Only 1 to 10% is reported to the VAERS.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
Japan Suspects Contaminant In Moderna Vaccines Is Metallic, 'Reacts To Magnets'
by Tyler Durden
Friday, Aug 27, 2021 - 10:33 AM
The Japanese Ministry of Health announced on Thursday that around 1.6 million doses of Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine have been taken out of use due to contamination in some vials that 'reacts to magnets,' according to a ministry official.
Several vaccination centers reported finding foreign matter in the doses.
"It's a substance that reacts to magnets," the official told Nikkei, adding "It could be metal."
Moderna, meanwhile, has confirmed receiving "several complaints of particulate matter" in vials distributed in Japan, but that "not safety or efficacy issues" were found related to the reports.
"The company is investigating the reports and remains committed to working transparently and expeditiously with its partner, Takeda, and regulators to address any potential concerns," a spokesperson told Nikkei, adding that a "manufacturing issue" at a plant in Spain was to blame.
After the complaints, the vaccine lot in question as well as two adjacent lots have been taken out of circulation "out of an abundance of caution," according to the spokesperson.
And while several 'fact-checking' websites have taken a crack at what's going on, the two most common explanations are 'they're faking it' or 'their skin was slightly wet.'
Conversely, people have also formed theories as to what exactly is causing the alleged magnetic effects in some people (but not others) - with many focusing on graphene oxide, a magnetic nanoparticle studied for its use as a drug delivery platform and other biomedical applications.
Critics note with the fact that that graphene oxide is not listed as an ingredient in any available Covid-19 vaccine, while skeptics counter with 'so what?' If random batches are tainted with foreign substances, on accident or on purpose, of course they wouldn't be listed in the ingredients.
In any event, Moderna stock isn't too happy today:
/////////////
Japan Halts 1.63 Million Moderna Coronavirus Vaccine Doses over ‘Contamination’
117
Octavio Jones/Getty Images
Gabrielle Reyes27 Aug 20213
3:16
Japan’s Health Ministry on Thursday suspended the use of 1.63 million Moderna vaccine doses — used to inoculate against the Chinese coronavirus — after it received reports that an unknown foreign substance was found in some unused vials of the vaccine at certain distribution sites.
The 1.63 million Moderna vaccine doses suspended from use on Thursday are from the same production line as the contaminated vials detected on Wednesday.
“At least 180,000 potentially contaminated shots have already been administered in 19 of the country’s 47 prefectures including Tokyo and Osaka,” Kyodo News reported on August 26, citing its own analysis of local Japanese government data.
“The foreign substances have been confirmed since August 16 at eight vaccination sites in five prefectures — Ibaraki, Saitama, Tokyo, Gifu and Aichi. They were found in a total of 39 vials,” the Japanese news agency noted.
Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has yet to determine the composition of the foreign matter detected inside the vials on Wednesday, though it said the substance resembled “small black” particles “a few millimeters in size.” An unnamed senior official of the Health Ministry told reporters on Thursday the materials “could be metallic fragments,” according to Kyodo News.
A pedestrian wearing a face mask walks in front of a monitor displaying an image of Japan’s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a news broadcast on April 06, 2020, in Tokyo, Japan. (Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images)
Both Moderna, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, and Japanese drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., which is in charge of the sale and distribution of Moderna’s Chinese coronavirus vaccine in Japan, “said they had not received any reports regarding safety issues” related to the vaccine in question as of Thursday, according to Kyodo News.
“To date, no safety or efficacy issues have been identified,” Moderna told the news agency, adding that it was “carefully assessing this matter and at this point does not have further comments on root causes.”
Asked by reporters in Tokyo on Thursday if the Moderna vaccine suspension would adversely affect Japan’s nationwide rollout of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, Japanese Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide said he had “been briefed by the health ministry that it will not have a significant impact.”
The 1.63 million now-suspended Moderna doses were distributed to 863 vaccination sites across Japan and manufactured on the same production line in Spain at the same time period, according to Japan’s health ministry. The doses are stamped with the following lot numbers: 3004667, 3004734, and 3004956.
Tokyo’s metropolitan government said Thursday about 9,100 people may have received a dose of a potentially contaminated vaccine at two vaccination sites it operates. “Among other prefectures, Osaka counted about 50,000 such shots, Hyogo 41,500 and Aichi 28,000,” according to the Japan Times.
Friday, Aug 27, 2021 - 10:33 AM
The Japanese Ministry of Health announced on Thursday that around 1.6 million doses of Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine have been taken out of use due to contamination in some vials that 'reacts to magnets,' according to a ministry official.
"It's a substance that reacts to magnets," the official told Nikkei, adding "It could be metal."
Moderna, meanwhile, has confirmed receiving "several complaints of particulate matter" in vials distributed in Japan, but that "not safety or efficacy issues" were found related to the reports.
"The company is investigating the reports and remains committed to working transparently and expeditiously with its partner, Takeda, and regulators to address any potential concerns," a spokesperson told Nikkei, adding that a "manufacturing issue" at a plant in Spain was to blame.
After the complaints, the vaccine lot in question as well as two adjacent lots have been taken out of circulation "out of an abundance of caution," according to the spokesperson.
Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga told reporters on Thursday afternoon that he had instructed the ministry to look into the case with safety as the top priority, adding he had received reports that the withdrawal "won't have a significant impact on the country's vaccination campaign." -Nikkei
The foreign matter that 'reacts to magnets' is sure to revive speculation over the viral 'Covid-19 vaccine magnet challenge,' in which dozens of people recorded magnets sticking to their vaccine injection sites.And while several 'fact-checking' websites have taken a crack at what's going on, the two most common explanations are 'they're faking it' or 'their skin was slightly wet.'
Conversely, people have also formed theories as to what exactly is causing the alleged magnetic effects in some people (but not others) - with many focusing on graphene oxide, a magnetic nanoparticle studied for its use as a drug delivery platform and other biomedical applications.
Critics note with the fact that that graphene oxide is not listed as an ingredient in any available Covid-19 vaccine, while skeptics counter with 'so what?' If random batches are tainted with foreign substances, on accident or on purpose, of course they wouldn't be listed in the ingredients.
In any event, Moderna stock isn't too happy today:
/////////////
Japan Halts 1.63 Million Moderna Coronavirus Vaccine Doses over ‘Contamination’
117
Gabrielle Reyes27 Aug 20213
3:16
Japan’s Health Ministry on Thursday suspended the use of 1.63 million Moderna vaccine doses — used to inoculate against the Chinese coronavirus — after it received reports that an unknown foreign substance was found in some unused vials of the vaccine at certain distribution sites.
The 1.63 million Moderna vaccine doses suspended from use on Thursday are from the same production line as the contaminated vials detected on Wednesday.
“At least 180,000 potentially contaminated shots have already been administered in 19 of the country’s 47 prefectures including Tokyo and Osaka,” Kyodo News reported on August 26, citing its own analysis of local Japanese government data.
“The foreign substances have been confirmed since August 16 at eight vaccination sites in five prefectures — Ibaraki, Saitama, Tokyo, Gifu and Aichi. They were found in a total of 39 vials,” the Japanese news agency noted.
Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has yet to determine the composition of the foreign matter detected inside the vials on Wednesday, though it said the substance resembled “small black” particles “a few millimeters in size.” An unnamed senior official of the Health Ministry told reporters on Thursday the materials “could be metallic fragments,” according to Kyodo News.
A pedestrian wearing a face mask walks in front of a monitor displaying an image of Japan’s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a news broadcast on April 06, 2020, in Tokyo, Japan. (Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images)Both Moderna, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, and Japanese drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., which is in charge of the sale and distribution of Moderna’s Chinese coronavirus vaccine in Japan, “said they had not received any reports regarding safety issues” related to the vaccine in question as of Thursday, according to Kyodo News.
“To date, no safety or efficacy issues have been identified,” Moderna told the news agency, adding that it was “carefully assessing this matter and at this point does not have further comments on root causes.”
Asked by reporters in Tokyo on Thursday if the Moderna vaccine suspension would adversely affect Japan’s nationwide rollout of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, Japanese Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide said he had “been briefed by the health ministry that it will not have a significant impact.”
The 1.63 million now-suspended Moderna doses were distributed to 863 vaccination sites across Japan and manufactured on the same production line in Spain at the same time period, according to Japan’s health ministry. The doses are stamped with the following lot numbers: 3004667, 3004734, and 3004956.
Tokyo’s metropolitan government said Thursday about 9,100 people may have received a dose of a potentially contaminated vaccine at two vaccination sites it operates. “Among other prefectures, Osaka counted about 50,000 such shots, Hyogo 41,500 and Aichi 28,000,” according to the Japan Times.
https://rumble.com/vlq9h8-woman-give...lzerp&mc=3ifeq
Woman Gives Best Speech I Have Ever Seen EXPOSING the Vaxx!
//////////////
'This Ends The Debate' - Israeli Study Shows Natural Immunity 13x More Effective Than Vaccines At Stopping Delta
by Tyler Durden
Friday, Aug 27, 2021 - 07:39 AM
Dr. Anthony Fauci and the rest of President Biden's COVID advisors have been proven wrong about "the science" of COVID vaccines yet again. After telling Americans that vaccines offer better protection than natural infection, a new study out of Israel suggests the opposite is true: natural infection offers a much better shield against the delta variant than vaccines.
The study was described by Bloomberg as "the largest real-world analysis comparing natural immunity - gained from an earlier infection - to the protection provided by one of the most potent vaccines currently in use." A few days ago, we noted how remarkable it was that the mainstream press was finally giving voice to scientists to criticize President Biden's push to start doling out booster jabs. Well, this study further questions the credibility of relying on vaccines, given that the study showed that the vaccinated were ultimately 13x as likely to be infected as those who were infected previously, and 27x more likely to be symptomatic.
Alex Berenson, a science journalist who has repeatedly questioned the efficacy of vaccines and masks at preventing COVID, touted the study as enough to "end any debate over vaccines v natural immunity."
Here's an excerpt from a report by Science Magazine:
This time, the data leave little doubt that natural infection truly is the better option for protection against the delta variant, despite the fact that the US won't acknowledge the already infected as having antibodies protecting them from the virus.
As the first country to achieve widepsread coverage by the vaccine, Israel is now in an unthinkable situation: daily case numbers have reached new record levels as the delta variant penetrates the vaccines' protection like a hot knife slicing through butter.
Source: Bloomberg
At the very least, the results of the study are good news for patients who have already successfully battled COVID but show the challenge of relying exclusively on immunizations to move past the pandemic.
"This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant," the researchers said.
Unfortunately, the study also showed that any protection is time-limited. Protection offered by natural infection wanes over time, just like the protection afforded by vaccines: The risk of a vaccine-breakthrough delta case was 13x higher than the risk of developing a second infection when the original illness occurred during January or February 2021. That's significantly more than the risk for people who were ill earlier in the outbreak.
What's more, giving a single shot of the vaccine to those who had been previously infected also appeared to boost their protection. Still, the data don't tell us anything about the long-term benefits of booster doses.
This latest data showing the vaccines don't offer anywhere near the 90%+ protection that was originally advertised by the FDA after the emergency authorization. Other studies are finding harmful side effects caused by the mRNA jabs are also more prevalent than previously believed.
Read the study pre-print below:
2021.08.24.21262415v1.full by Joseph Adinolfi Jr. on Scribd
Woman Gives Best Speech I Have Ever Seen EXPOSING the Vaxx!
//////////////
'This Ends The Debate' - Israeli Study Shows Natural Immunity 13x More Effective Than Vaccines At Stopping Delta
by Tyler Durden
Friday, Aug 27, 2021 - 07:39 AM
Dr. Anthony Fauci and the rest of President Biden's COVID advisors have been proven wrong about "the science" of COVID vaccines yet again. After telling Americans that vaccines offer better protection than natural infection, a new study out of Israel suggests the opposite is true: natural infection offers a much better shield against the delta variant than vaccines.
Alex Berenson, a science journalist who has repeatedly questioned the efficacy of vaccines and masks at preventing COVID, touted the study as enough to "end any debate over vaccines v natural immunity."
Here's an excerpt from a report by Science Magazine:
The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.
This time, the data leave little doubt that natural infection truly is the better option for protection against the delta variant, despite the fact that the US won't acknowledge the already infected as having antibodies protecting them from the virus.
As the first country to achieve widepsread coverage by the vaccine, Israel is now in an unthinkable situation: daily case numbers have reached new record levels as the delta variant penetrates the vaccines' protection like a hot knife slicing through butter.
At the very least, the results of the study are good news for patients who have already successfully battled COVID but show the challenge of relying exclusively on immunizations to move past the pandemic.
"This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant," the researchers said.
Unfortunately, the study also showed that any protection is time-limited. Protection offered by natural infection wanes over time, just like the protection afforded by vaccines: The risk of a vaccine-breakthrough delta case was 13x higher than the risk of developing a second infection when the original illness occurred during January or February 2021. That's significantly more than the risk for people who were ill earlier in the outbreak.
What's more, giving a single shot of the vaccine to those who had been previously infected also appeared to boost their protection. Still, the data don't tell us anything about the long-term benefits of booster doses.
This latest data showing the vaccines don't offer anywhere near the 90%+ protection that was originally advertised by the FDA after the emergency authorization. Other studies are finding harmful side effects caused by the mRNA jabs are also more prevalent than previously believed.
Read the study pre-print below:
2021.08.24.21262415v1.full by Joseph Adinolfi Jr. on Scribd
The Nuremberg Code
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.[SUP]1-6[/SUP] The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors' Trial).[SUP]7[/SUP] It served as a blueprint for today's principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.[SUP]1,2,4,5,8[/SUP] The chief prosecutor at the Doctors' Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code.[SUP]2[/SUP] Two American physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code's author.[SUP]5,8-11[/SUP] A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors' Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.[SUP]1-6[/SUP] The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors' Trial).[SUP]7[/SUP] It served as a blueprint for today's principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.[SUP]1,2,4,5,8[/SUP] The chief prosecutor at the Doctors' Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code.[SUP]2[/SUP] Two American physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code's author.[SUP]5,8-11[/SUP] A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors' Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006
Exclusive: Samples From Early Wuhan COVID Patients Had Genetically Modified Henipah, One of Two Types of Viruses Sent From Canadian Lab
By Omid Ghoreishi
August 25, 2021 Updated: August 26, 2021
biggersmallerPrint
Samples from early Wuhan COVID-19 patients show the presence of genetically modified Henipah virus, an American scientist has found.
Henipah was one of the two types of viruses sent to China by Chinese-born scientists from a Canadian laboratory at the centre of a controversy over the firing of the scientists and collaboration with Chinese military researchers. It is not clear whether the virus found in the Chinese samples is related to the virus samples sent by the Canadian lab, which were shipped in late March 2019.
The finding was confirmed for The Epoch Times by another qualified scientist.
The evidence was first found by Dr. Steven Quay, a Seattle-based physician-scientist and former faculty member at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who looked at early COVID-19 samples uploaded by scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) shortly after China informed the World Health Organization about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli is seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)The samples from the patients, who reportedly were found to have an “unidentified pneumonia disease” in December 2019, were uploaded to the genetic sequence database, GenBank, on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).
Quay says that while other scientists around the world were mostly interested in examining the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in the samples uploaded by the WIV scientists, he wanted to see what else was in the samples collected from the patients.
So he collaborated with a few other scientists to analyze sequences from the samples.
“We started fishing inside for weird things,” Quay told The Epoch Times.
What they found, he says, are the results of what could likely be contamination from different experiments in the lab making their way into the samples, as well as evidence of Henipah virus.
“We found genetic manipulation of the Nipah virus, which is more lethal than Ebola.” Nipah is a type of Henipah virus.
The Epoch Times asked Joe Wang, PhD, who formerly spearheaded a vaccine development program for SARS in Canada with one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, to verify the finding. Wang is currently the president of NTD Television Canada, the sister company of The Epoch Times in Canada.
After examining the evidence, Wang said he was able to replicate Quay’s findings on the Henipah virus. He explains that the genetic manipulation of the virus was likely for the purposes of vaccine development.
Documents released by the Canadian government state that the WIV’s intended use of the virus samples sent by Canada was “stock virus culturing,” which in simpler terms means storing the viruses while keeping them alive. Genetic manipulation would not be within the scope of this description.
Winnipeg Lab
The firing of Chinese-born scientist Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, from the National Microbiology laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg has been the subject of much controversy in Canada, with opposition parties pressing the government for more details on the case, and the government refusing to release information citing national security and privacy concerns.
Qiu and Cheng along with several Chinese students were escorted out of the NML, Canada’s only lab designated at containment level 4—or P4, the highest level of biosafety—amid a police investigation in July 2019. The two scientists were formally fired in January 2021.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), which is in charge of the NML, said the termination was the result of an “administrative matter” and “possible breaches of security protocols,” but has declined to provide further details, citing security and privacy concerns.
House Speaker Anthony Rota admonishes Public Health Agency of Canada President Iain Stewart in the House of Commons on June 21, 2021, for failing to provide documents related to the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)During her time at the NML, Qiu travelled several times to the WIV in an official capacity, helping train personnel on level 4 safety. The Globe and Mail later reported that scientists at the NML have been collaborating with Chinese military researchers on deadly pathogens, and that one of the Chinese military researchers worked at the high-security Winnipeg lab for a period of time.
Documents and emails released by PHAC show that the shipment of Henipah and Ebola samples was done with the permission of NML authorities.
In one of the emails sent in September 2018, David Safronetz, chief of special pathogens at PHAC, informs then-head of NML Matthew Gilmour and other lab administrators about the request from the WIV for the shipment of the samples, saying “I trust the lab.”
In response, Gilmour asks about the nature of the work that will be done at the Wuhan lab, and why the lab doesn’t get the material from “other, more local labs.” He also tells Safronetz that it’s “good to know that you trust this group,” asking how the NML was connected with the group.
In his reply, Safronetz doesn’t specifically say what the samples will be used for in China, but notes that they will only be sent once all paperwork and certification are completed. He also says the WIV is requesting the material from NML “due to collaboration” with Qiu.
He adds, “Historically, it’s also been easier to obtain material from us as opposed to US labs. I don’t think other, closer labs have the ability to ship these materials.”
Gilmour resigned from his position at the NML in May 2020 and joined a UK-based bioresearch company.
MPs have asked NML management why shipment of the samples was allowed and whether they knew if China performs any gain-of-function (GoF) research at the WIV. GoF research involves increasing either the lethal level (virulence) or the transmissibility of pathogens or both.
The NML’s acting scientific director general Guillaume Poliquin told MPs during a parliamentary committee meeting on March 22 that the lab only sent the samples to the WIV after receiving assurance that no GoF research would take place.
Conservative MP John Williamson pressed for more answers, saying the word of the state-run Chinese lab can’t be trusted as the Chinese regime “has a history of theft and lies.”
The issue of GoF research at WIV has been a point of contention in the United States between lawmakers and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH’s head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci’s organization has funded research (through EcoHealth Alliance) on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul says published work from WIV on coronaviruses shows the lab is conducting GoF research, a charge that Fauci denies.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)The Epoch Times sought comment from PHAC, including a response as to how the agency addressed issues of intellectual property and collaboration of the development of any products such as vaccines with WIV, but didn’t hear back by time of publication.
Despite repeated requests by the opposition parties for more details related to the firing of the two NML scientists, the Liberal government has refused to provide records, saying there are national security and privacy concerns.
After the House of Commons issued an order requiring the government to disclose the information, the government took the Speaker of the House to court to obtain confirmation from a judge that it can withhold the documents. The government later dropped its court case once Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called an election and Parliament was dissolved.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include more information from Canadian government documents.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_m...-from-canadian-lab_3963836.html?welcomeuser=1
By Omid Ghoreishi
August 25, 2021 Updated: August 26, 2021
biggersmallerPrint
Samples from early Wuhan COVID-19 patients show the presence of genetically modified Henipah virus, an American scientist has found.
Henipah was one of the two types of viruses sent to China by Chinese-born scientists from a Canadian laboratory at the centre of a controversy over the firing of the scientists and collaboration with Chinese military researchers. It is not clear whether the virus found in the Chinese samples is related to the virus samples sent by the Canadian lab, which were shipped in late March 2019.
The finding was confirmed for The Epoch Times by another qualified scientist.
The evidence was first found by Dr. Steven Quay, a Seattle-based physician-scientist and former faculty member at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who looked at early COVID-19 samples uploaded by scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) shortly after China informed the World Health Organization about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli is seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)The samples from the patients, who reportedly were found to have an “unidentified pneumonia disease” in December 2019, were uploaded to the genetic sequence database, GenBank, on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).Quay says that while other scientists around the world were mostly interested in examining the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in the samples uploaded by the WIV scientists, he wanted to see what else was in the samples collected from the patients.
So he collaborated with a few other scientists to analyze sequences from the samples.
“We started fishing inside for weird things,” Quay told The Epoch Times.
What they found, he says, are the results of what could likely be contamination from different experiments in the lab making their way into the samples, as well as evidence of Henipah virus.
“We found genetic manipulation of the Nipah virus, which is more lethal than Ebola.” Nipah is a type of Henipah virus.
The Epoch Times asked Joe Wang, PhD, who formerly spearheaded a vaccine development program for SARS in Canada with one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, to verify the finding. Wang is currently the president of NTD Television Canada, the sister company of The Epoch Times in Canada.
After examining the evidence, Wang said he was able to replicate Quay’s findings on the Henipah virus. He explains that the genetic manipulation of the virus was likely for the purposes of vaccine development.
Documents released by the Canadian government state that the WIV’s intended use of the virus samples sent by Canada was “stock virus culturing,” which in simpler terms means storing the viruses while keeping them alive. Genetic manipulation would not be within the scope of this description.
Winnipeg Lab
The firing of Chinese-born scientist Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, from the National Microbiology laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg has been the subject of much controversy in Canada, with opposition parties pressing the government for more details on the case, and the government refusing to release information citing national security and privacy concerns.
Qiu and Cheng along with several Chinese students were escorted out of the NML, Canada’s only lab designated at containment level 4—or P4, the highest level of biosafety—amid a police investigation in July 2019. The two scientists were formally fired in January 2021.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), which is in charge of the NML, said the termination was the result of an “administrative matter” and “possible breaches of security protocols,” but has declined to provide further details, citing security and privacy concerns.
House Speaker Anthony Rota admonishes Public Health Agency of Canada President Iain Stewart in the House of Commons on June 21, 2021, for failing to provide documents related to the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)During her time at the NML, Qiu travelled several times to the WIV in an official capacity, helping train personnel on level 4 safety. The Globe and Mail later reported that scientists at the NML have been collaborating with Chinese military researchers on deadly pathogens, and that one of the Chinese military researchers worked at the high-security Winnipeg lab for a period of time.Documents and emails released by PHAC show that the shipment of Henipah and Ebola samples was done with the permission of NML authorities.
In one of the emails sent in September 2018, David Safronetz, chief of special pathogens at PHAC, informs then-head of NML Matthew Gilmour and other lab administrators about the request from the WIV for the shipment of the samples, saying “I trust the lab.”
In response, Gilmour asks about the nature of the work that will be done at the Wuhan lab, and why the lab doesn’t get the material from “other, more local labs.” He also tells Safronetz that it’s “good to know that you trust this group,” asking how the NML was connected with the group.
In his reply, Safronetz doesn’t specifically say what the samples will be used for in China, but notes that they will only be sent once all paperwork and certification are completed. He also says the WIV is requesting the material from NML “due to collaboration” with Qiu.
He adds, “Historically, it’s also been easier to obtain material from us as opposed to US labs. I don’t think other, closer labs have the ability to ship these materials.”
Gilmour resigned from his position at the NML in May 2020 and joined a UK-based bioresearch company.
MPs have asked NML management why shipment of the samples was allowed and whether they knew if China performs any gain-of-function (GoF) research at the WIV. GoF research involves increasing either the lethal level (virulence) or the transmissibility of pathogens or both.
The NML’s acting scientific director general Guillaume Poliquin told MPs during a parliamentary committee meeting on March 22 that the lab only sent the samples to the WIV after receiving assurance that no GoF research would take place.
Conservative MP John Williamson pressed for more answers, saying the word of the state-run Chinese lab can’t be trusted as the Chinese regime “has a history of theft and lies.”
The issue of GoF research at WIV has been a point of contention in the United States between lawmakers and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH’s head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci’s organization has funded research (through EcoHealth Alliance) on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul says published work from WIV on coronaviruses shows the lab is conducting GoF research, a charge that Fauci denies.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)The Epoch Times sought comment from PHAC, including a response as to how the agency addressed issues of intellectual property and collaboration of the development of any products such as vaccines with WIV, but didn’t hear back by time of publication.Despite repeated requests by the opposition parties for more details related to the firing of the two NML scientists, the Liberal government has refused to provide records, saying there are national security and privacy concerns.
After the House of Commons issued an order requiring the government to disclose the information, the government took the Speaker of the House to court to obtain confirmation from a judge that it can withhold the documents. The government later dropped its court case once Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called an election and Parliament was dissolved.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include more information from Canadian government documents.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_m...-from-canadian-lab_3963836.html?welcomeuser=1
More Smoke And Mirrors: First Fda Approval of a Covid-19 Vaccine or Was It?
By Bill Sardi
August 26, 2021
August 23, 2021:
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration announces the Pfizer COVID-19 RNA vaccine has been approved and will be marketed under the trade name COMIRNATY for the prevention of Covid-19 disease in individuals 16-years of age and older.
This announcement is said to provide needed safety data to many people who were waiting to get vaccinated. Advocacy of vaccine hesitancy is now considered to be “misinformation” in the public square and is being censored in news reports.
However, the data used to gain FDA approval does not prove this RNA vaccine prevents infection, transmission or reduces the risk of hospitalization or death, which is what the public needs to know.
In order for a vaccine trial to measure prevention of transmission people have to be nasal swabbed twice a week for very long periods of time, which is impractical, and this obviously was not done. So, the claim of prevention is entirely without substantiation.
Risk of heart inflammation
The product insert for the newly approved Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine does warn of the risk for inflammation around the heart (pericarditis, myocarditis) with the highest risk among 12-17-year-old males. Of course, any serious side effect such as this among totally healthy young people, no matter how small the risk, would be of grave concern.
According to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), there were 2,122 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis associated with vaccination in the period Dec. 4, 2020 to August 13, 2021, ~75% among presumably healthy younger to middle-aged Americans.
Immunity wanes
Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine takes time to develop antibodies and immunity. More precisely, the newly FDA-approved vaccine is reported to produce waning immunity, which declined from 96% to 84% four months after a second dose.
Vaccine-related deaths versus all-cause mortality
After six months, 15 vaccinated recipients and 14 placebo recipients died, with company evaluators deeming these deaths to be unrelated to the vaccine.
However, when it was revealed which subjects got vaccine or placebo, more deaths were reported in the vaccine group, for a total of 20 deaths among the vaccinated versus 14 in the placebo group. Vaccination did not reduce all-cause death. This is the shell game of vaccination. “The vaccine prevented your mother getting infected but died anyway.”
Just the process of vaccination in the placebo group in this study induced 36 cases of an adverse event that led to withdrawal from the study (32 in the vaccinated group). This is out of ~22,000 in each group (placebo and vaccine). T
The risk for an adverse event requiring withdrawal from the study was very small. But it is vaccine-induced since they also occurred among the placebo group, though we don’t have a third unvaccinated group for comparison. We also don’t know whether these deaths occurred in perfectly healthy young individuals, which would make them even more unacceptable.
Very small adverse event levels still affect thousands
Just 6 excess deaths out of 22,000 occurred in the vaccine group = 0.00027% or 2.7 per 100,000. Vaccinate all 328 million Americans and you end up with 8856 needless deaths over and above those who acquired natural immunity.
Even the lowest mortality rates associated with vaccination when calculated for the masses may end up in tragedy for thousands of unsuspecting people. How many of these deaths occurred among individuals with no co-morbidities (other diseases)? This is what needs to be known. Does the vaccine produce co-morbidities?
After the first shot immunity dropped so low over time that makers of this vaccine now recommend boosters.
A question arises: Would you buy a set of new tires where 16% of its tread wore off in six months and required re-treading (a booster shot)?
Product insert information is useless since individuals are being coerced or forced to vaccinate
Simply mentioning the serious side effect of heart inflammation in the product insert is of worthless value because subjects are being coerced to vaccinate rather than make a decision to inoculate based upon informed consent prior to immunization. Informed consent has been side-stepped because authorities say this is a life-and-death situation and informed consent is therefore waved. So legally, the vaccines are presumed to save lives before that is proven.
The Nuremberg Code regarding informed consent prior to medical experimentation is tossed to the wind. Why inform any prospective patient of anything when they have little or no choice in the matter?
Study not large enough
The approval was largely based upon a study of 44,047 participants, 22,026 who received a placebo, which may be why many vaccinated subjects indicated they felt no side effects.
When dealing with a viral infection that only has a low frequency in the population like Covid-19, a trial that is ten times larger is needed, maybe 400,000 subjects, to determine if the vaccine prevents death or hospitalization which occurs in a very small percentage of the population. In a trial of ~40,000 participants you only have maybe ~400 who are infected at the time of immunization and even far less who would need hospitalization or die. So, the decision to inoculate the world is being based upon a few hundred subjects.
A deadly side effect that kills 1 in 100,000 might escape detection because of small study group size, which could end up killing 790 million people if the whole world were inoculated!
Unethical to give placebo to infected patients with symptoms
It would be unethical to give a placebo shot to patients reporting to hospital emergency rooms with symptoms of Covid-19 compared to patients with no symptoms who elected to be vaccinated against future infection (prevention).
There is no indication such distinctions were made as this would have unblinded the study (revealed which vials were vaccine or inactive placebo).
What is needed is data showing people who came for vaccination with symptoms, how did they fare? That would be a very small group as only about 1% of the population or less would be infected at any given time.
FDA approval is for show
The vaccine trials that have taken place do not prove these shots are effective or even that they save lives. FDA approval is only for show, to induce people to mindlessly vaccinate. A study to prove vaccination saves lives would take more than 2 years and billions of dollars.
Peter Doshi, editor at the British Journal of Medicine, reminds us that the current trials are only designed to determine if the vaccine quells mild infections. The FDA gave the vaccine makers a low bar to jump over.
Doshi says it is entirely possible for a medicine or a vaccine to reduce the risk of a mild infection but not reduce hospitalizations or deaths, which is the current situation. A false sense of security is being given.
PCR test unreliable; known to produce pseudo-epidemics
Up till recently, the public was being induced to vaccinate based upon the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test which has now been discredited. It is still in use but at a lower sensitivity which would eliminate 97% of the cases reported to date. It is upon this fraudulent testing data that drove fear-based inoculations.
Patients with only a cough and a positive laboratory test (PCR test) help rush vaccine trials like this one to completion. But most of the data involves a PCR test involved an overly sensitive setting (35 doublings, which has been lowered to 18 now, probably to make the vaccines look good). Most of the data could involve false positives and only detect Covid-19 based on a single innocuous symptom. This would represent prevention of phantom infections.
Doshi goes on to say:
“PCR tests do not detect the virus, they detect the presence of known genetic sequences from which inferences are drawn. And the common phrase ‘viral shedding’ does not measure how much virus (or even noninfectious RNA fragments) are being actively dispersed by a person. The phrase only indicates PCR positivity.
We have allowed seemingly benign ‘shorthands’ like “detecting the virus” to obscure what is actually being measured, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions with serious consequences: quarantining noninfectious persons and its attendant aspects on other parts of people’s lives and health.”
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus”
– Peter Doshi, British Medical Journal
Relative vs hard numbers
Doshi reminds everyone that only ~1% of the population is infected and exhibits symptoms at any given point in time. So, the often-quoted 90+ percent effectiveness of these new RNA/DNA vaccines is not a hard number (95 in 100) but a relative number within that one-percent (reduction from 0.009% to 0.001% for example).
Petition to delay FDA approval ignored
Doshi says the COVID-19 RNA vaccines are only 19% to 29% effective. Doshi claims that is because false negative PCR tests would drag efficacy down, and because “cause” doesn’t matter. Suspect cases of COVID are being used in the tabulations.
“If you get a PCR test before the virus has proliferated in your system, it wouldn’t be able to detect that you were infected even if you were,” states Doshi. That is why a group of physicians and researchers petitioned the FDA to delay “full approval” of Covid-19 vaccines this year.
Earlier the FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective against a primary endpoint (mild infection/symptoms) in prevention of Covid-19 infection or disease of any severity—parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval.
Lack of transparency
Peter Doshi laments over the lack of transparency in the studies being used to gain FDA approval. He says “many key trial documents remain inaccessible.” Only 12% of 86 clinical trial protocols have been made available. Blinded individual data on each participant is also not available for most trials.
Difficult to define as a vaccine
What has been learned about Covid-19 coronavirus is that it utilizes spike protein on its surface to facilitate entry via the ACE receptor (doorway) into a living cell. Viruses cannot replicate on their own and require the machinery of a cell to produce infection.
The Pfizer BNT162b2 experimental vaccine, now approved by FDA, utilizes a mutated RNA nanoparticle to encode living cells to produce spike protein. The production of spike protein would then perpetually open the ACE entryway and would result in cells being vulnerable to infection by Covid-19 or other viruses. Why would anybody design a vaccine to forever make spike protein? Technically such a vaccine would not just provoke an immune response, it would be an engineered bioweapon.
Advice
Don’t base your decision to vaccinate on press releases from the FDA or vaccine makers.
Don’t forget, more thoroughly studied vaccines have been recalled after they gained FDA approval. These RNA/DNA Covid-19 vaccines are rushed-to-market “Operation Warp Speed” products. The VAERS adverse event data is months behind in tabulating vaccine related morbidity and mortality and the public cannot get an accurate picture of possible risks.
Mortal side effects associated (but not necessarily caused by) vaccination are of grave concern as there is a difference between inoculating old, fragile patients who die and completely healthy young people who die after vaccination. According to the VAERS data, as of August 13, 2021, among 6,018 vaccine-related deaths that have been reported so far, 13% were within 24 hours of vaccination; 19% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination; 33% occurred in people who experienced onset of symptoms within 48 hours of vaccination.
Censorship of anti-vax information
Oddity: the smoke and mirrors
Pfizer has earned $33 billion on its unapproved RNA Covid-19 vaccine. An oddity is that the wording in the FDA’s press release of August 23 grants approval for Pfizer’s biological license application (BLA), but not for the vaccine itself. The BLA is approved and emergency use is extended. So, was this really a timed publicity stunt to get governmental, military and private employers to push vaccination down the throat of Americans?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08...fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-or-was-it/
By Bill Sardi
August 26, 2021
August 23, 2021:
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration announces the Pfizer COVID-19 RNA vaccine has been approved and will be marketed under the trade name COMIRNATY for the prevention of Covid-19 disease in individuals 16-years of age and older.
This announcement is said to provide needed safety data to many people who were waiting to get vaccinated. Advocacy of vaccine hesitancy is now considered to be “misinformation” in the public square and is being censored in news reports.
However, the data used to gain FDA approval does not prove this RNA vaccine prevents infection, transmission or reduces the risk of hospitalization or death, which is what the public needs to know.
In order for a vaccine trial to measure prevention of transmission people have to be nasal swabbed twice a week for very long periods of time, which is impractical, and this obviously was not done. So, the claim of prevention is entirely without substantiation.
Risk of heart inflammation
The product insert for the newly approved Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine does warn of the risk for inflammation around the heart (pericarditis, myocarditis) with the highest risk among 12-17-year-old males. Of course, any serious side effect such as this among totally healthy young people, no matter how small the risk, would be of grave concern.
According to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), there were 2,122 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis associated with vaccination in the period Dec. 4, 2020 to August 13, 2021, ~75% among presumably healthy younger to middle-aged Americans.
Immunity wanes
Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine takes time to develop antibodies and immunity. More precisely, the newly FDA-approved vaccine is reported to produce waning immunity, which declined from 96% to 84% four months after a second dose.
Vaccine-related deaths versus all-cause mortality
After six months, 15 vaccinated recipients and 14 placebo recipients died, with company evaluators deeming these deaths to be unrelated to the vaccine.
However, when it was revealed which subjects got vaccine or placebo, more deaths were reported in the vaccine group, for a total of 20 deaths among the vaccinated versus 14 in the placebo group. Vaccination did not reduce all-cause death. This is the shell game of vaccination. “The vaccine prevented your mother getting infected but died anyway.”
Just the process of vaccination in the placebo group in this study induced 36 cases of an adverse event that led to withdrawal from the study (32 in the vaccinated group). This is out of ~22,000 in each group (placebo and vaccine). T
The risk for an adverse event requiring withdrawal from the study was very small. But it is vaccine-induced since they also occurred among the placebo group, though we don’t have a third unvaccinated group for comparison. We also don’t know whether these deaths occurred in perfectly healthy young individuals, which would make them even more unacceptable.
Very small adverse event levels still affect thousands
Just 6 excess deaths out of 22,000 occurred in the vaccine group = 0.00027% or 2.7 per 100,000. Vaccinate all 328 million Americans and you end up with 8856 needless deaths over and above those who acquired natural immunity.
Even the lowest mortality rates associated with vaccination when calculated for the masses may end up in tragedy for thousands of unsuspecting people. How many of these deaths occurred among individuals with no co-morbidities (other diseases)? This is what needs to be known. Does the vaccine produce co-morbidities?
After the first shot immunity dropped so low over time that makers of this vaccine now recommend boosters.
A question arises: Would you buy a set of new tires where 16% of its tread wore off in six months and required re-treading (a booster shot)?
Product insert information is useless since individuals are being coerced or forced to vaccinate
Simply mentioning the serious side effect of heart inflammation in the product insert is of worthless value because subjects are being coerced to vaccinate rather than make a decision to inoculate based upon informed consent prior to immunization. Informed consent has been side-stepped because authorities say this is a life-and-death situation and informed consent is therefore waved. So legally, the vaccines are presumed to save lives before that is proven.
The Nuremberg Code regarding informed consent prior to medical experimentation is tossed to the wind. Why inform any prospective patient of anything when they have little or no choice in the matter?
Study not large enough
The approval was largely based upon a study of 44,047 participants, 22,026 who received a placebo, which may be why many vaccinated subjects indicated they felt no side effects.
When dealing with a viral infection that only has a low frequency in the population like Covid-19, a trial that is ten times larger is needed, maybe 400,000 subjects, to determine if the vaccine prevents death or hospitalization which occurs in a very small percentage of the population. In a trial of ~40,000 participants you only have maybe ~400 who are infected at the time of immunization and even far less who would need hospitalization or die. So, the decision to inoculate the world is being based upon a few hundred subjects.
A deadly side effect that kills 1 in 100,000 might escape detection because of small study group size, which could end up killing 790 million people if the whole world were inoculated!
Unethical to give placebo to infected patients with symptoms
It would be unethical to give a placebo shot to patients reporting to hospital emergency rooms with symptoms of Covid-19 compared to patients with no symptoms who elected to be vaccinated against future infection (prevention).
There is no indication such distinctions were made as this would have unblinded the study (revealed which vials were vaccine or inactive placebo).
What is needed is data showing people who came for vaccination with symptoms, how did they fare? That would be a very small group as only about 1% of the population or less would be infected at any given time.
FDA approval is for show
The vaccine trials that have taken place do not prove these shots are effective or even that they save lives. FDA approval is only for show, to induce people to mindlessly vaccinate. A study to prove vaccination saves lives would take more than 2 years and billions of dollars.
Peter Doshi, editor at the British Journal of Medicine, reminds us that the current trials are only designed to determine if the vaccine quells mild infections. The FDA gave the vaccine makers a low bar to jump over.
Doshi says it is entirely possible for a medicine or a vaccine to reduce the risk of a mild infection but not reduce hospitalizations or deaths, which is the current situation. A false sense of security is being given.
PCR test unreliable; known to produce pseudo-epidemics
Up till recently, the public was being induced to vaccinate based upon the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test which has now been discredited. It is still in use but at a lower sensitivity which would eliminate 97% of the cases reported to date. It is upon this fraudulent testing data that drove fear-based inoculations.
Patients with only a cough and a positive laboratory test (PCR test) help rush vaccine trials like this one to completion. But most of the data involves a PCR test involved an overly sensitive setting (35 doublings, which has been lowered to 18 now, probably to make the vaccines look good). Most of the data could involve false positives and only detect Covid-19 based on a single innocuous symptom. This would represent prevention of phantom infections.
Doshi goes on to say:
“PCR tests do not detect the virus, they detect the presence of known genetic sequences from which inferences are drawn. And the common phrase ‘viral shedding’ does not measure how much virus (or even noninfectious RNA fragments) are being actively dispersed by a person. The phrase only indicates PCR positivity.
We have allowed seemingly benign ‘shorthands’ like “detecting the virus” to obscure what is actually being measured, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions with serious consequences: quarantining noninfectious persons and its attendant aspects on other parts of people’s lives and health.”
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus”
– Peter Doshi, British Medical Journal
Relative vs hard numbers
Doshi reminds everyone that only ~1% of the population is infected and exhibits symptoms at any given point in time. So, the often-quoted 90+ percent effectiveness of these new RNA/DNA vaccines is not a hard number (95 in 100) but a relative number within that one-percent (reduction from 0.009% to 0.001% for example).
Petition to delay FDA approval ignored
Doshi says the COVID-19 RNA vaccines are only 19% to 29% effective. Doshi claims that is because false negative PCR tests would drag efficacy down, and because “cause” doesn’t matter. Suspect cases of COVID are being used in the tabulations.
“If you get a PCR test before the virus has proliferated in your system, it wouldn’t be able to detect that you were infected even if you were,” states Doshi. That is why a group of physicians and researchers petitioned the FDA to delay “full approval” of Covid-19 vaccines this year.
Earlier the FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective against a primary endpoint (mild infection/symptoms) in prevention of Covid-19 infection or disease of any severity—parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval.
Lack of transparency
Peter Doshi laments over the lack of transparency in the studies being used to gain FDA approval. He says “many key trial documents remain inaccessible.” Only 12% of 86 clinical trial protocols have been made available. Blinded individual data on each participant is also not available for most trials.
Difficult to define as a vaccine
What has been learned about Covid-19 coronavirus is that it utilizes spike protein on its surface to facilitate entry via the ACE receptor (doorway) into a living cell. Viruses cannot replicate on their own and require the machinery of a cell to produce infection.
The Pfizer BNT162b2 experimental vaccine, now approved by FDA, utilizes a mutated RNA nanoparticle to encode living cells to produce spike protein. The production of spike protein would then perpetually open the ACE entryway and would result in cells being vulnerable to infection by Covid-19 or other viruses. Why would anybody design a vaccine to forever make spike protein? Technically such a vaccine would not just provoke an immune response, it would be an engineered bioweapon.
Advice
Don’t base your decision to vaccinate on press releases from the FDA or vaccine makers.
Don’t forget, more thoroughly studied vaccines have been recalled after they gained FDA approval. These RNA/DNA Covid-19 vaccines are rushed-to-market “Operation Warp Speed” products. The VAERS adverse event data is months behind in tabulating vaccine related morbidity and mortality and the public cannot get an accurate picture of possible risks.
Mortal side effects associated (but not necessarily caused by) vaccination are of grave concern as there is a difference between inoculating old, fragile patients who die and completely healthy young people who die after vaccination. According to the VAERS data, as of August 13, 2021, among 6,018 vaccine-related deaths that have been reported so far, 13% were within 24 hours of vaccination; 19% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination; 33% occurred in people who experienced onset of symptoms within 48 hours of vaccination.
Censorship of anti-vax information
- Armitage of the University of Nottingham argues that censorship is not the solution to vaccine hesitancy. A survey finds 400 anti-vax online accounts with 58 million followers in the US, Canada and Australia. Armitage writes in the journal Public Health:
Oddity: the smoke and mirrors
Pfizer has earned $33 billion on its unapproved RNA Covid-19 vaccine. An oddity is that the wording in the FDA’s press release of August 23 grants approval for Pfizer’s biological license application (BLA), but not for the vaccine itself. The BLA is approved and emergency use is extended. So, was this really a timed publicity stunt to get governmental, military and private employers to push vaccination down the throat of Americans?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08...fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-or-was-it/
BOOM! Major law firm confirms FDA deceived America with its confusing ‘approval’ of Pfizer vax
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Aug. 23 it had granted full approval to the first Covid “vaccine” under the brand name Comirnaty, the mainstream media immediately ran with the narrative.
Joe Biden jumped in front of a microphone and told businesses they needed to “step up” the mandating of vaccines for their employees.
Dr. Anthony Fauci told national media outlets he expected a whole host of new “mandates” to be fueled by the “approval” of the Pfizer jab.
There’s only one problem. The “approval” given by the FDA was not for the Pfizer jab currently available in the U.S. market.
The devil is always in the details. Some of us weren’t fooled.
See our article, which has over the past three days received nearly 150,000 reads: FDA ‘playing bait and switch’ with Americans, tricking them into believing shots currently being offered have been granted full approval when they have not.
But because we and a few others looked beneath the facade and checked the facts of what the FDA actually did and not what the media and Joe Biden’s administration said it did, we took some heat. Even some of our own subscribers questioned whether maybe we got it wrong.
No, it was the corporate media who got the story wrong. And as a result, thousands of Americans no doubt capitulated and went ahead and rolled up theirs sleeves, thinking they had no other choice legally than to succumb to their employers’ mandates.
Today, on Aug. 27, the Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, perhaps the most respected Christian legal firm in the nation, issued a press release that confirms our story.
Below is the release, published in full from Liberty Counsel.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done a bait and switch by announcing it approved its “first COVID-19 vaccine” in order to push the “vaccine” mandates and protect the Pfizer pharmaceutical company from legal liability. However, there is currently no fully licensed COVID shot on the United States market.
Albeit confusing, and probably intentionally so, this summarizes the current status of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots:
The first letter is regarding FDA’s biologics license application approval for the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech COVID-19 injection which has been named Comirnaty. Yet Pfizer has not started manufacturing or labeling this drug for U.S. distribution, so it is not even available in the U.S. It is unclear whether or not it is protected by a liability shield, but web-based U.S. government communication indicates that the same program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine-related injuries will apply Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) rather than the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). At this point, there apparently has been no compensation paid to people injured by one of the COVID shots via the CICP.
The Pfizer injection, on the other hand, is still considered experimental under U.S. law. There is a legal difference between products approved under authorization of emergency use (EAU) compared with those the FDA has fully licensed. The FDA issued another letter for the existing Pfizer shots which confirms they are still under EUA, are not fully approved, and has a liability shield.
EUA-approved COVID shots have a liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. People who have been injured can file a lawsuit if they can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
That means people must be told the risks and benefits, and they have the right to decline a medication that is not fully licensed. The federal Emergency Use Authorization law and the FDA, including the FDA Fact Sheet, state unequivocally that each person has the “option to accept or refuse” the shots. In addition to federal law, the FDA includes the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration on its website, emphasizing the fact that people cannot be forced to take experimental drugs without their full consent.
The FDA’s approval letter to Pfizer regarding the BioNTech injection, Comirnaty, states: “Under this license, you are authorized to manufacture the product, COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, which is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older.”
This letter affirms the FDA has not approved the Pfizer/BioNTech injections for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.
Regarding the Comirnaty injection, the FDA admits, “We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous post marketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.”
Therefore, follow up studies will be required with children six months to 15 years as well as six studies for up to five years regarding the adverse effects of myocarditis and pericarditis.
In addition, the FDA bypassed and disregarded the normal advisory committee and public comment process for this license.
The letter states, “We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your BLA, including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion” (emphasis added).
The FDA also acknowledges that while Pfizer-BioNTech has “insufficient supplies” (in other words, it is not currently available on the U.S. market) of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine actually available. However, the letter also states there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots which has been produced under the EUA and will continue to be offered under the same EUA status. In its approval letter, the FDA specifies the Pfizer shot under the EUA should remain unlicensed, is still available for use, and can be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product. According to the FDA, the newly licensed Comirnaty injection and the existing Pfizer shot, while “legally distinct,” are not any different in terms of their “safety or effectiveness.”
Despite whether these COVID shots are licensed or not, they cannot be mandatory under Title VII. In general, employee vaccine religious exemption requests must be accommodated, where a reasonable accommodation exists without undue hardship to the employer, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many people hold sincere religious beliefs against taking the COVID shots or taking those derived from or which used at any stage of the development aborted fetal cell lines.
Title VII defines the protected category of religion to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Moreover, as the EEOC has made clear, Title VII’s protections also extend nonreligious beliefs if related to morality, ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. See EEOC, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace (June 7, 2008), (“Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs…Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs, i.e. those that include a belief in God as well as non-theistic ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.’ Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns ‘ultimate ideas’ about ‘life, purpose, and death’”).
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The FDA has apparently tried to deceive people by issuing its two confusing letters without proper explanation. Despite the FDA’s slight of hand, there is currently no FDA approved COVID shot available in the United States. Even if there were an FDA approved COVID shot available, people still may request that employers, schools, and the military accommodate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
https://leohohmann.com/2021/08/27/b...ca-with-its-confusing-approval-of-pfizer-vax/
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Aug. 23 it had granted full approval to the first Covid “vaccine” under the brand name Comirnaty, the mainstream media immediately ran with the narrative.
Joe Biden jumped in front of a microphone and told businesses they needed to “step up” the mandating of vaccines for their employees.
Dr. Anthony Fauci told national media outlets he expected a whole host of new “mandates” to be fueled by the “approval” of the Pfizer jab.
There’s only one problem. The “approval” given by the FDA was not for the Pfizer jab currently available in the U.S. market.
The devil is always in the details. Some of us weren’t fooled.
See our article, which has over the past three days received nearly 150,000 reads: FDA ‘playing bait and switch’ with Americans, tricking them into believing shots currently being offered have been granted full approval when they have not.
But because we and a few others looked beneath the facade and checked the facts of what the FDA actually did and not what the media and Joe Biden’s administration said it did, we took some heat. Even some of our own subscribers questioned whether maybe we got it wrong.
No, it was the corporate media who got the story wrong. And as a result, thousands of Americans no doubt capitulated and went ahead and rolled up theirs sleeves, thinking they had no other choice legally than to succumb to their employers’ mandates.
Today, on Aug. 27, the Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, perhaps the most respected Christian legal firm in the nation, issued a press release that confirms our story.
Below is the release, published in full from Liberty Counsel.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done a bait and switch by announcing it approved its “first COVID-19 vaccine” in order to push the “vaccine” mandates and protect the Pfizer pharmaceutical company from legal liability. However, there is currently no fully licensed COVID shot on the United States market.
Albeit confusing, and probably intentionally so, this summarizes the current status of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots:
- All existing Pfizer vials (in the hundreds of millions), remain under the federal Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (meaning people have the “option to accept or refuse”);
- The third or “booster” Pfizer shot is identical to the above and remains under the EUA with limited use to certain categories of people;
- BioNTech received FDA approval for people ages 16 and above under the name Comirnaty, but there are no Comirnaty doses available in the United States;
- In other words, there is currently NO FDA approved COVID-19 injection available anywhere in the United States. Every COVID shot in America remains under the EUA law and thus people have the “option to accept or refuse” them; and
- Even when an FDA approved COVID shot becomes available, individuals are protected by federal law and many states laws from being forced to get these shots based on their sincere religious beliefs or conscience rights.
The first letter is regarding FDA’s biologics license application approval for the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech COVID-19 injection which has been named Comirnaty. Yet Pfizer has not started manufacturing or labeling this drug for U.S. distribution, so it is not even available in the U.S. It is unclear whether or not it is protected by a liability shield, but web-based U.S. government communication indicates that the same program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine-related injuries will apply Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) rather than the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). At this point, there apparently has been no compensation paid to people injured by one of the COVID shots via the CICP.
The Pfizer injection, on the other hand, is still considered experimental under U.S. law. There is a legal difference between products approved under authorization of emergency use (EAU) compared with those the FDA has fully licensed. The FDA issued another letter for the existing Pfizer shots which confirms they are still under EUA, are not fully approved, and has a liability shield.
EUA-approved COVID shots have a liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. People who have been injured can file a lawsuit if they can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
That means people must be told the risks and benefits, and they have the right to decline a medication that is not fully licensed. The federal Emergency Use Authorization law and the FDA, including the FDA Fact Sheet, state unequivocally that each person has the “option to accept or refuse” the shots. In addition to federal law, the FDA includes the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration on its website, emphasizing the fact that people cannot be forced to take experimental drugs without their full consent.
The FDA’s approval letter to Pfizer regarding the BioNTech injection, Comirnaty, states: “Under this license, you are authorized to manufacture the product, COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, which is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older.”
This letter affirms the FDA has not approved the Pfizer/BioNTech injections for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.
Regarding the Comirnaty injection, the FDA admits, “We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous post marketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.”
Therefore, follow up studies will be required with children six months to 15 years as well as six studies for up to five years regarding the adverse effects of myocarditis and pericarditis.
In addition, the FDA bypassed and disregarded the normal advisory committee and public comment process for this license.
The letter states, “We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your BLA, including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion” (emphasis added).
The FDA also acknowledges that while Pfizer-BioNTech has “insufficient supplies” (in other words, it is not currently available on the U.S. market) of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine actually available. However, the letter also states there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots which has been produced under the EUA and will continue to be offered under the same EUA status. In its approval letter, the FDA specifies the Pfizer shot under the EUA should remain unlicensed, is still available for use, and can be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product. According to the FDA, the newly licensed Comirnaty injection and the existing Pfizer shot, while “legally distinct,” are not any different in terms of their “safety or effectiveness.”
Despite whether these COVID shots are licensed or not, they cannot be mandatory under Title VII. In general, employee vaccine religious exemption requests must be accommodated, where a reasonable accommodation exists without undue hardship to the employer, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many people hold sincere religious beliefs against taking the COVID shots or taking those derived from or which used at any stage of the development aborted fetal cell lines.
Title VII defines the protected category of religion to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Moreover, as the EEOC has made clear, Title VII’s protections also extend nonreligious beliefs if related to morality, ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. See EEOC, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace (June 7, 2008), (“Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs…Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs, i.e. those that include a belief in God as well as non-theistic ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.’ Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns ‘ultimate ideas’ about ‘life, purpose, and death’”).
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The FDA has apparently tried to deceive people by issuing its two confusing letters without proper explanation. Despite the FDA’s slight of hand, there is currently no FDA approved COVID shot available in the United States. Even if there were an FDA approved COVID shot available, people still may request that employers, schools, and the military accommodate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
https://leohohmann.com/2021/08/27/b...ca-with-its-confusing-approval-of-pfizer-vax/
Absolem
Active member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your predications have been epic fails. From election fraud affidavits over turning the election to misrepresenting the VAERS system on the CDC.
From the article you posted. Pretty much sums up the non sense in your post. All it takes is a press release for you to latch on hook line and sinker.
https://leohohmann.com/2021/08/27/bo...of-pfizer-vax/
"Today, on Aug. 27, the Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, perhaps the most respected Christian legal firm in the nation, issued a press release that confirms our story."
Your predications have been epic fails. From election fraud affidavits over turning the election to misrepresenting the VAERS system on the CDC.
From the article you posted. Pretty much sums up the non sense in your post. All it takes is a press release for you to latch on hook line and sinker.
https://leohohmann.com/2021/08/27/bo...of-pfizer-vax/
"Today, on Aug. 27, the Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, perhaps the most respected Christian legal firm in the nation, issued a press release that confirms our story."
If People Get Jabbed After Watching This They Are Beyond Saving
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AlBKUM3IAm6a/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AlBKUM3IAm6a/
Army Doctor Reveals More Soldiers have died from the Vaccine than died from COVID
video here:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/...e-died-from-the-vaccine-than-died-from-covid/
video here:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/...e-died-from-the-vaccine-than-died-from-covid/
Episode 6: American Conversations With Vaccine Injured – Interview With Angelia Desselle
video here:
https://creativedestructionmedia.co...cine-injured-interview-with-angelia-desselle/
video here:
https://creativedestructionmedia.co...cine-injured-interview-with-angelia-desselle/
he used to do the same thing with global warming/climate change. copy paste copy paste copy paste copy paste.
yawn
Absence of Due Process in COVID-19 Vaccine Approval – Propaganda in Open View
by Dr. Peter McCullough | Aug 27, 2021 | Feature 3, Healthcare, Politics
August 23, 2021, will be recorded in history for schools of public health and classes in regulatory science to reveal how a highly regimented and codified process for a new drug or biologic approval can be manipulated, corrupted, and then falsely represented to the public in order to promote more forced use of a product that is ineffective and unsafe on a reluctant population.
On this day, the US FDA met with representatives of Pfizer and BioNTech to evaluate the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after eight months of use in the public program. What happened was one of the most amazing sleight-of-hand maneuvers performed in pharmaceutical history.
This product, which is a joint effort from two companies, was split into two legally distinct entities, having minor differences as products, and then moved forward as a pair to leverage the Emergency Use Authorization and the FDA approval processes simultaneously. There were no publicly available briefing booklets from the sponsor(s) or the FDA (usually 80-120 pages), no post-marketing report of safety from the public program, and no corroboration of statistical analysis or missing data. There was no committee of academic and statistical experts to review the results. Instead, a meeting was held between the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, and legacy data, preceding the Delta outbreak was reviewed, giving the meeting participants the knowingly false impression of high vaccine efficacy which clearly has been lost as the SARS-CoV-2 had mutated.
Instead of a full committee hearing and a thumbs up or down procedure, a decision was made, and separate letters were issued:
1) Pfizer was not granted full approval, but instead was given continuance of the EUA and enabling more use of the now ineffective 30 mcg dose of mRNA coding for the extinct wild-type spike protein.
2) BioNTech was granted conditional approval but is required to do post-marketing studies not for efficacy, but for looming serious safety issues, most notably myocarditis. The BioNTech product, now called Comirnaty, is not currently produced, distributed, or marketed, and for Americans, fundamentally will not exist as a distinct product for years.
This is what the FDA said to the world after the meeting:
“The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. “While millions of people have already safely received COVID-19 vaccines, we recognize that for some, the FDA approval of a vaccine may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated. Today’s milestone puts us one step closer to altering the course of this pandemic in the U.S.”
All the data from the VAERs system on the Pfizer BNT-162b2 was swept under the rug and not even mentioned in the letters or the proposed package insert. As of August 13, 2021, 13,068 deaths and 225,602 vaccine-related hospitalizations, emergency, and office visits that were carefully reported by concerned health care workers to the CDC and subsequently verified and given permanent VAERS numbers were completely ignored. Not all, but ~45% of these events must have happened as a result of Pfizer BNT-162b2. We will spend the backside of the show on this development.
Our show kicks off with the monologue and inserts from Dr. Christina Parks at the Michigan State hearings on HB 4471 banning employer mandates for vaccines. She impressed me as an articulate young African American scientist as she explained how ~70% of employed African Americans might lose their jobs due to vaccine discrimination.
Next, I have Dr. Ang Peng from Malaysia, who will give us insight on how the government is stonewalling any information on safety or efficacy from the citizens of this Asian country. Finally, on the backside, we have Dr. David Wiseman, a former JNJ scientist who will unpack the historic FDA misconduct and wide-open propagandized talking point of “vaccine approval” when indeed it never happened for the Pfizer product in use today.
So let’s get real, let’s get loud, on America Out Loud Talk Radio, this is The McCullough Report!
The McCullough Report: Sat/Sun 2 PM ET Encore 7 PM – Internationally recognized Dr. Peter A. McCullough, known for his iconic views on the state of medical truth in America and around the globe, pierces through the thin veil of mainstream media stories that skirt the major issues and provide no tractable basis for durable insight. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on Apple, Android, or Alexa.
– https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-vaccine
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jktvh6k0qys
https://www.americaoutloud.com/abse...-19-vaccine-approval-propaganda-in-open-view/
by Dr. Peter McCullough | Aug 27, 2021 | Feature 3, Healthcare, Politics
August 23, 2021, will be recorded in history for schools of public health and classes in regulatory science to reveal how a highly regimented and codified process for a new drug or biologic approval can be manipulated, corrupted, and then falsely represented to the public in order to promote more forced use of a product that is ineffective and unsafe on a reluctant population.
On this day, the US FDA met with representatives of Pfizer and BioNTech to evaluate the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after eight months of use in the public program. What happened was one of the most amazing sleight-of-hand maneuvers performed in pharmaceutical history.
This product, which is a joint effort from two companies, was split into two legally distinct entities, having minor differences as products, and then moved forward as a pair to leverage the Emergency Use Authorization and the FDA approval processes simultaneously. There were no publicly available briefing booklets from the sponsor(s) or the FDA (usually 80-120 pages), no post-marketing report of safety from the public program, and no corroboration of statistical analysis or missing data. There was no committee of academic and statistical experts to review the results. Instead, a meeting was held between the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, and legacy data, preceding the Delta outbreak was reviewed, giving the meeting participants the knowingly false impression of high vaccine efficacy which clearly has been lost as the SARS-CoV-2 had mutated.
Instead of a full committee hearing and a thumbs up or down procedure, a decision was made, and separate letters were issued:
1) Pfizer was not granted full approval, but instead was given continuance of the EUA and enabling more use of the now ineffective 30 mcg dose of mRNA coding for the extinct wild-type spike protein.
2) BioNTech was granted conditional approval but is required to do post-marketing studies not for efficacy, but for looming serious safety issues, most notably myocarditis. The BioNTech product, now called Comirnaty, is not currently produced, distributed, or marketed, and for Americans, fundamentally will not exist as a distinct product for years.
This is what the FDA said to the world after the meeting:
“The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. “While millions of people have already safely received COVID-19 vaccines, we recognize that for some, the FDA approval of a vaccine may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated. Today’s milestone puts us one step closer to altering the course of this pandemic in the U.S.”
All the data from the VAERs system on the Pfizer BNT-162b2 was swept under the rug and not even mentioned in the letters or the proposed package insert. As of August 13, 2021, 13,068 deaths and 225,602 vaccine-related hospitalizations, emergency, and office visits that were carefully reported by concerned health care workers to the CDC and subsequently verified and given permanent VAERS numbers were completely ignored. Not all, but ~45% of these events must have happened as a result of Pfizer BNT-162b2. We will spend the backside of the show on this development.
Our show kicks off with the monologue and inserts from Dr. Christina Parks at the Michigan State hearings on HB 4471 banning employer mandates for vaccines. She impressed me as an articulate young African American scientist as she explained how ~70% of employed African Americans might lose their jobs due to vaccine discrimination.
Next, I have Dr. Ang Peng from Malaysia, who will give us insight on how the government is stonewalling any information on safety or efficacy from the citizens of this Asian country. Finally, on the backside, we have Dr. David Wiseman, a former JNJ scientist who will unpack the historic FDA misconduct and wide-open propagandized talking point of “vaccine approval” when indeed it never happened for the Pfizer product in use today.
So let’s get real, let’s get loud, on America Out Loud Talk Radio, this is The McCullough Report!
The McCullough Report: Sat/Sun 2 PM ET Encore 7 PM – Internationally recognized Dr. Peter A. McCullough, known for his iconic views on the state of medical truth in America and around the globe, pierces through the thin veil of mainstream media stories that skirt the major issues and provide no tractable basis for durable insight. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on Apple, Android, or Alexa.
– https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-vaccine
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jktvh6k0qys
https://www.americaoutloud.com/abse...-19-vaccine-approval-propaganda-in-open-view/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNt4NIQ7FTA
Eric Clapton - This Has Gotta Stop (Official Music Video)
Eric Clapton - This Has Gotta Stop (Official Music Video)
What the FDA is doing is just illegal and against the guidelines of good medicine registration.Long term effects are still not know till early 2024.
makes wonder how much evil george soros pays him for each post
you mean ol' George is paying both sides ? huh...lol
whoever george soros conservative counterpart is... i mean who can tell old rich white men apart unless they're dressed up in goofy space costumes?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Jack's Classic Tomato Feed - 12-15-30, and other stuff- Latest: Old Uncle Ben
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Jack's Classic Tomato Feed - 12-15-30, and other stuff
- Latest: Old Uncle Ben
