Hey Friend, check out these top stories that are making waves.
|
| CDC Drops a Bombshell on Itself, Exposes Alarming Risk/Benefit Analysis |
|
| Ken Paxton Acquitted on All Charges: A Victory for Texas and the Rule of Law |
|
| Fitness enthusiasts are dying suddenly – 16 sudden deaths examined |
|
| Lessons from Ivermectin: Why Stockpiling Life-Saving Drugs Is More Important Than Ever |
By on
A year ago, doubly vaccinated Australians were 10.72x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed. Now they are 20x more likely, and the triply or more vaxxed are 35x more likely, as the latest NSW Health stats show (see below).
Meanwhile, the latest Cleveland Clinic Data and the latest US data analyzed by Josh Stirling, founder of Insurance Collaboration to Save Livess and former #1 ranked Insurance Analyst, shows a really, really disturbing trend.
In fact, CDC All-Cause Mortality data show that each vaccine dose increased mortality by 7% in the year 2022 compared to the mortality in year 2021.
So if you have had 5 doses then you were 35% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you have had one dose then you were 7% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you are unvaxxed then you were no more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021.
Here are the COVID-19 infection rates for the 1st 98 days from September 12, 2022, when the bivalent vaccine was first offered to Cleveland Clinic employees. It was not mandated. It was offered.
So on September 12, 2022, 6199 employees were unvaxxed, 2359 were single jabbed, 13804 were double jabbed, 20798 were triple jabbed and 3538 were quad jabbed or penta jabbed with the original vaccine, which was designed against the Wuhan Hu1 reference virus, which was NOT isolated from a Human but was generated on a computer.
The results of their study, shown graphically above, demonstrate that the more doses of the original vaccine you took, the more likely you were to catch covid. In other words the original Covid vaccine is not merely ineffective against Omicron. It is actually anti-effective.
It is therefore not a vaccine against the present strain of Covid. It is an antivaccine. It damages your immune system in a dose-dependent manner. The more shots you took, the more damage you will have done to your immune system.
The writer first saw this from PHE Vaccine Surveillance reports and published his findings to PHE themselves AND on my website and in The Expose, on 2021October10.
‘The Science’ has now been established by the Cleveland Clinic. Genetic vaccines damage your immune system and make you not less likely but more likely to be infected with Covid.
Not only that but they have horrendous side effects on the cardiovascular, neurological and reproductive systems as well.
They are nothing short of mandatory progressive euthanasia.
If people were recovering from the 1st jab, then it would not be having precisely the same effect as the 5th jab (namely a 7% increase in mortality). This is the long term problem. People are not recovering from the damage done by the shots in terms of excess mortality.
So taking 2021 as the base line, a 5 dosed person would be 350% more likely to die in 2031 and 700% more likely to die in 2041 and 1050% more likely to die in 2051 than an unvaxxed person. It is just like compound interest.
Using this result, we can calculate the loss in life expectancy for a 30 year old male as follows… The life expectancy of a 30 year old unvaxxed male in the UK is around 80 years. So he can expect another 50 years of life.
In statistical terms, half of his cohort are dead by 80. The life expectancy of a 30 year old quintuply vaxxed person in the UK is 56 years. Assuming UK males respond to the vaccines in the same way as US people. Alternatively quintuply vaxxed US 30 year old males have likewise lost 24 years of life expectancy.
UK life expectancy data is from Statista. In the table below we add the extra 7% mortality per jab per year to the 2020 UK levels shown in Column2. So in a 5 year period, the average increase in expected mortality would be –
That is the price you pay for trusting the NHS, trusting the government, and trusting the BBC and the Main Stream Media.
That is what Media like the Expose have been trying to prevent.
The population of New South Wales in Australia was 6,505,883 in 2022. The vaccination status is as follows…
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/vaccination-numbers-and-statistics
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports.aspx
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221217.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221210.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221203.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221126.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221119.pdf
There is proof of immune system destruction by vaccination-mediated spike proteins. We see the same pattern for Hospital admissions in Australia as we see for infection rates in Cleveland. The more shots you take, the weaker your immune system becomes. And that is for the target of the therapy! The above graphs do NOT address any of the side effects.
The population of NSW in Australia is 6½ million people. They are a highly vaccinated group. Looking at the Australian Government data for the last 6 weeks of 2022, we see that.
1. Those with 1 or 2 doses are 20x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses.
2. Those with 3 or 4 or more doses are 35x more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid than those with no doses.
3. Being unvaxxed provides 100% protection from having to go to the ICU. Being vaxxed gives you a 6 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalized in the ICU.
4. Vaccines are unsafe and extremely ineffective.
5. COVID-19 vaccination is putting unsustainable pressure on hospitals and ICUs in NSW and by implication all over the world.
6. The NHS in the UK will be destroyed unless vaccinations are banned immediately. It may already be too late.
7. The vaccines prevent herd immunity. Herd immunity will never be reached in the vaxxed. It has already been reached in the unvaxxed
8. The continuation of the pandemic is entirely caused by the anti vaccines.
The last time I looked at the data in NSW, for the last six weeks of 2021, the double vaxxed were 2.18x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed.
Here we are today, 12 months later, in the last six weeks of 2022, and the double vaxxed are not 2.18x, but actually 20x more likely to catch the latest variant. And the triple jabbed are 35x more likely!
So there is the immune system destruction that I predicted in October 2021. There is the progressive vaccine-mediated AIDS. These are farcical Monty Python kinds of numbers. As I understand it, the Australian government is now going to stop classifying hospital data by vax status.
Talk about burying your head in the sand. In any event. It is too late. The cat is out of the bag. These figures are an accelerating immunological catastrophe.
The data we have analyzed are for the disease that the vaccines are supposed to be protecting us from (Covid-19). They do not address the plethora of cardiovascular, neurological, immunological, reproductive and systemic side effects of the genetic anti vaccinations, which cause further hospital admissions.
We have given control of our Health Services to big pharma, and they have destroyed those services. The day will come, if it has not already when 50% of the patients in our hospitals are suffering from vaccine-mediated pathology.
The question then becomes, how many others, in addition to the vaccine damaged, are suffering from Big Pharma-mediated pathologies resulting from other Big Pharma ‘medications’?
The credibility and the viability of all health care worldwide is, therefore, entirely dependent upon the immediate cessation of genetic vaccination.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that InfoWars published insider information that alleges the TSA and US Border Patrol will be moving back to 2020-era COVID-19 mandates and restrictions starting in mid-September through mid-October, to include mask mandates on all flights. This is in addition to the confirmed mask-mandate reinstatement at Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA, and Lionsgate Studios in Santa Monica, CA. Also, a school district in South Texas just outside of San Antonio closed down temporarily due to an ‘uptick’ in COVID cases.
That same week, WarRoom’s Natalie Winters uncovered millions of dollars in funding, awarded primarily to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and DoD, to ramp up testing and other COVID-19 related.
This was just a week after the NIH appointed Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a staunch advocate for masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates, as the replacement for Dr. Fauci.
To further the suggestion that another lockdown scare is in the forecast, on Tuesday, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced funding of $1.4 billion to “support the development of a new generation of tools and technologies to protect against COVID-19 for years to come” according to a press release.
“Project NextGen is a key part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to keeping people safe from COVID-19 variants,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “These awards are a catalyst for the program – kickstarting efforts to more quickly develop vaccines and continue to ensure availability of effective treatments.”
Project NextGen, a $5 billion initiative led by ASPR’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), coordinates across the federal government and the private sector to advance innovative vaccines and therapeutics into clinical trials, regulatory review, and potential commercial availability for the American people. The project builds on a better understanding of COVID-19 – with HHS developing, using, and constantly re-evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current vaccines and therapeutics for over three years.
Recipients of the awards include:
The press release claims that their partnership with Regeneron will help develop a “novel monoclonal antibody that will protect people who do not respond to or cannot take existing vaccines,” despite their attempts to limit the distribution in Florida in 2021.
On Friday, Joe Biden announced that he plans to request more funding from Congress to develop a new COVID vaccine “that works.”
“I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is necessary, that works,” Biden told the reporters while vacationing in Lake Tahoe.
Biden warned that everyone will get it despite their previous vaccination status.
“It will likely be recommended that everybody get it no matter whether they’ve gotten it before or not,” he added.
Watch:
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.
Here’s the shocking security video:
I’d bet a week’s salary that Li is from China. –TPR
What you need to know about the latest variant, how to protect yourself, and how to treat it if you do get sick.
Yusuf JP Saleeby MD Dr. Keith Berkowitz and the FLCCC Alliance Aug 21, 2023
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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% increase in 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.
Edward Dowd, former Blackrock asset manager and data analyst, asserts in his book, “Cause Unknown”: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, that the so-called COVID vaccines are behind it.
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…
View it on the Vigilant FOX Page: –TPR
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.
Dr. John Campbell’s full presentation on this subject is available in the video below:
See full article Here
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.
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 series of other studies highlighting waning immunity 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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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”.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
Nuff Said.
By Jenna McCarthy for The FLCCC Alliance Community
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.
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.
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?
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.)
Indeed, words and drugs can radically impact our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Let’s choose both wisely.
