Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pfizer Deliberately Deceived Regulators About SV40 Contamination of COVID Shots, Scientist Says

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 25, 2023

Did Pfizer deliberately deceive regulators about contamination of its COVID-19 vaccine? Yes, according to Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics.

Appearing on CHD.TV with Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s senior director of science and research, McKernan explained how Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA, which should not be present in an mRNA vaccine.

He said this raises concerns that the plasmid DNA could lead to cancers or autoimmune issues in some vaccine recipients.

McKernan said that annotating Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine sequence with a simple online tool — which any trained person can do — reveals the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40).

But in the data it gave to regulators, Pfizer deleted the annotation of the SV40 DNA and did not disclose its presence. That deletion, McKernan said, shows “intent to deceive.”

This raises serious questions about the vaccine’s safety that must be investigated, McKernan said. It also suggests major problems with the mRNA vaccine regulatory process.

After McKernan’s lab made its findings public, and other researchers confirmed them, Health Canada also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine contains this DNA. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has neither confirmed nor denied the presence of these billions of plasmid DNA fragments in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA told reporter Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., who questioned the agency on the issue, that it remains “confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of these vaccines.”

McKernan and his team stumbled accidentally on what Holland called an “incredibly important finding” when they used the RNA from the Pfizer vaccine — which they assumed was a functional pharmaceutical grade RNA — as a control to test the RNA purification system they were using in other work the lab was conducting.

In the process, they tested vaccines and found that instead of only containing mRNA, the Pfizer vaccines also contained DNA plasmids — small, circular, double-stranded DNA molecules distinct from a cell’s chromosomal DNA.

How did the contaminant DNA get into the vaccines?

McKernan explained that to synthesize the RNA for the vaccines, labs use a process called “in vitro transcription” whereby an RNA-making enzyme called an RNA polymerase uses a DNA template to synthesize RNA molecules.

“It’s like the ink for your Xerox machine,” McKernan said.

But the DNA first has to be amplified. For the clinical trials, Pfizer amplified the DNA using PCR (polymerase chain reaction), a method it called “Process 1.” McKernan said this process is ideal because it amplifies the DNA a millionfold. As a result, “There’s no residual background. You get a really clean piece of DNA that you can make your RNA from.”

But to scale up the process to mass produce vaccines for the public, McKernan said, Pfizer did a “bait-and-switch,” producing the vaccines using “Process 2.”

Process 2 includes “changes to the DNA template used to transcribe the RNA and the purification phase, as well as the manufacturing process of the lipid nanoparticles,” Josh Gueztkow and Retsef Levin wrote in a letter, published in the BMJ, which raised concerns with the process.

For Process 2, rather than amplifying DNA with PCR to make the template, vaccine makers amplified the DNA by plugging it into a bacterial plasmid vector, which uses E. coli for rapid amplification, but runs the risk of introducing sequences not present in the initial DNA, McKernan said.

This creates a practically infinite supply of DNA much more cheaply and easily than using PCR, he added.

But this DNA template comes with additional risk because the DNA of the plasmid used to create the template has to be removed from the vaccine before it can be injected into people.

He said it is clear the vaccine makers tried to get rid of that DNA by “chewing it up with an enzyme” called deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, which breaks down DNA, but they failed to eliminate it completely.

Why didn’t the DNA-destroying enzymes eliminate the DNA?

McKernan told Holland and Hooker the DNase failed to fully eliminate the contaminant DNA fragments from the vaccines delivered to the market because of the modifications they made to the RNA in order to make the mRNA vaccines function, and because of “blind spots” in how they measured the amount of residual DNA.

To make the mRNA vaccines work the way they wanted to, the vaccine designers had to make the RNA slightly more durable than usual, he said.

DNA, he said, is like a hard drive — it’s a long-lived form of information storage. RNA is temporary — like the task manager of the programs that are opening and closing on the hard drive.

Those programs and the RNA itself, get turned on and off. For RNA, an enzyme called RNase functions as an on/off switch.

The makers of the mRNA vaccines added a nucleotide, N1-Methylpseudouridine, that stopped the RNA from turning off right away so it would remain present to ensure the spike protein was produced “long enough to matter,” McKernan said.

That made the RNA “extraordinarily sticky,” so when the RNA polymerase copies the RNA off of the DNA template, it accidentally makes some RNA-DNA hybrids, a triple helix.

In that context, the DNase enzyme that was supposed to get rid of the template DNA can’t function properly.

McKernan said it was likely that the vaccine developers didn’t anticipate that would happen and they would therefore need to develop different enzymes.

“I think with the Warp Speed program, they didn’t really have time to investigate this,” he said.

The second reason the DNA is still there, he said, is because of the tools Pfizer used to measure the DNA and the RNA. Pfizer could measure them both with a single tool, called fluorometry, which can identify very tiny pieces of DNA and RNA.

But, he said, instead Pfizer is using fluorometry only for the RNA, which will give the vaccine developers inflated numbers, and the vaccine maker is using a different tool, called qPCR for the DNA, which can’t identify such small pieces of DNA and so will produce deflated numbers.

“They are playing some games” with these measuring tools, McKernan said, because regulators will want them to have high RNA numbers and low DNA numbers — and by measuring RNA and DNA with different tools, that’s exactly what they get.

That, he said, suggests “intent to deceive.”

What’s in the DNA and why should we be concerned?

Hooker asked McKernan to explain what “is hiding” in this remnant DNA and why people should be concerned.

McKernan said “hiding” was an apt term, because Pfizer gave the whole sequence to the regulators, but only annotated certain parts of it, which allowed it to hide some of the contents.

He said anyone can plug the sequence into a standard annotation software tool like SnapGene, and it automatically annotates the entire sequence — and he wrote a Substack post showing people how to do this.

He also showed Holland and Hooker a side-by-side comparison of the software’s annotation and Pfizer’s annotation, and he showed them where a key annotation was missing in Pfizer’s regulatory submission.

McKernan said that annotation marked the location of the fragments of SV40 virus— which Pfizer used as the necessary promoter and enhancer to drive gene transcription during the vaccine manufacturing process.

Someone had to delete those annotations before giving them to the regulators, he said.

SV40 is controversial because it was an artifact of the live polio vaccine and some experts say it is a cancer risk due to potential integration with the human genome.

To really understand the possible risks, McKernan said, more data have to be collected.

“We have a lot of reasons to believe this is a bad idea. They don’t need this DNA in there. They didn’t tell the regulators about it.”

He added:

“So all of that is a train wreck. If you’re putting in 200 billion of these molecules per shot and you’re doing them five times a year … I don’t know how many times people are taking them, but if you think of your schedule, you should be past your fifth by now. So there’s a cumulative dosing problem here. There’s a high number of these fragments in there.”

Even though the amount of DNA overall may be small, McKernan said, it has been fragmented into tiny pieces that make it “like a buckshot,” meaning it scatters like a shotgun bullet, hitting a broad area, which makes them “much more potent as integration tools because you have more active ends of DNA.”

Concerns beyond SV40: gene therapy and ‘open reading frames’

The U.S. regulatory structure is completely outdated, McKernan said. The current regulations allow for fairly high quantities of DNA because they are based on the idea that the DNA takes the form of a dead virus.

But mRNA vaccines are bringing these DNA sequences into the body in lipid nanoparticles that target the cell nucleus.

Hooker said, “We were told this [mRNA] would not target the nucleus. Is the nuclear targeting sequence the SV40 enhancer?”

McKernan said it is. In fact, he said, SV40 has been successfully researched as a gene therapy tool.

“There’s just no debate anymore. The plasmids that are in there are gene therapy tools, and they’re injected into billions of people,” he said.

Holland asked, “So not only was there no informed consent for anybody, and this was Emergency Use Authorization, so, by law, they weren’t able to give truly informed consent, but it looks like this was a gene therapy, and people were not told that this was a gene therapy. Is that right?”

“That’s right,” McKernan responded.

Holland asked McKernan whether, now that Health Canada acknowledged the presence of SV40, he thought all governments should take the vaccine off the market until this issue is investigated.

“I would think so,” McKernan said. “If they don’t do this, what are they there for?”

McKernan said he also identified other concerns in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine sequence.

For example, he showed Holland and Hooker that the sequence contains an Open Reading Frame — a DNA sequence with no “stop codon” or stop signal — that is 1,252 amino acids long on the reverse strand of the spike protein in the Pfizer sequence.

Despite extensive research, he said, he can’t identify what it is. “I don’t know what this does, but I know that this is an artifact of their codon optimization that should not be there and is a massive risk and they should get rid of it.”

Hooker asked what the implications of that might be. McKernan said it was unknown, but regulators should never have let it through because it is “risk with no gain and it’s unnecessary.”

Watch video:

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 25, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The Mother of All Revelations, out of 30 people jabbed in 1 clinic in 1 day-all dead within a short space of time

BY MERYL DOREY | INFORMED CHOICE | OCTOBER 21, 2023

A whistleblower has come forward and given Liz Gunn of the NZ Loyal Party (NZL) documentation showing that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have died within a short time of vaccination. Remember, NZ has just over 5 million people so tens of thousands of deaths are significant in anyone’s book.

In this video, she describes one clinic where 30 people received the COVID jab and all 30 of them died soon after.

Ms Gunn is demanding a criminal investigation – not an inquiry – and I think that’s what we need here in Australia too.

Would our stats be any different than those in NZ? I doubt it very much. And a Royal Commission or Albo’s Clayton’s inquiry will do nothing to stop the carnage taking place all around us.

I clearly remember when the VaxXed Bus was in Lightning Ridge last year – a town of about 3,000 people. We spoke with 25 locals and every single person we spoke with could name at least 3 people they personally know who died after a COVID jab and 6-10 who were injured.

These jabs – actually ALL jabs – need to be stopped today! Until they are proven to be safe, effective and necessary, we should not be forcing, mandating or even using any medical products which are essentially untested.

I applaud Liz Gunn and pray she will be successful in her appeals to Winston Peters.

We need Senators Malcolm Roberts, Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babbet and Matt Canavan to join together as one and make the same demands here in Australia.

October 23, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Trends in Excess Deaths, 20th October 2023

HART | October 21, 2023

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)

“We have experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020.

Number of excess deaths according to Office for Health Improvements and Disparities
Mar-Dec 2020 (there were fewer deaths than expected in Jan and Feb 2020 according to ONS) 69,293
Jul 2021 – Sept 2023 76,554

Unlike during the pandemic, however, those deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excess deaths are striking down people in the prime of life… Full text with graphs

Some Key Points Made

  • Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.
  • The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one’s looking.
  • Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since.
  • The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation.
  • There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone.
  • There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.

October 22, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Heart damage study adds weight to call for immediate ban on mRNA ‘vaccines’

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 19, 2023

I am really sorry to have to do this to long-established TCW readers, who must be weary of the mass of scientific evidence we have reported over nearly three years about the ineffectiveness and dangers of the Covid jabs – and the continuing lack of response from regulators.  But a peer-reviewed study out last week in the British Journal of Pharmacology provides an important piece of the puzzle of why heart damage has emerged as prominent among side-effects from the mRNA gene injections.

It shows for the first time that rat heart cells, isolated in the laboratory, become disordered 48 hours after exposure to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in ways that correlate with heart muscle damage in humans. The scientists involved, at the Giessen Institute of Physiology in Germany and the National Heart Laboratory of Semmelweis University, Hungary, say the findings mean the policy of giving people mRNA vaccines should be reconsidered. This adds even further weight to Professor Angus Dalgleish’s call for the mRNA vaccines to be banned once and for all made in these pages three weeks ago.

The vaccines were designed to induce our bodies to make a specific protein, the toxic ‘spike’ of the genetically engineered Covid virus, in the hope that this would increase our immunity to the virus. It was originally claimed that the genetic material would act only at the site of the injection, and that it would soon disappear. Both claims have been disproved, with studies showing that the nanoparticles carrying the genetic instruction for ‘spike’ travel all over the body, and can be long-lasting.

In the new study, the Moderna and Pfizer products had different, specific effects, but both altered heart cell function and structure in ‘hidden’ ways that ‘may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events’, the researchers say.

Commenting on the study, the US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough said yesterday: ‘There have been many drugs that have never made it to the market because they cause heart rhythm disturbances. Because the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed in development, pre-clinical cardiac toxicity studies were skipped. Now, three years into the disastrous Covid-19 vaccine campaign, we are learning that probably every person sustains some degree of heart dysfunction or damage within 48 hours of the shot . . . This and many studies support a complete moratorium on mRNA research, given these very serious findings.’

Mathematician and businessman Igor Chudov, who closely monitors Covid vaccine science, also drew attention to the study, commenting: ‘I wish this research had been done before billions of people were poisoned. Sadly, little will change now – but the truth is finally coming out.’

The finding comes after a long line of warnings about heart damage from the jabs. As early as December 2020, US physician Dr Patrick Whelan, a paediatric specialist, wrote that vaccines based on the spike protein may themselves trigger symptoms of severe Covid, including blood clots, brain inflammation and damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. He urged particular caution over giving the vaccine to children and young adults, who normally fight off the coronavirus infection in its early stages.

The following May, an international group of doctors and scientists published an appeal – the first of many – to halt mass vaccination programmes until safety issues were resolved.

A month later, in June 2021, pathologist Dr Roger Hodkinson said the vaccine should never have been released, warning that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – was being seen increasingly in the wake of the jab, especially in young men. The long-term consequences, he said, were ‘totally unpredictable’ and never ‘mild’, as regulators were describing it. ‘It may only present 20 years later because of the reserve of the heart having been destroyed. We are talking here about cardiac arrhythmias, abnormal heartbeats, heart failure and so on . . . The bottom line is that this vaccination of everybody should stop immediately.’

The same month Dr Byram Bridle, associate professor of immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, said it had become clear that ‘the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation’.

And in November 2021 Dr Steven Gundry, a renowned American heart specialist, reported ‘dramatic’ biochemical changes predictive of heart trouble in most of his patients after their second mRNA jab. ‘These changes persist for at least two and a half months post second dose of vaccine,’ he wrote in an alert to the American Heart Association.

More recently, another biochemical signal of hidden heart damage in the wake of the jabs was reported last month in the journal Radiology. Patients known to be suffering from post-vaccination myocarditis show this abnormality, and a study on hundreds of symptomless patients, who were in hospital for check-ups and other reasons, found the same signal to be more common among the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The effect was seen for up to 180 days after their second jab.

McCullough has given evidence supporting his call for a moratorium on the jabs at hearings in the US Senate and European Parliament. He has published a ‘note of concern to colleagues’ in which he says that as of August 25 this year, the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has recorded 18,015 deaths reported under the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the vaccine is related to the death. The largest autopsy study to date indicates that 73.9 per cent of deaths are directly caused or significantly contributed to by the Covid jabs, he says. Around 1,100 deaths occurred on the same day as vaccination.

His statement continues: ‘There are around 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts in the medical literature concerning fatal and non-fatal Covid-19 vaccine injuries including those recognized by regulatory agencies around the world such as myocarditis, neurologic injury, thrombosis, and immunologic syndromes.

‘The World Council for Health, June 11, 2022, has produced a pharmacovigilance report which is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven, calling for global market withdrawal of Covid-19 vaccines based on lack of safety.’

Citing other similar calls, he says the evidence indicates that not only are the vaccines not safe for human use, but ‘no large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization or death as primary endpoints.’

Elsewhere, he has said that the moratorium should apply to all mRNA vaccines, including those being developed for other purposes, until the effects on the heart are fully studied.

October 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Dozens And Dozens Of Doctors Team Up To Fight “Chilling Attack” On The Freedom Of Speech Of Senior Doctor

Dr Aseem Malhotra with his father Prof Kailash Chand OBE, who he believes died from a sudden cardiac arrest due to the Pfizer vaccine.
By JJ Starky | The Stark Naked Brief | October 16, 2023

In June, a group of doctors, some of whom are general practitioners (GPs), initiated legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC). The basis of their claim was the GMC’s alleged failure to address misinformation about the Covid vaccines.

The doctors, who prefer anonymity – cowards – delivered a pre-action protocol letter to the GMC, signalling their intent to pursue legal action. Earlier in January, this group had urged the regulator to assess Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s suitability to practice medicine, citing his alleged “prominent dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.”

Dr. Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, activist, and author, boasts over half a million Twitter followers, with his latest content primarily centering around the safety, or the lack there of, of the Covid vaccines.

Prior to receiving an official denial from the GMC, the doctors contended in an April letter that the regulator should determine if Dr. Malhotra’s professional conduct had been compromised by his alleged “anti-Covid-19 vaccine stance”. They stressed that inaction could jeopardise patient safety and public trust in both the medical field and the GMC.

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University GP, highlighted the GMC’s reluctance to tie perceived “anti-vaccine statements” to direct harm inflicted upon a patient. She emphasised the expansive reach of “misleading statements” in the era of social media, necessitating a reevaluation of the definition of “harm” in this context.

To defray the legal expenses for challenging the GMC, the group embarked on a fundraising campaign, collecting a reported £5,000.

Dr. Malhotra defended his stance, citing a commitment to evolve his position in line with new evidence. He mentioned his own early vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine and efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy, but stressed his belief that the mRNA vaccines present serious risks while noting their approval despite the absence of long-term safety data.

Earlier today, Doctors For Patients UK, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Health Advisory & Recovery Team, issued a press release in response to the Good Law Project.

(It constitutes a bit of an ass-whopping in my opinion so I dare not summarise it. Here it is in its entirety):

Dear Editor

We, the undersigned doctors, and the campaign groups Doctors for Patients UK, UK Medical Freedom Alliance and HART, wish to publicly state our support for Dr Aseem Malhotra, a well-published academic and cardiologist who has been a popular commentator on medical and public health matters in the UK media for many years. We condemn the actions of a group of (mostly anonymous) doctors, supported by the Good Law Project (GLP), in seeking to silence and punish Dr Malhotra for speaking out about his concerns about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. This is a serious and chilling attack on the freedom of speech of a senior doctor.

Dr Malhotra is the son of the late BMA stalwart and NHS campaigner, Dr Kailash Chand. Following the unexpected death of his father from previously undetectable heart disease, Dr Malhotra made public statements highlighting his concerns that his father’s Covid-19 vaccinations were a causal factor in his death.

Despite initially endorsing and promoting the Covid-19 vaccines on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on 5th February 20212 he is now calling for an immediate suspension of the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and a full investigation into their adverse effects, for reasons detailed in the 2-part, peer-reviewed paper he wrote, published in September 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This is entirely in line with his duty as a responsible doctor, to protect the British public from the harm which he believes his family have suffered and to uphold the fundamental principle of medical ethics to “First do no harm”.

Dr Malhotra presented his concerns to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccine Damage, on 20th October 2022 at Portcullis House, Westminster. His impassioned call to prioritise patient safety resulted in a group of anonymous doctors reporting him to the General Medical Council (GMC) for ‘high-profile promotion of misinformation about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines’, demanding they investigate his fitness to practice. When the GMC refused to carry out a Fitness to Practice (FtP) investigation, Dr Matt Kneale, a junior doctor in the group, instructed The Good Law Project (GLP) to begin crowdfunding for a legal action against the GMC’s decision, and launched a judicial review against the GMC in the High Court.

Dr Malhotra is a senior cardiologist, a well-established commentator and campaigner on public health issues, and a long-standing advocate for patient safety. His previous campaigns have raised awareness about heart disease, obesity, the harms of sugar, and corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. As an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, he was the lead author in this joint initiative with the BMJ to tackle the harms of overprescribing and unnecessary medical interventions. It is a mark of Dr Malhotra’s high regard for medical ethics that he felt compelled to speak publicly about his new and growing concerns of a link between Covid-19 vaccines and heart damage, despite initially endorsing the mRNA jabs.

It is deeply unsettling that the GLP, an entity funded primarily by the public, would turn its legal machinery toward silencing an ethical doctor. This is especially troubling given the organisation’s stated commitment to transparency and a better world. Rather than exerting legal force to silence professionals, should they not focus instead on compelling the full release of the Covid-19 vaccine trial data? The absence of such vital information from public and medical scrutiny is not just a lapse; it’s a serious breach of trust and a blow to patient safety.

By contesting the GMC’s decision to support Dr Malhotra’s right to free speech and not to carry out a formal FtP investigation (on the grounds that his statements were not sufficiently egregious to merit action), the legal action supported by the GLP risks undermining the resolve of medical professionals to speak candidly on serious health issues, a move that would have profound consequences for patient safety and the ethical practice of medicine.

The GLP challenge against the GMC decision is misconceived, misguided, and threatens doctors’ individual right to free speech and proper scientific debate on matters relating to protecting the public from dangerous products. It is deeply regrettable in a democratic society that instead of being applauded for his courage in raising the alarm, Dr Malhotra is being persecuted in this way.

Thousands of doctors worldwide and in the United Kingdom11 share Dr Malhotra’s reasonable concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. Many have spoken out on this issue, including the eminent US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, who called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. The undersigned doctors and organisations are aware of multiple harms associated with the Covid-19 vaccines; among them frontline doctors who have reported vaccine-associated injuries and deaths in their own patients.

The list of signatories and co-signatories is something to behold:

  • Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
  • Dr Clare Craig BM BCh, FRCPath
  • Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG
  • Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
  • Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
  • Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Ali Ajaz, MBBS, BSc, MRCPsych, PGCert, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
  • Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP (2016), MRCPCH (2013), DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucy Apps, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner
  • Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
  • Dr Gill Breese, BSc, MBChB, DTM&H, DFFP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM, CFMP, MRCPsych
  • Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), Dip Lap Surg, FRCS [ASGBI Medal], Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Selena Chester, MBBS, Medical Practitioner
  • Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General Practitioner
  • Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
  • Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB FRCPath. Consultant Histopathologist
  • Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LLB
  • Dr Bob Gill, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Tony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired Consultant Paediatrician
  • Dr Tim Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, Hospital Doctor
  • Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
  • Dr Andrew Lees, MB BS, MRCGP, DCH, retired General Practitioner
  • Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS (Gen Surg). MIHM, VR, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP (2006), MRCGP (2007), General Practitioner
  • Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Janet Menage, MA, MBChB, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
  • Dr Campbell Murdoch, MBChb, General Practitioner and PCN Clinical Director, Somerset
  • Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
  • Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
  • Dr Sam McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
  • Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
  • Dr Fairoz Miller, BSc, MBBCh, MRCP (1999), MRCGP (2016), General Practitioner
  • Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician, UKMFA Director of Medical Ethics
  • Dr Dean Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and General Physician, MBChB, FRCP
  • Dr Jessica Robinson, Bsc (Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom
  • Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS BSc MRCP MRCGP General Practitioner
  • Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), MRCGP (1981), DRCOG (1980), retired General Practitioner
  • Mr T. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, DCH, MRCGP (2003-2017), General Practitioner
  • Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP (2012), retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucie Wilk, BSc, MD, FRCPC (2013), Consultant Rheumatologist

You can find a full copy of the press release here.

Currently working on a new exposè concerning the coordinated attempt to tarnish “conspiracist” celebrities. It is, however, proving to be more time-consuming than I originally expected. I should have it up in the next few days.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The hounding of an inspirational headmaster who spoke out on Covid

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 12, 2023

Headmaster Mike Fairclough was the darling of primary school education after creating an unorthodox forest school in a council estate in Eastbourne, East Sussex. Alongside the usual lessons, from 2004 Mr Fairclough provided an extraordinarily rich rural curriculum that you would never expect in a state school. He leased 120 acres of marshland opposite West Rise school, the site of a former Bronze Age settlement. The children learned how to build fires and how to whittle wood with knives to make arrows. They learned fly fishing, how to skin rabbits and pluck pigeons. They tended beehives, sheep and even water buffalo.

Mr Fairclough won the admiration of his peers, and in 2015, the Times Educational Supplement ‘Primary School of the Year’ award. Dame Judith Hackitt, chairman of the Health & Safety Executive, said more school head teachers should be following Fairclough’s example. The underperforming school’s Ofsted rose from ‘Satisfactory’ to ‘Good’ and for 19 years, West Rise thrived. The number of pupils doubled from 179 to 360, as did the number of staff from 30 to 60.

Mr Fairclough enjoyed a good relationship with his staff and his local authority East Sussex County Council but resigned last month after a witch hunt using anti-terrorism legislation left him feeling a broken man. In his resignation letter he said: ‘I feel that I have been discriminated against, harassed, and bullied for exercising my right to lawful free speech and for expressing my philosophical belief in the importance of critical thinking, free speech, and safeguarding children.

‘As a headteacher, I have had a legal duty to safeguard children against harm. My professional field of expertise is child development and education. I have publicly shared my opinion that lockdowns harm children, that I disagree with masking children, and that I feel that the risks from the Covid vaccines for children outweigh any possible benefits. It has therefore been entirely reasonable and relevant for me to express my lawful opinions on these matters in the interest of safeguarding children against harm.’ Other heads agreed privately but 50-year-old Mr Fairclough, a father of four, was the only headteacher of 20,000 in the UK to say so publicly.

‘I first started to lose heart during the pandemic,’ he said. ‘The fear of Covid trumped learning, so children weren’t sitting next to each other and couldn’t share resources. Some schools were having children learning outside in the cold, so they weren’t able to concentrate, and it felt like adults’ fear of dying, which was irrational because we were told early that we were at minimal risk of dying of Covid, meant they were using children in their care as human shields. That made me think that the Department for Education weren’t really bothered about kids at all.’

His lawful response put him under scrutiny at the highest levels. Mr Fairclough found out through freedom of information (FOI) that he had been monitored by the government’s Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU) and their Department for Counter Extremism, although he was cleared of any wrongdoing by East Sussex County Council.

Some people objected to his negative views on vaccinating children against Covid, opinions expressed outside the school setting, on social media and in podcasts. They fell into four main points, all of which are hard to challenge:

·       Healthy children were at low risk of serious illness from Covid. (Office of National Statistics figures show that just six under-tens died between January 2020 and May 2021. They do not say whether the children had underlying health problems. For context, around 1,000 children die on the roads each year.)

·       Covid vaccines posed known and very serious risks. (Potentially fatal myocarditis, and pericarditis, inflammation of the heart, are known risks.)

·       A child can still catch Covid and spread Covid when vaccinated. (Covid vaccinations were not recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) for under-16s, a decision overridden by the chief medical officers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.)

·       There was no long-term safety data, trials do not finish until this year, and the potential risks outweighed any benefit.

Mr Fairclough said: ‘I tried to communicate with parents who were undecided in a way that didn’t make me sound like I’m mad. I do think there are some in the freedom movement who say things in a way that doesn’t endear themselves to people with a different view.’

In the end 89.4 per cent of five to 11-year-olds remained unvaccinated although the numbers are hard to find and are not reported by the BBC.

So, who complained about this popular and effective headmaster? The first investigation was launched in June 2021. It was made by a group of retired NHS workers on Twitter (now X) whose mission it was to find anyone in education who appeared to be antivax and anti-lockdown. Mr Fairclough does not know who made the second complaint but the third was made by a concerned group of parents and teachers. ‘No parent came to me,’ Mr Fairclough said. ‘I have an open-door policy and they know they can talk to me at any time. I don’t know exactly which staff complained, but I have my suspicions. There was a small group within the school who did not agree with me although most were aligned with my thinking.’

It was December 1 2022 when the third complaint arrived, reported under the Prevent duty, the government initiative that requires all education providers to safeguard learners from extremist ideologies. Mr Fairclough was also reported to the DfE’s Counter-Extremism Division and was being framed as an extremist and potential terrorist, an intimidating move by the local council that left Mr Fairclough traumatised. He was signed off suffering with stress. He said: ‘I found sleeping difficult. I kept dreaming about what was happening and woke up thinking about it. I’m not a terrorist, all I was doing was discussing the alterative narrative.’

We know utopia does not exist and Mr Fairclough had his run-ins. ‘It wasn’t that I never fell out with parents. Say for example they felt like a teacher hadn’t dealt with a bullying issue, then of course they would come in and kick off and I’d have to look into the matter. But what surprised me with the resignation is that even parents that I’d had that kind of fractious relationship with have actually contacted me personally to say, “we’re really gutted that you’re not here any more”. That surprised me. I thought at least one would say good riddance.’

His absence has sent the school into freefall. An Ofsted report carried out in July, seven months after he was signed off, saw West Rise downgraded from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’.

Our education system is increasingly focused on learning by rote rather than teaching critical thinking, a skill Mr Fairclough thinks is essential. He said: ‘Education is highly political under the Conservative government, it’s all about acquisition of knowledge to be retained and regurgitated for a memory test on the other side.’

His unusual approach had the full support of parents, the Health and Safety Executive, Ofsted and the media. Some of his pupils gained places at the local agricultural college and now run their own herds in the Sussex South Downs. A number entered media in film, art, and drama, mainly thanks to his ‘Room 13’, where children could go and have complete creative autonomy.

He is not sure what comes next, but he is sure of one thing: advocating for children cost him his much-loved career in our inverted world. He said: ‘Critical thinking and lawful free speech are not dangerous; they go hand in hand in safeguarding children. Open debate on important matters is the bedrock of any democratic society and no one should be pursued for speaking out.’

Mr Fairclough is not giving up on free speech and is crowdfunding to take his former employer to court. You can donate here.

He hopes his future will include writing more books like Wild Thing, which is about how embracing childhood traits into adulthood can lead to happiness. He recently started a Substack which you can see here.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

My trial lawyer buddies won’t like this essay

They are not the fearless, justice-seeking advocates they want us to think they are.

BY BILL RICE, JR. | OCTOBER 14, 2023

I’ve now written several articles pointing out the obvious. Namely, that all important organizations that are supposed to discover the truth are completely captured.

One of the most-important of these professions is Plaintiffs’ Trial Lawyer firms. These are attorneys and law firms that are supposed to exist to represent people who suffered grave harms from malfeasance or nefarious (and illegal) acts.

First questions: Where are these fearless, justice-seeking lawyers today? What are they doing with their lives and careers?

We know what they are NOT doing: They are not suing any person or company whose activities directly or indirectly injured or killed hundreds of millions of possible plaintiffs who are pleading for justice.

Potential lawsuits might expose (and give some compensation or “justice”) to tens of millions of people who suffered harm from lockdowns, iatrogenic deaths and injuries, vaccine deaths and injuries and/or vaccine mandates that resulted in people losing their jobs and incomes.

FWIW, such lawsuits might also stop these horrific practices, saving countless people from pain, suffering and even death.

So why aren’t these lawsuits being filed? Why won’t 99 percent of these firms even consider representing a potential plaintiff class that’s so massive in size?

Nobody wants to leave the safety of the herd 

Or: club membership bestows benefits

My answer is that plaintiff trial lawyers are part of a “club” that’s now completely captured. It’s more important to these attorneys to remain in this privileged and protected club than it is to do the job lawyers were created to do.

Basically, to remain a member in good standing of this club, these attorneys know what lawsuits they can file … and, more importantly, what lawsuits they cannot file.

I also note that the members of the Plaintiff’s trial bar are among the wealthiest people in the world. If they file a case and win, they pocket at least 40 percent of the financial judgement.

I also understand most of these lawsuits never even go before a jury. They are settled long before that point – so plaintiff lawyers don’t even have to fully try a case, which, with appeals, could take years to adjudicate.

In short, if you become part of the group that can file authorized lawsuits … and identify enough winnable cases, this is a lucrative gig.

You are going to be a member of the best country club in town and your family is going to be able to take vacations to the south of France.

Why jeopardize your inclusion in a profitable profession?

A key point is that this group never runs out of “winnable cases.”

Every day, an 18-wheeler (owned by a trucking company with deep pockets or good liability insurance) is going to be involved in a fatal traffic accident. Asbestos lawsuits are still making lawyers millionaires decades after asbestos was identified as a potential killer.

If “contaminated water” at a military base might, decades later, have made some people sick that’s a potential windfall for lawyers who recruited enough possible victims.

If you were perhaps discriminated against because of your LGBT status or maybe because of your race, this could produce enough money for a lawyer to live like a king for a couple of years.

Even hospitals or surgeons can be sued for malpractice … if they commit malpractice that is on the authorized “sue list.”

In short, no plaintiff trial attorney needs to file Covid-related lawsuits to continue to make a great living. There’s enough easy judgments out there to keep suing lawyers happy and content.

A thought experiment …

However, what would happen to these lawyers and their law firms if they suddenly started filing lawsuits against Pfizer, or Moderna or their local hospitals and doctors, people who are the most respected people in their towns?

What if they sued a random scientific expert, and their employers at the local university, who evidence showed were intentionally producing harmful and bogus science and who were retaliating against individuals who were trying to tell the truth?

What if they sued a big local employer, led by “civic-minded” and well-respected CEOs, who nonetheless helped enforce all the harmful and discriminatory Covid mandates?

If any of these things actually happened – if some serious lawsuits were filed – I don’t think the attorneys or law firms that brought these cases would remain in this exalted club for long.

Lawyers are smart. My guess is they understand all of this.

They know how cancel culture works. They saw that even Tucker Carlson, who had the No. 1 rated TV news show in the world, could be fired in retaliation for trying to expose club members.

Attorneys, more than most citizens, can probably tell which way the wind is blowing and who really possesses the most power in society. (The same dynamic applies to mainstream media “journalists,” who know what stories they can write … and which ones they can never write).

In a way, it makes sense that attorneys wouldn’t want to get sideways with certain people and organizations.  It’s now been confirmed repeatedly that sociopaths, or those who covet status, are not amused when someone breaks ranks and challenges their status and control.

Here’s the lawyers’ go-to defense …

It would be interesting if some real journalist surveyed some of the most prominent plaintiff trial firms and asked their managing partners why they are not representing millions of gravely injured citizens.

I can guess what their answers would be.

The common answer would be that potential defendants in lawsuits are immune from liability.

This is no doubt true in some cases, but definitely not all possible cases, involving all victims.

As noted, lawyers are smart. If they wanted to file a case, they could find myriad legal grounds to bring said cases.

But, IMO, the real reason would be unspoken.

“Are you crazy? We’re not going to agitate the most powerful and politically-connected organizations in the world. They’d retaliate and put us out of the lawsuit-filing business.”

This is no doubt true, so the world’s elite lawyers are not suffering from paranoia.

Which brings me to my main point …

But what these attorneys would really be admitting is they are not the “fearless,” justice-seeking lawyers they depict in their TV commercials.

If you were injured in an accident involving a big-rig truck, they’ll talk to you. But if your case would involve debunking the claims of Anthony Fauci or any of the non-pharmaceutical interventions endorsed by every important organization in the world … go talk to Robert Kennedy Jr’s law firm.

What these lawyers in their $5,000 suits are really admitting is that they do fear repercussions from the most powerful entities in the world.

They are either scared as hell of getting on the wrong side of the “Powers that Be”  … or they are admitting they’d prefer to remain a member in good standing of the club that rules the world.

The Operative Quid Pro Quo

For the third time in this essay, I’ll note that lawyers are smart.

Lawyers, hypothetically, can represent any plaintiffs who’ve suffered unnecessary or avoidable injuries. Many key attorneys also represent big companies that want to eliminate or minimize the possibility they’ll have to pay vast legal settlements for corporate malfeasance.

When I think about the machinations of “club” members, it occurs to me that many of the best and brightest lawyers in the world have spent decades re-writing laws and regulations that will protect certain companies from lawsuits brought by millions of possible victims.

I’ve come to believe there was a quid pro quo with plaintiff trial lawyers: If you guys don’t sue the wrong defendants, we’ll make sure there’s enough people left in the world that you can sue and still make a great living.

Remaining a member of “The Club” is far more important to 99 percent of attorneys than representing victims … if said victims happened to be harmed by the policies embraced by the Club.

Why this matters …

None of this would matter if lawyers and successful lawsuits didn’t or couldn’t make a difference. But they can and could … if we had many more attorneys who were genuinely fearless justice seekers.

In fact, society probably wouldn’t need a large number of attorneys who were brave enough to bring these cases. Once one jury returned for the plaintiffs, armies of lawyers would probably want to get their piece of this justice pie.

It’s possible legions of members of Plaintiffs Trial Bar are waiting for one brave lawyer in their group who does say, “Damn the torpedoes” and starts suing away.

Of course, this scenario would entail a handful of judges who would allow good cases to go to trial … and this possibility is being blocked as well.

It turns out that the judges are lawyers too. This makes one think everyone who could make a difference …. won’t … because they’re all members of the same captured club.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

More circus theatre from the ‘safe and effective’ brigade

Nobel Prize awarded for mRNA vaccines

HART | OCTOBER 10, 2023

On 2nd October 2023, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded a Nobel Prize for their contribution to the design of the mRNA vaccines. Notably, the original inventor, Robert Malone was not included. Karikó and Weissman’s main contribution was to include a synthetic nucleotide – pseudouridine – to reduce immune attack, increase protein production and to increase the longevity of the mRNA. How long did they make it last you may ask? Nobody knows!

Dr Drew Weissman wrote in 2018 of his concerns regarding the “non-trivial” safety concerns of the mRNA technology. He included concerns about:

1. Where in the body mRNA would act

2. How long it would last

3. Autoimmunity

4. Toxicity of recycled pseudouridine nucleotides

5. Lipid nanoparticle toxicity

6. Clotting issues from naked RNA

Since 2020, he failed to raise concerns about any of these issues and instead advocated as if every single one of these concerns had been remedied.

They received their prize while both wearing large white face masks indicating their total lack of faith in the product.

The vice chair of the Nobel Committee claimed:

“giving a Nobel Prize for this COVID-19 vaccine may make hesitant people take the vaccine and be sure it’s very efficient and safe.”

This rather implies that the latest stunt is nothing more than a publicity/marketing exercise to ‘nudge’ consumer confidence. It is hard to imagine that anyone who resisted the billion dollar advertising campaign and behavioural nudges of 2020/2021 will be susceptible to this cheap trick. It is interesting how Ivermectin could be smeared by the FDA as being horse paste despite scientists being awarded a Nobel Prize for its use in medicine, specifically against parasitic diseases in humans. People’s thinking on these subjects is being constantly manipulated by those in power and is nothing if not entirely inconsistent.

Until recently, the most shameful Nobel Prize was awarded to the inventors of the lobotomy procedure. To avoid another similar disaster the committee has waited at least ten years before awarding a prize to ensure that breakthroughs stand the test of time. For some reason, that rule was ignored in this case. Perhaps the motivations were political. The question has to be asked as to whether these two characters are being set up to be the fall guys in due course.

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

DNA & SV40 In The #Pfizer Shot

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine and stroke – the unmentionable connection

By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 13, 2023

As reported in one of our favourite outlets, Global Health Now, the newsletter of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins University, we can expect a rise in stroke. It is already the second leading cause of death, and the recent Lancet Neurology Commission report predicts a 50 per cent rise by 2050, taking the worldwide total to 9.7 million deaths a year.

According to the report the underlying cause of the predicted increase is high blood pressure generally; in younger people, a rise in diabetes and obesity may increase stroke. The factors identified above are all, indeed, leading causes of stroke.

Could anything else lead to an increase in stroke? In these pages, reference has been made recently by Dr Angus Dalgleish to the now widespread use of mRNA vaccines introduced as a purported way of preventing Covid-19 infection (they didn’t). In that article, he refers to stroke from blood clotting as one dangerous and even fatal outcome of the mRNA vaccines. Dr Dalgleish says that the risk associated with mRNA vaccines is so great that their use ought to be banned. But, as a search of the Lancet report reveals, there is not a single mention of any relationship between the use of mRNA vaccines and stroke. Since Pfizer propose to develop further mRNA vaccines, for example for flu, the use of these vaccines may become even more widespread.

The omission of any mention of mRNA vaccines and their relationship to stroke is, surely, a major flaw in the Lancet report. This is strange, deliberate possibly, given how common the knowledge is that there is such a relationship. The possibility of a link has been reported, among other places, in BMJ Case Reports, medRxiv, Stroke, Medical News Today, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease and even in Lancet eClinical Medicine. So we know that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines can cause stroke, and we know that the campaign to keep pushing the Covid-19 vaccines is relentless with proposals to develop further mRNA vaccines for more infectious diseases. What could possibly go wrong?

In addition to the likelihood of Covid-19 vaccines contributing to the increase in stroke, other aspects of the virtually worldwide overreaction to Covid-19, principally lockdown, undoubtedly contributed. Enforced confinement led to lower levels of physical activity and an increase in alcohol intake, among other things. As a result, levels of obesity rose, one of the contributing factors to stroke. While the imposition of lockdown may have ended, many people remain locked down in their minds, unable to leave home and suffering from depression. The working from home ‘pandemic’ is also unlikely to stop and this is known to be contributing to obesity.

A further effect of lockdown was lack of access to healthcare. Even one of the architects and proponents of lockdown and ‘saving the NHS’, Chris Whitty, warned in 2022 that there had been adverse consequences as a result of people not having access to life-saving drugs for cardiovascular disease. Surely, he saw that coming in 2020 and 2021, but chose to say nothing. Also a leading advocate of the Covid-19 vaccines, he was knighted in 2022. It’s enough to give you a stroke!

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Theoretical Vaccine Effectiveness for Novavax Unacceptably Low

Real World Study Disappointing for Non-Genetic Vaccine

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | October 11, 2023

If it came to forced COVID-19 vaccination against human will, I have said Novavax would be the choice since it gives a limited 5 mcg dose of the potentially lethal Spike protein and has no genetic material. The growing number of fatal side effects with mRNA vaccines and recent news of contamination with SV-40 cDNA has resulted in record low rates of booster uptake, currently at 1.3% of unwary Americans.

Mateo-Urdiales reported on 20,903 individuals who took the two shot primary series of Novavax. Theoretical vaccine effectiveness was shockingly low:

“Adjusted estimated vaccine effectiveness against notified SARS-CoV infections in those with partial vaccination (15 days after the first dose to 14 days after the second dose) was 23%(95%CI, 13%-33%), increasing after full vaccination to 31% (95%CI, 22%-39%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness was higher against symptomatic COVID-19, with an estimate of 31% (95%CI, 16%-44%) in those partially vaccinated and of 50% (95%CI, 40%-58%) in those fully vaccinated.”

Mateo-Urdiales A, Sacco C, Petrone D, et al. Estimated Effectiveness of a Primary Cycle of Protein Recombinant Vaccine NVX-CoV2373 Against COVID-19. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36854

If a vaccine cannot safely provide at least 50% protection for a year, it is not viable in my clinical practice. Sadly Novavax failed at both of these outcomes. With low-risk Omicron, and likely substantial natural immunity by Fall of 2022, only 26 infections led to hospitalization during the study period; 1 occurred during the reference period, 7 during partial vaccination, and 18 after full vaccination. No deaths were reported.

In summary, Novavax is probably the safest of all the COVID-19 vaccines because it does not use genetic technology. Sadly, it is useless against Omicron and cannot be recommended for any health benefit.

 

October 13, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Lawsuit Pushes Back Against California Medical Board’s “Misinformation” Censorship Power

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 12, 2023

A lawsuit has been amended in California against this US state’s medical boards’ “misinformation powers” – based on a law that is soon to be repealed, and which critics – some of them legal plaintiffs – say allowed the government to prevent them from practicing medicine, the way they were trained to do.

It was one of the rules, called Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), introduced to keep medical professionals in check, in case they felt like speaking their minds freely as insights into Covid were developing.

And since the world has now moved on to other crises, the “forgotten pandemic” censorship laws are getting “quietly” repealed.

But not really, the plaintiffs in this case claim – because of the nature of the repeal of the short-lived AB 2098, made null-and-void on September 14 via Senate Bill 815 (SB 815). California Senator Newsom got to sign all three documents.

However, the repeal – which will not be in effect before the start of 2024 – at the same time incorporates Democrat member of California Assembly Evan Low’s provision that doctors who get accused of “misinformation” can still be punished – “held accountable” – regardless of whether the controversial law was actually applicable.

“The Medical Board of California will continue to maintain the authority to hold medical licensees accountable for deviating from the standard of care and misinforming their patients about COVID-19 treatments,” Low said.

How in the world is this political, ideological, pre-election, and legal gymnastics even supposed to work?

The lawsuit against the bill, Hoang et al. v. Bonta et al., has the plaintiffs represented by California attorney Richard Jaffe.

He had this to say: “Because of the repeal of AB 2098, and the board’s position that it can still sanction the speech targeted by the soon-to-be-repealed law, we are pivoting in our lawsuit and arguing to the judge that they can’t do it under their general statute either because the speech does not change just because the legal theory/statute changes.”

The world clearly has moved to other crises – but it seems, not the California Democrats. And so the plaintiffs in the lawsuit’s amended format are also asking to add more to their ranks. One of the original ones is Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

However absurd the “standard of care” argument that supersedes a law may seem to a layperson, Jaffe is obviously taking it seriously.

The court will hear the arguments related to this new development on November 13.

October 12, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »