Promoting and Profiting from Mass-Toxification
By Stephen Lendman | May 6, 2021
Founded in 1823, the Lancet calls itself “an independent, international weekly general medical journal (that) strive(s) (for) medicine (to) transform society, and positively impact the lives of people.”
Instead of fulfilling its pledge on all things covid, it’s been going the other way by promoting toxic mass-jabbing to be shunned, never used as directed.
In late April, the Lancet proved it can’t be trusted for falsely claiming the following:
Pfizer and AstraZeneca covid inoculations “have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials (sic).”
One in four people experienced mild, short-lived side effects, usually lasting one or two days (sic), it added.
Inoculations “decrease the risk of (covid) infection after 12 days (sic).”
Pharma-connected epidemiologist Tim Spector was quoted, saying:
“The data should reassure many people that in the real world, after effects of the (jab) are usually mild and short-lived, especially in the over 50’s who are most at risk of the infection (sic).”
“Rates of new disease are at a new low in the UK (sic) due to a combination of social measures and (mass-jabbing), and we need to continue this successful strategy to cover the remaining population.”
“The results also show up to 70% protection after 3 weeks following a single dose (sic), which is fantastic news for the country, especially as more people have now had their second jabs.”
Mathematician — specializing in statistical genetics — Cristina Menni defied reality by claiming that “results support the aftereffects safety of both vaccines with fewer side effects in the general population than reported in the Pfizer and AstraZeneca experimental trials and should help allay safety concerns of people willing to get” jabbed (sic).
All the above rubbish reported by the Lancet is fake news.
It’s part of relentless US-led Western mind-manipulating propaganda to get maximum numbers of unwitting people to self-inflict harm.
The Lancet allied with Western governments, their public health handmaidens, Pharma, and media press agents to all of the above in promoting what’s harmful to health, not beneficial.
There’s nothing remotely safe and beneficial from use of experimental, unapproved Pfizer/Moderna mRNA drugs or AstraZeneca/J & J vaccines for covid.
When used as directed, they risk likely irreversible harm to health or death — sooner or later.
State-sponsored coverup in the West is concealing slow-motion genocide.
According to an unnamed UK National Health Service health professional whistleblower, what’s going on is “genocide… Your children are next.”
In the US, the Pharma-connected FDA is set to OK mass-jabbing emergency use authorization for children aged 12 – 15.
If contract seasonal flu-renamed covid, their risk of serious harm or death is virtually nil.
The survival rate for flu now called covid for individuals under age-70 is 99.95% — 95% for people over age-70.
Mass-jabbing for covid should be banned.
It’s well known that toxins in experimental covid inoculations risks serious harm, nothing beneficial.
Mass-jabbing children should be criminalized, not OK’d and promoted.
State-sponsored draconian social control and depopulation hugely benefit Pharma.
Since mass-jabbing for covid began last December, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and J & J have been cashing in big on a bonanza of huge profits.
If things go as planned, the diabolical scheme will be a gift that keeps on giving.
One or two jabs aren’t enough. Plans are for perpetual mass-toxification of unwitting people annually or semi-annually worldwide.
In Q I 2021, about one-fourth of Pfizer’s pharmaceutical revenue came from jabbing with its hazardous mRNA covid drug.
For 2021, the company projects around $26 billion in revenue from covid mass-jabbing — an annual revenue stream it aims to be permanent.
Perhaps so if countless millions of mass deceived people continue to self-inflict harm — the more covid jabs taken, the greater the harm to health near-or-longer-term.
All of the above goes on while the myth of a nonexistent pandemic persists because of the power of establishment media promoted mass deception.
Followers of my writing and likeminded others on this cutting-edge issue of our time know what’s deceptively called covid is garden variety seasonal flu.
It shows up annually without perpetual mass deception fear-mongering.
Until last year, non-beneficial/potentially harmful flu shots were promoted annually.
When for the first time ever, flu disappeared last year — because it was renamed covid — draconian mandates and recommendations have effectively manipulated the public mind in the West and elsewhere to harm health instead of protecting what’s too precious to lose.
If what’s going on continues unchecked because of public ignorance, harm to health in the West and elsewhere is highly likely to be unprecedented and suppressed — so most people will remain unaware of state-sponsored genocide.
It’s unfolding in real time below the radar — Western dark forces and their media press agents convincing most people that what’s harmful and deadly is beneficial.
I’ve stressed before and it bears repeating.
No matter how many times people have been fooled before, they’re easy marks to be duped again and again and again ad infinitum.
It’s because of the power of state-sponsored/media promoted fake news, along with the failure of most people to do minimal due diligence fact-checking.
Every literate person connected online can learn the truth on most all issues that affect their rights, health, and well-being with minimal effort.
Yet most people are easily distracted by bread and circuses.
They’re putty in the hands of manipulative dark forces and their hostile to truth-telling press agents.
We’re consistently lied to and mass deceived about all important domestic and geopolitical issues.
Yet most people are too out-of-touch with reality to notice.
My personal interfacing with individuals intelligent enough to know better but fooled like most others bears out the above reality.
COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety
Doctors for Covid Ethics | OffGuardian | May 5, 2021
This paper was originally hosted on the Doctors for Covid Ethics Medium account, but the platform censored the expert group and removed the paper, claiming the post was “under investigation”:
An archived version is still available here.
*
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.
In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
- Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
- Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
- Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
1. THE VACCINES ARE UNNECESSARY
1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold and SARS coronaviruses [1,3-10]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.
2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.
3.The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates[12-15]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others[16].
In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control[17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.
4. In most countries, most people now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2[19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.
5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally[20-22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. COVID-19 is also typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively[23-27]. These drugs include many tried and true anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D.
Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support[24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative, have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside[28].
The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available”[29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.
2. THE VACCINES LACK EFFICACY
1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low.
Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.
2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium-term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it[30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA[31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.
4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against COVID-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population”[32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.
3. THE VACCINES ARE DANGEROUS
1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.
2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg”[34]: The vaccines are not safe.
3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years[35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates[36-38].
Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes[39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients[41].
Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — the vaccines are not safe.
4. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361[43] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation[29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes the journal Vaccine reports that, “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants”[32].
With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that, “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles[35], antibody-dependent enhancement [43-46] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated[47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues[48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who administer them or authorise their use.
5. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.
In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target — the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system.
With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.
4. ETHICS AND LEGAL POINTS TO CONSIDER
Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.
Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.
Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.
All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.
References:
[1] Le Bert, N.; Tan, A.T.; Kunasegaran, K.; Tham, C.Y.L.; Hafezi, M.; Chia, A.; Chng, M.H.Y.; Lin, M.; Tan, N.; Linster, M.; Chia, W.N.; Chen, M.I.; Wang, L.; Ooi, E.E.; Kalimuddin, S.; Tambyah, P.A.; Low, J.G.; Tan, Y. and Bertoletti, A. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457–462. [back]
[2] Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Methot, N.; Zhang, Y.; Dan, J.M.; Goodwin, B.; Rubiro, P.; Sutherland, A.; da Silva Antunes, R.; Frazier, A. and al., e. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x.[back]
[3] Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients. [back]
[4] Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies. Reuters, 10/07/2020. [back]
[5] Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463. [back]
[6] Grifoni, A.; Weiskopf, D.; Ramirez, S.I.; Mateus, J.; Dan, J.M.; Moderbacher, C.R.; Rawlings, S.A.; Sutherland, A.; Premkumar, L.; Jadi, R.S. and al., e. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489–1501.e15. [back]
[7] Mateus, J.; Grifoni, A.; Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Ramirez, S.I.; Dan, J.M.; Burger, Z.C.; Rawlings, S.A.; Smith, D.M.; Phillips, E. and al., e. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. [back]Science 370:89–94. [back]
[8] McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2. La Jolla Institute for Immunology. [back]
[9] Palmer, S.; Cunniffe, N. and Donnelly, R. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982. [back]
[10] Sekine, T.; Perez-Potti, A.; Rivera-Ballesteros, O.; Strålin, K.; Gorin, J.; Olsson, A.; Llewellyn-Lacey, S.; Kamal, H.; Bogdanovic, G.; Muschiol, S. and al., e. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158–168.e14. [back]
[11] Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.[back]
[12] Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172–176. [back]
[13] Jefferson, T.; Spencer, E.; Brassey, J. and Heneghan, C. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x. [back]
[14] Borger, P.; Malhotra, R.K.; Yeadon, M.; Craig, C.; McKernan, K.; Steger, K.; McSheehy, P.; Angelova, L.; Franchi, F.; Binder, T.; Ullrich, H.; Ohashi, M.; Scoglio, S.; Doesburg-van Kleffens, M.; Gilbert, D.; Klement, R.J.; Schrüfer, R.; Pieksma, B.W.; Bonte, J.; Dalle Carbonare, B.H.; Corbett, K.P. and Kämmer, U. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false-positive results. [back]
[15] Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.[back]
[16] Cao, S.; Gan, Y.; Wang, C.; Bachmann, M.; Wei, S.; Gong, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, L.; Lu, K.; Jiang, H.; Gong, Y.; Xu, H.; Shen, X.; Tian, Q.; Lv, C.; Song, F.; Yin, X. and Lu, Z. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917.[back]
[17] Moghadas, S.M.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Sah, P.; Pandey, A.; Shoukat, A.; Singer, B.H. and Galvani, A.P. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513–17515.[back]
[18] Johansson, M.A.; Quandelacy, T.M.; Kada, S.; Prasad, P.V.; Steele, M.; Brooks, J.T.; Slayton, R.B.; Biggerstaff, M. and Butler, J.C. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057.[back]
[19] Yeadon, M. (2020). What SAGE got wrong. Lockdown Skeptics.[back]
[20] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x. [back]
[21] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x. [back]
[22] CDC, (2020) Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. [back]
[23] Orient, J.; McCullough, P. and Vliet, E. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment. [back]
[24] McCullough, P.A.; Alexander, P.E.; Armstrong, R.; Arvinte, C.; Bain, A.F.; Bartlett, R.P.; Berkowitz, R.L.; Berry, A.C.; Borody, T.J.; Brewer, J.H.; Brufsky, A.M.; Clarke, T.; Derwand, R.; Eck, A.; Eck, J.; Eisner, R.A.; Fareed, G.C.; Farella, A.; Fonseca, S.N.S.; Geyer, C.E.; Gonnering, R.S.; Graves, K.E.; Gross, K.B.V.; Hazan, S.; Held, K.S.; Hight, H.T.; Immanuel, S.; Jacobs, M.M.; Ladapo, J.A.; Lee, L.H.; Littell, J.; Lozano, I.; Mangat, H.S.; Marble, B.; McKinnon, J.E.; Merritt, L.D.; Orient, J.M.; Oskoui, R.; Pompan, D.C.; Procter, B.C.; Prodromos, C.; Rajter, J.C.; Rajter, J.; Ram, C.V.S.; Rios, S.S.; Risch, H.A.; Robb, M.J.A.; Rutherford, M.; Scholz, M.; Singleton, M.M.; Tumlin, J.A.; Tyson, B.M.; Urso, R.G.; Victory, K.; Vliet, E.L.; Wax, C.M.; Wolkoff, A.G.; Wooll, V. and Zelenko, V. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517–530. [back][back]
[25] Procter, {.B.C.; {APRN}, {.C.R.{.; {PA}-C, {.V.P.; {PA}-C, {.E.S.; {PA}-C, {.C.H. and McCullough, {.{.P.A. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219–221. [back]
[26] McCullough, P.A.; Kelly, R.J.; Ruocco, G.; Lerma, E.; Tumlin, J.; Wheelan, K.R.; Katz, N.; Lepor, N.E.; Vijay, K.; Carter, H.; Singh, B.; McCullough, S.P.; Bhambi, B.K.; Palazzuoli, A.; De Ferrari, G.M.; Milligan, G.P.; Safder, T.; Tecson, K.M.; Wang, D.D.; McKinnon, J.E.; O’Neill, W.W.; Zervos, M. and Risch, H.A. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16–22. [back]
[27] Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies. [back]
[28] Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.[back]
[29] Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. [back] [back]
[30] Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty. [back]
[31] Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. [back]
[32] Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746. [back][back]
[33] Bhakdi, S.; Chiesa, M.; Frost, S.; Griesz-Brisson, M.; Haditsch, M.; Hockertz, S.; Johnson, L.; Kämmerer, U.; Palmer, M.; Reiss, K.; Sönnichsen, A.; Wodarg, W. and Yeadon, M. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns. [back]
[34] Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021. [back]
[35] Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. [back][back]
[36] Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States — Most With High Vaccination Rates.[back]
[37] Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.[back]
[38] Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854. [back]
[39] Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler. [back]
[40] Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes. [back]
[41] Furer, V.; Zisman, D.; Kibari, A.; Rimar, D.; Paran, Y. and Elkayam, O. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x. [back]
[42] Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations. [back]
[43] Tseng, C.; Sbrana, E.; Iwata-Yoshikawa, N.; Newman, P.C.; Garron, T.; Atmar, R.L.; Peters, C.J. and Couch, R.B. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421. [back]
[44] Bolles, M.; Deming, D.; Long, K.; Agnihothram, S.; Whitmore, A.; Ferris, M.; Funkhouser, W.; Gralinski, L.; Totura, A.; Heise, M. and Baric, R.S. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201–15. [back]
[45] Weingartl, H.; Czub, M.; Czub, S.; Neufeld, J.; Marszal, P.; Gren, J.; Smith, G.; Jones, S.; Proulx, R.; Deschambault, Y.; Grudeski, E.; Andonov, A.; He, R.; Li, Y.; Copps, J.; Grolla, A.; Dick, D.; Berry, J.; Ganske, S.; Manning, L. and Cao, J. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672–6. [back]
[46]Czub, M.; Weingartl, H.; Czub, S.; He, R. and Cao, J. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273–9 [back]
[47]Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627 [back]
[48] Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger, Hearing #37 of German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee 30 January, 2021. [back]
CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women
By Dr. Mercola | May 3, 2021
The beyond conflicted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has struck again: Pregnant women are now urged to get the COVID-19 gene manipulation jab, based on preliminary findings.
The postmarketing surveillance data, published in The New England Journal of Medicine,1 found “no obvious safety signals” among the 35,691 pregnant women who got either the Moderna or Pfizer shots between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021. The women ranged in age from 16 to 54 years old. CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued a statement saying:2
“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive COVID-19 vaccines.”
Can Self-Reported Data Be Trusted?
There is more than one reason to be suspicious of this green-lighting for pregnant women. First of all, as noted by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Tweet:3
“This was NOT a randomized placebo-controlled trial. There is no data from clinical trials showing that it is safe for pregnant women to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Postmarketing surveillance is NOT a sufficient substitute for proper safety studies.”
The authors themselves state that data on mRNA “vaccines” in pregnancy are limited, and that without longitudinal follow-up of large numbers of women, it’s not possible to determine “maternal, pregnancy and infant outcomes.”4
Secondly, all postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. Thirdly, this data is solely based on voluntary self-reporting to one of two sources:
- The Vaccine Safe (V-Safe) After Vaccination Health Checker program,5 a vaccine safety registry set up specifically for the monitoring of COVID-19 “vaccine” side effects
- The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
By using voluntary self-reporting, we have no way of knowing how many side effects have gone unreported and cannot confirm that the data present an accurate picture. Historically, we know that voluntary reporting of vaccine side effects range from less than 1%6,7 to a maximum of 10%,8 so it’s likely we’re not getting the full story.
A hint that an enormous amount of data concerning pregnancy outcomes are being overlooked or hidden can be discerned by the fact that the paper only looked at 11% of the total number of pregnancies reported to V-Safe. While they state that a total of 35,691 pregnant women were included in the analysis, they actually only looked at 3,958 of them. Here’s how the paper reads:9
“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant … Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).”
If there were 35,691 pregnant V-Safe participants, why are they looking at just 11% of them?
Experimentation of the Worst Kind
Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.
Pregnancy is a time during which experimentation is extremely hazardous, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development.
The CDC has absolutely no way of gauging safety for pregnant women and babies as of yet, so to do so is reprehensible beyond words, in my opinion — especially seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.10
Contrast this to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.11,12,13,14 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive. I have little doubt we’ll end up with a second Nuremberg Trial over this at some point in the future.
Are These Miscarriage Ratios ‘Normal’?
Getting back to the NEJM study, the authors report the following findings, based on data collected from VAERS and V-Safe:15
“Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported.
Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against COVID-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).”
So, in VAERS, the miscarriage rate was 20.8% (46 of 221 reports), and in V-Safe (looking at just 11% of pregnant participants), the miscarriage rate was 13.9% (115 of 827). Again, these data were reported between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021.
The combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate, per V-Safe, was 23.3% (13.9% + 9.4%). As of April 1, 2021, 379 VAERS reports16 had been filed by pregnant women, 110 of which involved miscarriage or premature birth, giving us an updated rate of 29%. In other words, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in.
According to the authors of the NEJM report, these ratios are comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, while admitting that the data is “not directly comparable.”
I find that dubious, seeing how sources17 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.
And, while the NEJM study18 report that 92.3% of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, it specifies that very little is as yet known about the effects of the injections when given to women during the periconception period and the first and second trimesters, as “limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”
Now, if the miscarriage rate is normally 5% and declining after Week 6, then miscarriage rates of 13.9%, 20.87% or 29% before Week 13 is clearly excessive. As for the preterm birth rate, 9.4% does appear relatively “normal” based on historical data, which in 2019 ranged from 7.28% to 18.8% depending on the region, with an average right around 10%.19
Time will tell whether that percentage will remain within the norms as the outcomes of pregnant women are entered into databases. If preterm birth rates do rise above the norm, then that too is a significant public health issue, as the impact of premature birth on society is enormous, averaging at $26.2 billion annually, as is.20
Toxicology Expert Calls for End to mRNA Experiment
The featured video at the top of this article is the recording of a public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, given to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), April 23, 2021.
Lindsay’s expertise is analysis of pharmacological dose-responses, mechanistic biology and complex toxicity dynamics. In her comment, Lindsay describes how she aided the development of a vaccine that caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted.
She calls for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. She notes there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”
I’ve touched on this in previous articles, including “How COVID-19 Is Changing the Future of Vaccines” and “Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, Lindsey notes.
Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study,21 which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.
It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.
“We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warns. The fact that there have been live births following COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she says.
Lindsay also points out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the injections number in the thousands,22,23,24 and this too hints at reproductive effects.
I agree with her conclusion that we simply cannot inject children and women of childbearing age with these experimental technologies until more rigorous studies have been done and we have a better understanding of their mechanisms.
Rare Blood Clotting Disorders Being Reported
Lindsay also points out there have been hundreds of reports of rare blood clotting disorders following all COVID-19 “vaccines” among people with no underlying risk factors, including immune thrombocytopenia25,26,27,28 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease that causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.
Here, she points out the obvious: COVID-19 has been found to cause blood clotting disorders due to the virus’ unique spike protein. The COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your body to make that very spike protein. Why would one assume that this spike protein cannot have similar effects when produced by your own cells?
One hypothesis that has been presented is that platelet-antagonistic antibodies are being formed against the spike antigen.29 Another novel hypothesis30 is that the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, may be carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow.
Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. As your platelets are destroyed, thrombocytopenia sets in.
Avoid This Risky Milk-Sharing Practice
Women who have received the COVID-19 jab are also making what I believe is a huge mistake by sharing breast milk in a misguided effort to inoculate unvaccinated mothers’ babies. As reported by The New York Times :31
“Multiple studies32,33 show that there are antibodies in a vaccinated mother’s milk. This has led some women to try to restart breastfeeding and others to share milk with friends’ children.”
Again, there’s scarcely any data on what these gene therapies might do to infants, which is reason alone not to experiment. So far, only one suspected case34 of an infant dying has been attributed to breastfeeding. A 5-month-old infant died with a diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.35,36
But while fact checkers roundly dismiss the idea that the child could have developed thrombocytopenia from mRNA-contaminated breast milk,37 it’s important to realize they have no evidence for that. It’s pure opinion.
As of right now, we have no idea how or why the infant developed this rare blood disorder, but it would be premature and irresponsible to say that nursing children cannot be affected and that there is no risk at all. In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 20 other cases where children have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.38
At present, all we can confidently say is that short-term harmful effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being reported at a staggering rate, and that the long-term effects are completely unknown.
In addition to the more immediate effects already discussed, there are mechanisms by which COVID-19 “vaccines” may actually worsen disease upon exposure to the wild virus, as detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” and several other articles.
As noted in a February 4, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine paper39 reporting on the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine developed by Moderna, “Whether mRNA-1273 vaccination results in enhanced disease on exposure to the virus in the long term is unknown.”
Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things), violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.
In my view, this mass experiment is a humanitarian crime. That said, if you or someone you love — pregnant or not — has received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.40 As we move forward, it’s absolutely crucial that people report their experiences with these vaccines, so that we can start getting a clearer idea of what their effects are.
- If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
- Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
- Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website
Sources and References
- 1, 4, 9, 15, 18 NEJM April 21, 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
- 2 CNBC April 23, 2021
- 3 Twitter Jeremy Hammond April 23, 2021
- 5 CDC V-Safe
- 6 AHRQ December 7, 2007
- 7 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020
- 8 BMJ 2005;330:433
- 10 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 11 Harvard Health March 25, 2021
- 12 CDC April 2, 2021
- 13 NBC Chicago April 8, 2021
- 14 The Defender April 6, 2021
- 16 The Defender April 9, 2021
- 17 Medical News Today January 12, 2020
- 19 CDC.gov Preterm births by state 2019
- 20 March of Dimes, the Impact of Premature Birth on Society
- 21 Molecular Reproduction and Development 73(10):1239-46
- 22 MSN April 10, 2021
- 23 UK Gov Yellow Card Report Unspecified Brand March 28, 2021 (PDF)
- 24 Life Site News April 19, 2021
- 25 Hopkins Medicine ITP
- 26, 29 The Defender April 13, 2021
- 27 The Defender February 9, 2021
- 28 New York Times February 8, 2021, Updated February 10, 2021 (Archived)
- 30 Medium March 19, 2021
- 31 New York Times April 8, 2021 (Archived)
- 32 Fox 4 April 7, 2021
- 33 Healio April 19, 2021
- 34, 35 Twitter Alex Berenson April 23, 2021
- 36 Twitter VAERS detail
- 37 USA Today April 9, 2021
- 38 Medalerts.org 4/16/2021 VAERS data
- 39 NEJM 2021; 384:403-416
- 40 The Defender January 25, 2021
Injecting a child with an experimental Covid-19 vaccine would be madness, they don’t need it
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 3, 2021
The UK Government and Health Officials are planning to give school children aged 12 and over the experimental Pfizer Covid vaccine at the start of the 21/22 school year. But they won’t stop there. Not long after they will attempt to roll this out to children as young as 6-months-old. This is madness.
It is madness because children do not need an experimental Covid vaccine because they are virtually at zero risk of contracting Covid-19, and even if they do, their chances of developing serious disease and dying is so low that the number is negligible.
According to official NHS data from March 2020 through to the 31st March 2021 just 40 Covid-19 deaths were recorded in those aged 0 – 19. But 32 of those were in children / teenagers who had serious underlying conditions. Just 8 allegedly died of Covid-19 alone in twelve months. But we cannot even be sure the number is that high due to the fact deaths are recorded as Covid just because the person has received a positive test for Covid-19 within 28 days of their death. They could have died due to a head injury and be recorded as a Covid death if they had received a positive test within the 28 days prior.
Yet for some sinister and unexplained reason the authorities are desperate to get the Covid jab into the arms of children. It’s sinister because none of the Covid jabs are licensed. They are currently under emergency authorisation.
In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.
A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.
Why are they only under emergency use authorisation? Because none of the Covid jabs have concluded phase three trials.
The Pfizer phase three trial is not due to complete until April 6th 2023.
Whilst the AstraZeneca phase three trial is due to complete slightly earlier on February 14th 2023.
But what does this mean? Well 2023 at the time of writing is up to two years away. This means that the current worldwide Covid vaccine roll-out can be described as the largest human experiment ever conducted in history. Anybody who takes this vaccine, which is only temporarily authorised for emergency use is essentially a guinea pig, or a lab rat taking part in a trial.
There’s also the fact that all the Covid vaccines being used in the UK are types of vaccine that have never been authorised for use in humans before.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs allegedly work by delivering mRNA, which Pfizer and Moderna tell us is the genetic code for the spike protein found on the surface of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, to a human cell inside a lipid membrane. Once the mRNA is inside the cell, the same machinery that is used to make our own proteins can make the spike protein. This then causes the immune system to act and initiate an immune response.
Many people are under the illusion that the AstraZeneca vaccine is a traditional vaccine – “It’s no different to the flu jab”, we hear them say time and time again. They couldn’t be more wrong. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a viral vector vaccine, and like the mRNA vaccines they have never been authorised for human use on a mass scale before.
The genetic information inside a viral vectored vaccine like AstraZeneca’s is DNA rather than RNA. This DNA is a short linear piece of double stranded DNA which contains the viral genes along with the gene for the spike protein. The viral vector first infects the cell and then delivers this DNA to the cell nucleus. The cell can then transcribes the viral genes (DNA) into mRNA using the same RNA polymerase it uses for our own genes. After transcription, the mRNA gets tagged so it can leave the nucleus and be made into spike protein by the cell machinery.
Considering the fact that children are at virtually zero risk of contracting Covid it would be madness to give them an unlicensed, emergency approved, experimental vaccine of which not one single person on this planet has any idea of what the long term consequences of having it are. Because there is no data to tell us.
But there is data on the short term consequences in the form of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in which people who have suffered an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine can report it to the MHRA. The 13th update which includes data inputted up to the 21st April 2021 shows that the reported adverse reactions to both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine include –
- 7,699 cardiac disorders,
- 10,633 eye disorders including blindness,
- A terrifying 152,273 nervous system disorders including brain damage, seizure, paralysis & stroke
- and 1,047 unnecessary deaths
That is just a snapshot as there had in fact been 722,732 reported adverse reactions to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs as of the 21st April 2021. The scary thing is the MHRA say that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are actually reported. So the true number could be anywhere from 7 million to 70 million adverse reactions to the Covid-19 jabs.
Do you honestly think these numbers justify giving the jabs to children?
Well unfortunately the authorities seem to think so as health officials are drawing up plans to offer the Pfizer vaccine to secondary school pupils from September. ‘Core planning scenario’ documents compiled by NHS officials include the offer of a single dose to children aged 12 and over when the new school year starts.
And apparently education leaders would be willing to help facilitate a vaccine roll-out at schools around the country, according to Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), the largest union for secondary school heads.
He explained that vaccinating children at school could result in higher take-up because pupils would not want to feel socially isolated by refusing to have the jab.
“The peer pressure of seeing that your friends are lining up to do it is likely to make the overall numbers taking up the vaccine higher,”.
Somebody should maybe tell Geoff Barton that what he just described is known as coercion.
The choice is yours whether or not you will allow your child to receive a dose of an experimental vaccine which neither prevents the recipient from catching Covid-19 or spread Covid-19. The only thing that these vaccines allegedly do is reduce the risk of hospitalisation and / or death. Which is why it makes no sense for any single child to have the jab, as they are already virtually at zero risk of hospitalisation and / or death according to official NHS data.
‘First they came for the elderly, and I did not speak out because I was not old.
Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out because I was not disabled.
Then they came for pregnant women, and I did not speak out because I was not pregnant.
But then they came for my children because I did not speak out for those before them.‘
A Vaxxing Question
By Suzie Halewood | OffGuardian | May 3, 2021
In 1956 German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal GmbH, licensed a new experimental drug designed to treat colds, flu, nausea and morning sickness. Known as Distaval in the UK, Distillers Biochemicals Ltd declared the drug could ‘be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child’ – a basic pre-requisite for licensing a drug.
While forty-nine countries licensed the drug under multiple different names, the then head of the FDA Dr. Frances Kelsey, a physician-pharmacologist with a profound interest in fetal development, refused authorization for use in the US market due to her concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the drug’s safety.
The drug was also known as Thalidomide.
Sixty-five years on and the stringent safety measures brought in to avoid another scandal on the scale of Thalidomide have been swept aside in order to fast track the approval of experimental mRNA vaccines. This is in spite of concerns voiced by (among others) Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr Michael Yeadon who petitioned the European Medical Agency (EMA) with a Administrative/Regulatory Stay Of Action in regard to the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b – not just in regard to concerns about pregnant women, the foetus and infertility – but also in regard to the effect of the mRNA vaccines on those with prior immunity, for whom immunization could lead to a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to their lungs and other organs of their body.
No previous research into treating illness or disease with messenger RNA or mRNA vaccines has been successful and this is the first time mRNA vaccines have been used on humans.
The concerns of Yeadon, Wodarg and others appear to be borne out by data from the King’s College Zoe app that records adverse events from the mRNA vaccines. Taken from a pool of 700,000, data reveals that 12.2% of those vaccinated with the Pfizer jab experienced adverse events or side effects, a number which tripled to 35.7% for those with prior immunity. Adverse events from the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab were already high at 31.9% but increased to 52.7% for people with immunity.
Ellie Barnes, professor of hepatology and immunology at Oxford University and a member of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium referred to the discovery – that when you’ve had a COVID-19 infection your T-cells become activated and become memory T cells – as ‘emerging’ as though this was something revelatory. Yet the dangers of over-immunization had been flagged up multiple times and well before vaccine rollout.
It gets worse.
In spite of additional research from New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital and the University of Maryland which indicated that those who had previously developed Covid-19 were effectively already immune and wouldn’t need a second dose (arguably they didn’t need the first dose if they already had immunity), Eleanor Riley, professor of infectious diseases at Edinburgh University said that ‘Incorporating this into a mass vaccination program, may be logistically complex’, adding ‘it may be safer overall to ensure everyone gets two doses’.
May be safer? Many in the study group had already had an adverse event from the first dose, so how could it be ‘safer’ when second doses have been shown to increase the adversity of an event.
And how is it logistically complex to notify those who have already experienced an adverse event? The medical data of the 700,000 patients has already been logged into the Zoe App system, otherwise the Zoe App wouldn’t be able to differentiate between those with or without prior immunity. Therefore, those with prior immunity from having had Covid-19 – or those for whom an adverse event would perhaps indicate prior immunity – can be notified that there is no need for a second dose.
Moreover, why on earth aren’t people tested for prior immunity before taking any vaccination considering the concerns associated with over-immunization?
Alarming data is also emerging from the Yellow Card Scheme.
Set up following the Thalidomide scandal, it allows both doctors and patients to record adverse medical events from drugs and vaccines circulating in the UK market. Up to and including 29 April 2021, the MHRA via Yellow Card Reporting received 149,082 suspected reactions from the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (from Dec 9 onwards) and 573,650 suspected reactions from the COVID-19 Oxford University/AstraZeneca (from Jan 4 onwards).
As of 29/4/21, the death toll from both vaccines stands at 1045. With 685 of those deaths from the AstraZeneca vaccine since Jan 4, that equates to 5.9 deaths per day for AstraZeneca alone. Deaths from COVID-19 on Monday 26th April stood at 6. And the data doesn’t cover all those vaccinated. Only 3-5 cards per 1,000 of doses (0.3-0.6%) administered have been filed (10% reported side effects during trials) which may indicate that many people are unaware of the existence of the Yellow Card Scheme and that therefore adverse events are being underreported.
The current mRNA vaccine take-up suggests many believe the vaccines will prevent transmission and that the 90-95% vaccine efficacy reported by the BBC equates to a high chance of prevention. These figures are taken from the FDA’s report on the efficacy of the mRNA Pfizer vaccine, which itself refers to the potential of reduction of the viral load – i.e. symptomatic COVID-19 – not transmission. It does not mean that 95% of people vaccinated are protected from contracting the virus, something The Lancet refers to as ‘a misconception’.
Even the 90-95% claim of reduction in viral load is questioned by a BMJ report (and others), which estimates the mRNA vaccine’s efficacy in the reduction of COVID-19 symptoms to be more within the 19-29% range – less than the 35% efficacy of dexamethasone used by the NHS.
This appears to be backed up by further reporting from Shahriar Zehtabchi, MD who explains why ‘suspected but unconfirmed’ COVID-19 cases cannot clarify which study patients had the disease in any group.
It would be hard to see therefore how vaccine efficacy could be determined if those taking the vaccine had not been tested for prior immunity or if those on trials were only ‘suspected’ of having had the disease, without having had a test to confirm it. The mRNA vaccines are also predominantly for those with high risk of complications from COVID-19 which – judging by ONS statistics – is a minority.
According to ONS figures, the number of those under sixty-five with no serious underlying health issues who died ‘due’ to Covid-19 in 2020 was 1,549. For the healthy 30-year-old age group (i.e. those with no serious underlying health issues), taking the experimental mRNA vaccine would be the statistical equivalent of 164,125 people jumping off a cliff because a hungry bear was approaching. The bear only wants one meal and he’s going to get the slowest runner. If you are fit, you have little to no chance of the bear getting you. Jumping off the cliff however can lead to injury or death. It is a leap into the unknown. As are the mRNA vaccines.
Yet there are still those who believe they need a vaccination in order to travel. Not so. Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, France, Austria and Israel are the first to announce they will accept proof of antibodies and/or a negative COVID-19 test in order to visit. Furthermore, the vaccinated will also need to show proof of a COVID-19 negative test, presumably because there are still doubts from these countries and others as to the efficacy levels of the vaccines in regard to transmission. Not even British Airways demands proof of vaccination. The airline was quick off the blocks to offer a subsidized £33 online Covid-test for those planning to travel. After the financial losses of lockdown, most airlines and countries will no doubt follow suit. Demand is what fuels the market.
Not that any of the above will slow down the UK Government’s manic roll out of the vaccine drive to the next 40-49-year-old target range of guinea-pigs. Do the majority of these 40-49-year-olds need the mRNA vaccine? Not according to WHO and ONS data. For a healthy 40-49 year old, the chances of dying from COVID-19 is 1 in 46,242. Will this next target range group be put off by the fact so many doctors and healthcare workers are refusing to take the vaccine? They should be.
It took five years after the initial licensing of Thalidomide before anyone realised Thalidomide crossed the placental barrier and caused serious birth defects, a discovery hampered by the fact the drug had been marketed under multiple different names across 49 countries. It took a further five years to mount a legal challenge. Nobody was found guilty. Not until the mid-seventies following a fierce moral crusade by the late, great investigative journalist and editor Harold Evans (who referred to investigative journalism as ‘attacking the devil’) did the families of those children who died or who were born with limb, eye and heart problems receive commensurate compensation. Fifty years later, Chemie Grünenthal GmbH apologised. Evans believed the Thalidomide scandal was a lesson in how a government can betray its duty. They’re still doing it.
Chief Executive of the MHRA Dr. June Raine was ‘delighted’ to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine for use on the citizens of the UK. ‘No stone is left unturned when it comes to our assessments’ she said. That there had been ‘a robust and thorough assessment of all the available data’ and that her staff had ‘worked tirelessly to ensure we continue to make safe vaccines available to people across the UK’.
I doubt Dr. Frances Kelsey would see it that way. Or Harold Evans.
Suzie Halewood is a mathematician and filmmaker.
Hancock has blood on his hands – Shocking rise in expectant mothers who’ve lost their baby after having the Covid Vaccine
THE DAILY EXPOSE • APRIL 29, 2021
A tragic milestone has been surpassed as the effects of the mass roll-out of an experimental vaccine continue to devastate the lives of those who “get the jab, when they get the call”. It is with sadness that we have to report that over 100 women have now lost their unborn or newborn baby after having one of the Covid vaccines.
Health authorities in the UK advise women to avoid things like smoked fish, soft cheese, wet paint, coffee, herbal tea, vitamin supplements, and processed junk foods when pregnant. But for some strange and sinister reason they are now adamant the Covid vaccines are 100% safe for use in pregnant women despite the fact there have not been any trials conducted to prove this.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) released a statement just a few short weeks ago saying “it’s preferable for pregnant women in the UK to be offered the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines where available. There is no evidence to suggest that other vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women, but more research is needed.”
This led to the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock to announce on Twitter – “I encourage all pregnant women when they are called to get the jab”.
The fact the JCVI could say “it is preferable for pregnant women” to have the jab, and “more research is needed” in the same sentence would be laughable if it didn’t have such dire consequences. And the fact Hancock actively encouraged pregnant women to get the jab despite the existing evidence it was not safe is criminal.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly the JCVI and Hancock now have blood on their hands since these statements were made.
Blood on their hands because according to the UK Governments latest report on adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, as of the 21st April 2021 a total of 58 women had suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine. But the devastation doesn’t end there. The Pfizer jab had also caused two foetal deaths as of the 21st April, 1 still birth and the death of 1 premature baby.
The AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine is also causing devastation to countless lives. As of the 21st April a total of 37 women had sadly suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the AstraZeneca jab, as well as a total of 3 still births.
These numbers may seem small considering the fact we are told tens of millions of people have now received a dose of an experimental Covid vaccine. But let’s put these figures into context. The Covid jab is only just being offered to those in their early 40’s, which means the majority of those who have been vaccinated so far are over the age of 50. The average age for a woman to reach the menopause is 51. This means they cannot get pregnant and therefore cannot suffer a miscarriage.
But then we also have to consider the fact that up until this ghastly unscientific announcement from the JCVI and Hancock the UK Governments advice on administering the Covid vaccine to pregnant women was as follows –
‘Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women
of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Taking all of this into account, the 102 expectant mothers who have sadly lost their child after having the Covid vaccine as of the 21st April suddenly becomes an extraordinarily high number.
How many more women need to lose their baby for the health authorities to say enough is enough?
Update on EU’s Vaccine Passport Scheme
By Toby Young • Principia Scientific • April 29, 2021
We have an update today on yesterday’s vote in the European Parliament, which essentially waved through the Commission’s plans to roll out a vaccine passport scheme across the EU, which we covered yesterday. This is a guest post from a source within the EU.
In Brussels yesterday the European Parliament adopted a negotiating position on the Commission’s Digital Green Certificate proposal. 575 MEPs voted for a compromise text, with 80 against and 40 abstentions.
Voting took place remotely after three hours of speeches to a mostly empty chamber.
The Commission’s desire to create a universal system of health check points within the EU was apparent before the Plenary Session. During the debate it became increasingly clear that these checks will be taking place beyond Member State borders.
MEPs were resigned to passing the Regulation in order to “return to normal” even if it “puts Schengen at stake”.
Voter concerns that European society would be divided were occasionally relayed, usually as a prefix to a bald statement that the DGC would neither discriminate nor function as a pass for entry into Member States.
A handful of MEPs asked to examine the Proposal more critically.
With Parliament’s approval – and the three EU Institutions already in alignment – negotiations between Commission, Council and Parliament on the final text will be a mere formality.
We can expect the rubberstamp by June, ushering in a sophisticated and probably enduring system of health checks across Europe, enhanced by the draconian Passenger Locator Form, also on its way to becoming law.
Featured Video
Iran Blockade Complications
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Left in Disbelief: Israel in Panic over Hezbollah FPV Drone Nightmare
- Trump Taps Israel Lobbyist From Mossad Cutout FDD To Join Iran Negotiations
- Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
- Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of the Strait of Hormuz
- Mali: a new front in the Western war on multipolarism
- CHD Scientist: CDC, FDA COVID Vaccine Safety Monitoring ‘Insulting, and Many People Are Injured’
- COVID Conniving Receives First Federal Indictment
- Iran Blockade Complications /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
- Pirates of Mediterranean: Israel does as it pleases in the Sea of Three Continents
- Minab children massacre not ‘unfortunate situation’ but ‘heinous war crime’: Tehran
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 