On December 16, 2021, ICAN, through its attorneys, issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC seeking any documents reflecting why a certain VAERS report was no longer available in the VAERS database. The report described an extremely disturbing incident wherein a two-year-old boy “began bleeding out of the mouth, eyes, nose and ears within six hours” of his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on November 18, 2021, and died later that night. On February 14, 2022, the CDC finally responded to ICAN’s request, stating: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.”
Significantly, the CDC has made repeated assurances that “COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in the United States’ history.” The CDC’s VAERS Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19 even states that the “CDC will perform clinical reviews” for certain “Adverse Events of Special Interest,” which include death, “especially in children (<18 years of age) and recipients of newly licensed vaccines).”
But despite all of these claims of about the unprecedented level of “intensive” safety monitoring of these vaccines, the CDC claims to have no records that would explain why a VAERS report describing the horrific death of a toddler suddenly disappeared from the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccines reactions in the United States, VAERS—a system of which the CDC is a co-sponsor.
ICAN intends to get to the bottom of the disappearance of this deeply disturbing report and will persist in holding the CDC accountable for its purported claims of intensive vaccine safety monitoring.
March 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
CDC withholding evidence concerning COVID vaccine safety is scientific fraud
The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects New York Times, February 21, 2022
The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations…
“Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said. Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control”…
Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said…
“The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute. “The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the C.D.C.”
Let me translate that quote for you. Basically, a non-governmental spokesperson for the “official” public health scientific community is throwing Rochelle Walinsky under the bus, and saying that the politicians forced us to commit scientific fraud by withholding key data.
The Global Summit Doctors and other brave medical practitioners who have stood up to the lies and tyranny – who have been harassed, jobs lost, medical licenses lost, smeared and libeled are right. The data are being withheld.
The main stream media owes a whole lot of us scientists and physicians a huge apology. The main stream media has to stop being the mouthpiece for the government. This is not communist China!
The government owes the American people a huge apology. People in the government who have lied to the American people need to be charged and must be held legally accountable. We the people must demand to see ALL of the data from the CDC and the FDA.
Let’s talk data. The CDC is using cumulative data from the beginning of the vaccine roll-out in early 2021 to prop up the lie that these vaccines are effective against Omicron.
The CDC is clearly hiding the data about safety. The (thoroughly biased) NYT piece above writes further on this.
Pfizer’s data supported the safety of the vaccine, but researchers said the effectiveness wasn’t there with two shots.
“It was effective in the younger kids so those six months to two years but in the two to four-year-old age group it didn’t quite meet the levels of antibody response they expected to see,” said Dr. Christina Canody, BayCare Pediatric Service Line Medical Director.
Now instead of just having an EUA meeting about two doses, Pfizer is continuing their trial for three doses and will present that data once they have it.
Precisely what we have been saying.
Why is this important?
The FDA have not revealed what the efficacy of the boosters for children is. They have not released the safety data. They have withheld the safety data on the vaccines for children and adults.
This must stop. We are deep into outright Scientific Fraud territory.
Let’s remember where this started… We have been manipulated from the VERY start of this pandemic. The government has been deciding what has been written, removed, censored by media and the big tech giants. This is propaganda.
I am posting the HISTORIC references from the beginning of 2020 to show that our government has been involved in scientific fraud from the beginning. Do not forget – this goes back to 2020.
1. World Health Organization holds secretive talks with tech giants Google, Facebook and Amazon to tackle the spread of misinformation on coronavirus. February 17, 2020.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and other tech giants spent a day in secretive talks with the World Health Organization to tackle the spread of coronavirus misinformation.
Social media companies including Twitter and Youtube have already been working to remove post about the virus that are proved to be fake.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has offered to work directly with the companies on fact checking in a bid to speed up the process.
Posts on the virus that needed to be removed have ranged from those calling it a fad disease or created by the government to claims it can be treated with oregano oil.
Companies at the meeting agreed to work with WHO on collaborative tools, better content and a call centre for people to call for advice, CNBC reported.
2. Bloomburg. Amazon, Alphabet among tech firms meeting with White House on coronavirus response. LA Times. March 11, 2020.
White House officials discussed combating online misinformation about the coronavirus and other measures during a teleconference Wednesday with tech companies including Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc.
U.S. Chief Technology Officer Michael Kratsios led the call, which also included representatives from Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., IBM Corp. and other companies and tech trade groups.
The discussion focused on information-sharing with the federal government, coordination regarding telehealth and online education and the creation of new tools to help researchers review scholarship, according to a statement from the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.
“Cutting edge technology companies and major online platforms will play a critical role in this all-hands-on-deck effort,” Kratsios said in a statement. He said his office would unveil a database of research on the virus in coming days
3. White House asks Silicon Valley for help to combat coronavirus, track its spread and stop misinformation. Washington Post. March 11, 2020.
The White House on Wednesday sought help from Amazon, Google and other tech giants in the fight against the coronavirus, hoping that Silicon Valley might augment the government’s efforts to track the outbreak, disseminate accurate information…
The requests came during a roughly two-hour-long meeting between top Trump administration aides, leading federal health authorities and representatives from companies including Cisco, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft and Twitter, as Washington sought to leverage the tech industry’s powerful tools to connect workers and analyze data to combat an outbreak that has already infected more than 1,000 in the United States.
Three participants described the phone-and-video conversation on the condition of anonymity because the session was private. Most tech companies in attendance either did not respond or declined to comment.
The evidence above makes it crystal clear that the government has been manipulating data from the start. Now that Omicron is here and the vaccines are clearly not working. That we have data from other countries that there are issues, we much demand transparency and put a stop to the manipulation of the American people. Free speech is free speech.
Scientists and physicians must be allowed to discuss data on the Internet. We ALL must be allowed to discuss data. It is time to stop the madness.
How this all ties into the globalists is becoming more and more clear.
The Next Step for the World Economic Forum Brownstone Institute, February 20, 2022
It has been obvious since early 2020 that there has been an organized cult outreach that has permeated the world as a whole. It’s possible that this formed out of a gigantic error, rooted in a sudden ignorance of cell biology and long experience of public health. It is also possible that a seasonal respiratory virus was deployed by some people as an opportunity to seize power for some other purpose.
Follow the money and influence trails and the latter conclusion is hard to dismiss.
The clues were there early. Even before the WHO declared a pandemic in March 2020 (at least several months behind the actual fact of a pandemic) and before any lockdowns, there were media blitzes talking about the “New Normal” and talk of the “Great Reset” (which was rebranded as “Build Back Better”).
Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Astra-Zeneca were actively lobbying governments to buy their vaccines as early as February 2020, supposedly less than a month after the genetic sequence (or partial sequence) was made available by China.
As a person who spent his whole professional career in pharmaceutical and vaccine development, I found the whole concept of going from scratch to a ready-to-use vaccine in a few months simply preposterous.
Something did not add up. … Read more at Brownstone
My last thought for the day: The US government appears be complicit in the creation of this virus. Again, the people are being manipulated. The NIH and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency at the US Department of Defense must be held accountable and they must release the data as to what they have funded and what they knew when – about the creation of SARS-CoV-2. It is time for our government to come clean. It is time for an investigation. Congress must lead the way. They can not shirk their responsibility any longer.
February 21, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
The New York Times reported this past weekend that the CDC has chosen not to publish huge amounts of COVID data, instead keeping it secret, because it fears that the information would cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among the American public.
The report notes that the withheld data includes information on boosters, hospitalizations, wastewater analyses, as well as critical information on COVID infections and deaths broken down by age, race, and vaccination status.
The justification for holding the information back? Fears that the data would be “misinterpreted” and lead to “vaccine hesitancy,” according to the report.
In other words, it didn’t fit into the narrative that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted no matter who they are and what their situation is.
The report notes:
“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”
Ahhh, the plebs are not ready to know the truth.
Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”
The data has been withheld for more than a year, the report notes:
… the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
As we have previously reported, CDC director Rochelle Walensky admits that the agency’s guidance on COVID has been based on what the government perceived people would accept.
“It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate,” Walensky starkly admitted during an interview in December.
Walensky also acknowledged for only the first time last month that over 75% of COVID deaths were people “who had at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with.”
The comments were later edited by the media to make it seem like there have been fewer deaths related to comorbidities.
The CDC also for more than two years based its guidance on PCR tests, which it recently admitted are producing massive amounts of false positives.
February 21, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
In this short video posted on BitChute in December 2021, Brittany Galvin gives an overview of what she had to do in the previous six months to report her vaccine adverse events to VAERS. She begins by sharing that she has once again received an email asking for information on her VAERS report1 that was initially entered in May 2021.
VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System2 that was first established in 1990. It is coadministered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The system is supposed to be an early warning signal for vaccine manufacturers and health experts to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events. One of the primary objectives of the program is to:3
“Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”
Anyone can make a report to VAERS — both patients and health professionals can use this system to report health concerns they suspect may be connected to a vaccine. Health professionals are required to use it for all adverse events that occur after the COVID-19 emergency use shots, but since the system is passive, whether the reports actually get filed depends entirely on each individual living up to that responsibility.
The reports must contain all hospital records and any other relevant medical information. Unfortunately, as Galvin succinctly notes in her video, the system is not efficient, and the data may be woefully out of date. This has a significant impact on monitoring the effects of the COVID inoculation program since it’s possible the currently published death and adverse event rates may be reprehensibly different from reality.
Magnetized Mom Tries to Report Injury to VAERS
Galvin has created many social media videos to document her journey. This four-minute synopsis begins with her vaccinations in May and ends in November 2021. In June 2021, in an interview with Stew Peters4 during her third hospitalization in two weeks, Galvin recalls that after her first injection, she immediately experienced chills, fever and many of the symptoms that others are reporting.
In addition to this, within four to five hours after the first shot, her legs felt heavy, which she described as feeling like she was walking through mud or cement. The experience left her nervous before the second dose. She put off getting the second shot for as long as she could. While she experienced no immediate symptoms after the second injection, on Day 13 her life changed.
Initially, she thought she had a seizure but later learned that her muscles had suddenly “seized up.” She passed out and reported severe pain in her head when she regained consciousness. Originally, the doctors believe she had had either a stroke or a seizure.
She was sent home from the first hospitalization with a diagnosis of pericarditis but when her symptoms didn’t get better, she was admitted two more times. On the third admission in two weeks, a neurologist told her that she had Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) because of the Moderna injection. In addition, she was also diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).
Stew Peters comments that this was the first time he and others on his team had heard a doctor admit the adverse events were from a genetic therapy COVID-19 shot, yet Galvin reports that the physicians and nurses who treated her told her they had seen many patients with adverse events after the shots.5
Galvin reports the first question she was asked at each of the three ER visits was had she gotten a vaccine, when and which one? This suggests that health care officials and hospitals are aware of adverse events that are not reported in mainstream media.
She told Peters that she has never been against vaccines but didn’t want this one. She took it so she could go back to work. Instead of listening to her intuition, she listened to the shaming and the commercials that said if you didn’t have a vaccine you’d have to live differently. Now she wonders why all the people who have been concerned about people who died from the infection aren’t as concerned about dying from the vaccine.
Galvin’s social media page was originally filled with videos she had taken of herself, placing metal objects on her body that stuck because she was inexplicably “magnetized.” She reports that the doctors in the hospital have also placed metal objects on her skin and have seen with their own eyes that she is magnetized.
In addition, the MRI tech discovered that his body was also magnetized after seeing Galvin demonstrate how a spoon could attach to her body. As of January 2022, she is eight months into the reporting process to VAERS and has been advised by VAERS staff that it may be another six to 12 months before her case is posted.6
VAERS Has Only 50 People Processing Reports
Galvin has created several videos talking about the journey she’s been on trying to report her adverse events to VAERS. In a video posted in January 2022 on Odysee,7 Galvin recorded her phone conversation with an investigator from VAERS to discuss why her report filed in late May 2021 had not yet been counted in the system.
In one conversation she learned that the process takes many steps through different departments. The first stop for the VAERS reports is in a department with only 50 employees.8 Once the package of information is completed by this department, it is sent to a team of nurses who read and review every page.
If the staff have any concerns or if they feel they need more information, the package will be sent back to the first department for further information gathering.9 According to the recorded conversation, one investigator suggested that since anyone can make a report to the system, it’s possible there could be multiple reports for an individual and that this may be a reason why Galvin received multiple requests for information to complete her VAERS report.
And, that’s what did happen: There were two VAERS reports in the system for Galvin, one submitted by Galvin, and another submitted by Moderna. The VAERS report was still missing hospital information, which had been requested several times through the medical records department of the hospital. The VAERS investigator acknowledged that the reporting is a long process and explained:10
“The hospitals, a lot of them are not sending the records. My last two reports where they said, “We didn’t receive the requests.” Well, I’m like, OK, is this your fax number. “Yes, this is our fax number” … so, a lot of them are not sending the records when we ask for it.”
Galvin expressed her concern that there were hundreds of thousands of people like her and just 50 VAERS employees trying to process these reports. It could be months before the CDC receives the report of her vaccine injuries that can be published.11
“Meanwhile the whole government is trying to force everyone to get this thing. Lying to the people telling them that “no one has gotten GBS from it” but here I sit barely able to walk and my case isn’t going to be ‘technically’ reported because the CDC hasn’t investigated yet because the hospitals are dragging their feet … it’s like a revolving crazy door and all of us humans on this planet and in this country are being lied to, and it’s unfair.”
More Reasons Why Adverse Events Are Underreported
At the end of the conversation with the investigator, Galvin learned that while her report was filed in May 2021, it wasn’t assigned to someone at VAERS until September or November 2021.12 In addition to short-staffing at VAERS and hospitals dragging their feet to produce the documentation needed to support claims, there are other reasons why there is a significant underreporting factor in the system.
In the latter months of 2021, Deborah Conrad, certified physician assistant who worked as a hospitalist at a local hospital, stepped forward to speak to Del Bigtree at “The Highwire” about the lack of reporting to VAERS within her hospital. She also provided a voice recording of a conversation with the chief medical officer who chastised her for spending her time off to make the reports to VAERS for other physicians.13
The chief medical officer said: “There is a risk to the organization from a perspective of both underreporting and overreporting.”14 In other words, the lives of the patients were not the issue. And, despite the diligence done by VAERS investigators to ensure the reports are complete and accurate, the hospital must not overreport any injury.
It’s shocking that many physicians are still not aware of VAERS. Before 2020, the system was used primarily by pediatricians to report adverse events from childhood vaccines. Doctors were not educated on how to identify potential injuries, how to report them, or that they have a legal requirement to report all emergency use vaccine injuries.
In fact, this was one of the reasons used by Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the CDC, for pausing administration of the Johnson & Johnson jab when it was first revealed that individuals who took it had a higher risk of blood clots. She told ABC News:15
“One of the reasons for the pause was to make sure clinicians knew how to diagnose and treat this, but also to report it. Because we don’t know if we’ve missed some cases, whether the risk really is 1 in 1 million, or perhaps more than that.”
In addition to the lack of education, another reason why so few physicians report suspected injuries is because there are no penalties for failing to fulfill this legal responsibility. In other words, this passive reporting system is not enforced. As Conrad described in her interview with Bigtree, the forms are also long and tedious to fill out.16
Additionally, not all of Conrad’s colleagues agreed that the injuries should be reported because they didn’t want to believe that the vaccines could cause injury. Historically, vaccine injuries have been routinely underreported, even among pediatricians. A report published in late 2010, which has become known as the Lazarus Report after the principal investigator Ross Lazarus, found:17
“Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
More recently, a group of scientists used an engineering algorithm to determine the underreporting factor and found it had improved to 41, not less than 1% as had been reported 11 years earlier.18,19 This may be due in part to the media attention on VAERS. Nonetheless, there continues to be a significant underreporting factor indicating the numbers in VAERS20 are likely 41 times higher than published.
CDC and NIAID Imply Car Crashes Are Reported in VAERS
In addition to the underreporting factor and overworked VAERS employees that have created a large gap between the number of reports being submitted and the number being published, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky appear bent on completely discrediting VAERS.21
Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Walensky is the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since the CDC co-manages VAERS you would expect that she would have at least a working knowledge of how the reports are accepted and verified before being published.
During testimony January 11, 2022, before the Senate, both Fauci and Walensky very clearly stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS. Both used the example of an individual who gets vaccinated, hit by a car and dies.
They implied without outright stating that this death would also be recorded in VAERS and logged as a death related to the vaccine. In other words, they both skirted the issue without outright lying to the Senate. Walensky said:22
“The vaccine adverse event reporting system is a mandatory system of any event that happens after being vaccinated. So, if you get hit by a car tragically after being vaccinated, that gets reported in the vaccine adverse event reporting system, the VAERS system.
So, the vaccines are incredibly safe. They protect us against omicron. They protect us against delta. They protect us against COVID. They don’t protect us against every other form of mortality out there.”
However, it’s evident not all medical professionals are reporting adverse events. Yes, you can report a car accident death after a vaccine, but the verification process will weed out that death.
Overall, the shots have not protected people from getting Omicron, Delta or any other form of COVID, which Walensky made clear in a CNN interview the day before testifying before the Senate.23 And, it goes without saying, that there is no shot that protects anyone from all forms of mortality.
Immediately after her response, Walensky was asked if the CDC kept data on the number of people who have died as a result of the vaccine. And she answered: “Absolutely yes. I couldn’t give you the number off the top of my head, but our staff could absolutely get back in touch with you.”
So, while publicly denying that any deaths have occurred from the jabs, Walensky is basically admitting that the CDC is aware that there have been people who died from this “incredibly safe” vaccine. Fauci was then asked if he knew the number or “had any clue on that, and he said:”24
“I don’t know the number, but I think part of the confusion is that when you do a reporting, when you get vaccinated, and you walk out and get hit by a car that is considered a death.
That’s the thing that gets confusing, that everything that happens after the vaccination, even if you die of something completely obviously unrelated, it’s considered a death. So, if I had metastatic cancer, got vaccinated and died two weeks later, that’s a death that gets counted.”
Fauci’s statement only implies that the death is counted as a vaccine death. That is, until his example of having metastatic cancer, when he says, “that gets counted.” Until that point, neither Fauci nor Walensky said it was anything more than a death. Meaning that they didn’t specifically say it would be recorded as caused by the vaccine.
When Fauci said “that gets counted,” Walensky immediately jumped in to save the explanation with, “And every one of those is adjudicated.”25 In other words, each of the reports of death not in any way associated with the shot are removed from the record. But unless you are listening carefully, you will mistakenly be led to believe that VAERS is riddled with reports of injuries and deaths not caused by the shot.
Sources and References
February 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States, VAERS |
Leave a comment
A White House email, obtained on behalf of ICAN, shows Facebook, Merck, and the CDC Foundation, whose corporate partners includes Pfizer, have formed an alliance “to use social media and digital platforms to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines.” No conflict there.
On August 12, 2021, ICAN, through its attorneys, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for communications between White House staff and Facebook, Google, and YouTube. In response to this request, ICAN received a June 15, 2021 email sent by Facebook’s then-Public Policy Manager, Nkechi “Payton” Iheme, to several White House employees.
In it, Iheme announces a new initiative, the “Alliance for Advancing Health Care,” between Facebook and several major companies and organizations, including Merck, the Vaccine Confidence Project, the Sabin Vaccine Institute, and the CDC Foundation. Significantly, one of the CDC Foundation’s corporate partners is Pfizer. In the email, Iheme explains that the Alliance is “focused on advancing public understanding of how social media and behavioral sciences can be leveraged to improve the health of communities around the world” and states that its first project is to “provide grants to researchers and organizations for projects that explore how to use social media and digital platforms to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines.” Facebook announced this new initiative on June 9, 2021 here.
The conflict of interest is astonishing. This email shows without a doubt that, through the CDC Foundation created “to support the [CDC’s] work,” the federal government, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of vaccines, has teamed up with Big Pharma and Big Tech to push a liability-free product on the world, while attempting to stomp out anyone who questions this arrangement.
Just as the pharmaceutical companies will never rest when it comes to promoting and selling their vaccine products, and the federal government will not rest in its efforts to assist them, we will never rest in exposing the truth regarding these products or in demanding full transparency and full informed consent for any and all vaccines.
February 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, Facebook, United States |
Leave a comment
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did it again.
The FDA last week granted its seal of approval for a ghost vaccine that is unavailable in the United States — and it did so using a preordained process that made a mockery of “science” and of “regulation.”
Days later, the CDC backed the FDA’s decision, using similarly flawed data and reasoning.
The approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine was an even greater travesty than the FDA’s approval last August of Pfizer’s Comirnaty shot.
That’s because Moderna has been even more secretive than Pfizer about its trial data, and because Moderna’s shot is linked to an even higher rate of heart disease than Pfizer’s.
The FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine led people to believe they would get a fully licensed, FDA-approved vaccine — when in fact they were still getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
People can ask for the Comirnaty vaccine as often as they like — but it is not being distributed in the U.S. The Comirnaty vaccine is supposed to be the same formulation as the old Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but the vials labeled “Comirnaty” are in a legal class of their own.
Why this Kabuki theater?
Because any adult who is harmed or killed as a side effect of an “FDA-approved” vaccine can sue the manufacturer. But if you are harmed in exactly the same way by an EUA vaccine, you are out of luck — the manufacturer and everyone in the chain of delivery has full immunity from lawsuits. The law depends on the label.
Now Moderna has the same legal advantage as Pfizer. Its “Spikevax” is the same formula as the old Moderna vaccine, but only if you are dosed with a vial bearing the “Spikevax” label can you sue for bodily harm. So, of course, the Moderna vaccine continues to be distributed, but Spikevax is not available in the U.S.
The approval of Spikevax is not just a legal sham. It’s also a scientific sham. FDA approval is supposed to include long-term safety testing, but there is no long-term data available for a product that has been in existence less than a year.
The FDA hearings on the licensing of Spikevax were one-sided and dominated by self-congratulatory rhetoric. They also raised more questions than answers.
Questions for the FDA
- Besides offering publicity to the manufacturer and sowing confusion in the public mind, why would the manufacturers want FDA approval for a vaccine that is not available in the U.S.?
- Neither Pfizer nor Moderna explicitly specified the content of their placebos, but a published review claims they were simple saline. If this is the case, why is the rate of medical problems following injection with a “placebo” so much higher with Moderna’s placebo compared to Pfizer’s placebo?
For example, 18 people out of 15,000 in the Moderna placebo group died before the start of the trial (2 weeks from the second vaccination), while only 4 people out of 22,000 who received Pfizer’s placebo dose died in a comparable period. There were 31 “severe adverse events” in the placebo group of the Moderna trial, and zero in the (larger) Pfizer placebo group. What was in that “placebo” that killed 18 people and sent 31 to the hospital?
- The FDA relies on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to help assess the safety of vaccines before approval. There was an animated debate at the VRBPAC meeting for the Pfizer vaccine. Why was VRBPAC not invited to convene for the Moderna vaccine? The answer is given in this letter of approval from the FDA to Moderna (January 31, 2022):
“We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your BLA [Biologics License Application], including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion.”
- The FDA plainly states that it limited the scope of its analysis to the trial data alone. Why isn’t the FDA interested in the enormous amount of data that has become available in the last year?
Safety: Did FDA cook the books?
Deaths and disabilities associated with the mRNA “vaccines” have occurred with shocking frequency, 90 times as many as the worst vaccine in the past. There have been more than 1 million COVID vaccine reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), compared to 11,000 for the worst vaccine in 2020 (Shingrix).
There were more than twice as many deaths related to the COVID vaccines this year as the sum total of all vaccine deaths in the 30-year history of VAERS.
To rig the approval process in favor of such a product, the FDA needed to rewrite the rule book. The agency did this with a new statistical criterion, masking murder with mathematics. I am grateful to Matthew Crawford for having decoded the algebra and sounded the alarm.
The safety criterion chosen by the FDA is an obscure computation called PRR, which stands for Proportional Reporting Ratio. As the name implies, it is based on RATIOS of different event types and is utterly blind to the ABSOLUTE RATE of such events.
PRR measures the distribution of different kinds of adverse events, e.g. blood clots, heart attacks and deaths. If those ratios are severely out of line with the great variety of vaccine reactions in the past, PRR would detect that.
For example, if the new vaccines caused an extraordinary risk of myocarditis, but everything else was low, then PRR would flag that. But if myocarditis was just one risk among many that have been reported from past vaccines, then PRR would not pick that up.
The real scandal is that PRR is blind to the absolute risk numbers. PRR is defined in such a way as to look for unusual PATTERNS of adverse events, but it is completely insensitive to unusual RATES of adverse events.
Of course, it is the rates and not the patterns that are of primary concern, and the PRR is designed NOT to reflect that.
For example, suppose we have two vaccines:
- Vaccine A has 1 reported death per million vaccinations, 3 reported heart attacks per million, and 20 reported headaches per million.
- Vaccine B has 1 reported death per hundred vaccinations, 3 reported heart attacks per hundred, and 20 reported headaches per hundred.
Vaccine A is quite safe, and vaccine B is extremely dangerous. And yet the formula for PRR will produce the same result for vaccine A and B!
Clearly, PRR is not an appropriate criterion for evaluating the safety of any particular vaccine. Did the FDA use PRR in order to cook the books?
In Moderna’s own trials, 1.3% of vaccine recipients had a reaction to the vaccine that was severe enough to require medical attention. The following possible side effects were listed in information given to doctors:
“Anaphylaxis and other severe allergic reactions, myocarditis, pericarditis, and syncope have been reported following administration of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine during mass vaccination outside of clinical trials.”
Off with his head! — the CDC’s ACIP hearings
In Alice’s Wonderland, the Red Queen’s justice began with the execution, then there was a verdict — and finally a trial.
The FDA hearing was followed by a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which reports to the CDC.
The committee on Feb. 4 voted to recommend the Moderna Spikevax. Only after that action step had been secured did the committee hear testimony from the Public Health Agency of Canada that Moderna’s vaccine was associated with a myocarditis risk five times higher than Pfizer’s.
Questions for the CDC
- All-cause mortality was equal in both placebo and vaccine groups (16 deaths in each). In the midst of a pandemic, Moderna’s vaccine demonstrated no survival benefit. This should have been enough to end any further consideration of approval.
- We have detailed data on myocarditis from decades of past history. One-fourth of myocarditis patients are dead within 5 years, but the same study reports that if the myocarditis is caused by human immunodeficiency virus, then three-fourths die in the same 5 years.
We have no long-term data on vaccine-induced myocarditis, but we do have some 6-month data, which show 39% of cases still had their activity restricted by their doctors, 20% were still on heart medication, 32% still reported chest pain, 22% still had shortness of breath, 22% had palpitations and 25% still reported fatigue. Thirteen vaccine recipients died. (All these numbers were presented at the ACIP hearing on Feb. 4.)
Why should we have confidence that the course of vaccine-induced myocarditis will be much less severe than other forms of the disease?
- The Moderna trial, like the Pfizer trial, was limited to healthy people, mostly young, with no pre-existing problems. Pregnant women were explicitly excluded. Why is the vaccine being approved as safe for everyone, including diabetics and immune-compromised, elderly and pregnant women?
- When mRNA vaccines were approved on an emergency basis, the FDA promised to track all safety concerns with a new cell phone app called V-Safe. Why are the results of V-Safe being withheld from the public?
- The FDA was considering approval of Moderna’s vaccine in January 2022. There was a full year’s experience with side effects reported from nearly 200 million doses of the Moderna vaccine in the U.S. alone. But the FDA limited its consideration to the 15,000 subjects who were in the Moderna trial, ending March 26, 2021. Why was this huge trove of data on vaccine safety not reviewed by the FDA?
- Yes, we understand that the vaccine doesn’t become fully effective until 2 weeks after the second shot. But is that a reason to exclude from consideration the damage that is inflicted by enhanced vulnerability to disease during those two weeks, or, for that matter, the four weeks between shots? These have been counted as diseases of the “unvaccinated,” but in fact, people in this stage of treatment are much more vulnerable than the truly unvaccinated.
- France and Germany do not recommend Moderna’s vaccination for young people, presumably because the Moderna vaccine is associated with a higher rate of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine. How did our FDA come to a different conclusion?
- Anaphylaxis following vaccination is an immediate, life-threatening and an undeniable consequence of the vaccine. The CDC claimed the rate of anaphylaxis is 6 per 1 million.
However, in March of 2021, an examination of anaphylaxis following mRNA vaccines revealed a much higher incidence of this adverse event. In fact, 9 of 38,971 Moderna vaccine recipients suffered documented anaphylaxis. This equates to 230 per million, or 38 times higher than the CDC estimate.
Efficacy — but at what cost?
The proper measure of the efficacy of any medication is how it affects all aspects of a patient’s health. But in evaluating the Moderna vaccine, the FDA looked only at its effect on COVID.
There are early but disturbing indications that vaccination worldwide has had dramatic effects on other aspects of health, unrelated to COVID. Insurance company trade journals report that they are paying life insurance claims for adults 18-64 years of age at a rate 40% higher than during any normal year.
This number from OneAmerica (Indianapolis) has been echoed by other studies in Europe. A leaked spreadsheet from the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database showed that incidences of many medical problems in the U.S. military surged in this year of vaccination. For example, heart attacks were up 343%, cancers up 218%, among many other disorders.
Could it be that the vaccines have had a small benefit for COVID severity and disastrous impact on other aspects of human health?
We now have some real-world experience with the efficacy of vaccines. For example, we know the virus mutated to a more contagious, less lethal form. Omicron is now the dominant form of the virus in the U.S. and most other parts of the world today.
The Omicron mutations are concentrated in the spike protein — the only part of the virus to which the vaccinated population has immunity. This suggests the virus is mutating in response to the vaccine, and mutations are an important factor affecting efficacy in the long run.
Nevertheless, the FDA considered efficacy data predominantly from the first five months of data (through March 26, 2021) in making its decision to fully license Spikevax, with an absolute cutoff in November, before Omicron became dominant.
More questions
- Almost all subjects in the original Moderna trial who received placebo initially were subsequently given the vaccine. How will we ever know the long-term effects of the vaccine if we have no controls with which to compare?
- Why do CDC studies of death rates based on vaccination status differ so markedly from the same question asked by independent groups in other countries?
Here, for example, is a report from Public Health Scotland stating that vaccination increases vulnerability to Omicron. Here is a similar report from England. This study shows countries with higher vaccination rates tend to have higher rates of COVID, and this one confirms the same result for U.S. states.
- We are now in an era dominated by the Omicron variant, against which all the vaccines seem much less effective. But even “follow-up data” was analyzed only through March 26, 2021, nine months before Omicron took over. Why did the FDA base its decision on data only from older variants?
- The secondary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of severe COVID-19. Now that it is accepted that there is little, if any, protective effect of mRNA vaccines from infection, the prevention of severe disease should be the primary focus of approval determination.
Moderna claims its vaccine efficacy is an astonishing 98.2% in preventing severe COVID-19 (Table 8). Pfizer’s was 96.7% (Table S6).
The reason for the calculated difference in efficacy between these two products was not from a lower incidence of severe disease in the vaccine arm of Moderna’s trial (it was lower in Pfizer’s trial). It was because the incidence of severe disease in Moderna’s placebo group was much higher than in Pfizer’s.
Severe COVID-19 in Pfizer’s placebo group occurred in 30 participants out of 23,0379. In Moderna’s, severe disease occurred in 106 participants out of 14,164 that received a placebo. Why was the incidence of severe COVID-19 nearly six times higher in Moderna’s placebo group than Pfizer’s?
Postscript: Failure was never an option
In America, why are clinical trials for new drugs run by the same companies that own the drugs, and will profit from them if the trial is successful?
It’s a glaring conflict of interest, but necessary within a capitalist system. Since the trials cost, typically, hundreds of millions of dollars, only the company that will profit from the drug is motivated to invest such huge sums in testing.
In the case of the COVID vaccines, however, the development and the trials were both publicly funded. There was no excuse for contracting the same organization both to develop and test their own product.
Moderna’s development cost was funded through Operation Warp Speed in the U.S. and Pfizer through the German government. Now, the companies are reaping windfall profits, though they risked no money of their own.
This leaves us wondering, did our government ever want a fair and unbiased evaluation of the COVID vaccines? Or — after a full year of telling the public that vaccines were the only path out of the COVID crisis — did NIH feel they could not risk the possibility that the trials might fail?
There were no animal tests. There was no time to experimentally optimize dosage and delivery. They had to guess right the first time.
Maybe they thought this is what the exigency of a pandemic required — but please don’t call it “science.”
Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., has a background in theoretical physics. Since the 1990s, he is best known for his contributions to the biology of aging, including many articles and two books.
© 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.
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
1 Comment
IN the 1984 Unicef State of the World’s Children report, its director general James Grant talked of how the developing world was lagging 50 years behind the industrialised world in terms of child mortality rates. Explaining how the industrialised world had succeeded in reducing its own child mortality rates, he acknowledged that ‘the mainspring of this great leap forward was rising living standards – better food, water, housing, sanitation, education and income’.
Although the spread of maternal and child health care undoubtedly played an important role, health technology and medical services played only a secondary part, and the report stated that effective vaccines for measles became available only ‘after child deaths from measles had been reduced to almost zero by better nutrition’.
Yet despite malnutrition being the spectre that loomed large in the Unicef reports, Grant was quick to explain vaccines could help with that as well: ‘All infections are nutritional setbacks. Often the climb back to normal weight and growth takes several weeks. Immunisation against the six main infectious diseases of childhood would therefore be a partial “immunisation” against malnutrition itself.’
It was not long after the retirement of Dr Halfdan Mahler, WHO’s director general from 1973-1988, that Unicef, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and other ‘partners’ launched the Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI) to encourage developing countries to self-finance their Child Survival Revolution vaccination programmes. This was a significant change of direction. No longer would vaccines be interim aid schemes: they were to be elevated to a strategic priority and meagre health budgets would be redirected to pay for them. The justification made was ‘that the development, introduction, and widespread use of vaccines in industrialised and developing countries have resulted in considerable progress against some of the most devastating infections of humankind.’
Today, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), contrary to the admission in the 1984 Unicef report that vaccines had only a secondary impact on child mortality, claims that the improved socio-economic conditions in industrialised countries only had an indirect impact on disease.
It is more than 20 years since the RF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) joined forces, using the World Bank to create the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), now known as GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. In the mid-1990s, with new leaders at the helm of both Unicef and the WHO, Dr Seth Berkley, the RF’s associate director of health sciences, proposed to James Wolfensohn, the Rockefeller Foundation trustee appointed to the Presidency of the World Bank (WB) in 1995, that the WB and the RF stage ‘a coup’.
Berkley wanted to replace the CVI, which was failing to live up to the expectations of the vaccine manufacturers: ‘We will have an outside body that can bring in industry [which the World Health Organisation cannot legally do], do advocacy and build a truly international alliance’.
GAVI was officially created ‘to save children’s lives and protect people’s health through the widespread use of safe vaccines, with a particular focus on the needs of developing countries’. Structured as a public-private partnership, largely funded by BMGF and vaccine manufacturers, GAVI’s purpose was reverse the stagnation of the vaccine market, shaping it so more new and underused vaccines could be sold to the developing world.
Until 2017, the WHO modelled vaccine impact estimates for GAVI. However as Gavi’s questions became more strategy and policy-oriented, with a need ‘to better account for uncertainty’ and to be able ‘to estimate the vaccine impact more accurately striving for the highest level of scientific rigour’, GAVI and the Gates Foundation outsourced this modelling work to a consortium led by Professor Neil Ferguson.
The unique selling point of vaccines is that, as products targeted at healthy people, virtually every person on the planet becomes a potential customer and, even better, a repeat customer. Vaccines represent opportunities for continuous growth and profit, unrivalled in the pharmaceutical sector even before Covid-19.
In 2011 when Seth Berkley left the RF to become GAVI’s CEO to oversee the implementation of its ‘Decade of the Vaccine’, vaccines accounted for only 3 per cent of all pharmaceutical sales. But they stood apart from all other pharmaceuticals in one significant way: their sales were growing at twice the rate of any other pharmaceutical product, at 10-15 per cent per annum compared with 5-7 per cent for other products.
A 2013 survey of industry trends prepared by WHO health economist Miloud Kaddar predicted that the global market for vaccines would become an engine of growth for the industry, increasing in market value to $100billion by 2025. In a single year the Covid-19 vaccines alone have eclipsed those projections, generating $150billion revenue for the financial year 2021-2022 according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The revenue growth that Kaddar’s survey found didn’t, however, come from developing countries. It came from persuading all countries, whether industrialised or developing, to target 90 per cent coverage rates for all vaccines on their national immunisation schedules. When he conducted his survey Kaddar found 82 per cent of all sales were in fact to the 15 per cent of the global population living in industrialised countries where living standards are highest and where well-nourished populations have the lowest disease burden. The portion of the world GAVI was meant to be targeting remained a largely untapped market.
GAVI’s first task was to increase surveillance of vaccination coverage, which is the number of people in a population who have been inoculated with specific vaccines as recommended in the immunisation schedules. In 2004, for example, in an effort to hit coverage targets, the UK introduced financial incentives to encourage GP practices to increase vaccination rates for three childhood vaccines and seasonal influenza for four at-risk groups.
Additional financial incentives were offered to NHS Hospital Trusts in 2016 to increase influenza vaccine uptake by frontline staff. Unlike the threatened Covid vaccine mandate, flu vaccination is not compulsory but strongly encouraged as evidenced by NHS England’s suggested incentives: ‘Staff appreciate recognition for their contributions to the health of others and including an incentive or reward aspect to a staff flu vaccination programme can be effective. A small threat can have a big impact. Even something as simple as a sticker to show they have had their jab can be worn as a sign of pride and signal to others that they should have the flu vaccination.’
It heralded the bribery and coercion to come with the Government’s determination to achieve population level Covid vaccine take up.
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Gates Foundation, GAVI, Rockefeller Foundation |
1 Comment
In Part 5 I look at the scientific literature on face mask use. I look at a lot of studies, but I am not undertaking an exhaustive review of all mask studies, which is an impossible task. However, I do review all the randomized controlled trials, which are the most credible trials. After that I look at a selection of the better trials and meta-analyses. I do focus more on those papers that conclude that there is little or no benefit to mask wearing. I have done this because academia, governments, health institutions and the media are currently giving such an appallingly one-sided view that a corrective is needed.
Also, many of the studies that pro-maskers refer to are not credible, or are not relevant to the real world, and a better evidence base is required.
Bear in mind, as statistician William Briggs says,
The burden of proof is entirely on those who make masklessness a crime: they are imposing, we are not. I have no obligation, none whatsoever, to show masks do not work. But, we have more than enough evidence they do not.
I also refer the reader to City Journal’s ‘Do Masks Work? A Review of the Evidence’, which demolishes some poor studies, including ones that the CDC has pushed. For example, the CDC has especially promoted an incredibly weak observational study which
focused on two Covid-positive hairstylists at a beauty salon in Missouri. The two stylists, who were masked, provided services for 139 people, who were mostly masked, for several days after developing Covid-19 symptoms. The 67 customers who subsequently chose to get tested for the coronavirus tested negative, and none of the 72 others reported symptoms.
The CDC’s spin was reported uncritically in media such as the New York Times.
‘This study’, the City Journal article went on,
has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had Covid-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking. The apparent lack of spread of Covid-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, “cut hair while clients are facing away from them.” The researchers also observe that “viral shedding” of the coronavirus “is at its highest during the 2 to 3 days before symptom onset.” Yet no customers who saw the stylists when they were at their most contagious were tested for Covid-19 or asked about symptoms. Most importantly, this study does not have a control group. Nobody has any idea how many people, if any, would have been infected had no masks been worn in the salon. Late last year, at a gym in Virginia in which people apparently did not wear masks most of the time, a trainer tested positive for the coronavirus. As CNN reported, the gym contacted everyone whom the trainer had coached before getting sick—50 members in all—“but not one member developed symptoms.” Clearly, this doesn’t prove that not wearing masks prevents transmission.
5.1: The effectiveness of face masks: Randomized-controlled trials
5.2: The effectiveness of face masks: Other trials and studies
5.3: The effectiveness of face masks: reviews and meta-analyses
5.4: The effectiveness of face masks: preprints, commentaries, editorials and academic letters
5.5: The effectiveness of respirators in healthcare settings
5.6: The effectiveness of surgical face masks in surgical settings
5.7: Face mask harms
5.8. Relevant media reports (a small selection)
The main Face Mask FAQs page.
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Covid-19, Human rights, New York Times |
Leave a comment
OVER the last five decades – long before governments used the fear of Covid-19 to accustom their citizens to bio-security surveillance through continuous mass testing of healthy people, Test and Trace, vaccine mandates and vaccine passports that replace people’s rights to participate in society with conditional permissions – the control and elimination of diseases via medication has gradually become the sole and ultimate goal of global public health policy. Clean water, ending malnutrition, improving food production and supply and education have been all but eclipsed in the pursuit of universal vaccination.
Writing on the politics of vaccination in 2017 the international health policy expert William Muraskin warned that ‘an all-out war on microbes is being planned right now by eradication proponents who intend to prevail regardless of developing-country governments’ or their peoples’ choices.’ Like the ‘war on terror’ it was an open ended concept, ambiguous and useful to justify a range of actions.
That vaccines have become the weapon of global health choice is down to two influential philanthropic foundations which have been working relentlessly towards the hubristic goal of eradicating diseases via universal vaccination.
For the past quarter-century the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been front and centre of this widely perceived humanitarianism, inviting humankind to ‘reimagine the way we use our immune systems to combat disease’ through ‘just-in-time’ vaccines and surveillance. In fact BMGF is but a newcomer to this great vaccine game, joining another influential private American organisation, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF), which set the groundwork for this years ago. Set up by the family of John D Rockefeller, the world’s first billionaire who made his money through his company Standard Oil, RF’s role in vaccine promotion traces back to its pioneering disease eradication campaigns against hookworm and yellow fever. The foundations for what was to become the war on microbes was laid over the next decades with the RF making most of the running; exerting its influence through the placement of RF trustees across numerous international organisations, always evading the type of public attention that the BMGF has attracted by operating largely under the radar.
At the World Health Organisation-convened 1978 World Health Assembly in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, member nations agreed a broad vision for ‘Health for All’ as a fundamental human right, which was set out in a clear declaration. This was a manifesto to improve health in the developing world by the year 2000 by raising living standards through clean water, improved sanitation and nutrition – the fundamental contributory elements to good health. In this call for primary health care, immunisation against the major infectious diseases was but one of the tools in the box alongside ‘education, food supply and proper nutrition, the adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation; maternal and child health care, including family planning; prevention and control of locally endemic diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries; and provision of essential drugs’.
The Alma Ata declaration displeased the Rockefeller Foundation because the vision and strategy ran counter to the disease-centric cure or eradicate model it had pioneered against hookworm, yellow fever and malaria. The RF convened a conference of its own six months later in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a counter-response. According to the US Centers for Disease Control, it was one of their own employees, Dr Rafe Henderson, who first encouraged the WHO to embrace vaccines. In 1977 he was seconded to WHO to run the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI).
Addressing the World Health Assembly 30 years later, the Danish physician and former WHO director general Dr Halfdan Mahler reminded his audience ‘of the transcendental beauty and significance of the definition of health in WHO’s Constitution’, health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’.
He lamented donors’ speedy loss of interest in and distortion of the very essence of the Alma Ata vision and its primary health care strategy ‘under the ominous name of Selective Primary Health Care which broadly reflected the biases of national and international donors and not the needs and demands of developing countries’.
Selective Primary Health Care, the Rockefeller Foundation’s riposte to Alma Ata written by its director of health sciences, Dr Kenneth Warren, was a ‘band aid’ package of ‘scientific’ solutions to paper over infrastructure and systemic problems. It was believed that ‘GOBI’, the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (Unicef) acronym for its four essential measures for the maintenance of child health in developing areas – Growth monitoring, Oral rehydration, Breast-feeding and Immunisation – could halve the child death rate in developing countries. According to Warren, the GOBI scientific advances were more realistic and cost-effective interim measures.
While WHO director general Mahler was endeavouring to deliver his broader Health For All programme, the Rockefeller Foundation was busy finding a way around it. James P Grant, a Rockefeller Foundation trustee and a member of its executive committee, was nominated as a candidate to be executive director of Unicef. Grant, feted by Bill Gates as a ‘visionary leader’, was appointed to this post in 1980 by United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim.
Writing later about the start of the global health strategy, Dr Kenneth Warren focused almost exclusively on vaccination. He explained how in May 1983 Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine who campaigned vigorously for mandatory vaccination throughout the rest of his life, calling the universal vaccination of children against disease a ‘moral commitment’, and Robert McNamara, the President of the World Bank who had advocated for population reduction claiming that population growth was second only to nuclear war as a global threat, together convinced Unicef that the Expanded Program on Immunization that Rafe Henderson was running for the WHO needed to be accelerated.
Warren records how in 1984 the Rockefeller Foundation helped to organise a consortium of agencies, including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme, to foster that goal, and how, within six years, 80 percent immunisation was achieved.
Yet it is striking how infrequently the WHO Health For All reports of that time, the early 1980s, mention immunisation, by contrast consistently noting how disease in developing countries caused by parasites, insects and infections was closely related to economic and social conditions, notably malnutrition or marginal nutrition and poor water. When vaccination is mentioned in these reports it is as ‘a’ tool rather than as ‘the’ tool for addressing disease.
The insertion of the word ‘universal’ before vaccination coincided with the arrival of Grant at Unicef. However innocuous it may have seemed, the inclusion of this single qualifying word has had far-reaching ramifications. Universal vaccination was a policy choice, and the one preferred by the RF and its acolytes at the CDC.
Two years into his tenure, Grant rebranded the RF’s Selective Primary Health Care as Unicef’s Children’s Survival and Development Revolution. Phrases referencing Mao’s Cultural Revolution are, astonishingly, scattered throughout. He was soon touting vaccines as cutting-edge and low-cost and the push for universal vaccination began in earnest, aiming for 90 per cent of children in the developing world to be inoculated against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP), polio, measles, mumps, rubella and tuberculosis by 1990, never mind whether these children had clean water to drink or adequate food or sanitation.
February 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular | CDC, Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation |
1 Comment
There’s an entire field of research dedicated to developing messaging designed to persuade “vaccine-hesitant” individuals to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
None of the messaging examined by researchers involves conveying factual evidence that supports the claims — widely disseminated by Big Pharma, Big Media and public health agencies — that the vaccines are “safe” and “effective.”
Researchers last month published the results of a clinical trial involving two survey experiments on how to manufacture consent for COVID vaccines.
The Yale-sponsored study, “Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions,” examined how different persuasive messages affected 1) intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 2) willingness to persuade friends and relatives to get the vaccine, 3) fear of those who have not been vaccinated, and 4) social judgment of people who choose not to vaccinate.
According to the study’s authors:
“Given the considerable amount of skepticism about the safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine, it has become increasingly important to understand how public health communication can play a role in increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.”
The paper did not address the underlying reasons someone might have concerns about the safety or efficacy of COVID vaccines but focused instead exclusively on how to persuade them to get the vaccine.
From the paper:
“We conducted two pre-registered experiments to study how different persuasive messages affect intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, willingness to persuade friends and relatives to receive one, and negative judgments of people who choose not to vaccinate.
“In the first experiment, we tested the efficacy of a large number of messages against an untreated control condition … In Experiment 2, we retested the most effective messages from Experiment 1 on a nationally representative sample of American adults.”
The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world. But the study completion date for part 1 was July 8, 2020, which means all of these messages were created prior to the release of any science to support them.
The baseline information control message states:
“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”
In order to establish which messaging strategies elicited an inclination to get vaccinated, 10 additional messages were added to bring context to the baseline message.
These messages incorporated themes of self-interest, community interest, guilt, embarrassment, anger, bravery, trust in science, personal freedom, economic freedom and community economic benefit.
“We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators,” the researchers wrote.
To study the impacts of guilt, embarrassment and anger, researchers prompted people to think about how they would feel if they did not get vaccinated and then spread the virus to others.
“Emotions are thought to play a role in cooperation, either by motivating an individual to take an action because of a feeling that they experience or restraining them from taking an action because of the emotional response it would provoke in others.”
The “not brave” and “trust in sciences” messages were designed to evoke concerns about reputation and social image. The “not brave” message “reframed the idea that being unafraid of the virus is not a brave action, but instead selfish, and that the way to demonstrate bravery is by getting vaccinated because it shows strength and concern for others.”
The “trust in science” message suggested, “those who do not get vaccinated do not understand science and signal this ignorance to others.”
Personal freedom, economic freedom and community economic benefit messages drew on concerns linked to COVID restrictions.
Overall, it was a message that appealed to community interest, reciprocity and a sense of embarrassment that proved most persuasive, resulting in a 30% increase in intention to vaccinate, a 24% increase in willingness to advise a friend to get vaccinated and a 38% increase in negative opinions of people who decline the vaccines relative to the placebo message.
Community interest messages that incorporate embarrassment were determined to be most effective in getting people to encourage others to get the vaccine, while “not brave” messaging showed the most promise in creating negative judgments of non-vaccinators.
The Yale study findings are consistent with another recent paper, “Vaccination as a Social Contract,” which demonstrated people view vaccination as a social contract and are less willing to cooperate with those who refuse vaccination.
The study stated:
“The experiments consistently showed that especially compliant (i.e., vaccinated) individuals showed less generosity toward nonvaccinated individuals … It is concluded that vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.
“Individuals act upon the social contract, and more so the stronger they perceive it as a moral obligation. Emphasizing the social contract could be a promising intervention to increase vaccine uptake, prevent free riding, and, eventually, support the elimination of infectious diseases.”
Forget the facts, appeal to ‘values’
Saad Omer, one of the authors of the Yale study, has an extensive interest in public health messaging.
His efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy earned him a spot on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, the Sabine Vaccine Institute’s Board of Trustees and the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety.
In 2020, Omer initiated a “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” project involving randomized trials in five countries using social media messaging to increase COVID and childhood vaccine coverage.
In his keynote address at the first WHO Global Infodemiology Conference in June 2020, Omer referenced “moral foundation theory” and suggested appealing to values could change decision-making behaviors.
Omer provided details about a messaging study for the HPV vaccine and discussed how similar strategies could be applied to create compliance for COVID measures:
“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.
“So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months …
“We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak. That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”
The ‘science’ of infodemiology, infoveillance and infodemic
Omer is one of many prominent voices in what is known as the field of “infodemiology,” a term coined in 2002 by Dr. Gunter Eysenbach.
As the first infodemiologist and founder of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Eysenbach defines infodemiology as ”the science of distribution and determinants of information in an electronic medium, specifically the Internet, or in a population, with the ultimate aim to inform public health and public policy.”
Eysenbach also coined the terms “infoveillance,” defined as “a type of syndromic surveillance that specifically utilizes information found online,” and “infodemic,” which refers to “an overabundance of information” that generally includes deliberate attempts to disseminate wrong information to undermine the public health response and advance alternative agendas of groups or individuals.”
Using just three words, Eysenbach created a scientific niche, identified a problem and proposed at least part of a so-called solution.
The WHO readily embraced this language during the pandemic. An editorial in the August 2020 issue of The Lancet began with a quote from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: “We’re not just fighting a pandemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.”
The WHO hosted several infodemiology conferences throughout the pandemic. Asserting that “misinformation costs lives,” the WHO, the United Nations and other groups created the perfect justification for social media surveillance and the suppression of dissent.
In 2020, the WHO created a resolution asking member states to take measures to leverage digital technologies to counter “misinformation” and “disinformation” and worked with more than 50 digital companies and social media platforms, including TikTok and even Tinder, to support these efforts.
The efforts to eliminate “misinformation” resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.
A National Defense Authorization Act amendment in 2012 that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public makes it easier for governments to create self-serving narratives.
And thanks to a multi-billion dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.
This is likely why the CDC, public health departments and mainstream media can make broad assertions like this: “COVID-19 vaccines were developed quickly while maintaining the highest safety standard possible,” and this: “Hydroxychloroquine shouldn’t be used to treat COVID-19,” and claim they are “fact.”
Articles and posts that challenge those assertions are regularly removed if they’re even permitted to be published in the first place.
Public health compliance: A cottage industry
Yale is not the only university researching the science of compliance. Academic institutions and government agencies throughout the world are immersed in this emerging behavioral science.
In February 2021, the University of Pennsylvania newsletter, Penn Today, published, “When the Message Matters, Use Science to Craft It,” covering behavioral scientist Jessica Fishman’s Message Effects Lab (MEL) initiative and research related to “what sways decision-making,” particularly with regard to COVID vaccination and testing.
MEL currently has partnerships and ongoing projects with the World Bank, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, Penn Medicine, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Independence Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the Government of Canada to address health-related behaviors.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a branch of HHS, also sponsored research to explore influences on COVID vaccine decision-making. The study, “Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Survey of U.S. Adults,” concluded:
“We found that a substantial proportion (42.2%) of participants in a national survey conducted during the coronavirus pandemic would be hesitant to accept vaccination against COVID-19. Black race was one of the strongest independent predictors of not accepting vaccination; this is especially alarming, given the outsized impact of COVID-19 among African-Americans.
“Our findings suggest that many of the individuals who responded ‘not sure’ may accept vaccination if given credible information that the vaccine is safe and effective. As vaccine development proceeds at an unprecedented pace, parallel efforts to proactively develop messages to foster vaccine acceptance are needed to achieve control of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Behavioral scientist Dr. Rupali Limaye took the messaging a step further. She teaches a free online training course, offered by Johns Hopkins University, that “prepares parents of school-age children, PTAs, community members and school staff to be Vaccine Ambassadors and promote vaccine acceptance in their communities.”
Limaye will be a panelist for an interactive webinar “Making COVID-19 vaccines APPEALing: Pilot message testing in India,” later this month.
Changing messages, same goals
While government agencies and the scientific community cling to unsupported beliefs about vaccine safety and efficacy, they appear to recognize the importance of constantly revisiting their understanding of the impacts of messaging.
UPenn’s updated research found intentions around vaccination have changed. The university’s Annenberg School for Communication reported:
“The researchers found that trust in scientific institutions and health authorities was central to individuals’ intentions to be vaccinated, especially in the early part of the pandemic. However, as the pandemic continued, other factors related to trust emerged …
“The evidence, the researchers wrote, ‘documents the need for the public health community to redouble its efforts to preemptively and persistently communicate not only about how vaccines in general work but also about their benefits, safety, and effectiveness.’”
Research from Civics Analytics, a technology company that creates data-driven audience campaigns, seconds the notion that effective messaging must evolve.
With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the company explored COVID concerns among different demographics and determined that a “one-size-fits-all” message would not work. The company said:
“In the spring of 2021, before the Delta variant emerged in the U.S. and when vaccine mandates had not yet been implemented, we found that messages highlighting experiences that are off-limits to unvaccinated individuals (such as concerts or international travel) or emphasizing personal choice were most persuasive…
“As you’ll see in this research, the most persuasive messages have changed.”
According to Civics Analytics, FOMO (fear of missing out) and “personal decision” messages were the most impactful. But more current data indicates the “protecting children” message has become more effective at persuading people to get vaccinated.
From the study:
“For general messaging targeting all unvaccinated people, focus on protecting children from COVID-19 and on the financial ramifications of contracting the virus.”
The company found “vaccine safety,” “scary COVID statistics” and “personal story” messages were inclined to backfire and could decrease the likelihood of vaccinating.
Perhaps some good scientists will advance the learning curve and study what happens when the public discovers that “proven messages” lack supporting scientific data.
©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.
February 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, HHS, Johns Hopkins University, United States |
2 Comments
Pfizer and Moderna set to ask the FDA & CDC to grandfather in their reformulated coronavirus vaccines with almost no data
I just got another 30-day suspension from Facebook. It’s always interesting to see which posts set off the Stasi. The purpose of censorship is to delete any facts that contradict the Pharma narrative. So every time they censor one of my posts it tells me that this content was directly over the target.
Many of my previous suspensions were in the weeks leading up to key FDA and CDC decisions on mRNA vaccine applications. I was highly visible on social media sharing information about why the risks of these shots outweigh the benefits. It seems that Pfizer and Moderna just put out the word that they want to get the approval across the line and the Stasi get to work banning anyone with data or analysis that might hurt their application. They ban me about three weeks before the FDA/CDC decision, get the approval they seek, and then my suspension expires.
And that seems to be the case again here.
In this instance, Facebook suspended me for a post from two months ago. They never explain their decision and never point out any factual errors in my post. But ask yourself, why did this particular post trigger the Thought Police?
November 28, 2021
Guys and gals listen up. The battle ahead is this: both Pfizer and Moderna have announced plans to develop new multivalent mRNA shots within 100 days to address new variants. They will argue to the FDA and CDC that these new shots (now the fourth dose of a failed product) should be grandfathered in without further clinical trials because they are similar to the existing (deadly toxic junk) product. If that happens, then all future doses of this product, whatever the formulation, will never go through clinical trials of any kind.
I am hard-pressed to imagine a more apocalyptic scenario — injections, for most everyone in the developed world, every six months, forever, with no clinical trials, and no idea of what is in the vial. It’s a eugenicists’ dream.
We must begin pushing now to tell every elected official and every regulator that there must be new clinical trials or they will be prosecuted at Nuremberg 2.0.
Republicans hoping to take back the Congress in 2022 must be on record as demanding new clinical trials.
Existing trials are terrible but they give us a chance to see how these companies rig the data and they give us a point of comparison (to show that they lied) when real world data comes in. We have very little data on new variants but Pfizer and Moderna’s plans to proceed without clinical trials are a possible extinction-level event for humanity.
Updated to add: the message to elected officials has to be simple — Any new formulation needs a proper new clinical trial (50,000 participants, at least 2 years follow up, conducted by an independent 3rd party).
My assertions in this post are based on years of studying the Pharma playbook. Is there any evidence that anything I said in this post is incorrect? Pharma is going to try to get these reformulated coronavirus vaccines grandfathered in without further regulatory scrutiny.
To the extent that there are any clinical trials — they will be these sham trials like the recent third dose Emergency Use Authorization applications. As you will recall, the Moderna third dose “trial” had 149 participants in the treatment group and the Pfizer “trial” had 200 participants total. I wrote about that (here). These “trials” were so bad that the top two vaccine safety regulators at the FDA quit rather than approve this worthless toxic junk under political pressure from the Biden administration. Indeed these “trials” were so bad that the hand picked Yes-men (and women) on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee rejected the applications (16 to 2) — so Janet Woodcock just pushed the applications through under her signature, against their advice.
The fact that FB censored this two-month old post out of the blue suggests that this is exactly what Pfizer and Moderna are about to do — they are going to bum-rush these reformulated coronavirus vaccines through the rotten FDA and CDC and start injecting them into billions of people with no data on safety or effectiveness.
These reformulated vaccines are ostensibly to address the Omicron variant — although a new variant will have already taken its place by the time these reformulated vaccines are available. So once again these vaccines are likely to have zero or negative efficacy against the virus and produce unknown levels of harm including iatrogenic injury and antibody dependent enhancement. The introduction of reformulated vaccines is also likely to accelerate the evolution of new variants.
This is why we need a revolution. This is why we must overthrow the existing regime. Common carriers and most bourgeois institutions in the U.S. work for the Cartel. And the Cartel is engaged in democide throughout the developed world because democide is very profitable and this is now their business model.
January 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, Facebook, FDA |
1 Comment
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month recommended women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, who are trying to become pregnant now or who might become pregnant in the future get the COVID-19 vaccine.
The CDC made the recommendation after concluding, in a Jan. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, that data support the safety of COVID vaccination during pregnancy.
By comparing COVID vaccination during pregnancy to those unvaccinated during pregnancy, the agency determined COVID vaccines were not associated with preterm birth or with delivering a child who was born smaller or less developed than expected, also known as small-for-gestational-age (SGA).
In this article, we examine flaws in the CDC study that led to the agency’s wrongful conclusion regarding COVID vaccines for pregnant women.
First, some background.
Including pregnant women in clinical trials
Pregnancy is a precarious time not just for the expectant mother but most importantly the developing fetus. Expectant mothers are advised not to drink alcohol or caffeinated beverages and not to eat raw foods such as sushi and deli meats.
A lot of medications are contraindicated during pregnancy including simple pain meds like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Ibuprofen), antidiarrheals, decongestants, antihistamines, nasal sprays and expectorants.
Women are advised not to take these medications during pregnancy because they pose potential risks to the developing fetus.
For decades, expectant mothers have been considered a vulnerable group to be shielded from potential harms of research for the sake of their fetuses’ health.
In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines excluding pregnant women and women “with childbearing potential” from phase I and phase II clinical trials, where new drugs are tested for safety and efficacy.
This view stemmed, in part, from tragedies caused by two now-infamous drugs that were widely prescribed to pregnant women in the mid-20th century: thalidomide, which caused thousands of children around the world to be born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects, and diethylstilbestrol, which was linked to higher rates of cancer in both mothers and the daughters born to them.
This view changed however in 1993, with the passage of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which sought to increase gender and racial diversity in clinical trials.
Federal regulations currently require any study involving pregnant women to meet 10 criteria, including that, “where scientifically appropriate,” data first be collected on pregnant animals and non-pregnant human subjects to assess risk, and that any risk to mother or fetus be “the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research.”
Reproduction toxicity studies in animal models hinted at dangers early on
While the companies developing the COVID-19 vaccines have done preliminary studies in animals, their studies were limited to rodents. The vaccine makers did not conduct studies on non-human primates, recognized as the closest animal models to humans regarding genetics, physiology and behavior.
Nevertheless, Moderna’s own Assessment Report to the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use on March 11, 2021, included a study for reproductive and developmental toxicology on female rats during gestation.
The report noted (page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) an increase in the number of fetuses with common skeletal variations of one or more rib nodules and one or more wavy ribs. Additionally, the number of pups born to vaccinated rats was lower than the number in the unvaccinated rats.
Most importantly, the authors explicitly stated, “In this study, no vaccine dose was administered during the early organogenesis [the period during embryonic development of an animal when the main body organs are formed], to address the direct embryotoxic effect of the components of the vaccine formulation.”
One month earlier, Pfizer reported in its Feb. 19, 2021, Assessment Report to the same committee that pregnant rats demonstrated a greater-than-2x increase in pre-implantation loss in exposed animals compared to controls.
The authors of the Pfizer report further stated (Page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) that “a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right-sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities” occurred in litters of exposed rats, and that these findings were within historical control data.
This finding brings up an important question: Why compare the incidence of these major congenital abnormalities with “historical” controls and not with the controls themselves?
As late as April 2021, the CDC still maintained there was limited data surrounding the safety of COVID vaccines for women who were pregnant or breastfeeding. The agency advised women who were pregnant or breastfeeding to consult with their physician before getting vaccinated.
But were obstetricians made aware of the potential safety signals appearing in animal models?
And how were physicians able to decide whether or not a COVID vaccine was appropriate for their pregnant patients if the CDC wasn’t offering any guidance at that time?
CDC’s latest study: a closer look at the details
Using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink — a CDC vaccine safety monitoring system the public cannot access — the CDC study identified 46,079 pregnant women with live births and gestational age.
Of those, 10,064 (21.8%) received ≥1 COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy from Dec. 15, 2020, to July 22, 2021.
Nearly all (9,892, or 98.3%) of the pregnant women included in the study were vaccinated during the second or third trimester.
The authors found that among unvaccinated women, the rate of premature births was 7% compared to 4.9% in those who had received either one or both vaccine doses.
The rate of small-for-gestational-age in both vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers was equal (8.2%).
The authors thus conclude that “… receipt of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or SGA at birth.”
5 flaws in the CDC analysis
On closer examination, we identified the following five deficits in the CDC study:
- Cohorts were not well matched. There were greater than three times more African American women in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated group. The CDC acknowledges the African American race is a risk factor for preterm birth and may be as high as 50% greater than in white women.
There were also greater than 50% more mothers in the unvaccinated group classified as having inadequate prenatal care. Obesity, also a risk for preterm birth, was also overrepresented in the unvaccinated group (29% vs 23.9%) compared to the vaccinated.
- No adjustment for mothers with a history of preterm birth of SGA. The authors did not address this potential confounder.
- COVID infection, another potentially important confounder, was present in the unvaccinated group at a 25% greater incidence than in the vaccinated cohort (3.5% vs 2.8%). There was no mention of when in the pregnancy the infection was detected. Viral infections early in pregnancy are particularly deleterious to the developing fetus. This should have been an important risk factor to quantify independently, especially when establishing a risk-versus-benefit ratio of vaccination.
- The CDC data indicate a 7.7% risk of preterm birth in mothers having received one of two vaccines. This represents a 10% greater risk than in unvaccinated pregnancies. This increased risk is not mentioned in the discussion. Moreover, the adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) in this population is given as 0.78, indicating a 22% risk reduction in preterm birth in vaccinated mothers, seemingly conflicting with the raw data. (A request for clarification from the corresponding author was not answered).
- The most glaring deficit in the CDC analysis is the scarcity of vaccinated mothers who received a vaccine in the first trimester in this study. The risk of untoward outcomes (birth defects, miscarriages) in pregnancy is greatest during the first third of pregnancy, a time when crucial embryonic structures are developing. This is the period of time where maternal health is particularly important, and exposure to toxins, infections and certain medicines must be minimized or eliminated entirely if possible.
Only 172 of more than 10,000 (1.7%) vaccinated mothers in the study received a vaccine in the first trimester. The incidence of preterm birth and SGA were not mentioned in this small cohort because of limited numbers.
Nonetheless, the authors arrive at the stunning conclusion: “CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future (4) to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19–associated outcomes.”
CDC not required to provide access to its data or subject its analysis to peer review
The Vaccine Safety Datalink uses data reported from nine large healthcare organizations, serving only 3% of the U.S. population. The system collects electronic health data from each participating site.
This database is accessible only to researchers outside the CDC and only by request. Requests may be accommodated after a research proposal is submitted and approved by the Research Data Center of the National Center for Health Statistics.
CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports can, as in the case of the agency’s analysis of COVID vaccine safety in pregnant women, be based on data that is not necessarily publicly available.
The agency’s analyses are not subject to peer review. Nevertheless, the reports are often widely cited as the official scientific position.
Conclusions
The CDC’s determination that COVID vaccination is safe in pregnant women is unfounded.
Cohorts were poorly matched. There was an inexcusably low representation of women who were vaccinated early in their pregnancy in their analysis. This is a period where any exposure to medical interventions will have a greater potential for risk to the fetus.
Broadly recommending vaccination for all pregnant women including those who are trying to become pregnant is particularly unwarranted.
This report places the CDC’s purported commitment to its mission of disease control and prevention on full display. The agency’s conclusions arrive more than a full year after the CDC authorized COVID vaccinations and are based on retrospective data alone.
In other words, the CDC is willing (and apparently allowed) to make safety determinations only after the experimental vaccines have been widely and indiscriminately deployed.
This is a shocking departure from the higher standards of prudence that are demanded during pregnancy, a time where two lives are potentially at risk and poor outcomes can lead to a lifetime of potential consequences.
It should be noted that several of the authors of this study reported potential conflicts of interest.
One author reported institutional research funding from Pfizer, and another from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. A third author has a career grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
Jennifer Smith, Ph.D. holds a doctoral degree in mIcrobiology and molecular cell sciences.
© 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.
January 26, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 