Launched on a Wing and a Prayer (For Billions of Dollars)
By Laurie Calhoun | Libertarian Institute | March 14, 2023
Way back in the spring of 2020, the provocative title of an article caught my eye. Upon reading it, I learned that researchers were rushing to create a vaccine before the COVID-19 virus mutated, which would render the vaccine nugatory and destroy all hopes of creating a blockbuster panacea. Curious at the time, such a warning can be viewed today as having been prophetic. (Note: That article, which offered a business slant on the historic vaccine competition, is no longer available through Google—“some results have been removed,” and are seemingly irretrievable—but here’s one with a similar title from April 2020: “Coronavirus mutation could threaten the race to develop vaccine.”)
Consider the stunning conclusion of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article published in January 2023:
“Viruses that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, endemic coronaviruses, RSV, and many other “common cold” viruses, cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns. Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
Accustomed as everyone is by now to a relentless barrage of contradictory proclamations and retaliatory responses to them, the claim that mRNA was never fit to purpose for rapidly mutating coronaviruses might be written off by the usual suspects as the ravings of yet another antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. Except that this paper was co-authored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the most visible and persistent pusher of the newfangled COVID-19 vaccines throughout 2021 and 2022. So what happened?
Against all conventional wisdom on the ethical practice of medicine, Fauci did everything in his power to achieve maximal uptake of an experimental treatment by human beings across all cohorts, without regard to patient health, age, or any other identifying factor beyond their possession of an arm into which to inject a novel product granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) after an accelerated review by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Not only did Fauci ignore the vast disparities in vulnerability to severe illness and death between healthy infants and frail nonagenarians, but he also conducted himself for two years as though natural immunity through previous infection were somehow irrelevant to the question of whether a patient should roll up his sleeve.
Now, in the light of Fauci’s own published scientific findings, it would appear that he was right, in a sense, about natural immunity all along, albeit in an unexpectedly perverse way. First of all, as we already witnessed in real time, coronaviruses as a class, including SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), mutate rapidly in order to propagate themselves. This “discovery” served as the basis for the development of “boosters,” which, it was claimed, became necessary when “fully vaccinated” persons continued to become infected with COVID-19. Major outbreak-inducing strains such as Delta and Omicron, which arise through mutation, will always be one step ahead of last year’s vaccines, having survived precisely by evading the antibodies induced by injection into the body of the previous virus generation’s mRNA.
According to Fauci’s own findings, however, there is a second, even more compelling reason for denying that either vaccine or natural immunity to COVID-19 can ever be permanent. The primary difference between diseases such as measles, for which vaccines work, and the seasonal flu or SARS-CoV-2, for which they do not, is that the body’s natural immune response rises only to the level of the severity of the pathogen. Since most people can survive coronaviruses, the minimal response needed to defeat the invader is rather mild, which is why immunity dissipates rapidly over time and people can become reinfected again and again, even if they have recovered from natural infection, and whether or not they have undergone vaccination.
There are of course people who die of the flu or COVID-19, but they nearly always have comorbidities, infirmities or weaknesses, rendering them vulnerable to a pathogen which healthy bodies are capable of defeating. Notwithstanding the massive propaganda campaign for universal vaccination, most healthy young persons would have survived COVID-19, and would not have been hospitalized, with or without vaccination. Given the abundance of statistical evidence, there is simply no sense in which it can be truthfully asserted that healthy young persons with no comorbidities were “saved” by the shots. On the other hand, extremely frail and elderly persons can indeed be killed by the virus, regardless of how many “vaccines” they have taken. When it comes to the mercurial class of coronaviruses—instantiated by not only the common cold and the seasonal flu, but also COVID-19—so-called vaccines will never transcend their pedestrian identity as mere shots, for they are constitutionally incapable of offering longterm protection, not only because these viruses rapidly mutate, but also, and more fundamentally, because the body’s natural response to infection by such transitory viruses is never robust enough to be permanent. Just as having survived the flu one year has nearly no bearing on whether one will contract another case of the flu, from a different variant, in the future, no so-called vaccine solution to COVID-19 can confer longlasting protection.
Take as many boosters as you like, until the end of time, but having done so may or may not prevent you from contracting the latest iteration of the virus—or protect anyone else—since every booster or flu shot is the result of researchers’ “best guess” of what the specific properties of the next generation of viruses will be. It appears, then, that the widely celebrated and aggressively marketed, and in some cases mandated, COVID-19 vaccines, paid for thrice by the recipients of “free” shots, were in fact launched on a wing and a prayer. There was really no hope all along that the shots would or could offer longterm protection, although it was claimed for marketing purposes that they were highly effective and would save millions of lives. That those selling points were in fact lies may explain why they were supplemented all along the way with such eerily self-contradictory slogans as: “The vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated!”
Dr. Fauci’s surprising publication reveals that the abundant optimism exuded by him and others in attempting to maximize vaccine uptake was scientifically unfounded from the beginning. Neither the mRNA technology nor the traditional vaccines (which introduce a small amount of the live or dead pathogen into the body to elicit an immune response) can be effective for rapidly evolving pathogens such as coronaviruses to which the highly efficient human body mounts the weakest possible effective response. But this is hardly news, for we already knew long before 2020 that, despite assiduous efforts spanning decades, no one ever managed to develop a vaccine against the common cold. Likewise, the widely touted flu shots, marketed in very public ad campaigns only slightly less aggressive than those for the COVID-19 treatments, are in fact mediocre at best, as Fauci himself has averred.
If vaccine technology, whether vector- or mRNA-based, is simply a mismatch for the nature of rapidly mutating viruses, and this is a matter of common knowledge, readily accessible to anyone working in virology, then how are we to understand Fauci’s comportment throughout the Coronapocalypse? And why did he and his coauthors boldly reaffirm in January 2023 what many other researchers have been saying for years, including a few brave souls who were silenced when they tried to suggest the same from 2020 to 2022?
Fauci faces something of a “Charybdis or Scylla” dilemma here, for if he was ignorant of basic truths of immunology known by competent and knowledgeable scientists before 2020, then he had no business serving as the nation’s fount of public health wisdom. Double-masked Fauci devotees, in the aftermath of what was empirically indistinguishable from a full-scale psyop spanning more than two years, will no doubt remain reluctant to renounce their allegiance to the person who, they believe, “guided” us through the pandemic. Confronted with the revelations of Fauci et al.’s January 2023 publication, such followers may most charitably conclude that the object of their reverence did genuinely believe in the mRNA vaccines and continues to follow “The Science” where it leads, in this case, to finally acknowledge failure.
That Fauci honestly did not know that the mRNA shots would never work has also been the conclusion of a few of his most vociferous critics, including Alex Berenson, who somewhat ironically was spurned as “The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man” by The Atlantic back in April 2021. (Morally speaking, that title surely belongs to Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, for the sheer brazenness with which he defied all known principles of medical ethics in pushing for universal vaccination across all cohorts.) Berenson was banned from social media under pressure by no less a power than the U.S. government itself when he dared to question the Fauci script at the height of the Coronapocalyptic hysteria. (Berenson’s lawsuit alleging the government’s violation of his First Amendment right to free speech is pending.)
Notwithstanding the superficial appeal (and attendant Schadenfreude) of the “Fauci was ignorant and is now eating crow” hypothesis, the Scylla horn of the interpretive dilemma would seem to cohere far better with the character of a man who remarkably responded to his critics on national television that “You’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science.” Certainly such a person is not someone whom we would ordinarily regard as endowed with the humility needed to admit either ignorance or error. To my mind (and others, such as Dr. Robert Malone, agree) Fauci’s recent publication is yet another gambit perfectly consistent with his comportment throughout the pandemic. While Fauci’s admission that the mRNA technology is not fit to purpose for coronaviruses may on its face seem surprising, in fact, it is entirely true to form.
Yes, Fauci’s gambit is most plausibly interpreted as the latest chapter in his time-tested “fail forward” playbook: to use the outcome of the COVID-19 shot experiment to rally for yet more funding for the pharmaceutical industry. Like all good bureaucrats, Fauci uses government fiascos as a springboard to increase the reach and budget of his domain. In other words, Fauci, having quite effectively painted the COVID-19 virus as the most evil bogey man of them all, is simply continuing his efforts to impel politicians to dole out even more billions of dollars to the government-boosted industry which he has loyally supported throughout his entire career, as has been ably documented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In addition to being consistent with Fauci’s dismissive, smug, and seemingly shameless character, this interpretation coheres well with the general modus operandi of the pharmaceutical industry, which has displayed in recent decades an uncanny capacity to “fail forward” by pivoting and innovating so as to be able to reap massive profits even when their products generate consequences worse than the conditions which they were intended to address.
Note that slippery snake-oil salesmen such as Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, carefully calibrated their pitches from the beginning so as to protect themselves from future allegations of fraud by equivocating about the “efficacy” of their COVID-19 treatments. When directly questioned in December 2020 about the vaccine’s ability to limit transmission of the virus, Bourla offered casual, off-the-cuff replies such as, “I think that’s something that needs to be examined. We’re not certain about that right now.” His colleague, Ugur Sahin (co-founder and CEO of BioNTech), cagily couched his anticipatory optimism in these terms: “The first interim analysis of our global Phase 3 study provides evidence that a vaccine may effectively prevent COVID-19.” [my emphasis] The rest is history. When it later emerged, to the surprise of everyone whose understanding of the crisis was shaped exclusively by the Pfizer-sponsored mainstream media, that the company never even tested the shots for their ability to prevent transmission, gaslighting fact-checkers rushed to the defense of the executives. Why in the world would anyone ever have believed that the new vaccines would prevent transmission and infection?
The government-subsidized pharma giants succeeded in profiting enormously from the politically amplified crisis by persistently touting the efficacy of their products against a virus which 99+% of people were perfectly capable of surviving on their own. The shot salesmen claimed victory when injected persons did not die, when in reality most of them would have survived even if they had declined the treatment or been injected with an inert placebo instead. But the scheme ultimately worked because marketers (including public health authorities such as Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky) unerringly referred to the shots as “vaccines,” a piece of sleight of hand made possible by the CDC’s own diluted redefinition of the term in 2021 to mean “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” This linguistic legerdemain worked wonders to promote the new shots, when in fact the new definition is so broad and open-ended as to make it possible to label as a vaccine anything that strengthens the immune system, including leafy green vegetables, vitamins C and D, etc.
In retrospect, there can be no doubt that the populace and the politicians crafting policy all assumed that the labeling of the mRNA treatment as vaccines implied that the shots stopped transmission and infection, even while the savviest of the snake-oil salesmen evinced ignorance from the start about the most important question of all: whether these “vaccines” were indeed like all of the other vaccines, capable not just of “stimulating” the immune system, but of producing dependable and durable immunity.
Given the statistics now available, even the more modest claim, continually chanted by pharma marketers and their lackeys in the media, that the mRNA treatment greatly diminished severe illness and hospitalization, may have been false. For the death toll of COVID-19 victims increased rather than decreased in the year after the “vaccine” launch, and the countries with the worst vaccine uptake had some of the best outcomes. On top of the virus deaths, thousands of people were diagnosed with post-vaccine injuries of a variety of sorts, believed by many of them, their families, and at least some of their doctors to have been caused by the shots. Some of the vaccine injured ended up dying long before their time, and excess deaths were also caused by the disastrous political response to the virus, with fatal drug overdoses reaching record levels. Millions of persons missed vital health screenings, having been terrorized into believing that they could not leave their homes (much less enter COVID-19–infested health facilities!) without contracting something akin to the Black Plague. Among those who sought help for their ailments, some were flat-out denied treatment for acute illnesses, either because they were not dying specifically of COVID-19, or because they had refused the experimental treatment.
In coming to terms with what transpired over the past three years, it is helpful to bear in mind pre-2020 history. When the pharmaceutical industry’s newfangled psychotropic medications did not work as advertised, they created and blitz-marketed “add-on” drugs to increase the efficacy of antidepressants now known to have exhibited success in clinical trials on a par with placebos, but with far worse longterm adverse effects, up to and including addiction and suicidal ideation. Similarly, the slick pivot of the industry in response to the opioid catastrophe (caused by itself) was to launch and market drugs which could help people in the throes of narcotics addiction.
The flu shots marketed in collaboration with and subsidized by governments have been demonstrated in clinical trials to succeed on a par with placebos, while post-flu shot deaths are invariably written off as “coincidental.” Nonetheless, the industry capitalizes on the fact that they are starting anew each year—the previous year’s flu shot results being irrelevant to the next year’s projected success. As a result, when heavily lobbied and propagandized authorities impose mandates in some places (such as the State of Massachusetts), this may lead others to follow suit. Crony capitalist windfall profits ensure the ever-augmenting marketing budget of pharma firms, with the result that each subsequent year’s sales will exceed the previous year’s tally.
Given such precedents, no one should be surprised if the failure of the COVID-19 shots to prevent infection and transmission, or even to diminish the number of persons who died from the virus, does indeed end up serving as the pretext for governments to infuse even more money into research and development of new and what are promised once again to be “miraculous” cures to be used in the future. Not long after the launch of the COVID-19 vaccines, auxiliary treatments such as Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s Lagevrio were developed to treat people who became infected with the virus despite having been “fully” vaccinated. As clear evidence that many people’s capacity for critical thought continues to be compromised by fear, when legislation to rescind the utterly illogical and unscientific COVID-19 vaccine mandate on foreigners entering the United States made it to the floor of the House of Representatives, 201 Democratic congresspersons voted to keep the executive order in place.
The ongoing support of the official government pro-pharma narrative by the president, the press secretary, the defense secretary, and most Democratic members of Congress, even in the face of ample evidence (including post-vaccination positive COVID-19 tests) demonstrating that the shots did not diminish the incidence of infection is best explained by the fact that policymakers prefer not to own up to their mistakes. Ordinarily, individuals base their future actions on what they have learned from past experience. The question arises in the present circumstance: Why is there still a push for vaccine passports when the COVID-19 vaccines do not in fact confer immunity? The assumptions funding the push for universal vaccination continue to be embraced, as though the vaccines worked resplendently, despite an accumulation of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Now that Fauci himself has clearly explained why the mRNA technology will never offer a lasting solution to COVID-19, why would anyone, including Joe Biden and other advocates for the WHO (World Health Organization), still be in favor of implementing a universal health passport system regulating the movement of persons throughout the world? The current crop of shots do not offer longterm protection and do not moderate illness except in the case of persons in a very narrow cohort. Why require anyone to demonstrate that they participated in the experimental mRNA trial more than two years ago in order to be able to enter a country where the circulating variants bear little resemblance to the strain used to determine the formula of the first crop of vaccines?
There is no plausible health pretext available to explain why political leaders around the world would be keen to impose such a restrictive health passport program on free people, preventing them from traveling unless they first demonstrate their willingness to comply with future possible arbitrary orders decreed by public health authorities. That anyone not holding pharma stocks would support at this point the adoption of a health passport is best explained, again, by the politically induced trauma which appears to have psychologically scarred some persons for life. But just as the failure of the lockdowns to “stop the spread!” impelled leaders at every level of government—local, state, and federal—to prolong and intensify the lockdowns, those who pushed vaccine mandates will continue to press for universal vaccination passport requirements under the flatly false assumption that the reason why so many people died of COVID-19 was because of the evil antivaxxers who refused to comply.
What we are witnessing, the strangely intransigent push for vaccine passports, is entirely consistent with the comportment of the very persons who just succeeded in selling billions of shots. They will continue to insist that what we need to do is provide even more government funding to the pharmaceutical industry so that they can develop more and better cures for our ills. As disturbing as this may be, the most plausible explanation for the vigorous attempt to impose a health credential system on the people of the world is to provide the pharmaceutical industry with a limitless supply of not only customers, but also future experimental subjects.
As we have seen, the addition of the COVID-19 shot to the CDC’s immunization schedule for children—whose chances of dying from the virus are minuscule—serves only industry interests, by ensuring an endless crop of healthy young arms into which to inject the latest and greatest snake oils claimed to be panaceas (until it emerges that they are not). Likewise, the implementation of a universal health passport scheme restricting the motion of persons who opt not to undergo medical treatments of which they have no need would not only reap massive profits to the pharmaceutical industry but also represent the dawning of the pharma-techno state, in which citizens are subjects whose bodies are owned by their government.
The upshot here is that all of the pro-mRNA treatment propaganda and the incredibly vicious efforts to denounce and blame the noncompliant as the reason for the lengthy duration of the COVID-19 pandemic were nothing more than marketing ploys. That those who work behind the scenes of this well-oiled marketing machine were willing to destroy people’s relationships, their livelihoods, and in some cases even their very lives, reveals that their true motives were never to save the world from the virus but, instead, to profit from it. This is why we must resist any and all attempts by these same people and their toadies to foist upon us legal requirements to serve as guinea pigs in their future experimental trials, which is precisely what “health passports” would bring.
Laurie Calhoun is the Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique, in addition to many essays and book chapters. Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times will be published by the Libertarian Institute in 2023.
Twitter directed to censor ‘factually correct stories’ on Covid
RT | March 17, 2023
A government-linked academic group pushed Twitter to censor factually correct stories about Covid-19 if they risked “fueling hesitancy” about vaccines, according to the latest batch of internal documents released by the platform’s new owner, Elon Musk.
Published by journalist Matt Taibbi on Friday, the documents show that from February 2021 onwards, senior Twitter management – including former trust and safety chief Yoel Roth – signed up to a Stanford University initiative that would alert them to the latest “vaccine-related disinformation narratives” spreading on the platform.
Titled ‘The Virality Project,’ the initiative was led by a former CIA employee and comprised academics from several universities, as well as researchers from organizations funded by the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, and the US State Department. The Virality Project also stated on its website that it “built strong ties” with the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Homeland Security, among other agencies and departments.
In its briefings to Twitter, the Virality Project recommended that “true content which might promote vaccine hesitancy” – such as stories of side effects and certain vaccines being banned abroad – be censored. Posts raising concern about vaccine mandates were viewed as “anti-vax” misinformation, while “just asking questions” was deemed “a tactic commonly used by spreaders of misinformation,” and posting about the “surveillance state” was deemed a bannable “conspiracy” theory.
It is unclear how often Twitter acceded to the Virality Project’s demands, though Taibbi said that within a month, the platform’s staff began using the project’s recommendations when evaluating content to censor.
At the time, Twitter’s rules on Covid-19 “misinformation” required a specific post to be “demonstrably false,” while permitting “strong commentary,” opinion writing, and satire. The Virality Project, however, urged Twitter management to ban “repeat offenders” before they even made new posts.
Sharing the leaked emails of White House coronavirus czar Anthony Fauci could “exacerbate distrust in Dr. Fauci and in US public health institutions,” the Virality Project warned in a June 2021 briefing, while a follow-up report highlighted the spread of “worrisome jokes” about harassing the door-to-door vaccine promoters deployed by the administration of US President Joe Biden.
“As Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success,” Taibbi wrote on Friday. “Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging.”
Since purchasing Twitter in October and installing himself as the platform’s new CEO, Musk has been releasing regular batches of internal documents and communications in a bid to shed light on its previously opaque censorship policies. A tranche of files released in December revealed that Twitter censored “legitimate content” on Covid-19 at the direct request of the White House.
FDA authorizes 4th booster for babies…
… while data from the UK and Germany suggest you cause 22 serious injuries with the shot in order to prevent a single child’s hospitalization
By Meryl Nass | March 15, 2023
We need to start charging the individual public health officials with crimes for acting outside their legal authority — where is the US’ Pascal Najadi?
On December 8, 2022 the FDA authorized bivalent COVID boosters for children as young as 6 months old.
“More children now have the opportunity to update their protection against COVID-19 with a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine, and we encourage parents and caregivers of those eligible to consider doing so – especially as we head into the holidays and winter months where more time will be spent indoors,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D.
Yesterday, the FDA authorized a 4th dose of mRNA COVID vaccine for children aged 6 months to 5 years of age.
Risk-benefit assessment used to be the foundation of public health practice. Let’s look at some recent data on vaccine risk and vaccine benefit.
The German Minister of Health, Dr. Karl Lauterbach, admitted that 1 in 10,000 COVID vaccine doses leads to a serious adverse event. He also appears to be building his alibi, claiming he did not sign the vaccine contract. Yet he did promote, cajole and enforce the vaccinations, nonetheless.
Family physician Dr. Scott Jensen, former Minnesota State Senator, noted that the number of mRNA vaccine doses needed to vaccinate young children to prevent one hospitalization for severe illness is over 224,000 doses. (Listen at 19 minutes; data came from the official UK health data agency.)
Assuming the risk of injury due to the vaccine for children is similar to the population risk the German health minister informed us of, you would have to vaccinate over 112,000 five through eleven year old children with two shots and seriously injure 22 of them as a result, in order to prevent one serious COVID hospitalization.
Remember, these are official data released by the UK and German governments. These data suggest you are twenty-two times as likely to injure a child with an mRNA vaccine than to benefit them.
Any government official who is cognizant of these data and recommends mRNA COVID vaccines for children is, in my view, guilty of professional malfeasance, a crime, and should be charged in civil court, while we await an Attorney General to charge them in criminal court as well.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malfeasance
Malfeasance is an act that is illegal and causes physical or monetary harm to someone else. Malfeasance is intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public employees…
- In the context of criminal law, “malfeasance” can apply to cases that cause financial damage or physical injury to another person. Malpractice is an example of criminal malfeasance.”
BTW, according to the UK’s Office of National Statistics, “From March 2020 to October 2022, there are 88 deaths registered as due to COVID-19 in England and Wales (population 59 million). This is for the age under 1 to age 18 age band.” This is a much lower rate of deaths in children from COVID than has been alleged by the US CDC.
The UK stopped advising vaccines for healthy kids aged 11 and under last September.
The reason for this was that the UK statisticians calculated the NNV—Number Needed to Vaccinate to prevent a death or hospitalization in all age groups, and could not avoid what they found—the vaccines were doing more harm than good in most age groups, since efficacy was poor. They had to vaccinate huge numbers to prevent one hospitalization or death. So where can we find these numbers/
Here is where I first saw these numbers 2 months ago:
“Revised estimates of the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one hospitalisation during the Omicron era indicate that 800 persons aged 70 years and above would need to be given a booster in autumn 2022 (a fourth dose) to prevent one hospitalisation from COVID-19. The corresponding NNV for persons aged 50 to 59 years is 8,000 and for persons aged 40 to 49 years who are not in a clinical risk group is 92,500 (Appendix 1).”
But where are the data fro the younger age groups, which I remembered seeing and Dr. Scott Jensen was citing? According to the above, they are found in Appendix 1. But guess what? Appendix 1 of the document above no longer exists. If you find it, please let me know!
It Was A ‘Vaccine Strategy’ From The Start
Ideological zealots wanted jabs in arms
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 11, 2023
Our recent “Null Hypothesis” article postulates and evidences a succinct summary of the happenings of the last three years: “The hypothesis that will likely stand the test of time goes like this: a nasty — if not particularly unusual — respiratory disease season was turned into a catastrophe by human misadventure, and this catastrophe was compounded by efforts to save face and justify the unjustifiable”.
In answering the question ‘what happened’, we did not attempt to tackle the obvious follow-up question (apart from a brief discussion about social contagion): ‘why did it happen’?
The sceptical community – living up to its decentralised worldview – is not short of opinions and theories, robustly debated. These are too numerous to cover in detail in this short piece: it suffices to say that they cover a wide spectrum ranging from calamitous ineptitude (and innumeracy) of politicians and civil servants, deceitful and underhand sales & marketing by nefarious global corporations, efforts by the elite to enrich themselves by impoverishing the middle classes and the digital enslavement of the masses, through to some more esoteric beliefs covering depopulation agendas, eugenics and long-in-the-planning Satanic plots… the list just goes on and on.
As many of the most ardent supporters of both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions (PIs and NPIs) begin to wake up to the collateral damage they helped bring about, it is instructive to stand back and observe tried-and-tested Biblical precedent being re-enacted. Few are not enjoying seeing the pantomime villain Matt Hancock being hoist by his own self-promoting petard via the Oakeshott WhatsApp trove. After all, who does not take some satisfaction from the fall of a petty tyrant? But much like the goat that gets bestowed with the sins of the community in Leviticus (“the goat will carry on itself all their iniquities” ) before being cast out into the wilderness (thus avoiding a full and frank ‘lessons learned’ exercise), the demonisation of this preening ’cock (or monkey) does not necessarily get us much further in terms of identifying whodunnit — who was the organ grinder? After all, a self-promoting chancer whose self-confessed epidemiological education is based on a studious viewing of the film ‘Contagion’ is demonstrably not an evil Blofeld mastermind. Indeed, some sceptics have attempted to use the Telegraph’s Lockdown Files to scotch any discussion of conspiracy and underscore their belief that the disastrous events of 2020-2022 were ‘merely’ a cock-up.
But that simplistic take assumes that the former Secretary of State for Health was more than just a bumbling low-grade chaos agent intent on filling his boots via fast-track procurement channels. Loathsome though he might be, Hancock and his cronies are a symptom – not a cause – of the pit we find ourselves in. Why did he – and the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson – get themselves into such a pickle such that they were not able to navigate a more rational – and less damaging – course through the crisis?
The answer is probably to be found somewhere within what one might term the ‘pandemic preparedness industry’ as outlined a few months ago in the Daily Sceptic :
“The response to the COVID-19 pandemic represented the triumph of a pseudo-scientific biosecurity agenda that emerged in 2005 and has been pushed ever since by a well-organised, well-funded and well-embedded network of ideologues. These fanatics promote and perpetuate the ideas underpinning the draconian new approach by publishing them in leading journals, planting them in public policy and law, pushing them in the media and smearing those who dissent, however eminent or well-qualified.
This avenue of investigation is, we believe, more likely to lead to the source of our misadventure than attempting to rationalise ‘scorched earth’ attempts at containment, suppression and eradication of a killer virus. There was only ever a warped logic to these actions, unless – one way or the other (perhaps for the ‘greater good’ or simply for old-fashioned crony capitalist ends) – you wanted to create a favourable backdrop for a new set of medical interventions that might otherwise have met with limited take-up or even downright opposition. CMO Chris Whitty advised government ministers in February 2020 (!) that covid was not deadly enough to justify fast-tracking vaccines. Put another way, earth could not have been scorched in this way if seasonal respiratory disease had not been given a name such that scariants could be ‘deployed’ to ‘frighten the pants off’ the general populace.
Whether the driving force behind these fanatics is saintly goodwill, pure greed, corruption – or even a Luciferian conspiracy for that matter – is beside the point: what is essential to understand is how a nasty seasonal respiratory disease season was weaponised to drive one of the greatest policy failures of all time. There does not necessarily need to be a single cartoon villain masterminding events to avoid multiple parties conspiring (“breathing together”) to create a great evil.
With this backdrop one does not even need to ferret around in the weeds to find out more. Last summer’s detailed POLITICO/WELT Special Report sheds plentiful quanta of light on the matter:
Four [supra-national] health organizations, working closely together, spent almost $10 billion on responding to Covid across the world. But they lacked the scrutiny of governments… While nations were still debating the seriousness of the pandemic, the groups identified potential vaccine makers and targeted investments in the development of tests, treatments and shots.
The four organizations had worked together in the past, and three of them shared a common history. The largest and most powerful was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropies in the world. Then there was Gavi, the global vaccine organization that Gates helped to found to inoculate people in low-income nations, and the Wellcome Trust, a British research foundation with a multibillion dollar endowment that had worked with the Gates Foundation in previous years. Finally, there was the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, the international vaccine research and development group that Gates and Wellcome both helped to create in 2017.
… The World Health Organisation (WHO) was crucial to the groups’ rise to power. All had longstanding ties to the global health body. The boards of both CEPI and Gavi have a specially designated WHO representative. There is also a revolving door between employment in the groups and work for the WHO: Former WHO employees now work at the Gates Foundation and CEPI; some, such as Chris Wolff, the deputy director of country partnerships at the Gates Foundation, occupy important positions. Much of the groups’ clout with the WHO stems simply from money.
… “They’re funded by their own capabilities and or endowments and trusts. But when they step into multilateral affairs, then who keeps watch over them?” a former senior U.S. official said. “I don’t know the answer to that. That’s quite provocative”.
Consider this small early 2020 cameo featuring senior executives from one of these four organisations:
“When it first became clear that this disease was appearing, Richard [Hatchett] and I sat down and said, we know what happened with the last swine flu pandemic, where wealthy countries bought up all the doses [of Pandemrix] that were … available for the developing world, we have to try to do something different about that…”.
Most normal people draw entirely different conclusions from the swine flu saga, not least the absolutely devastating tale of Pandemrix, a giant swindle involving misuse of taxpayer funds to purchase these doses in the first place, the substantial human damage that they then caused, a subsequent cover-up and then further cost to the taxpayer compensating those affected.
Contrast this with CEPI’s ‘mission’: “Vaccines are one of our most powerful tools in the fight to outsmart epidemics. The development of vaccines can help save lives, protect societies and restabilise economies”.
There you have it: the ‘saviour vaccine’, a sacred cow extolled with messianic zeal. It seems that one of the world’s greatest policy failures happens to neatly coincide with the stated aims of the Fantabulous Four. Food for thought given that there is no example of a vaccine ever defeating a sudden onset viral epidemic, let alone a ‘pandemic’ (there is also the question of whether viral pandemics are in any way even a hypothetical threat to modern societies — unless, of course, one incorrectly pins the blame for iatrogenic collateral damage on said virus).
Following the money, therefore, it is not that much of a surprise what came next: while — as pointed out above — “nations were still debating the seriousness of the pandemic” (i.e. correctly monitoring the possibility of a slightly-more-serious-than-usual respiratory disease season), the Fantabulous Four were busy setting the scene with targeted investments to create fertile ground to fulfil their aims. Consider then:
- Who might have benefitted from a social media campaign showing those faked ‘deaths in the street’ in China?
- Who might have considered funding a social media ‘bot army’ to promote lockdowns, interventions that as per Neil Ferguson’s ‘seminal’ fear-mongering 16 March 2020 paper could only conceivably make any sort of logical sense if they were followed in short order by a ‘saviour vaccine’, as explicitly stated by Ferguson and co-authors in that paper (“these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available” )?
- Who might have benefitted from squashing an early ‘lab leak’ theory that might have implicated some of the Fantabulous Four and the justification for a fast-track vaccine roll-out?
- Conversely, once said roll-out had been successfully funded and procured at eye-watering expense, who might have benefitted from re-floating the ‘lab leak’ theory to help justify future ‘pandemic preparedness’?
- Who might benefit from tightly controlling media output and censorship (after all, “true content … might promote vaccine hesitancy”)? Who was writing this script?
- WHO might wish to publish — in 2022 — detailed recommendations about how those in authority should respond to a ‘vaccine crisis’ (defined as any occurrence that ‘will most likely or has already eroded public trust in vaccines … and may create uncertainty’)?
- Why only the vaccine ‘pillar’ of the WHO’s wish list, the ACT-A (Access to Covid Tools Accelerator), received the funding that was sought? And why did all others on that ACT-A list — most notably cheap therapeutics that might have saved many lives (while of course competing with lucrative vaccines) — remain well short of their funding targets?
This congruency of the categorical trinity — means, motive and opportunity — is difficult to explain away. It is true that much that happened from March 2020 was anarchic, uncontrolled, panicked and unscripted. But there was method to the madness, an ultimate aim to the chaos, namely to make way for a ‘saviour vaccine’ that would only be accepted if the intended recipients had had ‘the pants frightened off them’, i.e. were sufficiently afraid of the alternatives to risk such an unproven medical intervention.
It may conceivably be that many people involved in the Fantabulous Four believe that this collective action was necessary. But collective action – however well meaning – that is dictated by a group and imposed on everyone else is tyranny, pure and simple. It gets worse if authorities are sufficiently captured by this tyranny such that they deploy subversive psychological weaponry on their citizens and suppress any dissent.
These are grave misdeeds that led to great harm, both in terms of bad outcomes and collateral damage from unnecessary non-pharmaceutical interventions, but also from the utterly unnecessary coercion used to foist pharmaceutical interventions on those that did not need them.
Even if we presuppose that there are no evil Blofeld-types standing behind all of this, it is beyond doubt that a fanatical ideology has inspired an evil tyranny. As per the Daily Sceptic :
“This ideology is the enemy, and seeing it for what it is is the first step to defeating it”.
This process has begun.
MHRA stops publishing regular Covid vaccines Yellow Card reports (how very convenient)
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | March 14, 2023
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on whom we have to rely for Covid-19 vaccines damage data, are masters of both doublespeak and normalisation, two key means of the global transformation imposed on us over the last three years.
They don’t disappoint with their latest and last of their regular Yellow Card updates published last week. If you have sharp eyes, you will spot in it a neutral-sounding subheading, ‘Update on publication status’. What it tells us is that since the Commission on Human Medicine (yet another quango who, would you believe, advise ‘ministers on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products’ and whose many members you can find here) has advised that ‘given the end of the autumn 2022 booster campaign and the stable safety profile of the Covid-19 vaccines, the MHRA should transition to routine data publication and communication of safety concerns for Covid-19 vaccines. This report is therefore the last regular publication of the Summary of Yellow Card reporting for Covid-19 vaccines‘ (my emphasis). The ‘new interactive‘ will continue with monthly updates, but this is now in line with regular monitoring (whatever that entails) and many other drugs viewed as having an acceptable safety profile. In view of the new spring booster just launched for vulnerable people, who are receiving perhaps their 6th dose of a novel mRNA injection, and the seemingly tolerated (by the the MHRA) level of associated adverse events and deaths for the CVax then this still and wrongly gives the impression that there is ‘no cause for concern’.
How very convenient for all involved, since these embarrassing and counter-narrative Yellow Card reports of adverse events continue to mount. In the last four weeks reported there were another 776 reports, of which 75 per cent are deemed serious by the MHRA itself, and 23 more reports with ‘fatal outcomes’. That means death in plain English.
Exactly how is the phrase ‘given the stable safety profile of the Covid-19 vaccines’ to be interpreted other than doublespeak or a plain lie? How can it be seen except as a slap in the face for the nearly half-million vaccine-injured (75 per cent of whom are seriously injured and who may be only 10 per cent of the total) and a perverse denial of the published data? What a callous way of normalising death and injury.
For what we know is that despite the many, many more adverse events and deaths associated with the Covid vaccines than with the previously rushed-out swine flu vaccines, none of the Covid-19 vaccines has been similarly formally withdrawn. Nothing, but nothing, has been learnt from President Ford’s warp-speed attempt to vaccinate the entire US population in 1976. The Ford administration agreed to indemnify Big Pharma and, like Boris Johnson, Ford politicised the vaccine and was photographed being vaccinated. Although the predicted ‘pandemic’ never materialised, the vaccine side effects did – dozens of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare problem where the body’s immune system attacks the nerves, potentially leading to paralysis and death. Hundreds of compensation claims followed for years after.
The story was repeated in the UK in 2009 when Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London hyped a swine flu outbreak here. Based on Ferguson’s advice, the government said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was 65,000 deaths in the UK and ordered 90million doses of the swine flu vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline – more than enough to vaccinate the entire population, and more per head than any other country in Europe. The order was part-cancelled it when it was recognised that it was not a pandemic after all. (The Guardian reported: ‘GSK will not suffer from the cancellation – the deal involves a commitment by the Department of Health to buy some of its other products instead.’) Furthermore it was later acknowledged that one in every 55,000 unnecessary jabs had caused narcolepsy, many of the sufferers being children. Years later vaccine injury claims against the DoH are still being fought, with no compensation paid out.
But no lessons were learnt, and today the Big Pharma lobby is hugely more powerful with its tentacles reaching into academe, public health and government quangos and agencies, most often under the guise of philanthropy and independent scientific research.
So let’s see what this ‘last regular publication’ reports.
The notable points for me are:
· an inexorable rise of injuries and deaths now standing at 478,329 people impacted and 2,459 deaths.
· 6,697 children of whom 71 per cent are seriously impacted and more than ten dead
· 39,801 20 – 29yr olds, 73 per cent of whom are seriously impacted
Why aren’t people more angry about this? What are we doing sacrificing children on the altar of an experimental vaccine for which they had no need?
In the next week we will be publishing our own report on the devastating consequences of the vaccine for reproductive health.
MHRA Yellow Card reporting summary up to February 22, 2023
(Data published March 8, 2023) New interactive format
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)
Government data up to September 11, 2022 – UK-wide (latest)
· 1st doses received – 53.8 million people
· 2nd doses – 50.7m people
· 3rd doses – people having one or more booster – 40,622,659 (up to February 20)
All boosters = 67.26million doses
· Pfizer – 33.1m (monovalent) & 11.5m (bivalent)
· AstraZeneca – 60,900
· Moderna – 13.3m (monovalent) & 9.3m (bivalent)
· Novavax – 1,200
Additional all-brand doses given in last 4 weeks – 3,230 (Pfizer-mono) + 127,312 (Pfizer-bivalent) + zero (AZ) + 176 (Moderna-mono) + 4,335 (Moderna-bivalent) + 200 (Novavax) = 135,253
TOTAL DOSES administered (approx.) = 171.8million doses including all booster programmes
Overall 1 in 112 people injected experience a Yellow Card Adverse Event, 1 in 151 reports are classified as SERIOUS*, 1 in 195 reports are fatal, which may be less than 10 per cent of actual figures according to MHRA.
Yellow Card Adverse Event Reports – 176,316 (Pfizer-mono) + 4,096 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 247,600 (AZ) + 42,833 (Moderna-mono) + 5,108 (Moderna-bivalent) + 57 (Novavax) + 2,319 (Unknown brand) = 478,329 people impacted (increase of 776 in 4 weeks)
Reports classified as SERIOUS* by MHRA = 74.4 per cent
124,617 (Pfizer-mono) + 3,126 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 191,644 (AZ) + 30,929 (Moderna-mono) + 3,685 (Moderna-bivalent) + 40 (Novavax) + 1670 (Unknown) = 355,711
Over 45,857 of the above serious reports are of ‘Unknown Age’ = 9.6 per cent of all reports
Reports classified as Non-SERIOUS by MHRA = 25.1 per cent
50,832 (Pfizer-mono) + 940 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 54,592 (AZ) + 11,816 (Moderna-mono) + 1,381 (Moderna-bivalent) + 17 (Novavax) + 581 (Unknown) = 120,159
Reactions – 508,104 (Pfizer-mono) + 10,867 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 877,221 (AZ) + 140,373 (Moderna-mono) + 13,896 (Moderna-bivalent) + 178 (Novavax) + 7,217 (Unknown) = 1,557,856
Fatal – 867 (Pfizer-mono) + 30 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 1,364 (AZ) + 88 (Moderna-mono) + 42 (Moderna-bivalent) + 68 (Unknown) = 2,459 (0.5 per cent of reports) (increase of 23 reports with fatal outcome in 4 weeks)
Over 386 of the above fatalities are of ‘Unknown Age’ = 16 per cent of all fatalities
CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SPECIAL REPORT
Last available data set for Under 18s in Nov 2022
· 4,213,500 children (1st doses) – majority Pfizer
· 2,910,500 (2nd doses) – majority Pfizer
· 485,900 boosters
Yellow Card Adverse Events Reported – Below combined 0-19yrs – many categories retracted (^) ‘due to less than 5 reports in line with MHRA duty of confidentiality to patients and reporters’
0-19yr old reports classified as SERIOUS* by MHRA = 71.3 per cent
4,650 (Pfizer-mono) + 34 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 1,457 (AZ) + 517 (Moderna-mono) + >7 (Moderna-bivalent) + >32 (Unknown) = 6,697
0-19yr old reports classified as FATAL by MHRA
>10 (Pfizer-mono) + zero (Pfizer-bivalent) + <5 (AZ) + <5 (Moderna-mono) + <5 (Moderna-bivalent) + <5 (Unknown brand) = greater than 10
20-29yr old reports classified as SERIOUS* by MHRA = 73.2 per cent
19,965 (Pfizer-mono) + 103 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 14,542 (AZ) + 4,973 (Moderna-mono) + 127 (Moderna-bivalent) + < 5 (Novavax) + 91 (Unknown) = 39,801
20-29yr old reports classified as FATAL by MHRA
15 (Pfizer-mono) + <5 (Pfizer-bivalent) + 28 (AZ) + zero (Moderna-mono) + zero (Moderna-bivalent) + zero (Novavax) + zero (Unknown brand) = greater than 43
* MHRA definition of ‘serious’ – patient died, life threatening, hospitalisation, congenital abnormality, persistent or significant disability or capacity, deemed medically significant by MHRA medical dictionary or reporter
For full reports, see here.
Updated 10am, 14.3.23
Karl Lauterbach, in major reversal, says vaccine injuries are “dismaying,” complains of “exorbitant” pharmaceutical profits
Calls for vaccine manufacturers to fund an institute for those harmed
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | March 13, 2023
Things aren’t going very well for Germany’s foremost virus pest, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach. His approval ratings have dwindled, and he hardly tweets anymore. Increasingly he avoids virological topics entirely, probably to escape the relentless mockery his every remark on this front brings. On Saturday, things got even worse for him, as Welt reported that he’d falsified his CV while applying for a professorship at Tübingen in 1997. From the coalition government, where he might’ve expected vigorous defence as late as last year, there is only deafening silence.
Under these gathering clouds, Lauterbach granted an interview yesterday to the state media programme ZDF Heute Journal, for a segment on vaccine injuries. In the course of the remarkable conversation, Lauterbach was confronted with and forced to disavow his earlier claims from 2021 that the vaccines are “side-effect free”; recognised that every injury is one injury too many and called these cases “dismaying”; likened the so-called “post-vaccination syndrome” (Post-Vac) to Long Covid; emphasised that he wasn’t responsible for negotiating the contracts which exclude pharmaceuticals from liability; and twice called pharmaceutical company profits “exorbitant,” agreeing that these firms should fund an institute to help those those who have been injured by their products.
This isn’t a total reversal: Lauterbach doesn’t denounce mass vaccination and doesn’t question massaged official estimates which put serious injuries at a rate of less than 1 in 10,000. We’re nearer the beginning than the end of a steady process of repudiation here. Still, this is a big deal.
Because the interview will be selectively clipped, I provide this full translation:
Christian Sievers of the ZDF Heute Journal (henceforth S): The Federal Minister of Health is with us. Many thanks and good evening, Mr Lauterbach.
Karl Lauterbach (hereafter L): Good evening, Mr Sievers.
S: What do you say to those who have been affected [by vaccine injuries]?
L: First of all, what’s happened to these people is absolutely dismaying, and every single case is one too many. I honestly feel very sorry for these people. There are severe disabilities, and some of them will be permanent. So it’s hard. What we do as a state is that the health insurance companies pay the treatment costs, and, well, the federal states bear the support costs, if support is necessary. But in fact we have problems on both sides, because we don’t yet have the drugs for treating them. These are being feverishly researched. The entitlement to benefits is also often very bureaucratically tied-up. So I really do understand the people who are complaining here.
S : Now you’re making it sound like everything is settled. But when you talk to these people, you hear exactly the opposite. A year of fighting, being turned away again and again – many officials simply don’t believe them, sometimes they never get an answer at all, and then after running the gauntlet to get their vaccine injuries recognised, all they receive is a small sum. That can’t be all the state has to offer these people right now, can it?
L: Absolutely not, and I don’t want to give that impression, because that’s not how I see things. These cases must be more quickly recognised, these vaccine injuries, and we’re now slowly getting a clearer picture. But I should also point out, just so I don’t leave a false impression: severe vaccine injuries happen in less than 1 in 10,000 vaccinations, according to the Paul Ehrlich Institute or the European licensing authorities. So it’s not that common. But because our understanding of these injuries is getting clearer and clearer, it should also be possible in future to identify those who are affected more quickly, so that we can get them quicker help.
S: Why did you, Mr Lauterbach, still claim in the summer of 2021 that the vaccines had no side effects?
L: Well, that was an exaggeration that I once made in a misguided tweet. But it wasn’t fundamentally my position. I had already commented very, very often on the side effects of vaccinations. For example, I …
S: But you often said afterwards that there were hardly any or practically no [side effects. You said this again on the [television talkshow] Anne Will. So, you’ve always given the impression that side effects aren’t really an issue at all.
L: Well, that’s not right, as I just said. I was aware of the figures at the time, and they’ve remained relatively stable. These vaccines have been used worldwide, 1 in 10,000 [are injured], so you can say it’s a lot, or you can say it’s not so many. But the vaccine really does protect against serious illness and, by the way, very often also reduces the risk of Long Covid. This is similar to what we’re talking about here, with the Post-Vac syndrome, so the vaccinations – there’s an outweighing benefit, but it’s true, 1 in 10,000 is the frequency of serious side effects.
S: Now the first lawsuits are pending against BioNTech, and also against other vaccine manufacturers. What do you think that’ll go?
L: I can’t speculate, that’s not my job. As minister I have to be careful. It’s true that within the framework of these EU contracts, the companies were largely exempted from liability and that the liability therefore lies with the German state, so to speak, as just described, with the federal states … but the most important thing is, looking ahead, we need treatments, and I’ll therefore set up a programme with the Ministry of Health, where we’ll investigate the consequences of Long Covid, and also Post-Vac syndrome, where we’ll look into this and improve care. That’s a contribution we can make.
S: When will this happen, in concrete terms? It’s precisely these affected people who are suffering all these delays, who want to know.
L: That’s true, but I’m negotiating with the budget committee, and indeed it’s a programme I’d like to launch as soon as possible, and I’m in budget negotiations for this money. So it’s something that we also have to bring to frutition, it’s an obligation, and it would network the experts in this field in such a way that the probability of good therapy in Germany would grow.
S: Now, you just mentioned the liability waiver for pharmaceutical companies. It means that the pharmaceuticals can, so to speak, relax in all these lawsuits, because the state has assumed the risk. So it’s the state – that is, you, the federal government – that has to answer for any damages claims that may arise. Does you feel good about that?
L: What does feeling good mean? First of all, I didn’t negotiate the contracts; as far as my office is concerned, I inherited them, and I believe that it was due to the situation at that time that people wanted to get the vaccines as quickly as possible, and so the state assumed liability. Maybe that was the right thing to do, because it’s better for the state to be liable than to have to go through long settlements or lawsuits with companies.
S: But we’ve just seen how difficult it is to actually get money from the state. What do you think will happen now? Do you think that in view of the situation, for example, pharmaceuticals could voluntarily put money into a foundation? Would that be an idea if they don’t have any liability?
L: It would definitely be a good idea if companies would show a willingness to help out here, because the profits have been exorbitant – exorbitant profits. So that wouldn’t just be a good gesture, we should expect it. But you ask me, what will next? I’d say the optimistic scenario is that we finally learn how to deal with Long Covid and Post-Vac, how we can manage that, and that we moreover recognise case fasterdo that people don’t have to wait so long to be recognised as having Post-Vac syndrome in the first place.
S: That’s a promise from the Federal Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach. Thank you very much for the interview this evening.
L: Thank you.
Pfizer wants EU to keep paying for unused Covid jabs
RT | March 15, 2023
Pfizer has offered to extend its Covid-19 vaccine contract with the European Union while scaling back deliveries, but still expects the bloc to pay billions of euros for unused doses amid a major supply glut in some countries, the Financial Times has reported. The offer prompted outrage from a handful of member states, who say the deal would serve the interests of Big Pharma over their own citizens.
The contract extension would push the vaccine agreement out to 2026, with a proposed 40% reduction in the number of doses supplied as well as delays to deliveries, the newspaper reported on Tuesday, citing two unnamed officials.
However, despite the suggested cuts, the US pharma giant still insists that it be paid for the full number of doses originally agreed upon, many of which would never be produced under the new terms.
The amendments to the deal – the full text of which has never been made public – were presented by European health commissioner Stella Kyriakides during a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, but faced objections from some EU members.
In a joint statement issued following the meeting, officials from Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland said they would not sign the agreement with the proposed changes, as they “do not present a final and fair solution to the problems of the Covid-19 vaccine surplus and do not meet the needs of the healthcare systems, the needs of citizens and the financial interests of the member states.”
Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski argued that the current Pfizer proposal would favor Big Pharma, and has called for the secretive contract to be published, questioning the role European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen played in the negotiations for the massive vaccine deal.
An EU watchdog launched a probe into the negotiation and procurement process late last year, after von der Leyen’s office failed to produce personal text messages sent to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the talks for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses, prompting accusations of corruption.
The 27-member bloc originally signed a joint contract with Pfizer in 2020, but since the pandemic receded, demand for vaccines has steadily dropped, leaving an overabundance across the continent. Some countries have been forced to throw away vaccines, with Germany alone tossing out some 36.6 million doses, according to public broadcaster BR24, while others are sitting on large stocks of unused shots, such as Austria, which has reported around 17.5 million in its supply.
However, Czech Health Minister Vlastimil Valek pushed back on the criticisms, arguing that the “majority of countries” had agreed to the deal and that “the contract is not bad.” He added that the large stock of doses would not pose a problem as “Covid is still here” and “It will be necessary to repeat vaccination each year for a particular group of patients.”
I Read Richard Haass’ New Book (So You Don’t Have To!)
Corbett • 03/13/2023
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Have you ever thought that the Bill of Rights was a bit lacking? Did you ever wish there was a list of obligations detailing those things we owe to the government for the privilege of being born into a certain political jurisdiction? Then, boy, do I have the perfect book for you! Join James for today’s dissection of The Bill of Obligations, the latest turgid tome of trash from Richard Haass, the outgoing president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
DOCUMENTATION
| Episode 188 – Listening to the Enemy | |
| Time Reference: | 00:30 |
| Episode 225 – Still Listening to the Enemy | |
| Time Reference: | 00:36 |
| Episode 412 – I Read The Great Narrative (So You Don’t Have To!) | |
| Time Reference: | 00:41 |
| Episode 418 – I Read Bill Gates’ New Book (So You Don’t Have To!) | |
| Time Reference: | 00:48 |
| The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens | |
| Time Reference: | 01:06 |
| Richard Haass: “No,” CFR members are not New World Order architects (Feb 11, 2021) | |
| Time Reference: | 01:21 |
| Richard Haass on ‘The Bill of Obligations’ | |
| Time Reference: | 04:23 |
| Wall Street and FDR by Antony Sutton | |
| Time Reference: | 07:48 |
| FLASHBACK: You Are Being Programmed to Accept Global ID | |
| Time Reference: | 08:15 |
| Corbett Report Radio 050 – Deconstructing Pearl Harbor with Robert Stinnett | |
| Time Reference: | 08:22 |
| What Is The Average Global Temperature? | |
| Time Reference: | 17:24 |
| Episode 430 – The Media Are the Terrorists | |
| Time Reference: | 27:30 |
| Episode 382 – Your Body, Their Choice | |
| Time Reference: | 32:06 |
| Jacobsen v. Massachussetts | |
| Time Reference: | 32:20 |
| Buck v. Bell | |
| Time Reference: | 32:26 |
| How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World | |
| Time Reference: | 32:30 |
FDA and CDC Assertions in Doubling Down on COVID-19 Vaccination
Letter to Florida Surgeon General Tells America to Expect More Tension Over Injuries, Disabilities, and Deaths
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | March 12, 2023
I am frequently asked: why are the government agencies still pushing COVID-19 vaccination after there have been calls in the US Senate and all around the world to pull them off the market for lack of safety and efficacy?
In a March 10, 2023 letter from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, to Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, the agencies give their rationale. While Walensky does not have a compelling academic track record, her FDA counterpart Califf has been considered a staunch advocate of randomized trials and a hawk on safety of cardiovascular drugs over his career which was notable for building the Duke Clinical Research Institute, one of the most impressive academic research organizations in the world.
Here are 10 assertions that Califf and Walensky make to Ladapo and Americans on why the COVID-19 vaccines should be “pushed.”
- “The claim that the increase of VAERS reports of life-threatening conditions reported from Florida and elsewhere represents an increase of risk caused by the COVID-19 vaccines is incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” They are assuming unproven benefit at the start. The Bradford Hill criteria have been applied to VAERS and causality has been met. Autopsy studies have conclusively demonstrated causality for fatal syndromes. Doctors use the VAERS system when they believe COVID-19 vaccines caused the death, NOT when the death is unrelated to the vaccine in practice.
- “The FDA-approved and FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines have met FDA’s rigorous scientific and regulatory standards for safety and effectiveness and these vaccines continue to be recommended for use by CDC for all people six months of age and older.” The FDA has relied on the false surrogate of antibody elevations after injection eight times. This is neither rigorous nor valid. Large randomized, double blind placebo controlled trials with hospitalization/death as the primary endpoint are required to prove efficacy in all age groups.
- “Despite increased reports of these events, when the concern was examined in detail by cardiovascular experts, the risk of stroke and heart attack was actually lower in people who had been vaccinated, not higher.” They cite a nonrandomized study with inadequate control for the known determinants of cardiovascular disease. Both selection bias and confounding eliminate any valid claims of benefit. There is no mechanism by which COVID-19 vaccination would reduce cardiovascular events. There are >200 published manuscripts on COVID-19 vaccines mechanistically causing cardiovascular events including myocarditis, accelerated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, aortic dissection, hypertensive crisis, etc.
- “FDA and CDC physicians continuously screen and analyze VAERS data for possible safety concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines. For signals identified in VAERS, physicians from FDA and CDC screen individual reports, inclusive of comprehensive medical record review. Most reports do not represent adverse events caused by the vaccine and instead represent a pre-existing condition that preceded vaccination or an underlying medical condition that precipitated the event.” The agencies have not produced a report giving their analysis of what caused death after vaccination. Since many deaths occur on the day of the shot or in the next few days that follow, the public deserves to see regulatory evidence for cause of death.
- “In addition to VAERS, FDA and CDC utilize complementary active surveillance systems to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.” CDC V-safe is one of the active systems mentioned. The CDC refused to release to the public until ordered by the courts, demonstrated an unacceptable 7-8% rate of hospitalization, emergency care, or urgent office visit caused by vaccine side effects. So agency use of systems demonstrate lack of safety and are not reassuring to the public.
- “Based on available information for the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized or approved in the United States, the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks. Additionally, not only is there no evidence of increased risk of death following mRNA vaccines, but available data have shown quite the opposite: that being up to date on vaccinations saves lives compared to individuals who did not get vaccinated.” There are no randomized placebo controlled trials demonstrating hospitalization/death are reduced as primary endpoints. Thus the agencies cannot make an efficacy claim from a regulatory perspective. Nonrandomized studies have the following threats to validity: 1) selection bias—healthier more health conscious people take vaccines, 2) vaccinated are more likely to seek early treatment which reduces hospitalization/death, 3) no control over prior COVID-19 infection which greatly influences risk of hospitalization/death, 4) no adjudication of COVID-19 endpoints.
- “Another study using mathematical modeling estimated that the vaccines saved an estimated 14 million lives from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between December 8, 2020, and December 8, 2021.” Modeling studies start with the unproven assertion that vaccination reduces death which has not been demonstrated in proper randomized trials, hence extrapolations to large populations are invalid.
- “The most recent estimate is that those who are up to date on their vaccination status have a 9.8 fold lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than those who are unvaccinated and 2.4 fold lower risk of dying from Covid-19 than those who were vaccinated but had not received the updated, bivalent vaccine. Roughly 90% of deaths from COVID-19, as carefully classified by the CDC, in recent months have occurred among those who were not up to date on their vaccines.” This estimate did not account for the two known determinants of COVID-19 mortality: early treatment and natural immunity.
- “Over the course of the pandemic, FDA and CDC have held numerous public meetings to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines where detailed safety data are shared with outside experts and public comment is encouraged. Further, FDA publishes the full regulatory action package containing hundreds of pages summarizing clinical studies and review for each COVID-19 approval on FDA’s website (see “COVID-19 Vaccines Authorized for Emergency Use or FDA Approved”) and CDC publishes an extensive amount of information on their clinical use in Interim Clinical Considerations. Complete information about both benefits and risks helps health care providers better care for their patients.” The FDA/CDC have never reviewed or commented on the Pfizer 90-day post-marketing data which reported 1223 deaths shortly after the shot. The FDA attempted to block these data to the public for 55 years. The agencies have never conducted a symposium to review the >1000 peer-reviewed published papers on serious adverse events and death after COVID-19 vaccination.
- “Unfortunately, the misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine safety has caused some Americans to avoid getting the vaccines they need to be up to date.” The Rasmussen Report indicates 28% of Americans know someone who has died after the vaccine. Nothing in that report suggested “misinformation” was leading to hesitancy, moreover it was word of mouth on the horrifying outcomes Americans are witnessing among their family and friends that is leading to refusal rates of boosters.
There are easily another ten invalid assertions made by the agency that could be handled by experienced clinical investigators. Take a look at the letter yourself. Keep in mind the FDA/CDC deceived America by asserting that SARS-CoV-2 did not come out of the Wuhan Laboratory and just a few days ago the US House of Representatives voted to declassify our documents from the laboratory after multiple agencies and witnesses capitulated on the lab origin. This casts doubts on truthfulness of any agency public health assertions during the crisis.
The important message to Americans is that our agencies have no intention of carefully considering vaccine safety or changing course on their relentless pursuit of frequent, mass, indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccination down to 6-month old babies. It will be up to you to protect yourself and your family.
Califf R, Walensky R, letter to Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida Surgeon General, March 10, 2023
McCullough PA. US FDA Willfully Blind on the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination
McCullough PA. Found Dead at Home after COVID-19 Vaccination
McCullough PA. Modeling Study Makes False Conclusions on COVID-19 Vaccination
McCullough PA. McCullough Protocol©: Risk Stratification
McCullough PA. Good News on Omicron Outcomes from Prison
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency
National Survey Finds finds 28% Personally know of a Death Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US-Iran Scenario That Most Scares Israel
By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.
As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.
Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
- Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
- Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power
- Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support
- US’s ‘Very Foolish’ Double Blockade of Hormuz Strait Makes Absolutely No Sense: Here’s Why
- China issues rules on countermeasures against foreign states’ unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction
- Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War
- Tomorrow’s naval blockade showdown
- ‘Israel’ attacks civilians to hide its embarrassing military failures & out of pure sadism
- If Americans Knew
- Critical shortages in Gaza, Lebanon in ruins, “piracy” in Iran – Daily Update
- US-Iran ceasefire negotiations make zero progress – Daily Update
- Pro-Israel ‘Thinktanks’ and Individuals who Influence U.S. Foreign Policy
- Mearsheimer reveals how Israel dictates US policies on Iran, Gaza – video
- After killing 350+, Israel still has a “score to settle” with Lebanon before ceasefire – Daily Update
- Military aid to Israel emerges as the latest political litmus test for Democrats
- The only Palestinian children’s rights organization closes following years-long Israeli campaign against it
- ‘I Can’t Forget the Smell’: Lebanese Reel After Israel Kills Over 300 in Single Day
- DNC Shoots Down Resolutions Calling Out AIPAC and Limiting Arms to Israel
- TCN: Is Israel Blackmailing President Trump?
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 