Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pfizer drip feeds data from its pregnancy trial of covid-19 vaccine

Analysis of the data so far shows the trial was underpowered, poorly designed and incomplete

BY MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD | AUGUST 24, 2023

In January 2021, in the absence of any human data in pregnancy, the CDC stated on its website that mRNA vaccines were “unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant.”

Former CDC director Rochelle Walensky backed it up with a full-throated endorsement of covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

“There is no bad time to get vaccinated,” said Walensky.

“Get vaccinated while you’re thinking about having a baby, while you’re pregnant with your baby or after you’ve delivered your baby,” she added.

Behind the scenes however, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.

By February 2022, Pfizer revealed it still did “not yet have a complete data set.” Its statement read:

“The environment changed during 2021 and by September 2021, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended by applicable recommending bodies (e.g., ACIP in the U.S.) for pregnant women in all participating/planned countries, and as a result the enrollment rate declined significantly.”

This month, Pfizer finally posted some trial results on clinicaltrials.gov.

The data do not appear in a peer-reviewed journal or a pre-print, nor has it been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.

I spoke with experts who have analysed the data with a fine-tooth comb and made some alarming observations.

Trial design

Pfizer originally planned to recruit 4000 healthy women aged 18 or older who were 24 to 34 weeks pregnant. Half would be randomised to the vaccine and the other half to a saline placebo.

The efficacy and safety of the vaccine would be determined by assessing covid-19 cases, antibody responses, and adverse events.

Peculiarly, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group, one month after giving birth to their babies.

Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management said that vaccinating mothers in the placebo group during the assessment period would introduce a new variable into the experiment and “corrupt” the data.

“We now know that mRNA from the vaccine is detected in the breast milk, so those babies born from mothers who were all vaccinated after giving birth, are also potentially exposed to mRNA through breastfeeding,” explained Levi.

“This corrupts the comparison of the two groups of babies because you don’t have a true control group anymore,” he added.

Sample size too small

Less than 10% of the originally planned 4000 study participants ended up in the trial.

“Only 348 women were recruited – 174 in each arm – meaning that the trial was never going to have the statistical power, particularly when analysing potential harms,” said Levi.

Notably, study protocols indicate that Pfizer was given the green light as early as May 2021 by drug regulators to scale back the trial and reduce the sample size.

“To me, the wording in the protocol suggests that the FDA or another regulator basically gave Pfizer permission to do less,” remarked Levi.

“It’s not surprising though. The vaccine had already been recommended for pregnant women and many have taken it, so there is no upside to completing a trial that may detect signals of potential harms. It can only create problems for them, right?” he added.

Given that pregnant women were being vaccinated with a product that had not undergone rigorous safety testing in pregnancy, the FDA was asked if and why it allowed Pfizer to scale back the trial.

The FDA replied, “As a general matter, FDA does not comment on interactions it may or may not be having with sponsors about their clinical trials.”

Angela Spelsberg, an epidemiologist and medical director at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Aachen in Germany agreed that the integrity of the study had been compromised.

“There are just not enough babies in this trial to detect rare or very rare adverse events. We learned from studies in animals that lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine can deposit in many organs including the ovaries, so we must be extremely cautious about the potential negative impacts of the vaccine on reproductive health,” said Spelsberg.

“The scientific community urgently needs access to the pregnancy study data on the patient level for transparency and independent scrutiny of vaccine safety and efficacy because regulatory oversight is failing,” she added.

Exclusion criteria

The small sample size may have been the result of the strict selection process.

Pfizer recruited participants with an impeccable pregnancy history, and most were in their third trimester (27-34 weeks gestation), a stage when the baby’s major development has already occurred.

“It appears that they cherry picked the mothers to get the best results,” said Levi. “We have no idea what impact this vaccine has on the early stages of development of an embryo or foetus, because all the women had advanced pregnancies when they were recruited.”

Spelsberg agreed.

“The first trimester is particularly vulnerable to adverse reproductive health outcomes,” she said.

“Based on only weak observational evidence, regulators have reassured the public that the vaccines are safe throughout pregnancy. However, we don’t have reliable evidence on the vaccine’s impact on miscarriages, malformation, foetal deaths, and maternal health risks because they excluded pregnant women from pivotal trials,” added Spelsberg.

Missing data

Levi also noticed that “only partial data” were published.

“It doesn’t include any important metrics such as covid infections or antibody levels and its says we must wait until July 2024 for those results. It’s disturbing to say the least,” said Levi.

Also missing from the dataset was a full account of birth outcomes. Of the 348 women in the trial, Pfizer only reported on the birth of 335 live babies.

Of the 13 pregnancies unaccounted for, Pfizer reported one foetal death (stillbirth) in the vaccine group and the outcome of the other 12 pregnancies remains unknown.

“This is unacceptable,” said Levi. “Failing to report the outcome of 12 pregnancies could mask a potentially concerning signal of the vaccine in pregnancy. What happened to the babies, did they all die? Were their mothers vaccinated or unvaccinated?”

Trial dropouts

Finally, there were quite a few babies that were lost to follow-up in the trial.

“Twenty-nine babies in the placebo arm didn’t get to the end of the 6-month surveillance period, versus 15 babies in the vaccine arm. That’s almost double. Again, this is concerning and requires a detailed and transparent explanation,” said Levi.

Overall, both Levi and Spelsberg say the delays and failure to disclose vital data are unacceptable.

“Pfizer took a year to publish the data. When they finally did, it is incomplete. And we are expected to wait until July 2024 for the next batch of results, while authorities continue to recommend the vaccine in pregnant women,” said Levi.

“We still don’t have solid scientific evidence whether this vaccine is safe for pregnant women and their babies,” said Spelsberg. “It’s a tragedy and a scandal that vaccine use has been recommended, even mandated to women before, during and after pregnancy.”

Questions were put to Pfizer, but the company did not respond by the deadline.

Moderna is also conducting a clinical trial of its mRNA vaccine in pregnancy, but no data are available.

August 28, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Clinical Rationale for SARS-CoV-2 Base Spike Protein Detoxification in Post COVID-19 and Vaccine Injury Syndromes

Publication of Baseline Protocol for Those Suffering from Long-COVID and Post-Acute Sequelae after COVID-19 Vaccination

By Peter A. McCullough | Courageous Discourse | August 27, 2023

For several weeks I have been messaging the scientific community and the public about an approach addressing the burden of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in tissues and organs in the human body that is largely responsible for post-COVID and vaccine injury syndromes.

No therapeutic claims can be made since large, prospective, double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trials have not been completed on any of the compounds mentioned in this paper. I checked clinicaltrials.gov and no such trials have been planned. The Biden HHS US Action Plan for Long-COVID Research has pumped a billion dollars into long-COVID research and no new therapies have emerged. HHS, NIH, CDC, FDA have not recognized the larger issue of vaccine damage to the body.

At three and one half years into the pandemic and two and a half years into the COVID-19 vaccine debacle, myself and my clinic partners formulated a baseline regimen upon which additional drugs or agents can be added. We believe the Spike protein and the inflammation caused by it and its proteolytic fragments are at the heart of the pathophysiology we are observing.

We searched the literature for all available sources of evidence for products that can aid the human body in breaking down and catabolizing the Spike protein. We found two compounds, nattokinase and bromelain. Both of which additionally have fibrinolytic properties which are advantageous in the prothrombotic milieu induced by the persistent Spike protein. Curcumin was added for its anti-inflammatory properties in the setting of post-COVID and vaccine patients. The main safety caveats are bleeding and allergic reactions, both of which are manageable. It is our experience that both nattokinase and bromelain can be used in addition to antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs with physician monitoring.

The empiric regimen can be continued for 3-12 months or more and be guided by clinical observation:

-Nattokinase 2000 FU (100) mg orally twice a day without food

-Bromelain 500 mg orally once a day without food

-Curcumin 500 mg orally twice a day (nano, liposomal, or with piperine additive suggested)

McCullough PA, Wynn C, Procter BC. Clinical Rationale for SARS-CoV-2 Base Spike Protein Detoxification in Post COVID-19 and Vaccine Injury Syndromes. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 28 Number 3 Fall 2023, 90-93.

The full manuscript is linked and serves as your reference. While we are seeing case examples of improvement, we aim to collaborate with others as we did with the McCullough Protocol, to demonstrate clinical effectiveness of Base Spike Detoxification as a fundamental strategy for a large number of individuals who have suffered long-term consequences from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination.

www.mcculloughfnd.org

McCullough PA, Wynn C, Procter BC. Clinical Rationale for SARS-CoV-2 Base Spike Protein Detoxification in Post COVID-19 and Vaccine Injury Syndromes. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 28 Number 3 Fall 2023, 90-93.

McCullough, Peter A, Wynn, Cade, & Procter, Brian C. (2023). Clinical Rationale for SARS-CoV-2 Base Spike Protein Detoxification in Post COVID-19 and Vaccine Injury Syndromes. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 28(3), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8286460

August 27, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Modern Medicine’s Great Controversy | Dr. Peter McCullough

Mises Institute

Recorded in Windham, New Hampshire, on August 20, 2023.

Find free books, daily articles, podcasts, lecture series, and everything about the Austrian School of Economics, at https://Mises.org​​.

Twitter ► https://twitter.com/mises/
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/mises.institute/
Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/misesinstitute/
SoundCloud ► https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/
Apple Podcasts ► https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/mises-institute/1280664810
Rumble ► https://rumble.com/c/c-2212754
Odysee ► https://odysee.com/@mises/
Podcasts ► https://mises.org/library/audio-video/

August 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , , , | 1 Comment

Deaths by Vaccination Status

Safe and Effective?

NAKED EMPEROR | AUGUST 25, 2023

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) have finally published their ‘Deaths by vaccination status, England’ dataset. This is for deaths occurring between 1 April 2021 and 31 May 2023.

I know many people consider these data unreliable but I always have a look at it nevertheless.

To assess whether the vaccine is safe I decided to look at all cause deaths separated by vaccine status (Table 5). This shows the number of all cause deaths for the unvaccinated and ‘ever vaccinated’ by month. It is also separated by age group (18-39; 40-49; 50-59; 60-69; 70-79; 80-89 & 90+).

For each month I looked at the total number of deaths and calculated what percentage of those deaths were in the ‘ever vaccinated’ category. So if there were 30 unvaccinated deaths and 70 vaccinated deaths, the percentage of ‘ever vaccinated’ deaths would be 70%.

This doesn’t really tell us anything, however. The headline might be shocking, e.g. ‘90% of deaths occurring in the vaccinated’ but if 90% of the population are vaccinated then that is to be expected.

However, if a higher percentage of deaths are occurring in the vaccinated (than the percentage of people vaccinated), then perhaps the vaccines are causing some harm. There are many confounders which confuse things but it is at least a signal that something is up and should be looked at. For example if 90% of the country is vaccinated but 95% of deaths are in the vaccinated then perhaps the vaccine is causing the additional 5% of deaths.

So, I took the data showing the percentage of people vaccinated with at least one dose from the UK government website, cleaned it up so that it matched the ONS formatting and created a few graphs.

You can see that in the 18-39 age group, as the vaccine rollout started, there was a higher percentage of deaths in the vaccinated versus the number of people vaccinated. This may have been because sick or immunocompromised people were vaccinated first. The two percentages then quickly merged before beginning to separate again in mid 2022.

This is also the exact time when excess deaths began to skyrocket. Ever since that point, the percentage of deaths in the ‘ever vaccinated’ group has been higher than the percentage of people vaccinated.

Here are the graphs for the other age groups.

You can see that in all the age groups, except for the 50-59 year olds, the percentage of all cause deaths in the ‘ever vaccinated’ group is higher than the percentage of that group that is vaccinated. The data for the 80-89 and 90+ groups are particularly shocking.

Worthy of an investigation? Of course not. Instead the NHS is launching a £50,000 probe to uncover why NHS staff aren’t getting Covid and flu jabs. Probably because they can see the data presented above with their own eyes.

August 26, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Revisiting the Greatest Covid Lie of All …

Covid is a ‘top killer of children’

BY BILL RICE, JR. | AUGUST 22, 2023

I read today that a new RSV  vaccine has just been approved by the FDA for expectant mothers. I know from previous articles I’ve written that an RSV vaccine for children is also on the fast track to get on the all-important childhood immunization schedule.

I’m sure we’ll all read about how RSV is one of the greatest killers of children … and thus we have yet another vaccine that’s a Godsend. (The above-linked Wall Street Journal story tells us approximately 300 children under the age of 5 die from RSV each year).

Who knows if this data is true or not?

Speaking for myself, I haven’t forgotten how the Covid vaccine was pushed with the the extremely-dubious assertion that Covid was one of the “Top 8” killers of children.

I knew that statement was brazen disinformation because I’d researched actual children’s mortality from Covid while writing this story for uncoverDC.com.

In this article, I simply highlighted the key findings from the “most comprehensive” study of its kind on Covid mortality among children. The study, produced by a team of prestigious academics in the UK, found that only 25 children in the entire UK died “from” Covid in the fist year of the pandemic.

However, the headline that should have gone viral to parents across the world is that only six “healthy” children in the entire UK died “from” Covid.

Today, I’m going to revisit the findings of that study as this might cause a few mothers to question the pronouncements of our so-called public health experts, none of whom have seen a vaccine they don’t want every child to get, regardless of how unnecessary or what the long-term negative health effects might be.

The study’s key information and findings …

Approximately 12 million children (age 0 to 17) live in the UK.

The UK researchers were able to look at hospital diagnostic codes and find out how many children died “from” or “with” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.

Here’s what study authors found and reported (CYP = “Children and Young Persons.”)

N = 61 – UK children who died in the first 12 months of the pandemic after testing positive via a PCR test.

Significantly, researchers subtracted 36 “Covid deaths” from this figure because they found these children actually died from some other cause. Language from the study:

“This is the first study to differentiate between CYP who have died of SARS-CoV-2 infection rather than died with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test as a coincidental finding. Our result is 60% lower than the figures derived from positive tests thereby markedly reducing the estimated number of CYP who are potentially at risk of death during this pandemic.”

N = 25 – UK children who actually died “from” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.

But researchers looked even harder and found that 19 of these 25 Covid victims suffered from severe “life-limiting” medical conditions.

N = 19 = Children who died from Covid but had other major medical issues.

Subtracting the deaths of children who suffered from serious co-morbid conditions left researchers with …

N = 6 – “Healthy” children in the UK who died from Covid in the fist 12 months of the pandemic.

I made some additional assumptions/extrapolations …

To be very conservative, I assumed that 500,000 children (approximately 4 percent of the UK’s children) do suffer from serious “life-limiting” medical conditions (the real percentage is no doubt lower than 1 percent).

This would give us  …

N = 11.5 million –  Approximate number of “healthy” children in the UK.

We can now calculate the mortality risk for healthy children in the UK.

Covid Mortality Math: Six (6) Covid deaths divided by 11.5 million “healthy” children = Covid mortality of 0.000052 percent.

According to this extremely thorough (albeit ignored) study, the odds a healthy UK child would die from Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic were 1-in-1.92 million. (Math: 11.5 million healthy children/6 Covid deaths).

I decided to do some politically-incorrect analysis …

To wander into politically incorrect territory, one can also calculate mortality risk by the race of children.

For some (undeniable) reason, Covid kills a much higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics. This is true with children and adults.

Here’s a story from April 2020 that proves that the disproportionate deaths among African Americans was already known (even though the authors of this article suggest that the CDC was already covering up these racial statistics).

The authors of the UK study also point out the racial differences in mortality rates:

“CYP >10 years, of Asian and Black ethnic backgrounds, and with co-morbidities were over-represented compared to other children.”

The authors also stressed that the absolute numbers of minority children who died from Covid was also minute. Still, the figures are strikingly minute for white children.

From further extrapolations, I concluded that only two, perhaps three, healthy white children in the entire United Kingdom died “from” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.

Since there are more than 10 million healthy white children in the UK, I concluded the chance a healthy white child would die from Covid were approximately 1-in-5 million. As a percentage, this mortality risk is 0.00002. (One has to go out to the fifth decimal point to find a “risk” that is not zero.)

Why I did this research …

One reason I embarked on this research is that I was simply trying to ascertain accurate Covid information to inform any decision I made on whether my two young children should get the Covid vaccine.

I was doing my own research and did not automatically trust the proclamations of the CDC or the pediatrician groups. I know I’m not supposed to question my betters (the experts), but I did it anyway because my own children’s lives might be at stake.

I happen to be Caucasian, just like my two children. Thankfully our children are healthy and do not suffer from some terrible “life-limiting” medical condition.

Again, I was simply looking to find the mortality risk of my own two children if they didn’t get this “vaccine.” Thanks to this bold study, I found the answer I was seeking.

The data shows that my children might indeed die from Covid … but if they did they would be the one person in a cohort of 4,999,999 children who did.

To provide a little context, the odds a random person would get struck by lightning in a given year are about 1-in-750,000. The odds I might hit the lottery jackpot in neighboring Georgia are probably 1-in-3-million.

Anyway, you won’t be surprised to learn that I chose to not get my children vaccinated.

For me, becoming an “anti-vaxxer” was a no-brainer especially when I know the odds my children might contract potentially fatal myocarditis (or other serious vaccine injuries) might be as low as 1-in-3,000 (perhaps lower).

(The headline from the above-linked article notes that cases of myocarditis from vaccines are “rare” in children.  If “rare” = a “1-in-3,000 risk,” how should one label a “1-in-5-million” risk?)

Even today, I occasionally read that the risks to children from Covid is “rare” or “small” or not as high as for, say, very old people or the morbidly obese.

But that’s poor word-smithing – intentionally so in my opinion.

When the risk of death for the largest population of children in America is 1-in-5 million, maybe journalists should consider more accurate risk modifiers, such as:

“virtually non-existent” … “almost unheard of” … “the rarest of anomalies” … “certainly nothing for parents to worry about” …. “for all practical purposes … zero.”

Anyway, when I kept reading that Covid was the “Top 8” killer of children in America, my go-to thought was, “That’s what they say.”

I guess the same pediatrician groups and the UK’s version of the CDC were spreading the same fear-mongering COVID disinformation as in America.

I’m sure Catherine, Princess of Wales was worried to death about getting her children vaccinated because she knew that Covid was one of the “top 8 killers of children in the UK.”

It probably never occurred to the princess to ask, “six deaths is enough to make the Top 8?” (Actually, I’d bet 100 pounds Princess Kate, just like 99 percent of UK mothers, never saw this study.)

I’m tempted to finish this column by saying, “none of this matters.” The narrative – as bogus as it was – worked as intended. Hundreds of millions of parents rushed out to get children vaccines they didn’t need.

But the thing is … the truth should matter.

August 26, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

NEW VARIANTS TRIGGER CALLS FOR RETURN TO LOCKDOWNS

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 24, 2023

Mass media is calling for the reinstitution of COVID restrictions due to new variants, with no conversation about the efficacy or the harm they’ve caused. Jefferey Jaxen connects all the dots, which appears to be pointing to a Pandemic 2.0.

August 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | 2 Comments

‘Unvaccinated’ Does Not Mean Unprotected

The False Claims (Pseudoscience) Provided by Governments and Doctors over the Last Three Years

By Judy Wilyman Phd | Vaccination Decisions | August 24, 2023

Not only are you not unprotected due to natural immunity if you did not get the COVID injections, but the COVID injections were NOT vaccines. Therefore, you are also not ‘unvaccinated’ or an ‘antivaxxer’. Here are the reasons why the genetically engineered COVID injections were NOT vaccines:

A drug cannot be described as a vaccine until it is tested for a minimum of 10 years because many of the adverse health outcomes come out months and years later.

Question 1: How can a synthetic (man-made) drug be claimed to be ‘safe and effective’ or that the benefits far outweigh the risks, without this long-term data?

Question 2: Why did governments claim that it “would prevent people getting COVID disease” from the beginning of the roll out, when it was never tested in clinical trials, to see if it prevented COVID disease?

Welcome to the first Vaccination Decisions Substack. I have been writing newsletters for over a decade attempting to provide the knowledge that people need to understand the influence of the pharmaceutical companies and the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO), in the Australian government’s decisions on public health policy.

This became necessary because the diversity of media ownership laws in Australia were removed over the last two decades, and this has led to a lack of independent vaccine information being provided to the general public.

Democracy only exists when the people can hold their government to account. This ability is removed once there is a lack of independence in the media. In Australia we have a corporate-sponsored media that is ~80% owned by Murdoch News Corp.

In this situation reality can be inverted as you have seen over the last three years: black becomes white due to the mis- and disinformation presented when governments collaborate with a corporate-sponsored media to control the information you receive. This is also described as public-private partnerships. Australia’s politicians are heavily influenced by corporate lobby groups, financial bonus’s and being required to present the government narrative through party policy.

Australia is in a Pre-Police State (Independent, Andrew Wilkie, Australian Parliament 10th September 2015)

Currently, the Australian government is attempting to further this censorship by pushing through new legislation in the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) Amendment (Mis and Disinformation) Bill 2023. This bill will allow the government to continue promoting the medical fraud that the UN/ WHO is directing (with financial incentives) to all member countries in global health policies.

There is a clause in this ACMA amendment bill that exempts politicians from being censored for the mis or disinformation that they provide on social media platforms. This legislation will completely remove the façade of democracy that still exists in Australia.

I have provided below a list of some of the false claims that governments and the medical-industry have made over the last three years that are now putting global populations at risk. It is time for everyone who has this knowledge to stand up visibly for the truth to ensure that ethics and principles can be restored to our society and institutions.

“If we lose courage we lose the truth and without the truth there is no other virtue” (Sir Walter Scott).

The False Claims Provided by Governments and the Medical industry in 2020-22:

  1. Humans would not have any natural immunity to this new mutated Coronavirus 2019 (False). (The family of Coronaviruses cause the common cold, so the correct assumption is that we would have some natural immunity to a new mutation).
  2. The PCR test can be used in people without symptoms to diagnose COVID disease (False). (It is a supportive tool and can only be used to assist in diagnosis when someone has symptoms. The PCR test is being misused and misinterpreted).
  3. A healthy person can be diagnosed as an ‘asymptomatic case of disease’ using a PCR test (False). (A PCR test cannot be used to diagnose disease in people without symptoms: finding a virus in a person does not indicate they will ever get a disease because viruses only cause disease symptoms if there is a poor environment (terrain). A healthy person should never be classified as a ‘case of disease’ and isolated from society).
  4. An ‘asymptomatic infection’ is a ‘case of disease and a ‘risk to the community’ (False). (This is an infection without symptoms and can only be identified with an antibody test (not a PCR test). A positive antibody test shows you have gained natural immunity to an infection without any disease symptoms. You are not a risk to others and healthy people should never be tested to see if they have a respiratory virus. There are hundred’s of viruses that cause ‘flu-like symptoms’.
  5. Flus and colds disappeared in 2020-22 (False). (They were re-classified as a new disease called ‘COVID’ based only on a PCR test that was misused in healthy people. The diagnosis was not based on symptoms, or systematic testing for any other virus, bacteria or medication that cause the same symptoms).
  6. These COVID mRNA injections are ‘vaccines’ (False). (They are genetically-engineered modified mRNA drugs until they are proven to prevent disease and that the benefits far outweigh the risks).
  7. COVID ‘vaccines’ would prevent you getting COVID disease (False). (These genetically-engineered COVID injections were never tested to see if they prevent COVID disease and they are causing COVID disease.
  8. COVID ‘vaccines’ would reduce the severity of COVID disease (False). (Hospitalisations and Deaths increased when the COVID injections were implemented in 2021-22 and UK data also shows that 92% of alleged COVID deaths were triple vaccinated).
  9. COVID ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe and effective’ (False). (Many deaths and illnesses were recorded in the short-term trials and in post-marketing surveillance).
  10. Adverse events are ‘rare’ (False). (How can they be claimed to be ‘rare’ when the injections had not been studied in the genetically diverse population when they were marketed in 2021?).
  11. The COVID ‘vaccines’ stimulate the immune system to produce a ‘Coronavirus spike protein’ (False). (They stimulate the immune system to produce a recombinant synthetic (man-made) protein that is foreign to our bodies and is being called a ‘spike protein’. This foreign protein can result in autoimmune diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Arthritis, Diabetes, Graves Disease, Guillain Barre Syndrome etc.

The book “Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon” by John O’Sullivan et el, exposes the psychological strategies that were used by governments (directed by the WHO’s public-private partnerships) to predict and manipulate a global ‘pandemic’ based only on an industry-designed mathematical model that had hidden assumptions about viruses and vaccines. (Book Review).

References exposing these false government claims are:

1. Dr. Paul Marik, the Truth about the Shots

2. The mRNA Vaccines are Neither Safe Nor Effective

3. Pfizer, FDA, CDC Hid Proven Harms to Fertility from Vaccine Ingredients.

4. Life Insurance Data proves 34% increase in deaths in young people 35-44 Years since 2021 when the COVID ‘Vaccines’ were implemented.

August 25, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

CHD Launches Nationwide Bus Tour Collecting the Accounts of People Harmed by Vaccines and COVID Countermeasures

Children’s Health Defense | August 25, 2023

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) will officially launch its “Vax-Unvax: The People’s Study” bus tour Friday in Olathe, Kansas. The 42-foot RV will travel across the continental U.S. over the next year, gathering stories of those who were harmed following vaccinations and COVID-19 countermeasures, including shots, masks, and medical and hospital protocols. The tour aims to provide a platform for the injured and survivors of loved ones who died — from parents and family members of the elderly to U.S. service members and veterans to the unvaccinated and others.

Leading the bus crew is CHD-TV Director of Programming Polly Tommey:

“We’re excited to be back on the road again and connecting with families around the nation who have important stories to tell regarding vaccine injury or risky medical agendas. We want to hear from everyone — vaccinated and unvaccinated — so we can learn about health outcomes firsthand from the people affected. While the mainstream media continues to ignore anything that goes against the Pharma/government mantra of ‘safe and effective,’ we will be here for everyone who wants to share their story.”

The kickoff comes as part of the two-day Freedom Revival in the Heartland event hosted by Kansans for Health Freedom. The bus crew will begin filming interviews at 9 a.m. on Friday, collecting the names of the injured and of those who have passed by writing them on the outside of the bus in tribute.

Speakers at the Freedom Revival in the Heartland event include CHD Chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D. — co-authors of the upcoming book “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” to be released on Aug. 29. The bus tour coincides with the book, which is a compendium of over 100 vaccinated-unvaccinated studies comparing health outcomes in both populations, with nearly all indexed in PubMed, the National Library of Medicine’s vast database of biomedical scholarly research. Tommey and CHD President Mary Holland are also speaking at the event.

Visit CHD’s website for more information on the ‘Vax-Unvax: The People’s Study’ bus tour, including scheduled stops around the country.

Children’s Health Defense® is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. We fight corruption, mass surveillance and censorship that put profits before people as well as advocate for worldwide rights to health freedom and bodily autonomy.

For more information or to donate to CHD to support the bus tour and CHD’s ongoing lawsuits, visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org.

Sign up for free news and updates from Children’s Health Defense.

August 25, 2023 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Fauci, the Covid Fairy

Bitchute

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

Kaiser Family Foundation Finds Many Believe COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Responsible for Sudden Deaths

Poll Statistics Reveal America Waking Up to Immunization Debacle

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | August 23, 2023

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a pro-vaccine organization that has an biased polling system aimed at showing satisfaction and benefit of mass vaccination among other family issues. The May 23 through June 12, 2023 poll reveals some shocking new data. A substantial minority of Americans believe the COVID-19 vaccines have caused great harm. Here are the results.

As you can see it is roughly a third of Americans are awake and understand the COVID-19 vaccines have failed, cause great harm, and pose a giant safety risk to Americans. It is also interesting to note a quarter of respondents have been awakened to the link between childhood hyper vaccination and autism spectrum disorder. I wonder what the actual sentiment is on vaccines if Kaiser had asked the questions in a more unbiased manner and did not load up their survey with charged words such as “false” and “misinformation”.

August 24, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Those Doctors Calling for Spreaders of Covid Misinformation to be Punished Should be Careful What they Wish For

Many of their Claims – that the Vaccinated Couldn’t Infect Others, For Instance – Turned Out to be False

BY NIGEL WILSON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 24, 2023

The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a review of alleged ‘misinformation’ about COVID-19 that physicians were responsible for, either on social media and in other news sources.

In the paper, the corresponding author, Dr. Sarah L. Goff, MD PhD, defined misinformation. She surveyed social media platforms and news sources for anything written by other physicians that fits her selected examples of both. She then proposes that physicians guilty of writing what she judges to be misinformation should be “regulated and disciplined”.

Dr. Goff and her co-authors define misinformation as “false, inaccurate or misleading information according to the best evidence available at the time” and disinformation as “having an intentionally malicious purpose”.

Dr. Goff states: “We conservatively classified inaccurate information as misinformation rather than disinformation because the intent of the propagator cannot be objectively assessed.”

Dr. Goff identified four major themes of alleged misinformation. These included: (1) vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective; (2) masks and/or social distancing did not decrease risk for contracting COVID-19; (3) other medications for prevention or treatment were effective despite not having completed clinical trials or having been FDA approved, and (4) other misinformation.

Dr. Goff includes a brief discussion of vaccine safety and effectiveness and mask effectiveness, but does not attempt to undertake a full review of the published evidence in these areas. Instead, she seems to assume that her readers will agree that any suggestion that vaccines or masks were ineffective or unsafe are self-evidently false.

Dr. Goff states that the American Medical Association has called for disciplinary action for physicians propagating COVID-19 misinformation. She laments the fact that “few physicians appear to have faced disciplinary action” for alleged sins against Covid orthodoxy.

I am not an expert in analysis of published medical research. I don’t work in a School of Public Health like Dr. Goff. I have worked as a licensed physician in England for over 40 years as a family doctor and an occupational physician and I have over 40 years’ experience reading the medical peer review literature. I retired from full time medical practice in 2017. I have a reasonable understanding of English, maths, logic and critical thinking. I don’t pretend to have read all the published research on masks or vaccinations. However, I continue to read leading medical journals on a regular basis.

I understand the concept of truth and how hard it is to establish an absolute truth in science. I understand the enlightenment principles that any ideas can be discussed, that nobody has a veto on ideas and that it is important to doubt and test all of our ideas continually. There is no indication from her writing that Dr. Goff understands how important it is to doubt, question and test the effectiveness and safety of interventions such as vaccines and masks.

From my reading of the peer review literature, for illustration purposes, I identified the following four publications as examples of publications which should raise concerns and questions about COVID-19 vaccines and masks.

In 2019, the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a report entitled ‘Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza’. The WHO concluded: “There are a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials demonstrating that personal measures (e.g. hand hygiene and face masks) have at best a small effect on transmission.”

In February 2023 a Cochrane review into the effectiveness of masks concluded: “Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/Covid-like illness.”

A study from the Department of Infectious Diseases in Cleveland, Ohio, in December 2022 found that “the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine only offered modest effectiveness”.

A study from the University of Queensland in September 2022 concluded: “Never in vaccine history have 57 leading scientists and policy experts released a report questioning the safety and efficacy of a vaccine. They not only questioned the safety of the current COVID-19 injections but were calling for an immediate end to all vaccination. Many doctors and scientists around the world have voiced similar misgivings and warned of consequences due to long-term side effects.”

These four publications are examples which give us a legitimate reason to question the use of masks and the Covid vaccines and to look further for evidence. Are we not allowed to raise questions about these issues without being threatened with disciplinary procedures? Not to ask any questions would be lacking in curiosity in the extreme, especially for practising physicians concerned about the safety of their patients and the integrity of their advice. These publications do not prove anything conclusively, but they should not be ignored. Expressing doubt and asking questions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and masks is not false, inaccurate or misleading, to use the definition adopted by Dr. Goff. If questions arise in my mind, why don’t similar questions arise in the minds of Dr. Goff and her co-authors? How did Dr. Goff reach such a degree of certainty about the effectiveness of masks and vaccines against COVID-19 that she can classify any statement to the contrary as misinformation worthy of disciplining a colleague? Why does she conclude that a colleague who disagrees with her does not have the right to be heard? Why would she seek to silence those who disagree with her?

Inaccurate information which is not deliberately intended to deceive is simply inaccurate. In science and medicine there are many inaccurate statements made in good faith by researchers who are presenting their data or their theories as accurately and honestly as possible. It is important that all theories and all research data can be published, even when the data or the theory are wrong. Disciplinary action for any statement which turns out to be inaccurate or false would surely suppress a large proportion of all scientific and medical discourse. Is this what Dr. Goff wants?

It could be argued that the examples of misinformation used by Dr. Goff are themselves misinformation. To suggest that anyone who states that the Covid vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective is guilty of misinformation is to ignore significant evidence which raises questions about the vaccines. To suggest that anyone who states that masks did not decrease risk for contracting COVID-19 is guilty of misinformation is also to ignore evidence to support this view. It could be argued that Dr. Goff is using false, inaccurate or misleading examples of misinformation in her study in order to suppress dissenting views.

Dr. Goff appears to have very little humility. She does not appear to be in any doubt that she and her co-authors are infallible in relation to masks and vaccines. She seems to think she is the ultimate arbiter of truth, and that she is immune from being regulated or disciplined for her views in the way she promotes for others. I would not propose disciplining or applying regulatory sanctions to Dr. Goff or her colleagues if her publication includes false, inaccurate or misleading statements. Instead, I would propose respectful dialogue with her to debate her proposal, offering arguments to the contrary with a view to educating her and myself.

In England, medical doctors are obliged to respect colleagues’ skills and contributions, and to treat colleagues fairly. We must create a working environment in which it is safe to ask questions and raise concerns. I believe in these principles. Failure to adhere to these standards can lead to disciplinary action against medical doctors. I understand that similar professional obligations apply to medical doctors in the United States. Dr. Goff does not appear to respect the skills and contributions of colleagues who disagree with her. She seems to be promoting a working environment in which it is not safe for those who disagree with whatever the orthodoxy within the medical profession is at any one time to ask questions and raise concerns. Does she not realise that this may make it unsafe for her to raise concerns and ask questions in due course?

Dr. Goff acknowledges in her final sentence that “a coordinated response by federal and state governments and the profession that takes free speech carefully into account is needed”. This tiny nod towards free speech is somewhat undermined by her attempts to censor her colleagues’ right to disagree with her. Free speech is nothing if it is not accorded to those with whom we disagree.

Frederick Douglass, the American social reformer said: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” If Dr. Goff persuades those in power to regulate or discipline those who disagree with her, then their right to free speech is violated and our right to hear them is violated. Does Dr. Goff not have a glimmer of doubt about her omniscience? Does she not think there is even a faint possibility that physicians who disagree with her might have something useful to say?

Why do some physicians think that the best response when another physician disagrees with them is to censor their colleague? How could any physicians achieve such unshakeable certainty in their own omniscience? When did they forget the fundamental principles of the enlightenment, that all ideas can be discussed and that nobody has a veto on any ideas? How did the principles of treating colleagues with respect and upholding the free speech of those with whom we disagree become so degraded?

Dr. Goff and her co-authors should be careful what they wish for. They seek to discipline colleagues for daring to disagree with their orthodoxy. If they succeed, the cancel police may be coming for them next.

Dr. Nigel Wilson MRCGP FFOM is a retired consultant occupational physician.

August 24, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

CDC Now Refusing New COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports in Its V-Safe Program

By David Gortler | Brownstone Institute | August 24, 2023

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) V-safe website quietly stopped collecting adverse event reports with no reason or explanation. The V-safe website simply states: “Thank you for your participation. Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.” If you go there today, V-safe directs users to the FDA’s VAERS website for adverse event reporting, even though officials continually derided VAERS as “passive” and “unverified.”

VAERS and V-safe are mutually exclusive safety collection databases operated by the FDA and CDC, respectively. VAERS is an older way of collecting safety data where one can fill out a form online, or manually, or by calling a toll-free number, whereas V-safe is a device “app” which requires online registration. Both VAERS and V-safe collect personal information, lot numbers, dates and associated information, but V-safe was an active collection system geared towards a younger app-using demographic.

Does this mean that the CDC believes that the mRNA Covid-19 injections are so safe, there is no need to monitor adverse event reports any longer? What is the argument against continued monitoring, especially since the V-safe website was already up and paid for?

While CDC’s V-safe was stealthily and abruptly turned off, refusing to accept new safety reports, to this very day the CDC continues to urge everyone ages 6 months and older to stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

As a drug safety expert, I personally can’t cite another example of any agency or manufacturer halting collection of safety data. It seems even worse because mRNA technology is relatively new with long-term manifestations unknown. On top of this, both manufacturers and the FDA refuse to share the list of ingredients, such as lipid nanoparticles, which could affect individuals differently and take a long time to manifest clinically.

Safety Data Collection Should Never Stop:

Now, contrast that with the fact that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) will still accept a safety report for a 30-year-old Ford Bronco II. Indeed, this is an oddly specific example, but only because I drove this exact vehicle as a family hand-me-down as a student, through my residency, fellowship, for my tenure as a Yale professor on the mean streets of New Haven and even during my years at the FDA as a medical officer /senior medical analyst.

Like mRNA shots, Bronco IIs are still available on the market and people are still using them up to this very day. My Bronco became an intermittent topic of conversation with friends and FDA colleagues. One day, I was informed by a patrolling security guard at the FDA that it was the oldest car on campus.

I didn’t know much about cars (or mRNA technology) back then, but when a fellow FDA-er informed me that my Bronco II had noteworthy safety problems and that the NHTSA still had their eye on this vehicle (rollover accidents were more common and more fatal) I addressed the problem: I got rid of the reliable relic, even though I really liked it. NHTSA Is still accepting safety reports three decades later.

CDC No longer accepting safety reports despite rapidly increasing safety findings:

Unlike my old Bronco, mRNA injections have only been on the market for about two years, and according to the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, mRNA “vaccines” have been named the primary suspect in over 1.5 million adverse event reports, of which there are >20,000 heart attacks and >27,000 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis just in the USA alone. Worldwide numbers would be greater. According to many references, including an FDA-funded study out of Harvard, VAERS reports represent fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events that actually occur.

Interestingly, the NHTSA link above on my Ford Bronco II only shows: one parts recall, one investigation and 23 complaints, and still features a button in the upper right hand corner for submitting new complaints.

Wikipedia defines an humanitarian crisis or humanitarian disaster as a: “singular event or a series of events that are threatening in terms of health, safety or well-being of a community or large group of people.” Based on VAERS and previous V-safe findings, adverse events from mRNA shots in the USA alone could be considered a humanitarian crisis.

Despite those alarming clinical findings, the CDC has concluded that collecting new safety reports is somehow no longer in the interest of America’s public health. Existing data from the V-safe site showed around 6.5 million adverse events/health impacts out of 10.1 million users, with around 2 million of those people unable to conduct normal activities of daily living or needing medical care, according to a third-party rendering of its findings. In other words, despite mRNA shots still being widely available and the CDC promoting its continued use, it’s “case closed” with regards to collecting new safety reports, under today’s federal public health administration.

Will the CDC opine on the existing data or justify its halting of collecting new safety data? To the best of my knowledge, stopping the collection of public health information doesn’t have a clinical justification or scientific precedence — especially when it comes to an actively marketed product.

In George Orwell’s 1984, characters were told by The Party to “reject the evidence of your eyes and [your] ears.” Now, the CDC isn’t even allowing that evidence to be collected for viewing (and prospective rejecting). It’s a terrible idea for any product, let alone novel mRNA technologies.

Dr. David Gortler, a 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a pharmacologist, pharmacist, research scientist and a former member of the FDA Senior Executive Leadership Team who served as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner on matters of: FDA regulatory affairs, drug safety and FDA science policy. He is a former Yale University and Georgetown University didactic professor of pharmacology and biotechnology, with over a decade of academic pedagogy and bench research, as part of his nearly two decades of experience in drug development. He also serves as a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

August 24, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »