By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 22, 2022
Dr. Robert Malone, an expert in mRNA technology and a vocal Covid vaccines critic who has been consistently censored by Big Tech, is suing the Washington Post for defamation. The lawsuit alleges that the news outlet made defamatory statements against him in an article published on January 24.
The article claimed that Dr. Malone spread “misinformation” in a speech where he said the vaccines “are not working” against the Omicron variant. As evidence the statement was false, the Post cited a paper by the CDC that found that booster shots were protecting people against severe disease.
The Post omitted the part where Dr. Malone said that vaccines, “do not prevent Omicron infection, viral replication, or spread to others.”
Speaking to The Epoch Times, Dr. Malone said: “I said nothing about disease and death at that point in time.” He went on to accuse the Post of selective misquoting and using the CDC study to counter a claim he never made.
The Epoch Times obtained an interview between the article’s writer, Timothy Bella and Dr. Malone, before the article was written. Bella told Dr. Malone, “I have respect for you and your body of work,” and that he was hoping to shadow the doctor during his stay in DC where he gave a speech at a protest against Covid mandates.
Malone initially sent a notice to the Post threatening legal action if the article was not removed or the defamatory statements retracted. When the outlet refused, he filed a lawsuit at a federal court in Virginia.
According to the lawsuit, the article made 10 defamatory statements against Dr. Malone, including that he has been “discredited,” his claims are “not only wrong, but also dangerous,” and that he “repeated falsehoods that have garnered him legions of followers.”
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
“The qualities WaPo disparaged—Dr. Malone’s honesty, veracity, integrity, competence, judgment, morals, and ethics as a licensed medical doctor and scientist—are peculiarly valuable to Dr. Malone and are absolutely necessary in the practice and profession of any medical doctor and scientist. WaPo ascribes to Dr. Malone conduct, characteristics, and conditions, including fraud, disinformation, misinformation, deception, and dishonesty, that would adversely affect his fitness to be a medical professional and to conduct the business of a medical doctor,” the suit states.
“Dr. Malone’s statements concerning COVID-19 and the purported ‘vaccines’ were 100% factually accurate. He has never committed fraud on [sic] engaged in any medical disinformation or misinformation. Further, the so-called ‘vaccines’ do not work, as is abundantly clear from both the scientific and anecdotal evidence to date,” it also says.
Dr. Malone is also currently involved in a lawsuit against Twitter over its censorship.
By Keean Bexte – The Counter Signal – August 22, 2022
Western University has joined University of Toronto in mandating the vaccine booster for nearly all of its students.
“As of October 1, 2022, all members of our community (Western, Brescia, Huron and King’s) are required to provide proof of vaccination of the primary series plus a booster shot (generally, three doses total) of any combination of COVID-19 vaccines recognized by Health Canada,” a COVID policy update published on August 22 reads.
According to Western University’s vaccine FAQ page, the policy applies to all students, faculty, staff, and some visitors.
Moreover, even if most of a student’s classes are online, the student must still comply with the vaccine booster mandate if any aspect of their course has an in-person component.
“Only those students and employees granted a medical or Ontario Human Rights Code accommodation will be exempted from the vaccination requirement, and those with exemptions are required to participate in regular, rapid antigen testing in order to be physically on campus this fall,” writes Western University.
The university has not stated the consequence for not complying with its policy, but de-enrollment for non-compliance is likely on the table.
Additionally, as of September 1, Western University is bringing back its mask mandate for classes, labs, and seminar rooms. However, masks will not be required when students present, perform, facilitate, or speak to a group. The university will also not require masks for those living in residence or those in offices, cubicles, libraries, or dining areas.
Why the university only wants to make students suffer in classrooms is unclear.
With only two weeks before classes start, many unvaccinated students are undoubtedly scrambling to figure out what they will do. Moreover, speaking with True North, several students say that despite the change on the website, they received no formal notice of the change in vaccination policy.
The university says that those who’ve received two doses will still be able to attend university so long as they receive a booster dose within 14 days of being eligible.
However, given the fact that recipients need to wait for a recommended eight weeks between the first and second dose, it’s impossible for students who haven’t received a single dose to reach the level of vaccination required for attendance, regardless if they’ve already paid their tuition.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 20, 2022
The US judicial system has dismissed yet another lawsuit filed by censored users of Big Tech’s social media platforms, who allege First Amendment free speech violations.
This time it was the US District Court for the Northern District of California that granted a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Facebook (Meta). The plaintiff in this case, Richard Rogalinski, sued on First Amendment grounds after a number of his posts about Covid got censored on Facebook.
We obtained a copy of the decision for you here.
One of the posts expressed Rogalinski’s skepticism about the efficacy of masks, saying that he has not seen scientific evidence of their usefulness, but instead, “just talking heads who want to spread fear and control you.”
To this, Facebook’s “fact-checkers” reacted by adding a warning label claiming the post was “missing context.” The same warning was slapped on a post that saw the plaintiff criticize the Covid vaccine rollout.
Finally, a screenshot of a tweet posted by a doctor who promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine got labeled as “false information” by Facebook and removed.
Originally, the Florida resident filed a class action lawsuit in that state, but Facebook moved to either dismiss or transfer it, after which the judge transferred it to California.
In an attempt to fight against the usual defense that massive tech corporations have when censoring content and users – that they are private operations that have the right to do that, while the First Amendment applies only to state actors – Rogalinski mentioned statements made by former White House press secretary Jen Psaki.
In July 2021 – and the California judge noted in the ruling that this happened “after Meta took action against Rogalinski’s posts” – Psaki told a press conference that the Biden administration is “in regular touch” with major social media platforms, and actively flagging content posted on Facebook that the government thinks are “problematic” on misinformation grounds.
Rogalinski argued that the state “chose the targets and content of the statements that it deemed worthy of the defendant’s censorship” which then resulted in censorship by Facebook.
The plaintiff further accused the government and Meta of communicating directly and specifically about the censorship actions and engaging in the act together by sharing responsibility for the two-step process of censorship.
However, the court disagreed, citing several similar cases, including O’Handley v. Padilla, where the ruling reads that the government “can work with a private entity without converting that entity’s later decisions into state action.”
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 19, 2022
The latest figures from the UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggest that the knock-on effects of lockdown may be harming more people than “Covid” ever did, or so the press are saying anyway.
The ONS’s weekly data apparently shows over 10,000 more reported deaths than expected.
Since none of these excess deaths has been “linked with Covid”, the press is calling them the “true cost of lockdown”, with some papers suggesting lockdown is “killing more people than Covid”.
To which the only proper response is: “No shit.”
Even for those who still cling to the orthodoxy that “Covid” actually exists, the fact lockdown was going to do more damage than it prevented was obvious from the moment early mortality studies showed “Covid” had a 99.5% survival rate, back in the spring of 2020.
Many experts in economics, statistics, epidemiology and virology voiced this opinion, and were vilified and abused for their trouble.
And, really, anyone with the smallest shred of common sense could figure it out for themselves. Shutting down the health service and crashing the economy is never going to end well (unless you want to kill people, then it’s a great plan).
Even Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”
So the question is not “Is lockdown worse than Covid?” The answer to that is “yes”, and we’ve known that for over two years.
The real question is: why are they finally admitting it?
It’s not just this week’s excess deaths either. Elsewhere the media is concerned about the mental health impacts of lockdowns, delays in cancer treatments, the “lockdown drinking”, the impact on children missing school, teenagers self-harming and so and so on.
Professor Karol Sikora – one of those vilified experts I mentioned earlier – has even been given space in the Telegraph to write a 2000 word “I told you so”.
Why?
Perhaps the answer to that lies not in what they’re talking about, but in what they are most pointedly not talking about.
The excess deaths are being very definitely laid at the feet of lockdowns, not the experimental “vaccines”.
Now, were the deaths really caused by the lockdown? Or by the “vaccines”? Or a mix of both? We don’t know, and can likely never know.
At this point our collective trust in institutions and official figures should be low enough to question if there were any excess deaths. Maybe they just made them up. They do that.
Regardless of the truth of it, the narrative is certainly shifting to highlight “the true cost of lockdowns”.
This could be about disguising the harm done by untested vaccines, admitting to potentially deleterious effects of lockdown to spare Pfizer’s blushes.
There’s a lot more invested in the vaccines than the lockdown – in every sense of the word – and if something has to be blamed it makes sense they would much rather it be lockdowns than jabs.
That’s a decent explanation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more to it.
This narrative could be about setting up the public for the next “covid” wave or some new “pandemic”.
Consider how quickly the “true cost of lockdown” story could be parlayed into a new mainstream consensus that “Lockdown was so damaging, we must do whatever it takes to avoid another“.
Then consider how “Whatever it takes” could take the form of quarantine camps for the unvaccinated, vaccines mandates, enforced testing and surveillance…or whatever the hell else they want.
Video link
By Dr. Mercola | August 18, 2022
In July 2021, The New York Times (NYT) published the hit piece,1 “The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online,” in which they made several blatantly false claims about me. Now, the NYT is upping the ante with an entire documentary dedicated to yours truly, titled “Superspreader.”
Ever since my book “The Truth About COVID-19” came out, the global cabal seems to have lost their collective minds. The New York Times has printed demonstrably false information about me on multiple occasions, CNN reporters have invaded my office and pursued me on my bicycle with unmarked vehicles, the president of the United States has utilized his federal agencies to target me — and my personal and business bank accounts were closed.
Twitter has banned anyone from sharing any link to my website, YouTube banned my account with over 15 years of content, while Facebook and Google have done everything possible to make me disappear. It certainly would be much easier to cave under the pressure, but if we don’t stand up for our rights and freedom now — when will it be too late? I will continue ‘superspreading’ truth and health until my last days.
NYT Hit Parade Continues With ‘Superspreader’
In an August 5, 2022, TV review, Alex Reif writes:2
“News can spread like a virus. In our fast-paced world, it doesn’t take long for either to spread around, which is why it’s so important to get your information from a good source.
In the latest installment of the FX series The New York Times Presents, viewers will get a perfect example of this with ‘Superspreader,’ which takes a look at one doctor with a massive following, who is credited as being the top spreader of misinformation regarding the COVID-19 and vaccine in the wellness industry …
One of the pre-credit notes at the end of the documentary states that FDA Commissioner Robert Califf considers misinformation to be the leading cause of death in the country and because of this …
[A]nother highlight of the film is an interview with Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Encountering Digital Hate who ranked Mercola at the top of ‘The Disinformation Dozen,’ a numbers-based list of the twelve most influential people leading the COVID-19 anti-vaccination effort.
We also see how Mercola was de-platformed by several social media companies and how that hasn’t done all that much to stop the spread of misinformation.
At face value, The New York Times Presents ‘Superspreader’ is about Dr. Joseph Mercola, the empire he built, and the people who believe everything he says without question. But what viewers ultimately walk away with is a reminder that if something seems too good to be true, it most surely is.”
The NYT documentary premieres Friday, August 19, 2022, at 10 p.m. Eastern and 10 p.m. Pacific time, on FX and Hulu.
Truth Tellers Are Being Vindicated Every Day
In the NYT’s July 2021 hit piece, the author, Sheera Frenkel, cited an article I’d published in which she says I questioned “the legal definition of vaccines” and declared the COVID shots were “a medical fraud,” for the simple reason that they don’t prevent infections, they don’t provide immunity and don’t stop transmission of the infection.
According to Frenkel, that was misinformation. According to the U.S. government and its “experts,” the COVID jabs worked like any other vaccine. Check out the short video for a sampling of what Bill Gates, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mainstream media, Dr. Anthony Fauci and President Biden were saying about the shots in early 2021.
The clear message — the promise — was that if you got the shots, you would not get COVID and you would not transmit it to others. Getting the population “vaccinated” would end the pandemic, for sure. Fast-forward to today, and the reality of the situation is beyond self-evident.
Biden, fully vaxxed and boosted has had COVID twice. Ditto for Fauci and a long list of government officials around the world. Outbreaks have repeatedly occurred at events where every single person present was fully vaxxed. So, the reality is that, back in February 2021, I warned that a medical fraud was being committed, and today, evidence from around the world show I was correct.
The shots do not prevent you from being infected, and they don’t prevent you from spreading it to others. As such, the COVID shots do not function as a vaccine at all, and mass vaccination cannot end the pandemic because you’re just as infectious if you get the shot and contract COVID as you would be if you were unjabbed.
Yet, despite the fact that time has vindicated me, the NYT has decided to double down and put out an entire documentary to cement the “superspreader of misinformation” label to my name when it really should be permanently attached to their own. It probably is important to note that they started their efforts on this video last year, in 2021.
‘Easily Disprovable’ Assertions Are in Fact True
In her 2021 hit piece, Frenkel also highlighted my comments about the COVID shots’ ability to “alter your genetic coding, essentially turning you into a bioweapon spike protein factory that has no off-switch.” According to Frenkel, these assertions “were easily disprovable.”
But did she disprove them? No. Here’s the reality: mRNA vaccines are by definition a genetic instruction set. That’s what messenger RNA (mRNA) is. And the mRNA created by Pfizer or Moderna are synthetic instructions that have never before existed in humans.
This is true for a variety of reasons, but the primary one is the substitution of pseudouridine for uridine to prevent the mRNA from being degraded. Natural mRNA is normally rapidly destroyed and this is by design as your body is very precise about producing proteins and does not produce them willy-nilly.
So is there an off switch? Absolutely not. There’s no off-switch programmed into these jabs. They are relying on your body’s normal degradation systems. The biotech industry has even referred to this reprogramming of your body as turning you into a “human bioreactor.”3
If an off-switch existed, the manufacturers would have assured us of that fact by now. In fact, they probably would have used the existence of a timed off-switch as the justification for boosters, but that has never come up. We know for sure that the mRNA jabs last at least 60 days and that is all we have for hard data. They more than likely last for six months and in some cases could last for years.
Asking Pointed, Nuanced Questions Is Bad?
Next, Frenkel went on to state that:4
“When the coronavirus hit last year, Dr. Mercola jumped on the news, with posts questioning the origins of the disease. In December, he used a study that examined mask-wearing by doctors to argue that masks did not stop the spread of the virus …
[R]ather than directly stating online that vaccines don’t work, Dr. Mercola’s posts often ask pointed questions about their safety and discuss studies that other doctors have refuted. Facebook and Twitter have allowed some of his posts to remain up with caution labels, and the companies have struggled to create rules to pull down posts that have nuance …”
So, I not only committed the “sin” of correctly warning people about the vaccine fraud committed, and had the audacity to follow science and reference published research, but I was also guilty of the “crime” of asking pointed, nuanced questions?
When merely asking questions is deemed a dangerous, if not criminal, act, you know you’re living under an authoritarian regime. It’s certainly far outside the accepted norms of “democracy” and “freedom” that the United States has been a beacon of since its inception.
Ineptitude at Its Finest
Further on in her hit piece, Frenkel makes a truly crucial error that no respectable journalist would ever dare make:
“In an email, Dr. Mercola said it was ‘quite peculiar to me that I am named as the #1 superspreader of misinformation.’ Some of his Facebook posts were only liked by hundreds of people, he said, so he didn’t understand ‘how the relatively small number of shares could possibly cause such calamity to Biden’s multibillion dollar vaccination campaign.’
The efforts against him are political, Dr. Mercola added, and he accused the White House of ‘illegal censorship by colluding with social media companies.’ He did not address whether his coronavirus claims were factual.
‘I am the lead author of a peer reviewed publication regarding vitamin D and the risk of COVID-19 and I have every right to inform the public by sharing my medical research,’ he said. He did not identify the publication, and The Times was unable to verify his claim.”
The problem with Frenkel’s assertion is that I did identify the publication. In fact, I emailed her the direct link. So, she lied. Secondly, my paper is beyond easy to locate. Just put my name into PubMed and you’ll find it. Believe it or not, you can even find it using the most biased search engine on earth, Google.
Daniel Engber, senior editor at the typically highly progressive mainstream media outlet, The Atlantic, commented on Frenkel’s clear ineptitude or malicious prevarication in a tweet:5
“A truly bizarre moment in the NYT piece on Joseph Mercola … you can literally verify the existence of this peer-reviewed publication in one second via googling. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33142828/“
Legal Notice Sent to NYT
July 26, 2021, my attorneys sent the following legal notice to Frenkel at the NYT, demanding a retraction of her false statements:6
“Dear Ms. Frenkel,
The undersigned law firm represents Dr. Joseph Mercola in connection with the attached article that was widely published on July 24, 2021. We are providing notice that you have made several false and defamatory statements in this article:
1.You identified that you could not validate that Dr. Mercola published a peer reviewed study on Vitamin D in the severity of COVID-19. Dr. Mercola provided the direct link in response to you (attached) and any journalist or fact checker would simply find the study by searching “Mercola” in PubMed.
2.Your article falsely states Dr. Mercola has been fined “millions” by the FDA. This is completely fabricated, Dr. Mercola has never been fined by the FDA.
… On behalf of Dr. Mercola, we hereby demand you immediately retract the article. We also request that you preserve all communications and documents that relate to Dr. Mercola.”
Where’s the Proof That I Am the ‘No. 1’ Misinformant?
To this day, the NYT insists I’m the No.1 spreader of misinformation online, based on the fabrications of a group called Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a “foreign dark money group,” to quote Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley,7 which sprang out of nowhere to create lists of people to be censored into oblivion.
The CCDH’s data gathering is so questionable, even ultra-biased Facebook ended up publicly criticizing it. In an August 18, 2021, Facebook report, Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, set the record straight:8
“In recent weeks, there has been a debate about whether the global problem of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can be solved simply by removing 12 people from social media platforms. People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn’t any evidence to support this claim …
In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.”
At the time that Frenkel made her accusations, a Crowdtangle search for Facebook posts about the COVID jabs, from mid-June to mid-July 2021, also confirmed that my online reach was negligible. Topping the list of top performing Facebook posts expressing negative views about the COVID jabs was Candace Owens, followed by the mainstream news outlet ABC World News Tonight.9
The befuddling reality here is that most of the people identified as “top spreaders of misinformation” actually have negligible reach — at least compared to the people on this Crowdtangle list. None of the CCDH’s “top vaccine misinformants” are on the list above, and our reach certainly has not improved or expanded since then.
If You’re Targeted, You’re On-Target
This naturally raises the question, why were we targeted in the first place? Is it because we have high credibility from being one of the first natural health sites on the web with the most followers? Is it because we’ve spent a quarter of a century gaining people’s trust by mostly being correct about the health care system and criminal Big Pharma behavior?
Is it because we, more than others, have well-established credibility and are directly over the target? Is it because we have the experience and know-how to make accurate predictions? Is it because we see and explain the bigger picture?
Or is it some other reason entirely? It’s a mystery, really, but what is clear is that we’ve been deemed a threat to the official propaganda narrative, and I, for whatever reason, am at the very top of that threat identification list. Well, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: I’m beyond truly honored to have been widely disparaged by one of the arms of the U.S. military and intelligence operations.
Being targeted in this fashion — tedious as it may be — is in fact a badge of honor. It tells me I’m doing the right thing, and that I’ve not misinterpreted the intentions behind the COVID machinations. More so than any intuition, it tells me I’m on target.
In the bright light of undeniable reality — as it is, a year later — it’s clear that Frenkel’s hit piece has not aged well. I doubt the NYT’s “Superspreader” documentary will fare much better. In the final analysis, if you want any hope of controlling your health, and that of your family, you’d be wise to understand legacy media speaks in Orwellian Doublespeak and reality is the opposite of virtually everything they are telling you.
Sources and References
Thai data shows alarming signal
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | August 18, 2022
HART recently published an article summarising the results of a study performed in the US military which found that nearly 3% of those vaccinated with smallpox vaccine developed subclinical myocarditis (defined by an increased troponin level – which was prospectively measured in all subjects).
It should be emphasised that no “safe” level of increased troponin has been identified. Any increase is a potential cause for concern in any age group, let alone young people.
In that article, we expressed alarm that – given the worrying data regarding myocarditis and Covid mRNA vaccination – a simple prospective before and after study of troponin levels had never been performed in any age group.
It turns out that we weren’t the only people suggesting such a study needs performing. The FDA thought so too.
As Vinay Prasad writes – apparently the FDA made it a condition of the Emergency Authorisation.
The agreed dates for such a study are frankly bizarre, given how simple and quick such a study would be to perform and how many billions of doses of this product have / are being injected into people of all ages, with no (official) abatement in enthusiasm yet apparent.
However, such a study has in fact now been performed. Not by any investigators in the wealthy Western world, for whom carrying out such an exercise would have been like a proverbial “cake-walk”.
No, instead we have had to rely on a publication out of Thailand, which can be found here. In this study, they measured troponin levels in ~300 teenagers aged 13 to 18 in 2 schools, both before and after their second dose of Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
A lot has now been written about this study already, and we will therefore refer you to the best summaries published to date, which are those from Vinay Prasad and Brian Mowery although the former analysis is, in our opinion, far too muted given the gravity of the situation.
The bottom line is that troponin elevation or cardiac symptoms indicative of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified in 7 (3.5%) of 200 boys, 5 of whom (2.5%) had elevated troponin levels.
(Troponin is a substance released from heart cells which is indicative of damage to heart muscle cells, which have no repair mechanism. Testing for its presence is commonly performed when patients present with chest pain suggestive of a possible heart attack.)
There was a zero signal (for either symptoms or raised troponin) in girls.
John Campbell – who has around 2.5m followers and had previously been extremely enthusiastic about the mRNA covid vaccines – appears visibly shocked by this data in his video covering it.
He points out that anyone with a raised troponin level would ordinarily be ordered to rest due to the association between myocardial damage and fatal arrhythmia on exertion. The implication must surely be that the administration of these agents to children and young people must cease, since the notion that all will routinely be troponin-tested is clearly ridiculous.
Worse still: this 2.5% (which is bad enough) only represents the cases where the troponin levels exceeded a specific threshold of 13 pc/mg. The authors have not provided the raw data and it is perfectly possible that there were many more boys (and possibly girls) in whom some clinically relevant elevated troponin might have been evident but not to this level.
It is to be noted that as described here the cut-off of 13 pc/ml (based on the 99th percentile for a normal reference population) appears to relate to the use of troponin levels to determine a differential diagnosis of chest pain when a myocardial infarction (“heart attack”) is suspected – ie to answer the typical question facing ER doctors (and one which is not as easy to answer merely based on symptoms as many might imagine): “has there been cardiac involvement, or is this just indigestion?”
Because of the mechanism of a typical heart attack (blockage of an artery) you’d actually expect a heterogeneous response – either an amount of heart muscle has been damaged sufficient to result in high troponin elevation, or not (resulting in no elevation). Hence the use of a certain cut-off can reasonably reliably rule out an incident such as heart attack.
However, with myocarditis, we should surely be concerned with identifying any myocardial damage at all, not screening for MI as a differential diagnosis. In this context, a completely safe level is unknown. It may be that any elevation means there has been myocardial damage. Depending on where this is, it may be associated with an increased chance of suffering a fatal arrhythmia.
We don’t know the answers to these questions. Given where we are, that’s alarming.
In the absence of comorbidities, young people were never at risk from covid and certainly are not at risk from omicron. Most have been infected and have natural immunity. The mass administration of these agents to the young was always completely unjustifiable; this latest data brings the decision to continue with this program into the more serious realm of malfeasance.
Accepting an injection of spike protein hoping it is safe or effective is absurd. Yet, many are again forced to make a decision threatening their health and ability to support their family.
By Pierre Kory, MD, MPA | August 17, 2022
A subscriber asked me to write a post about my thoughts on Novavax because she “really trusts my judgement.” Flattered, I felt like I should share what they are. So here goes.
Before any medical intervention, but especially in the case of a novel or barely tested one, a long standing practice of medical ethics is that informed consent must be obtained. The emphasis should be on the informed part and not the consent part. Note that informed consent has been one of the foundations of medical ethics, essentially an inviolable standard, or at least it used to be before this “emergency” came along where now you have pharmacists injecting children with barely a mention of the risks, “because they might be too scared to take the shot.”
Informed consent discussions are simple in structure but often complex and time-consuming to conduct. It relies on providing the patient with as detailed and comprehensive a knowledge of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the intervention.
So, should we go through an informed consent discussion with the novel Novavax injection? Actually, I would not. Why? Because I don’t hold informed consent discussions for interventions I do not recommend or would not want my patient to consider. I instead tell them not to consider and give them my reasons for that recommendation. Thus, I only conduct informed consent discussion for interventions that I feel would bring about greater benefits than risks (generally much greater), and I would only do so for patients with active illness in order to get them better. A vaccine is a much different proposition as they are given to patients without disease.
Why would I not even consider Novavax as a reasonable option? Simple:
So, conceptually, I think the idea of getting any coronavirus vaccine at this point is preposterous. However, let’s try to do a more traditional informed consent using the structure of risks/benefits/alternatives. The following is what I think other providers (or pharmacists egads) should be telling people prior to offering them Novavax, or more accurately, in order to get them to avoid it.
Yes, Novavax is a “non-mRNA” vaccine and is designed more along the line of a traditional vaccine in that an amount of viral protein is injected into the arm, it is then recognized as a “foreign” protein by our immune system which then makes antibodies against it. These antibodies are then thought (“hoped” remember) to help clear the virus rapidly and efficiently after exposure such that we avoid illness. Sounds good on paper. Not. Just ask Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the worlds top immunologists and vaccine experts.
RISKS
Novavax delivers the spike protein. As a self-described clinical expert in spike-protein induced disease, the spike protein is a pathogen. A pathogen is a substance or organism that is capable of inducing illness. Note that I call myself an expert because there are very few of us out here studying it’s pathogenicity, however I would argue Professor Paul Marik has taken the lead across the globe in amassing all the basic science and clinical research underlying the knowledge of the mechanisms and treatments of spike-protein induced diseases. That scholarly document is in evolution, and has over 300 scientific references at this point, with rapid evolutions and additions each week. Note that it appears to be the world’s sole “comprehensive” scholarly work on spike protein pathogenicity and empirically proposed treatments.
Another great sadness about the US COVID response is that almost the entire health system and all of academia have yet to recognize the spike as a pathogen or formulate any approach to treating Long-Haul or Post-Vaccine Injury. Until they do, they will continue to fail to recognize the causes or mechanisms of these syndromes as well as to offer effective treatments. And, it goes without saying, they will not be able to discuss this in thier ill-informed consent discussions. Their deplorable failure at treating these disabling diseases is astounding and will continue for the foreseeable future. Remember, the system docs won’t treat because they are all members of the Church of RCT Fundamentalism (a.k.a “evidence based medicine.”) You know, where they will sit there paralyzed until some massive randomized controlled trial is published in a high-impact medical journal and then is recommended by a federal agency or national medical society. You know what that system produces by now if you read my Substack. Not only will it leave patients untreated for months to years, but while the docs sit around waiting, Pharma, via the agencies and media, will suppress or attack any generic medicines or supplements that front-line doctors and patients have found effective. They will do this with ferocity and depravity until such a time they can “save the day” with the massive promotion of a novel, pricey Big Pharma pill which they will get our government to pay for at a price they set. Think about what happened to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine until Pharma saved the day with the pathetic and poisonous Paxlovid using our government coffers. Rinse repeat here.
The two major and complex diseases unleashed by the spike are what we call “long haul” and “post-vaccine injury” syndromes. I probably should differentiate post-vaccine into two subtypes, with one being an acute, sudden death syndrome caused by massive heart attacks, myocarditis (which can cause lethal arrhythmias or pump failure), and/or massive strokes. Excess mortality amongst the vaccinated in 2021 skyrocketed and is showing up in Life Insurance industry data in both the U.S and other countries. However I don’t see those events in my practice because they are sudden deaths occurring in asymptomatic patients (who are often swimming or running or doing something else fun until they suddenly drop dead). My practice instead sees patients who suffer with the more chronic subtype consisting of myriad, disabling symptoms across multiple organ systems. Now, whether there is enough spike in Novavax to produce similar deadly events or chronic syndromes in the future, who knows. More on that below.
SHORT TERM RISK DATA
Not looking good here folks. Let’s take a look at the actual published trial of Novavax, and their chart detailing the “side effects.” Then let’s compare it to Pfizers mRNA “vaccine” trial published in December 2020. Look carefully. I will interpret these charts below.
Here is how I interpret the data:
Conversely, a dose-response in terms of side effects is a pillar of the measure of toxicity. The more you give, the sicker you get. Not cool. Now take a look at Pfizers published chart above, keeping in mind, these are only the short term systemic side effects.
LONG TERM SIDE EFFECTS. Unknown. Remember the famous, “I guess we will just have to give it to see how safe it is” by one of the nations top vaccine experts. I swear, again, and I say this often, you just cannot make this stuff up. So, an informed consent discussion should relate that long term side effects are unknown. Remember as well, we are not in a supposed “emergency” anymore, despite the fact our government keeps renewing its emergency powers. If the person conducting this discussion tries to argue that in terms of long term effects, it is safe and effective because the mRNA vaccines were safe and effective, that is so categorically ridiculous it does not even bare addressing. Again, read my “Vaccine Exemption Letter” post for the data on toxicity and lethality of those vaccines. Do not proceed. My caution would be that spike protein is a pathogen with sequences that we know generate antibodies that then are capable of attacking many tissues (what are called autoantibodies which cause a category of diseases called “auto-immune” diseases). Also, spike protein, when broken down by the body is known to generate amyloid like fragments which are highly thrombogenic (i.e. cause clotting). Spike protein also stimulates immune cells called monocytes and macrophages which disturb numerous organ functions. Spike protein is also toxic to mitochondria which are the energy producing parts of each cell. In summary, don’t sign up for any more spike protein than is already circulating in the world.
Also, Novavax, like the mRNA vaccines uses “nanoparticles” in a “saponin-based adjuvant” solution which is novel and proprietary, patented only in 2020. Well, thats reassuring no? Their published paper states that the adjuvant and the vaccine was found to be “safe and immunogenic” in Phase 1 and 2 trials. Then I found this in the supplementary appendix from one of the earlier trials, ”the mechanism of Matrix-M1 (the adjuvant) is not well defined, but it has been associated with a potent induction of leukocyte activation and migration into the draining lymph nodes in their previous study.” Not reassuring.
EFFICACY
Unknown, but likely ineffective as it has not been tested against Omicron, or any of its sub-variants or whatever future variant will be circulating when it rolls out. Plus, as we know now, all the predicted efficacy reported from COVID-19 vaccine trials were never observed in the real-world, again likely due to trial shenanigans and data manipulations and removal and/or miscategorization of those who fell ill during the trial or simply due to the fact the virus is rapidly mutating. Even if it were effective, we know from the past two years, it would be short lived. I again have to mention natural immunity. It already protects against severe disease and reasonably well from re-infection, and there is no credible data to suggest adding an even older spike protein vaccine using a newly patented adjuvant will better protect you or make you healthier.
ALTERNATIVES TO VACCINATION
For readers of my Substack, you all know that you can always just skip the vaccine and instead just rely on early treatment which has been shown to be near perfectly effective in achieving rapid recovery and avoidance of hospitalization and death, especially when given in synergistic combinations like the FLCCC’s or the AAPS’s protocols. In fact, as you know, no vaccine would ever get an EUA or approval if effective treatments were available. Further, there are now over three dozen effective treatments supported by controlled trials, with many of them repurposed and/or over the counter. I suppose you could also just rely on Paxlovid given its demonstration of such incredible efficacy in treating President Biden and Dr. Fauci.
Hope this helps.
P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.
P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for:
BY WHITNEY WEBB |
UNLIMITED HANGOUT| AUGUST 17, 2022
Since late last year, messenger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, including its recently reformulated Omicron booster, has been exclusively manufactured by a little known company with significant ties to US intelligence.
Earlier this week, the United Kingdom became the first country to approve Moderna’s reformulated version of its COVID-19 vaccine, which claims to provide protection against both the original form of the virus and the significantly less lethal but more transmissible Omicron variant. The product was approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) with the support of the UK government’s Commission on Human Medicines.
Described by UK officials as a “sharpened tool” in the nation’s continued vaccination campaign, the reformulated vaccine combines the previously approved COVID-19 vaccine with a “vaccine candidate” targeting the Omicron variant BA.1. That vaccine candidate has never been previously approved and has not been the subject of independent study. The MHRA approved the vaccine based on a single, incomplete human trial currently being conducted by Moderna. The company promoted incomplete data from that trial in company press releases in June and July. The study has yet to be published in a medical journal or peer reviewed. No concerns have been raised by any regulatory agency, including the MHRA, regarding Moderna’s past history of engaging in suspect and likely illegal activity in past product trials, including for its original COVID-19 vaccine.
The approval comes shortly before several Western countries, including the UK, plan to conduct a massive COVID-19 booster vaccination campaign this fall. Moderna has also noted that approval for its Omicron booster vaccine are pending in the US, EU, Australia and Canada – all of which are also planning fall vaccination campaigns focused on COVID-19. The company’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, has called the reformulated vaccine “our lead candidate for a Fall 2022 booster.”
However, unlike the company’s original COVID-19 vaccine, the genetic material, or messenger RNA (mRNA), for this new vaccine, including the newly formulated genetic material meant to provide protection against the Omicron variant, is being manufactured, not by Moderna, but by a relatively new company that has received hardly any media attention, despite its overt links to US intelligence. Last September, it was quietly announced that a company called National Resilience (often referred to simply as Resilience) would begin manufacturing the mRNA for Moderna COVID-19 vaccine products. Under the terms of the multi-year agreement, “Resilience will produce mRNA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at its facility in Mississauga, Ontario, for distribution worldwide.”
“Reinventing Biomanufacturing”
National Resilience was founded relatively recently, in November 2020, and describes itself as “a manufacturing and technology company dedicated to broadening access to complex medicines and protecting biopharmaceutical supply chains against disruption.” It has since been building “a sustainable network of high-tech, end-to-end manufacturing solutions with the aim to ensure the medicines of today and tomorrow can be made quickly, safely, and at scale.” It further plans to “reinvent biomanufacturing” and “democratize access to medicines,” namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other “medicines of tomorrow.”
In pursuit of those goals, the company announced it would “actively invest in developing powerful new technologies to manufacture complex medicines that are defining the future of therapeutics, including cell and gene therapies, viral vectors, vaccines, and proteins.” It was founded with the reported intention “to build a better system for manufacturing complex medicines to fight deadly diseases” as a way to improve post-COVID “pandemic preparedness.”
The company initially marketed its manufacturing capabilities as “the Resilience platform”, and offers principally “RNA Modalities”, including RNA development for vaccines, gene editing and therapeutics; and “Virus Production”, including viral vectors, oncolytic viruses (i.e. a virus engineered to preferentially attack cancer cells), viruses for use in vaccine development and gene-edited viruses for unspecified purposes. It is worth noting that, to date, many controversial “gain-of-function” experiments have justified modifying viruses for the same purposes as described by National Resilience’s Virus Production capabilities. In addition, National Resilience offers product formulations and other modalities, such as biologics and cell therapies, to its clientele and the “Virus Production” of its website has since been removed.
National Resilience, being such a young company, has very few clients and there is little publicly available information on its manufacturing capabilities aside from the company’s website. The firm only acquired its first commercial manufacturing plant in March 2021, located in Boston, MA and purchased from Sanofi, followed shortly thereafter by the acquisition of another separate plant located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Makeovers were announced for the plants, but little is publicly known about their progress. Prior to the acquisitions, the company had been subleasing a Bay area facility in Fremont, California. Reporters were puzzled at the time as to why a company with roughly 700 employees at the time had acquired a total of 599,00 square feet of manufacturing space after having only emerged from stealth less than 6 months prior.
In April 2021, National Resilience acquired Ology Bioservices Inc., which had received a $37 million contract from the US military the previous November to develop an advanced anti-COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment. This acquisition also provided National Resilience with its first Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory and the ability to manufacture cell and gene therapies, live viral vaccines and vectors and oncolytic viruses.
Despite being in the earliest stages of developing its “revolutionary” manufacturing capabilities, National Resilience entered into a partnership with the Government of Canada in July of last year. Per that agreement, the Canadian government plans to invest CAD 199.2 million (about $154.9 million) into National Resilience’s Ontario-based subsidiary, Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Most of those funds are destined for use in expanding the Ontario facility that Resilience acquired last March and which is now manufacturing the mRNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 products. Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, asserted at the time that the investment would “build future pandemic preparedness” and help “to grow Canada’s life science ecosystem as an engine for our economic recovery.” More recently, in 2022, the company has announced a few new clients – Takeda, Opus Genetics and the US Department of Defense.
According to National Resilience’s executives, the company’s ambitions apparently go far beyond manufacturing RNA and viruses. For instance, Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi has claimed that the company is seeking to build “the world’s most advanced biopharmaceutical manufacturing ecosystem.” Yet, Singhvi has declined to offer much in the way of specifics when it comes to exactly how the company plans to become the planet’s most elite biomanufacturing company.
In an interview with The San Francisco Business Times, Singhvi states that Resilience is looking to fill its massive manufacturing plants with “technologies and people that can set and apply new standards for manufacturing cell therapies and gene therapies as well as RNA-based treatments.” Prior to Resilience, Singhvi was CEO of NovaVax and an operating partner at Flagship Pioneering, which played a major role in the creation and rise of Moderna.
Singhvi has further insisted that National Resilience is “not a therapeutics company, not a contractor and not a tools company” and instead aims “to boost production using the new therapeutic modalities” such as RNA-based treatments, which have become normalized in the COVID-19 era. Whereas contract manufacturers “are like kitchens, with pots and pans ready for any recipe,” “what we’re trying to do is fix the recipes,” Singhvi has explained. One member of Resilience’s board of directors, former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer Board member Scott Gottlieb, has described the company as seeking to act as the equivalent of Amazon Web Services for the biotechnology industry.
Essentially, Resilience bills itself as offering solutions that will allow “futuristic” medicines, including mRNA vaccines, to be produced more quickly and more efficiently, with the apparent goal of monopolizing certain parts of the biomanufacturing process. It also appears poised to become the manufacturer of choice for mRNA vaccines and experimental therapeutics in the event of a future pandemic, which some public health “philanthropists” like Bill Gates have said is imminent.
Perhaps the company’s most noteworthy ambition relates to their claims that they support clients through the government regulatory process. Given the company’s emphasis on speedy mass production of experimental gene therapies, its stated intention of getting the “futuristic” medical products it manufactures to market as quickly as possible seems at odds with the slower, traditional regulatory processes. Indeed, one could easily argue that the approvals of mRNA vaccines for the first time in human history during the COVID-19 crisis were only possible because of the major relaxing of regulatory procedurse and safety testing due to the perceived urgency of the situation.
Resilience seems intent on seeing that phenomenon repeat itself. As previously mentioned, the company claims to allow for the setting and application of “new standards for manufacturing cell therapies and gene therapies” and also says it plans to become a “technology-aggregating standards bearer that helps therapies come to market more efficiently.” It previously offered on its website “regulatory support” and “strategy consulting” to clients, suggesting that it would seek to mediate between clients and government regulators in order to fulfill its goal of having the products it manufactures taken to market more quickly. In addition, upon launch, the company claimed it planned to obtain unspecified “regulatory capabilities.” If so, it is certainly notable that former top Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials are either on the company’s board or, as will be noted shortly, played a major role in the company’s creation.
The People Behind Resilience
Resilience was co-founded by Biotech venture capitalist Robert Nelsen, who is known for listening “to science’s earliest whispers, even when data are too early for just about anyone else.” Nelsen was one of the earliest investors in Illumina, a California-based gene-sequencing hardware and software giant that is believed to currently dominate the field of genomics. As mentioned in a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation, Illumina is closely tied to the DARPA-equivalent of the Wellcome Trust known as Wellcome Leap, which is also focused on “futuristic” and transhumanist “medicines.” Nelsen is now chairman of National Resilience’s board, which is a “Who’s Who” of big players from the US National Security State, Big Pharma and Pharma-related “philanthropy.”
However, while Nelsen has been given much of the credit for creating Resilience, he revealed in one interview that the idea for the company had actually come from someone else – Luciana Borio. In July of last year, Nelsen revealed that it was while talking to Borio about “her work running pandemic preparedness on the NSC [National Security Council]” that had “helped lead to the launch of Nelsen’s $800 million biologics manufacturing startup Resilience.”
At the time of their conversation, Borio was the vice president of In-Q-tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA that has been used since its creation in the early 2000s to found a number of companies, many of which act as Agency fronts. Prior to In-Q-Tel, she served as director for medical and biodefense preparedness at the National Security Council during the Trump administration and had previously been the acting chief scientist at the FDA from 2015 to 2017.
Borio is currently a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, a consultant to Goldman Sachs, a member of the Bill Gates-funded vaccine alliance CEPI, and a partner at Nelsen’s venture capital firm ARCH Venture Partners, which funds Resilience. Nelsen’s ARCH previously funded Nanosys, the company of the controversial scientist Charles Lieber. Around the time of her conversation with Nelsen that led to Resilience’s creation, Borio was co-writing a policy paper for the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security that recommended linking COVID-19 vaccination status with food stamp programs and rent assistance as a possible means of coercing certain populations to take the experimental vaccine.
Borio is hardly Resilience’s only In-Q-Tel connection, as the CEO of In-Q-Tel, Chris Darby, sits on the company’s board of directors. Darby is also on the board of directors of the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation. Darby was also recently a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), where members of the military, intelligence community and Silicon Valley’s top firms argued for the need to reduce the use of “legacy systems” in favor of AI-focused alternatives as a national security imperative. Among those “legacy systems” identified by the NSCAI were in-person doctor visits and even receiving medical care from a human doctor, as opposed to an AI “doctor.” The NSCAI also argued for the removal of “regulatory barriers” that prevent these new technologies from replacing “legacy systems.”
Another notable board member, in discussing Resilience’s intelligence ties, is Drew Oetting. Oetting works for Cerberus Capital Management, the firm headed by Steve Feinberg who previously led the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under the Trump administration. Cerberus is notably the parent company of DynCorp, a controversial US national security contractor tied to numerous scandals, including scandals related to sex trafficking in conflict zones. Oetting is also part of the CIA-linked Thorn NGO ostensibly focused on tackling child trafficking that was the subject of a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation.
Oetting is also the co-founder of 8VC, a venture capital firm that is one of the main investors in Resilience. 8VC’s other co-founder is Joe Lonsdale and Oetting “started his career” as Lonsdale’s chief of staff. Lonsdale is the co-founder, alongside Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, of Palantir, a CIA front company and intelligence contractor that is the successor to DARPA’s controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) mass surveillance and data-mining program. In addition, Oetting previously worked for Bill Gates’ investment fund.
Also worth noting is the presence of Joseph Robert Kerrey, former US Senator for Nebraska and a former member of the conflict-of-interest-ridden 9/11 Commission, on Resilience’s board. Kerrey is currently managing director of Allen & Co., a New York investment banking firm which has hosted an annual “summer camp for billionaires” since 1983. Allen & Co. has long been a major player in networks where organized crime and intelligence intersect, and is mentioned repeatedly throughout my upcoming book One Nation Under Blackmail. For instance, Charles and Herbert Allen, who ran the firm for decades, had considerable business dealings with organized crime kingpins and frontmen for notorious gangsters like Meyer Lansky, particularly in the Bahamas. They were also business partners of Leslie Wexner’s mentors A. Alfred Taubman and Max Fisher as well as associates of Earl Brian, one of the architects of the PROMIS software scandal – which saw organized crime and intelligence networks cooperate to steal and then compromise the PROMIS software for blackmail and clandestine intelligence-gathering purposes. Allen & Co. was a major investor in Brian’s business interests in the technology industry that Brian used in attempts to bankrupt the developers of PROMIS, Inslaw Inc. and to market versions of PROMIS that had been compromised first by Israeli intelligence and, later, the CIA.
In addition to these intelligence-linked individuals, the rest of Resilience’s board includes the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Susan Desmond-Hellmann; former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb; two former executives at Johnson & Johnson; former president and CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals North American branch, George Barrett; CalTech professor and board member of Alphabet (i.e. Google) and Illumina, Frances Arnold; former executive at Genentech and Merck, Patrick Yang; and Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi.
To Boost or Not to Boost
It is certainly telling that the normally publicity hungry Moderna has said so little about its partnership with Resilience and that Resilience, despite its ambitious plans, has also avoided the media limelight. Considering Moderna’s history and Resilience’s connections, there may be more to this partnership that meets the eye and concerned members of the public would do well to keep a very close eye on Resilience, its partnerships, and the products it is manufacturing.
Given that we now live in a world where government regulatory decisions on the approval of medicines are increasingly influenced by corporate press releases and normal regulatory procedures have fallen by the wayside for being too “slow,” there is likely to be little scrutiny of the genetic material that Resilience produces for the “medicines of tomorrow.” This seems to be already true for Moderna’s recently retooled COVID-19 vaccine, as there has been no independent examination of the new genetic sequence of mRNA used in the Omicron-specific vaccine candidate or its effects on the human body in the short, medium or long term. For those who are skeptical of the outsized role that intelligence-linked companies are playing in the attempted technological “revolution” in the medical field, it is best to consider Resilience’s role in the upcoming fall vaccination campaign and in future pandemic and public health scenarios before trying its “futuristic” products.
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 11, 2022
ICAN attorneys have obtained annual statements from the five largest insurance companies in the U.S. revealing similar trends showing unexplained increases in non Covid-related death benefit payouts in 2021.
See also:
A simmering outbreak is now racing upwards while a questionable response juggles political correctness, public health, and a vaccine of unknown effectiveness against a population unwilling to ‘fall in line’ for more public health fear tactics.
By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | August 15, 2022
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla unironically tweeted that, despite catching COVID, he was grateful for getting jabbed four times and still requiring another one of his products to treat the infection.
“I would like to let you know that I have tested positive for COVID-19,” he tweeted. “I am thankful to have received four doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and I am feeling well while experiencing very mild symptoms. I am isolating and have started a course of Paxlovid.”
Following his statement, the ridicule via Twitter ratio came on quickly:
Liz Wheeler
Hahahahahahahahahaha remember that time you avoided taking your own vaxx because you knew it was garbage? Until you were found out when Israel refused you entry. I sincerely hope you recover quickly, but you & your 💉 are frauds.
Indeed, it’s harder than ever to take these talking heads seriously.
This is the same company that’s paid millions to settle allegations of bribing doctors and the same company that wanted to keep vaccine data hidden for 75 years, only to be forced by a court order to release nine pages worth of potential vaccine adverse effects.
Now, in this stunning tacit admission, Pfizer’s own CEO has revealed that two boosters can’t even stave off infection. Talk about a product flop.
Of course, Bourla isn’t the only one with a case of the quadruple vaxxed COVID blues. Recently, US President Joe Biden told the world that he’d caught COVID not once but twice despite receiving two boosters.
If there was still any doubt regarding a lack of vaccine efficacy, Pfizer’s CEO has proven that the vaccine can’t stop the spread — which is what everyone was promised when the vaccine was first rolled out.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Daniel Ken | TCW Defending Freedom | May 20, 2023
Over more than two decades in the classroom I’ve taught thousands of children and teenagers: some were lovely and lots were hard-working. On the other hand, quite a number were disruptive and argumentative, and a number were violently opposed to learning. But I don’t think I’ve taught more than a handful of kids who could be properly described as having the symptoms of ADHD. And that handful could just as easily have had something else wrong with them. Because here’s the thing: despite the fact that the best part of a million children are medicated for the condition, ADHD doesn’t exist.
There’s no definitive medical test for it, experts can’t agree on what it actually means, and most of the symptoms disappear if the child in question has lots of exercise, good diet and, crucially, a set of clear behavioural boundaries, preferably set early in childhood and, for the boys at least, enforced by a stable adult male living at home. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 