst idea in the history of public health

If approved on June 28, all reformulated Covid-19 shots will skip clinical trials

By Toby Rogers | May 31, 2022

I. Pfizer and Moderna’s Dilemma

Pfizer and Moderna have a problem — their Covid-19 shots do NOT work. Everyone knows this. The shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death. Over half a billion doses of this product have been injected into Americans in the past 17 months and these shots have made NO discernible impact on the course of the pandemic. Far more Americans have died of coronavirus since the introduction of the shots than before they were introduced.

Pfizer and Moderna are making $50 billion a year on these shots and they want that to continue. So they need to reformulate the shots. Maybe target a new variant, maybe change some of the ingredients — who knows, these shots don’t work so it’s not clear what it will take to get them to work. This is a problem because reformulated shots mean new clinical trials and new regulatory review by the FDA. There is a decent chance that any reformulated shot might fail a new clinical trial and the public is deeply skeptical of these shots so the scrutiny would be intense.

So Pfizer and Moderna have figured out a way to use regulatory capture to get their reformulated Covid-19 shots approved WITHOUT further clinical trials. Their scheme is called the “Future Framework” and it will be voted on by the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on June 28.


II. Doubling down on a failed strategy

Viruses vary by region. At any given time, the influenza strain circulating in England is different than it is in South Africa which is different than in southeast Asia. However, pharmaceutical companies prefer to create one-size-fits-all vaccines in order to decrease manufacturing costs and thereby increase profits. So the W.H.O. and public health agencies around the world (including FDA and CDC) have created a vast “influenza surveillance network” that identifies the different influenza strains in circulation. Then they engage in an elaborate theatrical performance called the “flu strain selection process” where they select four influenza strains that will go into the one-size-fits-all flu vaccine used throughout the world that year.

This carefully choreographed process is a complete and total failure. This is not a surprise — using a one-vaccine-fits-all approach to prevent a rapidly evolving virus that varies by region is never going to work. Lisa Grohskopf from the CDC’s Influenza Division reports that last year the flu shot was somewhere between 8% and 14% effective (based on data from seven sites that participate in the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network).

But a case study of a flu outbreak at the University of Michigan between October and November 2021 found that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine was literally zero.

Over the last thirty years, the federal government has paid out more compensation for adverse events in connection with the flu shot than any other vaccine — so we know that the shot comes with a high rate of harms. Given that the flu shot does not stop the flu, the harms thus outweigh the benefits.

In a sane world, the WHO, FDA, and CDC would admit that they made a strategic mistake and then change course to find better ways to support the human immune system. But we don’t live in a sane world. Instead, the FDA is proposing to take the failed flu strain selection process and apply it to future Covid-19 shots.


III. The FDA knew that Covid-19 shots would fail but they proceeded anyway

There are a quadrillion x quadrillion viruses in the world (literally more viruses on earth than stars in the known universe). Only a couple hundred of those seem to have the potential to impact human health. But some viruses make better candidates for a vaccine than others. Viruses that have been around a long time, that are very stable and evolve slowly are the best candidates for a vaccine.

Viruses that evolve rapidly are bad candidates for a vaccine. There is no vaccine for the common cold nor HIV because these viruses evolve too quickly. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a bad candidate for a vaccine which is why all previous attempts to develop a vaccine against coronaviruses have failed (they never made it out of animal trials because all of the animals died during challenge trials or were injured by the vaccine).

What are some of the bad things that can happen when you vaccinate against a rapidly evolving virus? Original antigenic sin, antibody  dependent enhancement, and the possibility of accelerating the evolution of the virus in ways that make it more virulent (and even more resistant to vaccination).

Trevor Bedford has his own lab at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center where he researches the evolution of Covid-19. He gave a fascinating presentation at the April 6 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting where he explained that SARS-CoV-2 is evolving rapidly. He explained that SARS-CoV-2 evolves twice to ten times as fast as the flu virus and these mutations “substantially” reduce vaccine effectiveness. Following the introduction of Covid-19 vaccines, the evolution of the virus has accelerated.

Dr. Bedford’s presentation rattled some of the smarter members of the VRBPAC because his data scream — “SARS-CoV-2 is a bad candidate for a vaccine!” But FDA officials just mumbled some platitudes and then continued on with the meeting.

The only way out of the pandemic is to withdraw these vaccines from the market and pivot to therapeutics. Instead, the FDA is proposing to just hide the data from the American people.


IV. The “Future Framework” = no more clinical trials for Covid-19 shots ever again

The purpose of the “Future Framework” is to rig the Covid-19 vaccine regulatory process in perpetuity in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. If this “Future Framework” is approved all future Covid-19 shots, regardless of the formulation, will automatically be deemed “safe and effective” without additional clinical trials because they are considered “biologically similar” to existing shots.

This is literally the worst idea in the history of public health.

If you change a single molecule of mRNA in these shots it will change health outcomes in ways that no one can anticipate. That necessarily requires new clinical trials — which is what the FDA is proposing to skip.

The FDA’s “expert advisory committee” (VRBPAC) met on April 6, 2022 to discuss the “Future Framework” for the first time. All of the committee members agreed that Covid-19 shots are not working, that boosting multiple times a year was not feasible, and that the shots need to be reformulated. They also unanimously agreed that there are no “correlates of protection” that one can use to predict what antibody levels would be sufficient to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

On June 28 the VRBPAC will meet once again to discuss the “Future Framework” and it will be presented as a done deal because manufacturers want a decision on vaccine strain selection by June in order to deliver shots for autumn vaccination appointments.

So if the FDA authorizes Covid-19 shots for kids on June 14 and 15 and then approves the “Future Framework” on June 28th, the shots that will be given to kids in the fall will be the reformulated shots that skipped clinical trials.


V. Monovalent Covid-19 shots failed, so maybe throwing two, three, or four variants into a single shot will make it better?

When it comes to the flu shot, the FDA tries to hedge their bets by putting four strains of the virus into a single shot (so called “quadrivalent” vaccines). As I explained above, this strategy does not work. But these people are not very clever so that’s exactly what they are planning to do with future Covid-19 shots.

Moderna is already signaling that they intend to manufacture a Covid-19 shot with the Alpha variant and then, to make it “new and improved (TM)”, they will add genetically modified mRNA targeting the Beta variant. Here’s the best part — Moderna claims that this formulation (Alpha + Beta) will somehow protect against Omicron variants — even though by the time these reformulated shots get to market, none of these variants will likely still be in widespread circulation.

There are reasons to believe that this approach will make future Covid-19 shots even less effective and more dangerous than the current failed Covid-19 shots.

Think about it. The more mRNA you put into a shot, the higher the adverse event rate (as the genetically modified mRNA hijacks the cell and starts cranking out spike proteins). So if Pfizer and Moderna put more mRNA into these shots (in order to cover multiple variants) adverse event rates will skyrocket.

But if Pfizer and Moderna put less mRNA per variant into a shot (in order to keep the total amount of mRNA at 100 mcg for Moderna and 30 mcg for Pfizer) then the effectiveness against any one particular variant will be reduced.

The Future Framework is 100% guaranteed to fail. If the “Future Framework” is approved, effectiveness of these shots will decrease, adverse events will increase, these shots will fuel the evolution of variants that evade the vaccines, and there will be no clinical trial data before these reformulated Covid-19 shots are unleashed on the unsuspecting public.


VI. Summary

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet on June 28 to vote on a “Future Framework” for evaluating so-called “next generation” Covid-19 shots. The “Future Framework” is a plan to rig the Covid-19 vaccine regulatory process in perpetuity.

The “Future Framework” would take the “flu strain selection process” that fails every year and apply it to future (reformulated) Covid-19 shots. Federal bureaucrats, many of whom have financial conflicts of interests, would choose which SARS-CoV-2 variants to include in a yearly (or twice yearly) Covid-19 shot. In the process, all future Covid-19 shots will be deemed automatically “safe and effective” without further clinical trials because they are considered “biologically similar” to existing Covid-19 shots.

The “Future Framework” is the most reckless idea in the history of public health. It shows that the FDA has completely abandoned science and its statutory duty to protect the public. If the Republic is to survive, we must stop the “Future Framework” before June 28.


VII. Call to action

We have very little time and an enormous challenge in knocking this proposal down before the VRBPAC meets on June 28. So I am asking to you to contact your elected officials to tell them to reject this dangerous proposal.

Below are talking points that you can paste into an email, a script that you can use on the phone, and a tool for looking up your elected officials. I am only asking you to contact 8 officials — the President and Vice President; your two Senators and U.S. Representative; and your Governor, state House/Assembly member, and state Senator. Please be respectful but make it clear that this plan must be stopped.

Talking points (to paste into an email, letter, or fax)

Subject line: NO “flu framework” for future Covid-19 shots

The FDA and CDC are developing a “Future Framework” to authorize future Covid-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster. I am asking you to contact the FDA to tell them to stop all work on this “Future Framework” immediately. If the FDA proceeds with this “Future Framework” I am asking you to eliminate all funding for the FDA in this year’s budget.

Phone script

Hi, my name is ____________. I live at __________________[address]. I’m calling because the FDA is proposing a “Future Framework” to authorize future Covid-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster. I am asking you to contact the FDA to tell them to stop all work on this “Future Framework”. If the FDA proceeds with this “Future Framework”, I am asking you to eliminate all funding for the FDA in this year’s budget.

Whom to contact: 8 phones calls, letters, emails, or faxes:

President Joseph R. Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111 (The White House comment line is open between the hours of 11 to 3 p.m. EST Tues.-Thurs.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
https://twitter.com/POTUS

Vice President Kamala Harris
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1111 (between the hours of 11 to 3 p.m. EST Tues.-Thurs.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
https://twitter.com/VP

You can look up contact info for your two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/map

The message for State elected officials is slightly different:

Hi, my name is ____________. I live at __________________[address]. I’m calling because the FDA is proposing a “Future Framework” to authorize future Covid-19 shots without requiring additional clinical trials. This would be a public health disaster. If the FDA proceeds with this “Future Framework” I are asking you to nullify the actions of the FDA and reject any Covid-19 shots that have not gone through proper clinical trials.

This is a great tool to look up contact info for your Governorstate Senator, and state House/Assembly member:

https://myreps.datamade.us/

That’s it, just 8 people. We want to let them know that we are watching, that we understand what they are up to, and that this wretched plan must be stopped.


Extra credit:

Here are the email addresses for all of the public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members who have a say in connection with the “Future Framework”. Let’s contact them as well (proposed subject line and email text below).

Subject line: The “Future Framework” is the WORST idea in the history of public health. Please vote NO.

1. The FDA must revoke the authorizations for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J Covid-19 shots and withdraw them from the market immediately. SARS-CoV-2 was never a good candidate for a vaccine. These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death. They appear to have negative efficacy and are driving the evolution of variants that evade vaccines. The pandemic will never stop as long as the FDA and CDC are promoting shots that lack sterilizing immunity.

2. The FDA and CDC must pivot to therapeutics. This was always the answer. About twenty off-the-shelf treatments are more effective than vaccines (if used for prophylaxis or early intervention). Get these safe and effective medicines to people who need them and let doctors be doctors again and treat patients based on their own best clinical judgment.

3. Any reformulated Covid-19 shots MUST go through proper clinical trials and FDA review. That means:
• Large (50,000+ person) double-blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party;
• Safety and efficacy studies for two years prior to any application; the treatment and control groups must be followed for 20 years to monitor adverse events and all-cause mortality (no more wiping out the control group after 6 months to hide bad outcomes);
• Greater than 90% efficacy with less than 1% Grade 3 Adverse Events; and
• Proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and impairment of fertility.

sean.mccluskie@hhs.govcommissioner@fda.hhs.govashish.jha@whitehouse.govAux7@cdc.govPeter.Marks@fda.hhs.govHong.Yang@fda.hhs.gov,

Richard.Forshee@fda.hhs.govHuilee.Wong@fda.hhs.govLeslie.Ball@fda.hhs.govDoran.Fink@fda.hhs.govhanae@bcm.edupaula.annunziato@merck.com,

adam.berger@nih.govhbernstein@northwell.eduacohn@cdc.govanc0@cdc.govhjanes@fredhutch.orghgans@stanford.edudavid.kim@hhs.gov,

asmonto@umich.eduoffit@chop.eduspergam@fredhutch.orgJportnoy@cmh.eduerubin@hsph.harvard.eduerubin@nejm.orgashane@emory.edu,

swamy002@mc.duke.edufullerao@umich.eduRandyHawkins@cdrewu.eduofficeofthepresident@mmc.eduJYLee@uams.edu,

ofer.levy@childrens.harvard.eduwayne_marasco@dfci.harvard.educmeissner@tuftsmedicalcenter.orgmrn8d@virginia.edu,

stanley-perlman@uiowa.edumhsawyer@ucsd.edumew2@cdc.gov

June 1, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

CDC study purporting to find substantial protective effects for school mask mandates fails to replicate

eugyppius – May 29, 2022

Last year, the CDC published a paper comparing Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements. The authors looked at data from 520 United States counties, concluding that “Counties without school mask requirements experienced larger increases in … case rates … compared with counties that had school mask requirements.” Corona astrologers and face diaper fetishists everywhere have used the findings to argue for forcing healthy children who are at no risk to wear fasks masks for multiple hours each school day.

More county-level data on American infection rates and mask mandates has since become available, and two Toronto scientists have taken the opportunity to replicate the study, looking now at 1,832 counties. In a turn of events that will surprise nobody, they find that the larger dataset shows that mask mandates actually do zero, and that prior findings were almost surely an illusion.

Here are masked vs. unmasked case rates, using a smaller data pool similar to that from the CDC study:

Week 0 is the week of school reopening after the summer holidays.

Yes, the maskless counties seem to do worse! Yet the Toronto authors point out that the original CDC study only considered infection rates through the second week after schools reopened, which turned out to be “exactly the peak of school case numbers for [their] sample of counties.” This obscured the fact “that cases quickly declined in later weeks and did so faster in counties without mask mandates.” Even the smaller sample used by the CDC study, in other words, showed no difference in masked vs. unmasked counties by the six-week mark.

The replication, with a much bigger dataset, meanwhile, showed that maskless counties never led infections at all:

Note that, in the larger sample, the maskless start out with lower rates of infections and catch up; in the smaller sample, they started out with higher rates which collapsed more quickly.

The authors note that the CDC study, by ending their analysis on 4 September 2021, effectively excluded counties with a school-start date after 14 August, which entailed an oversampling of southern states. I’ll fill in the blanks here: Counties in the American south tend to have fewer school mask requirements, and also to experience late summer infection spikes related to high temperatures and extensive reliance on climatisation.

Although masks have become the most clearly discredited measure deployed against SARS-2 (which is saying something), they just won’t go away. Even in places that have lifted all Corona restrictions, a great many people continue to mask in public, and it seems likely that many countries – Germany among them – will retain vestigial mask requirements indefinitely, probably for years. Masking is a totally unsupported superstitious practice that does nothing against viral infection, and yet for precisely this reason, no amount of evidence will ever convince the maskers to stop.

May 29, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment