One of the drugs injected under the door of the victim’s apartment.
Umar Abdullah told WTVT-TV that his neighbor in a Tampa Bay-area apartment house began to complain about noise after Abdullah’s daughter was born last year.
“He complained about footsteps. He complained about door-closing sounds,” Abdullah said. “My landlord and I did a simulation, and we could hardly find any sound.”
He said that he began noticing an odd chemical odor in his home around May. The family replaced the water heater, checked their appliances, and had crews come out to check the home but found nothing. They were suffering from grogginess, sickness, and vomiting.
The smell returned in June, and he became suspicious, so he set up a security camera outside his door.
“This chemical odor came back,” Abdullah said. “I installed a hidden camera outside, because we were suspecting someone is basically tampering with our place from outside. And then we got our neighbor injecting something through our door.”
Abdullah said it happened several times before he called police and his neighbor, Xuming Li, was arrested. The video shows him filling a syringe before leaning down to apparently expel the chemical into the apartment under the door.
Li was charged with numerous counts of battery and possession of a controlled substance.
Abdullah wonders if the chemicals would have been lethal had they not been able to catch their neighbor in the act.
Xuming Li was enrolled as a Ph.D. student in the chemistry department at the University of South Florida, but a spokesperson for the school said he was no longer enrolled as of summer 2023.
The Tampa Police Department later said that the chemicals injected into the apartment included methadone and hydrocodone, two opioid pain medications.
Li’s attorney told WFLA-TV that he had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A new COVID variant is gaining ground in the United States. You’ve probably been hearing about it in the news, and we’ve certainly been seeing it in our patients in recent weeks. Here’s what you need to know about it, how to protect yourself, and how to treat it if you do get sick.
First of all, DO NOT PANIC.
EG.5 — also known as the “Eris” variant — certainly seems to be highly contagious, but from what we’re seeing it is less virulent. In other words, it’s a lot like the Omicron variants we’ve seen recently — lots of cases, but not a lot of extreme illness or hospitalization.
If you’ve been exposed to the virus before, you likely have some natural ability to fight it off. We are finding that patients who have not been previously exposed are the ones hit hardest right now.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps to protect yourself. The good news is that the advice we’ve been sharing from the FLCCC all along still stands — do what you can to prevent getting ill (more on that below) and if you do get it, treat immediately. Early treatment is critical.
Common symptoms
The symptoms of this latest wave are like other respiratory illnesses, and include things like dry cough, sore throat, conjunctivitis, headache, skin rashes, diarrhea, and fever. However, we have been noticing a few unique symptoms, including:
Nasal congestion and sinus pain
Dental pain and soreness of gums and teeth
Puffy face
Swelling and/or pain related to the orbit of the eye
Malaise and muscle pain
Tiredness and fatigue
There is no need to wait for a confirmed PCR test to begin treatment if these symptoms arise. The tests were developed for older variants and reliability was mixed at best. Tests can be negative for days until a positive result appears, and that is valuable time lost. If you begin to experience any of the symptoms listed above, start treatment immediately. If you need a healthcare provider, check the FLCCC directory.
If you have difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (dyspnea), chest pain or chest pressure, or lost motor skills or the ability to speak, seek medical attention immediately.
In terms of a treatment strategy, we want to start with killing the virus in the upper respiratory system. Nasal rinses and nose or throat sprays are effective for this. We have advice on this in the I-CARE: Early COVID treatment protocol. This should be paired with systemic antivirals like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Next, it is important to take a range of supplements that help boost the immune system. This includes things like: Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Quercetin with bromelain, N-acetyl cysteine, Probiotics, Omega-3 fatty acids, Melatonin (slow release is best), Zinc (taken with Quercetin), Selenium, and Andrographis.
If you are symptomatic, try a low-histamine diet that cuts out foods like sauerkraut and other fermented foods, alcohol, processed meat, aged cheese, certain types of fish and shellfish, and nightshade vegetables like tomato and eggplant.
If you’ve been following FLCCC for a while, much of this will sound familiar. Our early treatment protocol is still the right place to start when COVID comes to call.
Prevent illness in the first place
While we’re at it, let’s talk about getting your immune system into shape, and other evasive actions you can take to make sure you’re strong, healthy, and ready to fight off any virus coming your way this fall.
Follow our prevention protocol: Some easy things you can do include mouthwash and nasal spray, zinc supplements, Vitamins C and D, melatonin, quercetin or resveratrol, and elderberry.
Clean up your diet: It almost goes without saying, but what you eat and when you eat it has a profound effect on your overall health. Intermittent fasting and balancing your gut microbiome are key.
Get enough Vitamin D: There is a clear link between low vitamin D levels and the risk of infections and other illnesses. Fortunately, boosting your vitamin D with supplementation is fairly easy and inexpensive.
Reduce stress: Too much stress can create hormonal and other imbalances that suppress your immune system. Incorporate stress-reduction techniques into your daily routine for your overall well-being and to ensure you’re prepared to fight off infection.
Get good sleep: Sleep recharges your body so your systems can function properly. On average, adults need between seven and nine hours of sleep each night.
Get outside and get some fresh air: Spending about 30 minutes outdoors each day can help the skin synthesize vitamin D, and sunlight has many other great therapeutic powers too.
Many people have asked whether they should start up a prophylactic treatment of ivermectin again. On that front, our advice has not really changed: if you have significant comorbidities, lack natural immunity, or have a suppressed immune system you may want to try a twice-weekly dose of ivermectin at 0.2 mg/kg. Likewise, consider it if you are currently suffering from long COVID or post-vaccine syndrome and are not currently being treated with ivermectin. If you have an upcoming situation where you may have high possible exposure — such as travel, weddings, or conferences — taking daily ivermectin starting two days before departure and either daily or every other day during the period of high exposure is a reasonable approach.
Remember to immediately initiate daily ivermectin at treatment doses (0.4 mg/kg) at the first signs of any kind of viral syndrome. It bears repeating: Early treatment is essential!
Most of all, pay no mind to the ongoing drumbeat of fear-mongering that the mainstream media is providing. We know the routine. We’ve been here before.
The information in this article is a recommended approach to preventing and treating COVID-19 infections in adults. Patients should always consult with a trusted healthcare provider before starting any medical treatment.
New COVID Variant More Likely to Infect Vaccinated
Wednesday, 23 August 2023
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday the new BA.2.86 lineage of coronavirus may be more capable than older variants in causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received vaccines.
CDC said it was too soon to know whether this might cause more severe illness compared with previous variants.
But due to the high number of mutations detected in this lineage, there were concerns about its impact on immunity from vaccines and previous infections, the agency said.
Scientists are keeping an eye on the BA.2.86 lineage because it has 36 mutations that distinguish it from the currently-dominant XBB.1.5 variant.
CDC, however, said virus samples are not yet broadly available for more reliable laboratory testing of antibodies.
The agency had earlier this month said it was tracking the highly mutated BA.2.86 lineage, which has been detected in the United States, Denmark and Israel.
CDC said on Wednesday the current increase in hospitalizations in the United States is not likely driven by the BA.2.86 lineage.
Damning Life Insurance Data PROVES Far More Young People Are Dying — And It’s NOT from COVID
When data speaks, we must listen.
Thanks to Vigilant Fox
When data speaks, we must listen. And statistics from the Society of Actuaries reveal a harrowing health crisis in the American youth. While most of the attention has been directed towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, there’s an underreported situation emerging — a rise in the mortality rate of younger individuals. Disturbingly, these figures can’t solely be attributed to COVID-19 — far from it.
According to the data reported by the Society of Actuaries, which conducts research for the insurance industry, there is a concerning trend in deaths among the young. Much of this data comes from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has limitations with respect to data collection and transparency.
Actual-to-Expected (A/E) Death Ratios
To understand the gravity of the situation, retired nurse educator and respected medical figure Dr. John Campbell, walked through the Society of Actuaries data actual-to-expected (A/E) death ratios. The “actual” part of the ratio is the number of deaths that were actually recorded, and the “expected” part of the ratio refers to the number of deaths we would expect to see – using a 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Between April to December 2020, during the peak of the pandemic, the A/E ratio was 122%. This means there were 22% more deaths than expected. Excess mortality for all of 2020, including January to March, was recorded at 16.4%. 13.3% of the excess deaths were attributed to COVID, and 3.1% of the excess deaths were not. This makes sense because, at the time, there were no “miracle vaccines” to save us.
Fast forward to 2021, a year when vaccines were touted as our saving grace. The A/E ratio was at 117%, nearly mirroring 2020’s figures. Logic would suggest that with the rollout of vaccines, mortality rates, especially those related to COVID, should have declined. But they didn’t. And when it comes to non-COVID deaths, 15 to 34-year-olds saw a staggering 21.4% increasein excess deaths in 2021.
2022, primarily characterized by the less-severe Omicron variant, should have witnessed a sharp drop in excess mortality given the less virulent strain and increased vaccination rates. Instead, data up to March 2022 indicated an A/E ratio of 115% — and this figure excluded COVID deaths. Given this, one is compelled to infer that something went deeply wrong with pandemic measures. Most worrying, deaths among 35 to 44-year-olds, between October and December 2022, surged an alarming 34% above the expected 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Looking at graphical representations, particularly among males and females aged 15 to 34, the numbers stay consistently above the expected baselines. What’s more concerning is that these figures can’t solely be attributed to a lack of access to healthcare, as some pundits suggest. If this were the primary factor, the oldest age groups, more reliant on medical care, would see the highest excess deaths. Instead, it’s the younger and, often, healthier age ranges witnessing the most significant surges. The mainstream narrative is just not making sense.
Dowd’s book has thoroughly compiled headline after headline, of young people suddenly dying of an “unknown” cause. What you’re about to watch in the video below is young and healthy people, in the prime of their lives, suddenly and unexpectedly collapsing and dying. And this is just from the past eight months…
During the pandemic, we were told the measures were about “health” and “saving lives.” But in the midst of a major health crisis among young and working-aged people, health authorities are radio silent. Why is that? And why does no one seem to care what’s causing it? Because while COVID-19 is now well behind us, a more insidious health crisis is unfolding right before our eyes.
A general view of the Centers for Disease Control headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is still planning on recommending people receive a COVID-19 shot on an annual basis, the agency’s director says.
“We are likely to see this as a recommendation for an annual COVID shot, just like we have an annual flu shot,” Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director, said in a podcast episode released on Aug. 9. “And I think that will give more folks clarity about should they get one or not, because the answer is like, ‘Well, did you get one this year? If not, go get the new COVID shot.’”
She said that the CDC will likely make the recommendation in the coming weeks.
“This will be an annual vaccine … to make sure that you stay protected,” Dr. Cohen said.
Dr. Cohen was commenting after Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, questioned her over what data would support annual shots and asked for a briefing on the matter.
Dr. Wenstrup gave the CDC until Aug. 16 to provide answers. The agency has not done so yet, a spokesperson for the panel said.
Dr. Cohen had said in July, in one of her first interviews after becoming the CDC’s director, that the agency was poised to recommend annual shots.
Waning Immunity
U.S. officials initially said people would only need a primary series to protect themselves against COVID-19 but in 2021, less than a year after recommending vaccination for virtually everyone, they authorized and advised boosters to try to stem waning immunity.
As newer variants have emerged, the vaccines have performed even worse, leading to recommendations for additional boosters and, in the fall of 2022, the clearance of updated bivalent shots from Pfizer and Moderna. Those shots later replaced the companies’ old vaccines.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which decides whether to clear vaccines, said in June that it was directing Pfizer and other manufacturers to update the shots again to target the XBB.1.5 strain because the vaccines “appear less effective against currently circulating variants (e.g., XBB-lineage viruses) than against previous strains of virus.”
But XBB.1.5 has already been largely displaced by other variants, including EG.5. That undercuts the new strategy, Dr. Harvey Risch told The Epoch Times in an email.
“The boosters will be out-of-date before they are even released,” Dr. Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said. “As well, CDC has already said that efficacy of new boosters in preventing spread is transient and wanes, thus there is little reason to see the boosters as beneficial.”
A CDC spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email: “Dr. Cohen’s expert opinion is based on the science, which indicates that vaccine-induced immunity wanes and the COVID-19 virus is likely to continue to evolve. As she has said before, if the science changes, the agency will adapt its recommendations.”
The COVID-19 vaccines have never been 100 percent effective. No trial efficacy data exists for the currently available vaccines, but observational data indicate they provide transient protection against infection and severe illness, even turning negative after several months.
There is no evidence supporting the idea that the shots provide protection for one year.
“Federal mandates did not stop the spread or transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Should the CDC issue a recommendation for an annual COVID-19 vaccine, it will mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding the COVID-19 vaccines and how they are utilized,” a spokesperson for the House panel told The Epoch Times via email. “Serious questions remain as to whether the science would support such a recommendation.”
In support of the planned recommendation, the CDC pointed to a modeling study and a seriesof other studieshighlightingwaningimmunity from the original shots, all of which were based on data from 2022 and earlier. The agency also cited a study that found the currently available boosters did not produce “robust neutralization” against newer variants.
Some of the papers concluded that people with so-called hybrid immunity, or vaccination on top of natural immunity, have the best protection. Other research has found that the latter protection, derived from recovering from COVID-19, is as good as or better than that from vaccines, though little data is available from recent months.
Timeline
Executives with Pfizer and Novavax have said they expect the FDA to authorize the new shots by the end of August. Moderna also makes a COVID-19 vaccine. Johnson & Johnson’s shot is no longer authorized.
After the FDA authorizes the latest formulations, the U.S. government plans to phase out the older shots. according to a planning document from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of both the FDA and the CDC.
The FDA has indicated it will not require trial efficacy data before authorizing the new shots but will monitor observational data, similar to its stance on the influenza vaccines.
After the authorizations, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC’s vaccine advisers, plans to meet to discuss for whom they will advise the CDC to recommend the shots. The CDC does not have to accept the advice, but often does.
“The FDA anticipates taking timely action to authorize or approve updated COVID-19 vaccines in order to make vaccines available this fall. After their authorization or approval, ACIP will meet to make a recommendation outlining use of these updated vaccines this fall,” the CDC spokesperson said.
The CDC has recommended, including in its latest slate of recommendations, that virtually every person receive a primary series. The CDC did ease up on booster recommendations in the most recent recommendations, saying some people did not need additional shots, in the first formal recognition of the high levels of natural immunity in the population.
Last week during an Australian Senate committee hearing, Pfizer and Moderna executives were grilled under oath about covid-19 vaccine policies and vaccine safety.
Tensions were high during the public hearing, which was live-streamed via the parliamentary website.
Senators fired questions at Pfizer and Moderna executives who responded by dodging questions and refusing to take accountability for their failures.
To complicate matters, the drug company executives did not attend the hearing in-person, only via video link allowing them to plead ignorance about the studies that were presented during the inquiry.
At the commencement, the Chair warned the witnesses against giving “false or misleading evidence” and after opening statements by Pfizer and Moderna, the floor was opened to questions.
Stopping transmission
Senator Matt Canavan began question time and was laser-focused on the issue of viral transmission.
“Did Pfizer test whether your covid-19 vaccine could stop or reduce the transmission of the virus before its approval and rollout in late 2020,” asked Canavan pointedly.
Pfizer Australia’s medical director Krishan Thiru was evasive.
Left to right: Brian Hewitt, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Pfizer Australia; Krishan Thiru, Medical Director, Pfizer Australia
“To bring this vaccine to patients we were required to show that the vaccine was safe and effective…The primary purpose of vaccination was, and remains, to protect the person who received the vaccine,” said Thiru.
Canavan reminded him that Pfizer’s own CEO Anthony Bourla told a reporter on NBC news on Dec 3, 2020, that it was “not certain” if vaccinated people could catch and spread the virus, but Thiru kept repeating the mantra, “the vaccine is safe and effective.”
Canavan persisted, citing Pfizer’s official tweet on Jan 14, 2023, stating its highest priority was its “ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission,” and then on June 8, 2021, Bourla tweeted, “the vaccine was a critical tool to help stop transmission.”
“What evidence did Pfizer have to make that public statement to imply that vaccination could stop transmission?” asked Canavan.
Thiru pleaded ignorance saying he was not familiar with the context of the tweets and took the question on notice (to respond later in writing).
Canavan explained that federal and state governments had imposed vaccine mandates based on the evidence and advice from the manufacturers that claimed the vaccines could “stop the spread.”
Canavan also pointed to the Doherty Modelling report submitted to national cabinet in Nov 2021 that underpinned the government’s decision to impose mandates in late 2021, but again, Pfizer could not confirm whether it was consulted about the modelling.
Hewitt said, “I can’t answer that question” and took it on notice.
Moderna Executive Director of Medical Affairs for Respiratory Vaccines Rachel Dawson, said that in the phase III pivotal trials of 2020, its mRNA vaccine showed that it could reduce symptomatic infection, and that it could “make an important contribution to reducing viral transmission.”
Dawson cited real world data demonstrating that the spread of the virus was reduced in households among vaccinated individuals and that they had a “lower viral load.”
But to this day, the US regulator says the ability of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine to reduce transmission remains unproven. “While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Spikevax will reduce such transmission,” states the FDA.
Canavan said Moderna’s evidence, “just doesn’t seem to stack up”.
“Politicians told us it will stop the spread. Clearly that hasn’t happened. Do you have a simple explanation for why very high rates of vaccination, higher than anyone expected (90%) in this country, has clearly not stopped the spread of coronavirus,” asked Canavan.
But Moderna avoided the question on transmission, presumably because it would undermine the entire argument that vaccine mandates “keep others safe,” and instead, referred to its scripted statement that “the goal of vaccination is to prevent severe infection in hospitals.”
Preventing infection
Senator Gerard Rennick then proceeded to challenge Pfizer on its claim that the vaccine was “100% effective at preventing covid-19 cases,” a statement that Bourla tweeted on April 2, 2021.
Rennick proceeded to explain why the statement was implausible.
“By September 2022, Australia had recorded 10 million cases of COVID despite having an adult population vaccinated to the tune of 95% so given those real world figures in Australia, do you still stand by that statement?” said Rennick.
But Thiru responded repeatedly, “we strongly believe, and we reiterate, that the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use” saying that Pfizer’s vaccine remained highly effective prior to the emergence of variants.
When Rennick asked Pfizer for its definition of “highly effective” in terms of duration, Thiru responded saying, “When the wild-type virus was prevalent, efficacy of approximately or greater than 90% was maintained at six months for illness and severe disease.”
But regulatory filings clearly show Pfizer had strong evidence by April 2021 that its vaccine’s efficacy waned, and withheld the data from the public for months.
Claiming that vaccine efficacy was 90% after six months following vaccination is misleading because that figure is largely driven by the first couple months of the trial when there was still a placebo group. Had people stayed in the trial for the whole duration of the 6 months, the average overall, would have been lower.
Lack of studies
Senator Rennick proceeded to read out the TGA’s non-clinical report listing all the safety studies in animals that were not carried out prior to testing in humans.
Despite assurances that “no corners were cut,” there were no carcinogenic tests, genotoxicity tests, immunotoxicity tests, duration studies, interaction studies with other medicines, and the list went on.
Again, Thiru predictably answered, “I don’t have that report in front of me, so I’m afraid I can’t talk to that.”
When Rennick asked directly if any studies were omitted or circumvented entirely to achieve the accelerated time frame for vaccine development, Pfizer objected saying its process was “thorough and comprehensive”.
Safety problems
Senator Rennick asked if Pfizer had determined the mechanism for why its vaccine could cause myocarditis and pericarditis, but Thiru was defiant saying that Pfizer had “strong confidence in the safety profile” of its vaccine.
Rennick would not let up. “I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis,’ he asked several times.
Thiru conceded that Pfizer was aware of “very rare” reports of myocarditis and pericarditis temporally associated with vaccination, but could not explain the mechanism, instead opting to take the question on notice again.
Senator Alex Antic challenged Pfizer on the Fraiman re-analysis, which found one additional SAE for every 800 people vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, but his attempts hit a brick wall.
Senator Pauline Hansen chimed in, noting the Fraiman re-analysis found a “36% increase in serious adverse events. The most common were coagulation disorders, including thrombosis, and acute cardiac injury. In every 10,000 people injected 18 will experience a life threatening or altering medical complication,” said Hansen.
Again, Thiru pleaded ignorance. “I do not have a copy of your paper. I have not examined it,” he said, “the benefit risk ratio for vaccination remains strongly positive in all indications, all age groups for which it has been approved.”
Senator Hansen became visually frustrated.
“You haven’t read up on all of this, have you?” she said angrily, “You’ve come to this inquiry and you haven’t done anything whatsoever to respond to our questions. I think it’s very poor of you to not be able to answer these questions.”
When it was Moderna’s turn to respond to the Fraiman re-analysis, they too, said they were not aware of it.
Senator Antic asked Moderna what its overall rate of SAEs was for its mRNA vaccine and how that compared to routine vaccination.
But Moderna’s director of Scientific Leadership Chris Clarke said, “I don’t have the actual rates of adverse events,” as he shuffled through the papers on his desk.
Antic was staggered by the response, “You’re before a Senate inquiry and you cannot tell me the rates of serious adverse events? I mean, it’s quite extraordinary.”
Moderna took the question on notice and said that in the clinical trials they “observed no safety concerns.”
Indemnity agreements
Senator Malcolm Roberts asked for details of the indemnity agreement between Pfizer and the Australian government.
Specifically, Roberts asked if there was any clause in the agreement that indemnified Pfizer in the situation where an employee is mandated by their employer to undergo vaccination and then experiences harm.
“Senator, any indemnity agreements between Pfizer and the Australian Government are confidential, and we’re not able to discuss that in this forum,” responded Thiru.
Roberts fired back, “What have you got to hide?”
He also asked if there was any clause in the agreement that negates Pfizer’s indemnity in the event Pfizer is found to have committed fraud in the trial, as alleged by whistle-blower Brook Jackson in 2021.
“My question is simple. What is the answer? Yes or no?” asked Roberts. But Pfizer insisted “the contents of Pfizer’s contract with the Australian Government remains confidential.”
Senator Malcolm Roberts summed up his thoughts.
“You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence and dodged questions from Senators Rennick and Antic. You have relied instead on appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies.”
Covid vaccine in pregnancy
Senator Hansen confronted Pfizer with questions about the safety of its vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Thiru did concede that there is limited clinical trial evidence in pregnant women, but said that peak bodies such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) supported use of the vaccine.
“[RANZCOG] have said pregnant women in Australia are a priority group for covid-19 vaccination and should be routinely offered the Pfizer vaccine (Comirnaty) or Moderna (Spikevax) vaccines at any stage of pregnancy. They have said there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage or teratogenic risk with mRNA or viral vaccines.”
Forced vaccination
One of the most egregious moments of the hearing was when Pfizer’s Head of Regulatory Affairs Brian Hewitt, piped up and said no-one in Australia was ever “forced” to be vaccinated.
Senator Hansen took exception to the comment and asked if Hewitt would retract his statement.
Hewitt held his position saying, “No. I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a vaccine.”
“A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one,” retorted Senator Hansen.
Senator Matt O’Sullivan was incredulous. He said that in his state of Western Australia, there were mandates across the board, with “very, very few exceptions.”
“If you wanted to go to work, and earn a living and provide for your family, you had to be vaccinated. I am staggered that that was your response to questions in relation to whether or not people were forced to have vaccines,” said O’Sullivan.
Many of O’Sullivan’s constituents had to go without income because the state government was “forcing” them to be vaccinated against their will.
Hewitt looked down to read a pre-prepared answer, much to the dismay of listeners.
“Senator, mandates, and vaccine requirements are determined by governments. As a company we were not involved in any government vaccine mandates. I don’t believe the mandates actually forced individuals to get vaccinated.”
Pfizer did confirm that it enforced a vaccine mandate within its own company and that it had imported a special batch of covid-19 vaccines for its employees. Why the special batch? “So that no vaccine would be taken from government stocks,” said Hewitt.
Thiru also said there were some exemptions for medical or religious reasons and that “a small number of colleagues departed the company,” presumably because they did not comply with the mandate.
Moderna, on the other hand, distanced itself from commenting on vaccine mandates.
Clarke, Director, Scientific Leadership, Moderna.
Moderna’s Vice President of Medical Affairs Jane Leong said, “We do not have a view on decisions taken by public health agencies or governments in relation to vaccine mandates. This is purely a matter for policymakers.”
At the finish line, Pfizer and Moderna executives managed to expertly dodge questions, they couldn’t recall their own rate of SAEs, they wouldn’t admit that covid vaccines cannot stop transmission, and they refused to divulge details of their indemnity agreements with the government.
Responses to questions on notice are due Aug 17, 2023.
They can find who owns pot in the WH but not who owns Cocaine found in the WH? Oh all the drugs showing up at the WH. It’s just like the good old days when Clinton and Obama were there.
So the Secret Service finds the pot and who owned it, but yet are unable to find anything on the Cocaine user? Who really believes that?
Not saying the Cocaine is Hunter’s, but it’s obvious it belonged to someone higher up.
When I was growing up, “I’m sorry,” was the requisite response to “you apologize to your sister right this minute” after you yanked out a handful of her hair or accidentally (on purpose) broke her favorite Barbie. There was no genuine remorse or promise of reform required. “I’m sorry” bought you half-hearted forgiveness, got you out of major trouble, or both.
It was basically BS.
As a mother and a career linguist, “I’m sorry” wasn’t an option if my daughters injured, outraged, or offended each other — whether carelessly or intentionally. The phrase was trite, I explained; meaningless. Instead, because I believe that words matter deeply, I chose to encourage this alternative: “I feel bad about what I did, and I’ll try not to do it again.” (Without the trying part, it would be almost as platitudinous as “I’m sorry.”)
It must suck to have a mom who’s a writer.
Like just about everything else in the world, words have gotten wonky since COVID came to town. Almost out of the gate, we were told to shelter in place, a phrase once employed only in life-or-death, bombs-are-falling, get-under-your-desks emergencies. Suddenly it meant, “You know, you should really probably stay at home unless you’re out of Pantene, your dog swallowed a sock, or someone in your circle needs a margarita to go.”
Some words saw their actual, official definitions altered to fit the emerging narrative. Merriam-Webster quietly decided that an “anti-vaxxer” was no longer simply a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, but henceforth would also describe those who oppose regulations mandating them. So basically, you can be quadruple-juiced and pro-medical freedom, and you might as well start making homemade granola and get yourself some nice bell-bottom jeans and a tie-dyed top, you dirty hippy.
It’s right there on the website!
Similarly, the CDC changed its definition of “vaccine” mid-pandemic from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Convenient, right? They never said it protected you from anything. It’s right there on the website!
When I asked ChatGPT to tell me what a breakthrough case of COVID was, it described this unicorn-level occurrence as “when a person who has been fully vaccinated against the virus later becomes infected with the virus.” The AI chat platform nearly tripped over itself to add: “It is important to note, however, that breakthrough cases are still relatively rare. Vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, even against new variants of the virus.” Never mind the countless analyses that have found that your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death increases with each booster. It’s just those pesky breakthrough cases. (Oh, and you’re a domestic terrorist if you say or even think otherwise.)
By literal definition, disinformation is “false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.” And yet the Center for Countering Digital Hate (the irony!) boldly baptized 12 individuals the “Disinformation Dozen” for promoting proven therapeutics, acknowledging natural immunity, pointing out the abysmal failure of the so-called vaccines, and encouraging natural remedies. A proper logophile (or domestic terrorist) might dub them the “Inconvenient to Pharma Dozen.” But semantics.
There was no vaccine law.
Curiously, the definition of a mandate is “an authoritative command.” A law, on the other hand, is “any written or positive rule prescribed under the authority of [a] state or nation.” It’s essentially the difference between, “Hey, kid, get off my lawn,” and, “You’re under arrest for criminal trespassing.” There was no vaccine law, I’ll remind you. And yet students, pilots, travelers, teachers, frontline medical workers, and millions of employees from countless fields lined up for an experimental gene therapy injection because they were commanded authoritatively to do so.
Is anyone else as angry about this as I am?
At least 1,553,187 people: the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS.
Last but certainly not least, we have our two best pandemic friends, “safe” and “effective”. Synonyms for safe include harmless, risk-free, trustworthy, sound, and reliable; some recommended substitutes for effective are powerful, useful, successful, valuable, and potent. If it was a known, documented fact that at least 1,553,187 people — the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS — lost life or limb visiting a certain theme park, would you rush to purchase an annual pass? (And also, might you briefly question why it was still open to the public?) If you discovered that a specific type of birth control actually increased your odds of becoming pregnant, would you make it your go-to contraceptive or recommend it to your child-phobic friends? These are comical things to consider — and yet you can’t drive down the highway, scroll through social media, or peruse a single mainstream news site without encountering at least a handful of helpful reminders to get your safe and effective COVID booster.
If we hear something often enough, it becomes accepted as fact. To wit: If you swallow your gum, it takes seven years to digest. (Altogether untrue.) Sugar makes you hyper. (Zero studies support this.) Lightning never strikes twice. (Ask this guy who’s been zapped seven times.) Iraq was teeming with weapons of mass destruction. (Whoops.)
Rudyard Kipling said, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Indeed, words and drugs can radically impact our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Let’s choose both wisely.
Garlic has been known as a mild antibiotic for centuries — hence why vampires avoid it.
By: Daniel Y. Teng for The Epoch Times – Australia
Scientists in a “world first” study now say Australian garlic could be key to fighting COVID-19 infections and the flu.
In a study by the Melbourne-based Peter Doherty Institute, researchers extracted a specific ingredient, the Proprietary Ingredient SupaG, from Australian-grown garlic varieties.
“The results came as a world first, with the findings from specific garlic varieties proving to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza type A viruses,” said the Victorian Chamber of Commerce in a statement.
Dr. Julie McAuley, manager of the high containment facility COVID-19 research lab at the Doherty Institute, said the team had assessed a variety of garlic products over the last 18 months—finding that a strain from Iraq was effective against COVID-19.
“We performed several blinded experiments and found one of [Australian Garlic Producers (AGP)] products could reduce the infectious titre of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza by 3-log-fold (99.9 percent). We could barely detect any remaining virus genome, indicating nearly complete virucidal activity.”
While Dr. Martin Elhay, business development director at the institute, said Doherty was committed to “the global effort to combat the spread” of COVID-19. The Doherty Institute was a prominent voice during the pandemic years on issues such as COVID-19 vaccination and public health orders.
Plans to Retail the Product
The AGP, who commissioned the study, will patent and commercialize the extraction process with plans to start retailing in supermarkets.
“Over the past 25 years, we have collected over 309 garlic cultivars from around the globe,” said Nick Diamantopoulos, CEO of the AGP.
“Our extensive R&D over many years with leading Australian universities and institutions has shown that garlic varieties not only vary in their agronomic and physiological properties but also in their biochemical properties.”
Diamantopoulos said the extensive research work is what led to the identification of “superior properties” in Australian garlic types.
The AGP harvests 100 percent of its garlic from the Australian jurisdictions of the Northern Territory, South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria. The next study will look at the potential benefits of garlic in lowering cholesterol levels.
Paul Guerra, CEO of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce, said the partnership between the Doherty and AGP was a perfect example of how businesses and scientists could work together to deliver a “global game changer.”
Meanwhile, former federal MP Craig Kelly accused governments of spending billions on vaccines when a vegetable could have achieved the same effect.
“How stupid must the world feel today, having wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on useless vaccines and destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth with panicked lockdowns—when it’s now discovered that garlic kills COVID?” he wrote on Twitter.
“Of all the 69 reports we now have, this is the most disturbing,” expressed DailyClout CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf in a live stream on Sunday. “Because the bottom line is, according to a new tranche of Pfizer documents released just this month, this past month, April of 2023. And these are documents that go back to April of 2021 — exactly two years ago. Both Pfizer and the FDA knew that the mRNA COVID vaccine caused dire fetal and infant harms, including death.”
The batch of Pfizer clinical trial documents released in April 2023 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under court order contains a shocking, eight-page document titled, “Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review” …
This document is among the most horrifying yet to emerge into public view. It reveals that both Pfizer and the FDA knew by early 2021 that Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine, BNT162b2, resulted in horrible damage to fetuses and babies.
• Adverse events in over 54% of cases of “maternal exposure” to the vaccine (248 out of 458). The language “maternal exposure” implies that Pfizer acknowledged intercourse, inhalation, and skin contact as methods of exposure to its mRNA injection, as also evidenced by Protocol Amendment 14.
• Six premature labor and delivery cases resulting in two newborn deaths.
• 19% (41/215) of babies in Pfizer’s records exposed to the company’s COVID mRNA vaccine via their mothers’ breast milk were recorded as suffering from 48 different categories of adverse events.
The damage and suffering feel even more real when you narrow it down to individual stories.
• “A 15-month-old infant with medical history of vomiting experienced skin exfoliation and infant irritability while being breastfed (latency <7 days). The outcome of the event’ skin exfoliation’ was not recovered and outcome of event’ infant irritability’ was unknown.”
• “A 9-month-old infant with a medical history of meningococcal vaccine and no history of allergies, asthma, eczema or anaphylaxis experienced rash and urticaria a day after exposure via lactation.”
• “A day after the mother received vaccination, a baby developed a rash after breastfeeding. At the time of the report, the event was ‘not recovered.”
• “An 8-month-old infant experienced angioedema [an area of swelling of the lower layer of skin and tissue just under the skin or mucous membranes] one day after his mother received vaccination.”
• “There were 2 cases reporting ‘illness’ after exposure via breast milk’. In the first case, a 6-month-old infant developed an unspecified sickness 2 days post-mother’s vaccination. The outcome of the event sickness was recovered, and no causality assessment was provided. The second case, a 3-month-old infant developed an unspecified illness and required hospitalization for 6 days post-exposure via breast milk (>7 days latency).”
Pfizer employee, Robert T. Maroko, approved the Review with these horrific findings on April 20, 2021.
“This is a real person working at Pfizer, Mr. Robert T. Maroko, who looked at this damage to babies, these dead babies, these dead fetuses, these miserably-injured babies — approved it and sent it on to the FDA. The FDA approved it and gave it to Rochelle Walensky and the CDC,” shared Dr. Wolf.
And three days later, on April 23, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky held a press conference, which kicked off an aggressive campaign to get pregnant women vaccinated.
“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.”
“The FDA signed off on this document showing dead babies, sick babies, dead from the injection, sick from nursing, the spontaneous abortions, or dead subsequent to the injection, the spontaneous abortions, the respiratory distress, babies hospitalized … These monsters looked at whether the babies would get sick and die or whether the fetuses would spontaneously abort, and they did. And they saw that they did, and they kept going.”
“This was just [four] months into the rollout,” Dr. Wolf mentioned. “And I want to remind you that breastfeeding has gone from 34% of moms and babies at the start of the pandemic to only 15% now, meaning that babies are having a terrible time with their mother’s breast milk. Pfizer knew they would!” she exclaimed. “Pfizer knew they would! The FDA knew they would, and they told pregnant women and lactating women to get vaccinated anyway.”
“At the end of this horrific, demonic analysis of all these sick and dying babies, all these aborted fetuses, all these babies getting sick from poisoned breast milk. Seriously sick. Damaged. They held a press conference. And Dr. Walensky, who has this report in hand, who has this report in hand,” Dr. Wolf said twice with emphasis, “told the women of America and anyone else who is listening in the world that these vaccines were safe and effective for pregnant women and for their babies. And that to protect their babies, they had to get vaccinated. They knew. They knew. Absolutely criminal.”
And there are 68 other damning reports — just like this one — using primary source Pfizer documents released under court order by the U.S. FDA.
These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects — damage that both Pfizer and the FDA sought to keep hidden from the public for 75 years — contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.
Now, the information Pfizer and the FDA wanted to keep hidden for 75 years is available in paperback form. Funds and proceeds raised go to the research project, which helps makes more Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports possible. So, please, show your support and get your hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.
The old vaxes haven't killed/injured a high enough percentage of the people.
Story by Karen Weintraub, USA TODAY
Bracketed comments by Phoenix
The Biden Administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.
[Of course, the elephant in the room is: “Why? We already have effective treatments, ones that don’t kill people.” Oh, wait: they’re cheap, and Big Pharma can’t make more Billion$ from them. Carry on…..]
Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.
Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”
Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses
[ Why do they need a “new” nasal vax when two already exist? Oh, wait. Same answer.]
It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.
The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.
Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.
Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”
Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses
It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.
The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen would be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.
The funding is a start, he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”
The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.
Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.
Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”
Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses
It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.
The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen will be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.
The funding is a start he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”
Why do we need new coronavirus vaccines?
When the current vaccines were developed, speed was a priority along with safety and effectiveness. They were 95% effective at preventing all disease when first released in late 2020. But their effectiveness against mild disease, in particular, wanes over just a handful of months.
Protection may also not be as good as the virus continues to evolve. The current bivalent booster is aimed at both the original virus and the BA.5 variant.
But SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is the third new coronavirus to pop up in the last two decades, following Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory (SARS). If and when a fourth turns up, it would be great to already have a vaccine that could protect against” it,’ said Osterholm, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
[ “…when a fourth turns up, it would be great TO ALREADY HAVE a vaccine that could protect against it…” Hmm, Bill Gates & friends have already told us there’s another pandemic coming, is there something they know that we don’t?]
A nasal vaccine is the third item on the wish list. The idea is that by delivering a vaccine directly to the area where the virus enters the body, scientists could set up a barrier of protection to prevent even mild infections and transmission from one person to the next.
[But didn’t they tell us initially that surface contact would spread it? DISINFECT EVERYTHING! And what about people who breathe more through their mouths — like people with allergies such as Hay Fever?]
“I think an initiative like this is much needed and should have been put in place much sooner,” said John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.
What happens next?
Reaching these goals will likely be more difficult than it sounds, Moore said.
“Anyone familiar with vaccine development knows that translation into a practical product is a much harder and more expensive process” than simply creating a basic vaccine, he said. “A lot of designs that look good in the early stages fizzle out because they cannot be manufactured efficiently under the conditions required for human trials.”
[And when did they have time for human testing under Warp Speed?]
Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician who directs the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is skeptical that any of these goals are realistic.
Researchers have been trying for more than 40 years to develop vaccines against multiple strains of flu and against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Both have proven elusive, he said, because the viruses mutate so much, as does SARS-CoV-2.
Meanwhile, nasal vaccines are still being tested in clinical trials, so it’s not yet clear how effective they’ll be against COVID. A nasal vaccine for the flu doesn’t provide any more protection than a shot, Offit said, and it’s most effective in young children who have never been exposed to the flu virus before. At this point, nearly every American has already been exposed to the virus that causes COVID.
Moore agrees that developing a nasal vaccine should be a high priority, but “it’s seriously naive to believe that it will be easy to make one.”
Offit worries that the emphasis on making COVID vaccines better will undermine public trust in the ones we already have. He said the current vaccines have been “amazing,” but that vaccines can only do so much.
What did Operation Warp Speed do?
Under the Trump administration, Operation Warp Speed spent about $30 billion beginning in March 2020 to develop, manufacture and distribute COVID-19 vaccines.
The federal government essentially placed bets on six different drug companies hoping at least a few of them would prove successful. Each received over $1 billion (although Pfizer/BioNTech developed its vaccine without government support) with a promise of a guaranteed market if they succeeded.
►Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech both developed, tested, passed regulatory hurdles and produced millions of doses of their mRNA vaccines in under a year. Previously, the fastest vaccine had taken four years to bring to market.
►Johnson and Johnson also developed a vaccine based on a different technology. While effective, the vaccine led to a rare side effect and is no longer widely available in the United States.
►Novavax pursued a third type of vaccine technology and has also won emergency regulatory approval, though it is not widely available.
►The other two efforts, one by Sanofi and another by AstraZeneca, fell behind early and were not advanced beyond preliminary testing.
[It’s obvious I’m skeptical of the claims here. If the previous record for developing a vaccine was FOUR YEARS, how did they manage to develop –AND TEST– them so quickly (less than a third of that time)? Why weren’t these vaccines pulled after the deadly side effects became apparent? It only took a ‘mere’ 50 deaths to yank the swine flu vaccine; how many THOUSANDS have died/been seriously affected by the clot shots?]
