“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t Think of It as a Vaccine.” Twitter Forced to Admit Fault in Suspending Journalist Alex Berenson (and many Others) for Tweeting Truthful Information

From [AFD] Twitter admitted it was wrong to suspend journalist Alex Berenson after the two parties reportedly settled a lawsuit, Berenson shared Wednesday. The social media giant booted Berenson from the platform in August 2021 for contradicting official COVID-19 messaging in a tweet, despite it being factually accurate.  

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission,” Berenson’s offending tweet read. “Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.” 

None of Berenson’s statement about the vaccine is disputed by Pfizer, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or any other official body, yet it prompted Twitter to suspend the former New York Times journalist in violation of Twitter’s own “five strikes” rule. The tweet was Berenson’s first “strike”.  

After bringing a lawsuit against the social media giant for the violation and “specific commitments” made to him by a Twitter PR executive, Berenson and Twitter engaged in mediation and settlement talks, the details of which the journalist said he is unable to disclose.  

But Berenson’s eye has been on a different prize – a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup entitling Berenson to discovery. The order requires Twitter Inc. to hand over any and all communications regarding Berenson, even “nonparty complaints or inquiries about plaintiff” which include “all texts, emails, voicemails, statements, and other documents pertaining to plaintiff.”  

This means that if any party, whether in the U.S. government, a pharmaceutical company or otherwise contacted Twitter and complained about Berenson, Twitter is obligated to show that. Furthermore, Berenson is allowed to publicize whatever he finds.  

“As we debate the power and political influence of social media companies, this discovery offers a unique opportunity to see how Twitter and the federal government and others may have colluded against my voice,” wrote the journalist in his Substack newsletter. “No one else has this chance. No one. And I am not going to give it up.”  

Berenson added that while he will make some sacrifices, he refuses to concede his rights to discovery.  

“Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines.” 

Berenson re-affirmed his pursuit of discovery Wednesday in his newsletter, which he linked to in a tweet. 

“The settlement does not end my investigation into the pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter to suspend my account,” he said. “I will have more to say on that issue in the near future. I made a promise to readers last month, and I take my promises to readers seriously. 

Billionaire Elon Musk, who is currently in the process of acquiring Twitter, replied to Berenson’s tweet, apparently having read Berenson’s article: 

“Can you say more about this: ‘… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …’ 

Media Destroyed Informed Consent: The Only FDA Approved "Vaccine" is Comirnaty. It’s not Available in US. All Other Shots are Emergency Use, which are Legally Distinct, Not Interchangeable w/Comirnaty

The following is from an amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in the case of NFIB v. OSHA that was before the US Supreme Court. [MORE] The footnotes and complete brief can be found here. It was filed in December 2021.

DTR is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to defending the Constitution, the rule of law, and protecting individual rights of Americans including medical freedom and religious liberty. DTR represents over thirty military service members in litigation involving the violation of their religious freedoms and their other constitutional and statutory rights to refuse mandatory vaccination with experimental COVID-19 treatments.

SUMMARY

A critical issue that has not been addressed in the Applicants' briefs, the OSHA Mandate, or the opinions by the Fifth or Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, is that OSHA and other federal agencies are mandating the administration of an experimental product that has not been approved by the FDA.4 In fact, none of the approved "vaccine" is available in the United States.

DTR urges the Court to grant Applicants' request to find that the OSHA Mandate exceeds the agency's authority. But first, it is imperative to explain why the OSHA Mandate is properly understood as an experimental vaccine mandate. Currently, the only COVID-19 "vaccine''5 that has been approved by the FDA is Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty, which is not available in the United States. The only COVID-19 products that are available are not FDA approved and instead are subject to an EUA.

As explained below, the distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. See infra Section III. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.''6

The unavailability of Comirnaty raises a second question that also has not been asked, much less addressed, by OSHA or in the judicial decisions under review. Federal laws and applicable FDA regulations expressly provide a "right to refuse" experimental or EUA products. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). Yet, the OSHA Mandate unlawfully overrides or circumvents those laws.

These rights to informed consent and to refuse experimental drugs--embodied not only in federal law, like 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, but also international law and conventions like the Nuremburg Code--should foreclose such a wide-ranging mandate. DTR urges this Court to consider the enormous wrongful consequences of imposing an illegal mandate requiring nearly the entire United States adult workforce to take an experimental and irreversible medical treatment.

The immeasurable ramifications of endorsing a near-universal federal mandate justify granting a stay to give more time for deeper consideration by this Court, the political branches, public health experts, and the citizens of the United States to consider the legal arguments and scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of the newly manufactured "vaccines," the rapidly proliferating range of therapies, and alternative federal, state, and local public health measures. Surely a stay to allow this Court to hear the arguments presented by all Parties and Amici is appropriate given the momentous consequences for tens of millions of Americans who face the loss of their rights to work, education, travel, worship and other fundamental constitutional rights unless they submit to an unproven, experimental medical treatment with an unprecendented history of adverse effects including deaths.

The Development of COVID-19 Vaccines

The pharmaceutical industry undoubtedly moved quickly to develop vaccines in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic. This was done in conjunction with the United States government's Operation Warp Speed, that awarded billions to these companies to spur the development and distribution of the vaccines.7 To clear the way for expedited development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("HHS") issued notice, pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, that COVID-19 had a "significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States Citizens" and that "circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic." 85 Fed. Reg. 18,250 (April 1, 2020).

The currently available COVID-19 "vaccines" are the results of these efforts. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received its EUA on December 11,2021.s This was followed by EUAs for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson Vaccines ('WIoderna Vaccine" and "Janssen Vaccine") on December 18, 2021 and February 27, 2021, respectively) These EUAs were granted after limited testing. For example, the Pfizer- BioNTech Vaccine's EUA was issued based on an "entire enrolled study population [that] had a median follow-up of less than 2 months.''10 Typically, vaccines "require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic.''11

II. The FDA-Approved Comirnaty is Unavailable to the American Public

On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the Pfizer- BioNTech mRNA vaccine under the marketed name Comirnaty.12 Soon thereafter, on September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that he would "protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers" by having the Department of Labor issue "an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees . . . to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week."13

With these marching orders, the Secretary of Labor, through OSHA, issued the OSHA ETS, which mandated that private businesses with 100 or more employees "develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination." OSHA ETS, 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,402. Americans subject to this ETS are in compliance if they receive the recommended minimum doses of COVID-19 vaccines that are "[a]pproved or authorized for emergency use by the FDA." Id. at 61,479.

Notwithstanding the jurisdictional issues underlying the OSHA Mandate, there is a significant problem concerning how Americans are forced to comply with the mandate. Specifically, the only FDA- approved vaccine - Comirnaty - is not available to the American public. According to the CDC, "COMIRNATY products are not orderable at this time.''14 As of December 16, 2021, "there is not sufficient approved vaccine [i.e., Comirnaty] available for the population for whom it is authorized." See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech Expansion Letter, note 6 at 5 n.9. In fact, it appears that Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States. Pfizer and the National Institutes of Health confirmed that Comirnaty would be unavailable for months after its approval. 15

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") finally conceded the unavailability of Comirnaty through defense counsel for DOD in Austin, where DTR represents service members challenging the DOD Mandate. While DOD initially claimed that the DOD in fact possessed Comirnaty and was administering it to service members, in oral argument, DOJ defense counsel acknowledged that not only did it not have Comirnaty and did not know when it would it get it, but also "could not say even whether vaccines labeled 'Comirnaty' exist at all." Doe v. Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2021) (citations omitted).16

DOD is the largest purchasing organization in the United States, and given its priority for national security matters, it would necessarily go to the front of the line for any purchasing COVID-19 vaccines. Yet DOD does not have Comirnaty and to this day the DOD cannot say when it will get Comirnaty. If the DOD cannot obtain Comirnaty, then how can average Americans who are subject to the OSHA Mandate? And perhaps more importantly, how can employees be fired for the failure of their employers to obtain a vaccine that even the DOD cannot procure?

The unavailability of Comirnaty is important. First, while OSHA purports to give employers the option of requiring vaccination or allowing testing and masks, it does not hide its real intent to force employees to choose vaccination to keep their jobs. If an employee opts out of their employer's mandatory vaccination policy, OSHA believes its ETS and the costs it imposes on that employee - which includes paying for regular testing - "creates a financial incentive for those employees to become fully vaccinated and avoid that cost." OSHA Mandate, 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,532.

As Judge Larsen observed in his dissenting opinion on the emergency motion to dissolve the stay of the OSHA Mandate, the Mandate's main purpose is to compel vaccination:

Here, employers, not employees, control any non-vaccine option in the first instance; and OSHA has been candid that it has stacked the deck in favor of vaccination ... OSHA has alerted us to no prior attempt on its part to mandate a solution that extends beyond the workplace walls-- much less a permanent and physically intrusive one, promulgated on an emergency basis, without any chance for public participation. But that it is what OSHA has done here. A vaccine may not be taken off when the workday ends; and its effects, unlike this rule, will not expire in six months.17

Second, and in consideration of OSHA's coercive policy, workers will only be able to comply with the OSHA Mandate if they receive a vaccine under an EUA.is This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

BAIT AND SWITCH WITH THE DEPENDENT MEDIA’S HELP: CONFUSE TO DESTROY INFORMED CONSENT. Last month Pfizer Admitted it Will NEVER Manufacture the Vaccine that was FDA Approved. Pfizer quietly submitted an update to the CDC, admitting that its originally licensed “Comirnaty” vaccine will never be distributed for use. Pfizer has exclusively been supplying its version of the experimental vaccine that was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. From the Pfizer update, via independent journalist Jordan Schachtel:

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.” [MORE]

III. Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech EUA Expansion Letter, note 6 at 2 n.8. First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

By plan, those vaccines that are subject to the OSHA Mandate have relatively little data to support their authorization. The Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine was granted its EUA after approximately 2 months of follow-up testing. See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech EUA Review Memo, note 10 at 17. The Moderna Vaccine received its EUA after providing its studies to the FDA "with a median of 7 weeks of follow-up after the second dose.''19 And for the Janssen Vaccine, which also received an EUA, "the median follow-up duration for participants in the efficacy and safety analysis populations was 8 weeks after vaccination.''20

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval.21 And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''22

A. The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine.23 Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product. Accordingly, the OSHA Mandate contradicts established federal law and will require any covered employer, including state agencies, to violate an express requirement of federal law and the express terms of the FDA labeling and packaging requirements.

B . OSHA Cannot Override Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

In any case, OSHA has not even acknowledged workers' informed consent rights, much less explained how its mandate can override these rights or force private and public sector employers into violating these rights. Accordingly, the OSHA Mandate cannot stand.

A helpful analogy when considering forced vaccination is to compare the present case to the DaD's much narrower Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program. Courts enjoined that program, as it sought to impose a vaccine mandate on service members using experimental, unapproved anthrax mandates, which were expressly barred by statute. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1107a. Even in those cases, courts recognized the limitations of DaD power over military service members, observing "the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Doe No. 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003) (granting injunctive relief against DaD for mandating an EUA anthrax vaccine).24 Certainly, aSHA has even less authority over American workers.

IV. EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

Notwithstanding any potential assertions to the contrary, the EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted,25 while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product.26 There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license. See August 23 Comirnaty SBRA at 12-13.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public

Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020).

CONCLUSION

This Court should stay the OSHA Mandate because the unavailability of Comirnaty precludes compliance. Congress has not clearly granted the agency the power to require private employers to mandate that their employees take an experimental vaccine.27 Congress has not granted OSHA the authority to require State agencies to impose and police a mandate which cannot be satisfied through distribution of FDA-approved vaccines. No American can be compelled to suffer an injection of an experimental product.

Heart Disease in Children Explodes Since the Vaccine

From [MERCOLA] Heart conditions in children who don’t normally get heart disease are being reported since they started getting the COVID jabs, and The Irish Light is bringing light to the topic by criticizing mainstream media for its silence on the topic.

To ignore this and continue onward with the shot program is “the greatest crime ever committed by an Irish government,” the newsletter says, but “as hard as the HSE tries to cover up the horrifying impact of the COVID vaccine on Irish children, there is no containing the staggering toll of sudden deaths in young people.”

A sudden rise in hepatitis cases is suspicious, too, the newsletter says: “Why are so many healthy children dying? What has changed in their lives to cause it? We all know the answer but many still do not have the courage to say it out loud because they too may meet the same fate.”

While it’s being ignored right now, it won’t be forever, the newsletter suggests, because “soon the dam of silence will burst because the injury levels are too alarming to ignore.”

Documentary, "The Viral Delusion." The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2 & The Madness of Modern Virology (1-5)

From [HERE] The Untold Story Behind The Pandemic

The doctors, scientists and journalists featured in THE VIRAL DELUSION examine in detail the scientific papers that were used to justify the pandemic, and what they find is shattering. In this shocking, five-part, seven-hour documentary series, they explore every single major claim, from the “isolation” of the virus to its so-called genetic sequencing, from the discovery of how to “test” for SARS-CoV2 to the emergence of “variants” that in reality, they explain, exist only on a computer. Their point: is that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus exists only as a mental construct whose existence in the real world has been disproven by the science itself.

They then go back through history to reveal how the birth and growth of virology has led to massive misunderstanding and misdiagnosis of disease: from Smallpox to the Spanish Flu, Polio to AIDS, to COVID itself – putting the pandemic in a whole new context better understood not as settled science, but the tragic culmination of misunderstood biology by the growing cult of virology, built on pseudo-science, to which much of the rest of the medical profession defers without understanding or examination, and the tragic consequences that have been wrought in its name.

In 2019, the virologists took centre stage, and for the first time on film, their methods, miscues and tragedy they have wrought are put under the spotlight, revealing the extraordinary leaps of fantasy buried in their methodology, the contradictions quietly acknowledged in their papers, their desperate effort to change the language to justify their findings, the obvious incongruence of their conclusions and the extraordinary stakes for our entire society in whether we continue to blindly follow their lead into a full-scale war against nature itself.

Featuring: Andrew Kaufman, MD; Tom Cowan, MD; Stefan Lanka, Virologist; Torsten Engelbrecht, journalist; Claus Kohnlein, MD; Kevin Corbett, PhD RN; David Rasnick, Biochemist PhD; Mark Bailey, MD; Dawn Lester and David Parker, Authors; Stefano Scoglio, Biochemist PhD; Saeed Qureeshi, Chemist PhD; Celia Farber, Journalist; Harold Wallach, PhD; Pam Popper, PhD, ND; Charles Geshekter, PhD; Amandha Vollmer ND, Jim West, Author; Larry Palevsky MD; and more.

The opening episode, which is two hours and twenty minutes, will be available for free from March 21st until May 21st.

Government of Alberta Says the Leading Cause of Death in 2021 was ‘Unknown Causes’ and Reported a Surge in Deaths. Nearly All the Top Causes of Death Also are the Top Adverse Reactions to COVID Shots

From [HERE] Recent data on the leading causes of death in Alberta show a spike in the 2021 mortality rate due to “ill-defined and unknown causes.”

The data, published on June 30 by Service Alberta, ranks the 30 most common causes of death in the province last year.

For the first time in the past twenty years, the category of “ill-defined and unknown causes of mortality” was the number one cause of death in 2021, resulting in a total 3,362 deaths, up from 1,464 in 2020, and 522 the year before that.

The unknown cause of death category emerged on the list in 2019, previously it had not been included in the ranking list dating back to 2001.

Dr. Daniel Gregson, an associate professor specializing in infectious diseases and microbiology at the University of Calgary, told CTV News that the reasons behind the emergence of the unknown causes of death category last year are “probably multifactorial.”

He said those factors may include a lack of medical resources to determine the cause of death, delayed access to healthcare services, and post-COVID complications.

Identified cases of COVID-19 are ranked as the third leading cause of death in Alberta in 2021 with 1,950 deaths—a jump from 1,084 in 2020 when the pandemic began.

From 2015 to 2020, organic dementia was listed as the leading cause of death in Alberta with chronic ischemic heart disease the dominant cause from 2001 to 2014.

In 2021, organic dementia came in second, contributing to 2,135 deaths, while chronic ischemic heart disease ranked fourth with 1,939.

Among the other top causes of death listed were: malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung (1,552), acute myocardial infarction (1,075), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1,028), diabetes mellitus (728), stroke (612), and accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other substances (604). [MORE]

2022 Genesis Prize was Awarded to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for His Effort to Create Human Dependency on Deadly "Vaccines" which cause the Undetected, Slow Motion Extermination of Undesired Populations

From [HERE] The Genesis Foundation announced in January that the winner of its annual prize for 2022 was Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, which produced a COVID-19 vaccine that has been used by Israel and other countries around the world to inoculate their populations against the coronavirus.

The Genesis Prize honors individuals who serve as an inspiration to the next generation of Jews through their outstanding professional achievement and commitment to Jewish values and the Jewish people.

Bourla received the highest number of votes in a recent global vote in which more than 200,000 people from 71 countries participated. His nomination as prize laureate was then unanimously approved by the Genesis Foundation selection committee, the foundation said in a statement.

The committee commended Bourla “for his leadership, determination, and especially for his willingness to assume great risks.”

“Unlike CEOs of most other major companies working on developing COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Bourla declined billions of dollars in US federal subsidies in order to avoid government bureaucracy and expedite development and production of the vaccine,” the statement said. “As a result, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine was ready in record time: months instead of years.”

The foundation also noted “Dr. Bourla’s pride in his Jewish identity and heritage, his commitment to Jewish values and his support for the State of Israel.”

President Isaac Herzog will present Bourla with the $1 million prize at a ceremony in Israel to be held on June 29.

An Israeli health worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a child at the Clalit Health Services in the central Israeli city of Modiin on January 2, 2022. (Photo by GIL COHEN-MAGEN / AFP)

Winners customarily donate the prize to a philanthropic cause and Bourla has asked that the money go toward preserving the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, “with a particular emphasis on the tragedy suffered by the Greek Jewish community,” the statement said.

Born in Thessaloniki, Greece, Bourla grew up as the child of Holocaust survivors.

“I did not set out to live a public life, and I never could have imagined that I might one day receive the profound honor of the Genesis Prize and stand alongside my extraordinary fellow nominees,” Bourla was quoted as saying in the statement. “I accept it humbly and on behalf of all my Pfizer colleagues who answered the urgent call of history these past two years and together bent the arc of our common destiny.”

“I was brought up in a Jewish family who believed that each of us is only as strong as the bonds of our community; and that we are all called upon by God to repair the world,” Bourla said, referring to a central tenet in Judaism of perfecting the world. “I look forward to being in Jerusalem to accept this honor in person, which symbolizes the triumph of science and a great hope for our future.”

The prize is usually awarded in Jerusalem each June at a dinner attended by the prime minister. But the ceremony has been called off the past two years due to the pandemic.

Genesis Foundation CEO Stan Polovets praised Bourla, saying he “personifies two of the most fundamental Jewish values: the commitment to the sanctity of life and to repairing the world.”

“Millions of people are alive and healthy because of what Dr. Bourla and his team at Pfizer have accomplished,” Polovets said, adding that it was a “proud moment not just for the winner but for the entire Jewish community.

“A people so small in number are having such an outsized impact on this global effort to save lives,” Polovets said.

Other candidates on a short list to win the prize, often referred to as the “Jewish Noble,” were actor, producer, director and activist Sacha Baron Cohen; fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg; philosopher and author Yuval Noah Harari; actress and activist Scarlett Johansson; and human rights activist and Nazi-hunter Serge Klarsfeld.

Previous winners of the Genesis Prize include artist Anish Kapoor, violinist Itzhak Perlman, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and actor-director Michael Douglas. In 2018, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received a lifetime achievement award from the foundation. [MORE]

Massive 2022 Drop In Births: Germany -14%, Greece -12%, Hungary & Finland -11%, UK -9% & Much More

Official Government Reports, Confidential Pfizer Documents & the Cost of Living Crisis Prove Your Government is Trying to Kill you and Depopulate the Planet

From [EXPOSE] In 1993 a book was published by a former spy of the MI6 named Dr John Coleman. In that book, Dr Coleman wrote the following – 

“At least 4 billion “useless eaters” shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars, organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting diseases and starvation. Energy, food and water shall be kept at subsistence levels for the non-elite, starting with the White populations of Western Europe and North America and then spreading to other races. 

The population of Canada, Western Europe and the United States will be decimated more rapidly than on other continents, until the world’s population reaches a manageable level of 1 billion, of which 500 million will consist of Chinese and Japanese races, selected because they are people who have been regimented for centuries and who are accustomed to obeying authority without question.”

Many people would most likely disregard the above claims as “tinfoil hat nonsense”. 

But unfortunately, official Government data, confidential Pfizer documents, and real-world events such as the current cost of living crisis, the alleged impending climate change disaster, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the ongoing development of Artificial Intelligence, strongly suggest that there exists an agenda to depopulate the world, and your Government is, in essence, attempting to kill you.

We are now living in a world where Governments and Institiutions are telling us we are in a race to to prevent a “disastrous” increase in global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions. 

The vast majority of those greenhouse gas emissions are Carbon dioxide (CO2). A gas that every single human being on the planet produces every single time they exhale. 

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. 

This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7% of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

Therefore, if we’re to believe the tightly controlled and censored narrative around climate change, human beings are one of the biggest contributors to it by simply just being alive. 

So, therefore, if the “elite” wanted to save the planet, a good start would be to reduce the world’s population which would, in turn, reduce the carbon dioxide produced naturally by humans breathing, and reduce the amount of fossil fuels required to sustain a person’s quality of life. 

But what if we’re being lied to about the impending climate change doom that now litters every News channel? Why would the so-called “elite” be so eager to reduce the world’s population then?

Well, we only need to look to the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence to realise that humans aren’t really needed as much as they used to be in order to keep the rich, rich. And pretty soon they may no longer be needed at all. 

If you can’t see that you pretty much living in a slave system designed to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor, then you’ve been living your life with your head in the sand. 

Nobody ever gets rich working 9 to 5, but millions are trained to believe that this is what you should aim to do when you grow up. Granted, you can start your own business and have others slave away for you, but even then the “taxman” comes to make sure you have to keep up the endless routine of sleep, work, repeat for another year. Or if you’re extremely successful one of the large corporations will come knocking to buy you out. 

The system is rigged.

Another example is how no matter how much your earnings increase throughout the years, your outgoings will remain relative to or surpass that increase. 

Take the cost of a house for example. For most people, the mortgage or rent alone will take a huge chunk of their wages, and it’s a cost that rises by the year. Is it because houses actually cost that much? Or is it because the system’s designed to ensure that most will never be able to break free from the life of slavery they have been indoctrinated to accept?

For centuries the “elite” have needed you to accept and remain trapped in the system to essentially make them rich. But now they don’t need you, because they have developed technology, robotics and Artificial Intelligence that can do the job for them, and this technology is now more advanced than most people realise. 

One day soon there will be no jobs for millions of people. In effect rendering millions to be known as “useless eaters”. 

This means the world is at a crossroads, and the elite has two choices. They sustain millions or even billions of people with financial support and help to ensure they survive and live quality lives. Or, they set about to depopulate the world.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests they chose the depopulation route a while ago, and their plan to do so is already in motion. 

Here are just a few of the things the “elite” have done and are doing in order to depopulate the world. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Killing the Elderly & Vulnerable

In March 2020 the British people were told that they must “stay at home” in order to “protect the NHS” and “save lives”. They were also told that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”. This was allegedly because of the threat of a new and emerging virus which we’re told originated in the city of Wuhan, China.

But evidence suggests the Covid-19 pandemic was in fact an exaggerated lie. A lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19. A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory. A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam.

Serious illness in Covid-19 allegedly presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

While midazolam (think diazepam on steroids) can cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.

UK regulators state that you should only receive midazolam in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops.

Knowing that would you use midazolam to treat people who were suffering pneumonia and respiratory insufficiency allegedly due to Covid-19?

Because that’s precisely what they did in the UK, and they administered it by the truckload in care homes. 

In March 2020, the UK Department of Health & Social Care purchased a two-year supply of midazolam and was looking to purchase more (source). And they certainly made use of it.

According to official data in April 2019 up to 21,977 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 171,952 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. However in April 2020 45,033 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 333,229 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. 

That is a 104.91% increase in the number of prescriptions issued for Midazolam and a 93.85% increase in the number of items they contained. 

But these weren’t issued in hospitals, they were issued by GP practices. This means they were administered to the elderly and vulnerable who had been released from hospital under the instruction of then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and into understaffed and overwhelmed care homes. 

According to the UK’s Office for National Statistics, three in every five Covid-19 deaths occurred in those who suffered learning difficulties and disabilities (see here).

Do you really believe there’s a virus so clever that it knows to only kill people who are disabled or have learning difficulties?

In relation to deaths of people with learning difficulties the ONS said – ‘the largest effect was associated with living in a care home or other communal establishment.‘

Having a learning difficulty and being in care doesn’t mean you are more likely to die of Covid-19. What it means is that you are much more likely to have a DNR order placed on you without informing yourself or your family, which Carers / NHS staff then use as permission to put you on end-of-life care, which involves the administration of Midazolam.

The evidence for this is vast, and you can read a full investigation exposing the Midazolam scandal in the UK here. 

Covid-19 Vaccination: Infertility & Genocide

Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead mass depopulation on top of the thousands it has already killed. 

The latest reports released by medicine regulators around the world reveal that there have been at least 7.3 million injuries reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections up to late May and early June 2022, including 77,068 deaths (source).

However, these horrific figures do not illustrate the true nature of the consequences of Covid-19 vaccination because it is estimated by medicine regulators that just 1 to 10% of adverse events are actually reported.

But something much more sinister is occurring with these experimental injections, and the evidence can all be found in both official Government data and the confidential documents the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay publishing by 75 years but has been forced to publish by court order. 

In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1stJune 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal 90% of Covid Vaccinated Pregnant Women lost their Baby

Pfizer state in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.

Forty-six percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.

Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.[MORE]

Puppetician Biden Pledges $9B More to Pfizer for COVID Shots. All Doses Continue to be Distributed as Emergency Use (Not FDA Approved) Enabling Legal Immunity for Any Injury Caused by the Injections

The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines.  That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine.  (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.)  So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity.  Said immunity also shields doctors, hospitals and any other persons who administer or coerce people to take deadly COVID injections.

And it gets even worse.  These companies are even immune for – hold your breath – willful misconduct.  That may sound crazy, but it is shockingly true.  You can only sue them for willful misconduct if the federal government first sues them for such conduct.  (See Note 2 below to read the law yourself.)  And what are the odds the federal government will do so after wildly promoting the vaccine?  About as likely as the FDA ever admitting they promoted a vaccine that caused widespread harm. [MORE]

From [HERE] Is there any more doubt that the COVID-19 plandemic, which was used to transfer America’s wealth to Big Pharma with literally TRILLIONS of taxpayer funds transferred into their accounts, has now allowed Pfizer to have complete control of the country by buying the White House and President of the United States?

It began with fellow billionaire Donald Trump, of course, in 2020 who strong-armed the FDA into giving fast-track emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Then Biden was installed as President and kept the coffers full, and now that 80% of Americans have already received a COVID-19 vaccine and demand is waning, with 98 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine currently sitting unused due to lack of demand, the call was put in to Joe this week to keep the faucet running, and the White House obliged and pledged another $9 BILLION for 300 million more doses of the deadly COVID-19 shots.

Trump and Biden might disagree on a lot of things, but Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines ain’t one of them. (Bitchute channel.)

The top three firms who hold the most stock in Pfizer are Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street (source), and there probably are very few investment firms who do NOT own some Pfizer stock, so when you see officials with the FDA, CDC, and others promoting Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, they are probably all shareholders and cashing in, as are most members of Congress (unfortunately, these records at opensecrets.org only go through 2018; it would be interesting to see from 2020 and later.)

Pfizer is already swimming in record profits, but that hasn’t stopped the drug company from gouging the American taxpayer for every last dollar.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration signed off on a new vaccine supply deal with Pfizer for $3.2 billion for 105 million COVID injections, but that’s only for the first batch of mRNA shots. The contract will generate well over $9 billion for Pfizer, as this latest purchase agreement tops off at 300 million doses. Compared to previous settlements with Pfizer, this public-private no-bid arrangement will come at a much higher cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The Biden Administration has justified the deal by claiming that it needs to restock supply to prepare for seasonal spikes. The data does not support such a claim. According to the CDC, almost 100 million taxpayer-funded Pfizer shots (and 169 million total shots) have gone unused, resulting in billions of dollars in waste.

The new arrangement allows for the Biden Administration to buy Pfizer’s authorization-pending COVID injections, which the company claims is reformulated for newer variants.

However, even the new formulation is already outdated. It was designed and trialed for an Omicron subvariant (BA.1) that was popular last Winter, but no longer exists in circulation, potentially rendering it just as useless as the Wuhan strain shot. The deal includes the infant and toddler formulations, which are based on the non-existent Wuhan strain.

None of the shots for this deal will be supplied under an FDA approved label. Instead, they will be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer has never deployed its FDA-approved vaccine in the United States. The company recently acknowledged that it never intends on producing its original FDA approved vaccines.

The original deal with Pfizer was negotiated by the Trump Administration during the days of Operation Warpspeed. It paid the pharma giant $19.50 a dose. The new pact gives Pfizer $30.48 per dose, resulting in an astronomical 56% hike from the deal negotiated by the last administration.

The price hike conflicts with the probability that Pfizer’s costs are likely much lower than they were with the original purchase order. The infant and child shots have a fraction of the active agreement as the adult supply, and each vial stores more doses . Moreover, Pfizer has added an ingredient to the formula that allows for a significant shelf life extension, making the logistics much more cost effective.

Pfizer’s margins were already through the roof prior to the Wednesday announcement.

Pfizer’s May earnings report showed that the company logged a record breaking $26 billion in Q1 sales, marking a quarterly profit of $7.86 billion. Revenue was up 77% from 2021, while profit was up 61%. Now absorb these 2022 numbers in the context of Pfizer’s 2021 revenue outperforming its 2020 revenue by 95%.

Before the new vaccine purchase order, Pfizer was already on track to bring in over $100 billion in revenue and $32 billion in net income this year. In financial statements, the company has acknowledged that it has transformed itself into a COVID-19-driven business. All of its new income is coming from the American taxpayer and other government “customers” via their taxpayers, who have virtually no say in the matter. [MORE]

Judge Orders the Government of Uruguay and Pfizer to Turn Over Documents as Court Considers Request to Halt COVID Injections for Kids

From [CHD] Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer on Wednesday appeared in court after a judge gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considers an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.

Judge Alejandro Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.

According to a court order released on Saturday, Judge Recarey ordered Pfizer and government officials to:

• Provide full and unredacted, certified copies of “each and every one of the purchase contracts (as well as any other related negotiation agreement), of the so-called anti-COVID vaccines that you have signed, own or are simply within your reach.”

• Explain whether “these instruments” contain clauses of “civil indemnity and/or criminal impunity of the suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects.”

• Provide extensive detail about the biochemical composition of “so-called vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in supply to the national population, especially the one aimed at children.”

• Explain if the “different doses are distributed in batches or differential (different) items,” and if so, “clarify for what reason, and based on what criteria, each would be provided to different population levels, whether the drugs in each batch are diverse by their content and how and for whom they would be distinguishable. If it “turns out to be the real existence of different lots,” doses of each are “requested for judicial expert examination.”

• Specify if the “so-called vaccines” contain messenger RNA by explaining, if necessary, what that means. Explain what “therapeutic or extra therapeutic consequences — adverse or not — [mRNA] can have for the person inoculated with it. It must be specified with regard to the latter, and in a negative hypothesis in terms of alleged damages, if there is indeed — with scientific rigor — the possible safety of the messenger RNA, or if there is simply a lack of information on the point.”

• State “very specifically and beyond what has been inquired, it is requested that it be said if it is known to you that those labeled as vaccines contain or may contain nanotechnological elements. Clarifying, if not, whether such a temperament would arise from an effective verification of its absence, or from mere ignorance of the components of the referred ‘vaccinal’ substances.”

• Certify whether the substances contained in the “so-called vaccines” supplied in Uruguay are experimental or not. That is, “explain in full and detail whether they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or equivalent body, according to the usual protocols, or if they have some other type of emergency permission.” If this is the case, explain “granted by whom and with what guarantees and based on what regulations.”

In short, you “must also respond if you are aware that either the manufacturer and/or supplier, or any academic or governmental body (domestic or foreign), have admitted — in any way that may be — the experimental nature of the aforementioned vaccines.”

• Present complete and up-to-date information in your possession about “what is scientifically known — and what is not known — about the effectiveness of those labeled as vaccines” and their possible short, medium and long-term adverse effects.

• “Provide official figures that demonstrate the negative or positive incidence of so-called vaccination in the number of infections and deaths diagnosed with COVID from the beginning of the campaign to date.”

• State whether “studies have been carried out to explain the noticeable increase in deaths for COVID-19 since March 2021 or if information is in your possession — with sufficient scientific support and evidence — about it.”

• Provide information on the total number of deaths in Uruguay due to COVID-19 since the beginning of the “so-called pandemic,” the global average age and how many were for “COVID-19 in an exclusive causal relationship” and how many were “with COVID-19” — that is, with the presence of the virus, but was not the main cause of death.

• “Demonstrate scientifically — with evidence of national or international studies that have been done — whether the status of non-vaccinated poses a health hazard to the entire population or third parties.“

If it is the case, two other things will be required: the determination and demonstration of the degree of danger, and the reason that explains why, if this were eventually the case,” vaccination would not have been mandated. Prove whether both the vaccinated and unvaccinated infect equally. If they do not, explain what this would be like and in what proportions — and prove what is stated.

• Clarify the reasons for the “lack of preview informed consent, in relation to the act components of what the government itself presents as a vaccination campaign.”

• “Detail, with first and last names, the identity of the professional technicians who have directed and direct the aforementioned campaign, or anyone who has provided advice at any level.”

Also provide relevant data for their location “for their judicial interrogation, adding to the required information, data about whether any of them are part of any foreign governmental or para governmental organization, or they have worked for one of them in any way, or, where appropriate, manage in a multinational company” focused on healthcare. “Detail, if necessary, the personal names and organizations or companies involved.”

• Explain if alternative therapies for COVID-19 have been studied for any variants. If not, clarify why those were not explored. “If positive, give the research results — giving an account of whether those were used in Uruguay or not.”

For the latter option, provide the reasons that would have been taken to discard the use of alternative therapies, adding whether or not “you know that they have been used in other countries successfully, still relative, or not.”

The order also required Pfizer to state within 48 hours whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.

“I applaud Uruguayan judge Recarey for posing many tough questions to Pfizer over its COVID shots and the contracts it imposed on Uruguay,” Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender in an email.

“From the beginning, Pfizer has hidden its data and liability-free contracts to avoid liability from the shots,” Holland said.

She explained:

“Many countries, including those in Latin America, have relied on U.S. regulatory agencies in the past to guide health policy. But the U.S. regulatory bodies have failed regarding COVID.

“There is no scientific or ethical justification to authorize COVID shots for children, as some countries, including Denmark, now acknowledge. We know that children are at almost zero risk of dying from COVID. The FDA has extended Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while illegitimately ‘approving’ Comirnaty, thus engaging in a fraudulent ‘bait-and-switch’ scheme to avoid all liability while hawking ‘approved’ vaccines.”

Holland said CHD is currently pursuing two lawsuits against the FDA for its arbitrary and capricious decisions on COVID-19 shots, and she is “pleased to see that other countries are stepping into the scientific and legal breach.”

“I hope Pfizer complies with the judge’s order, but given its long criminal rap sheet, it remains to be seen,” Holland added.

Although Judge Racarey took it upon himself to review data presented by Pfizer and government officials on COVID-19 vaccines, Uruguay is one of 47 co-sponsoring countries that agreed to the Biden administration’s amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2005 International Health Agreements that attempted to place member states’ health sovereignty in the hands of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and its regional directors. [MORE]

76 UK Doctors Sign Open Letter to Government Warning Against COVID Injections

From [HERE] A group of 76 physicians have penned an open letter to Her Majesty’s government warning against following in the footsteps of the United States, whose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. 

The letter, posted by world-renowned scientist Dr. Robert Malone, began by saying that the “balance of benefit and risk” in administering the vaccine to small children is “totally inappropriate”, citing the very low risk and very high immunity young children have. 

Then the physicians attacked Pfizer’s documentation used to convince the FDA to allow small children to be vaccinated. 

To begin with, “the protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.” 

Second, no statistical significance was found between the placebo groups and vaccinated groups, and the results were based on only three participants in the younger age group, and seven in the 2-4-year-olds. 

Third, the calculated vaccine efficacy is only 15%. 

The letter also added that in the immunogenicity studies against Omicron, only 66 children were tested a full month after the third dose. 

“It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children,” wrote the physicians. They highlighted other gaps in Pfizer’s research, and noted that countries like Sweden, Holland and Norway are not injecting small children who have had COVID-19. 

The meticulously sourced letter cited several studies and data to build a case based on a) the extremely low risk from COVID-19 in young children; b) the vaccine’s low efficacy; c) the potential harms of the vaccines, drawing data from Pfizer’s own study; d) the lack of informed consent which “borders on misinformation”; and e) the effect on public confidence when the government pushes a COVID-19 vaccine instead of those “against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles.” 

“Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.” 

Furthermore, the “poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer” risks undermining public confidence in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. 

The physicians also took a swipe at the vaccine for older children: 

“In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.” 

“For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses,” the letter concluded. “Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.” 

A Curated List of 750 Studies On the Dangers of COVID-19 Injections

'NO ANSWERS, JUST LIES.' 6 Year Old Black Child Severely Injured After Getting COVID Injection. Diagnosed with Myocarditis. Docs Recommended the Shot, Said it was "Safe," Now Refuse to Discuss it

From [HERE] Kyle Beattie has shared this extensive curated list of literature references on COVID-19 “vaccine” adverse effects from 2021 and early 2022.

It can be downloaded [PDF] or seen here or here

Not on this list is Kyle’s own study, which however is very important and illuminating nevertheless:

Beattie, K.A. (2021) Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of145 Countries. ResearchGate (preprint) https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34214.65605

Kyle’s study shows that in the vast majority of countries that deployed the gene-based vaccines, all cause mortality increased promptly and significantly.

Dr Palmer: mRNA Vaccines Don’t Stay at the Injection Site and Quickly Exit the Body. It Spreads to Organs, Causes the Immune System to Attack Blood Cells. Remains in the Body and is Copied into DNA

From [HERE] Dr. Michael Palmer, MD, summarizes the evidence from autopsies which was produced by pathologist Prof. Arne Burkhardt and colleagues, and which substantiates the damage mechanism outlined by Dr. Bhakdi in his preceding talk: the mRNA vaccine is taken up into our body cells, which express the spike protein and are then attacked and destroyed by our own immune system. The observed mechanism of immune attack appears to be completely general and must be expected to apply to future mRNA vaccines against infections other than COVID as well.

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi: Whether COVID Shots are Stopped or Not, the Introduction of mRNA Injectables for Routine Use as Conventional Vaccines Will Destroy People’s Immune Systems, Causing Mass Murder

mRNA vaccines pose a serious threat to mankind From [HERE] To open the symposium, Immunologist and Former Chair at the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD, explained how and why mRNA injections pose a mortal danger to their recipients, irrespective of the disease for which they are deployed. He called the decision to use the deadly COVID spike protein for the first mRNA rollout a uniquely brilliant tactic, under which the inherent dangers of mRNA technology can hide.

The reality, Dr Bhakdi explained, is that mRNA technology – spike protein or not – perverts the genetic functioning of the body’s cells by instructing them to produce disease fragments. This transforms our own cells and tissues from ‘self’ into ‘non-self’, inviting the immune system to attack. It is a recipe for medical disaster that turns the body against itself. Dr Bhakdi called the plan to roll out the underlying mRNA technology from COVID-19 to conventional vaccines:

“The greatest conceivable man-made catastrophe of all time… Routine introduction of gene-based vaccines spells the downfall of man and mankind.”

Birth Rates Dropping in Multiple Countries Following Mass COVID Injection Rollout Last Year

GERMANY

From [Kanekoa] Germany reported a 13% decline in births between January and March 2022 compared to the same period in 2021.

The United Kingdom reported a 7.7% decline in births with 75,670 births between January and February 2022 compared to 82,042 births during the same period in 2021.

In Switzerland, birth rates have also plummeted since the introduction of the covid vaccines.

Taiwan reported a 23.2% decline in births in May 2022 compared to the same month in 2021.

Igor Chudov, the author of a popular covid newsletter wrote, “When expressed in “sigmas”, units of standard deviation, the 23.24% drop in the birth rate in Taiwan is a 26-sigma event! This is can be described as “unimaginable” in terms of the likelihood of happening due to random chance.”

Sweden

Sweden, without lockdown and school closures, reported a 6.6% decline with 35,454 births between January and April 2022 compared to 37,950 births during the same period in 2021.

The decline in birth rates is 6.9% for that same time period when compared to the average of 2019-2021.

Netherlands

Netherlands reported a 6.3% decline with 53,090 births between January and April 2022 compared to 56,671 births during the same period in 2021.

In conclusion, data from around the world shows a substantial monthly decrease in birth rates from January 2022 to April 2022 compared to previous years.

Biodistribution studies show that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine lipid nanoparticles do end up in the ovaries and testes and subsequent studies have shown that covid-19 and covid vaccines lower sperm counts. [MORE]

COVID Shots Are Driving Reinfections: Pfizer’s pediatric trial revealed the shots raise the risk of Reinfection. Moderna’s trial suggests the shots make adults more prone to repeat COVID infections

From [MERCOLA] STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• COVID-19 is more than twice as prevalent among the boosted, compared to those who quit after the initial series. Those with a primary series plus one or two booster shots are catching the infection at a rate of 119.94 per 100,000, while those with the primary series only have an infection rate of 56.44 per 100,000

• Pfizer’s pediatric trial reveals the shots raise, rather than lower, the risk of reinfection (meaning catching COVID more than once). In all, 12 of the children in Pfizer’s trial were diagnosed with COVID twice within the follow-up period (one to four months). Of those, 11 had received two or three jabs; only one unvaccinated child got COVID twice

• Data from Moderna’s trial also suggest the shot makes adults more prone to repeat COVID infections, thanks to an inhibited antibody response

• In Pfizer’s pediatric trial, six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, the shot may actually cause more severe infection in young children

• In mid-June 2022, Israel experienced a sudden 70% spike in seriously ill COVID patients. The spike is being blamed on a new variant mutated from Omicron, referred to as BA.5., which is thought to be more resistant to vaccines than previous strains

Believe it or not, we’re now at the point where even mainstream media are reporting that COVID-19 is more prevalent among the boosted, compared to those who quit after the initial series. That doesn’t mean that sanity is returning; it’s just interesting that they’re not able to ignore it completely, even though their efforts to rationalize it teeter on the verge of lunacy. June 6, 2022, CBS News reported:1

“As COVID-19 cases began to accelerate again this spring, federal data suggests the rate of breakthrough COVID infections in April was worse in boosted Americans compared to unboosted Americans ...

Meanwhile, federal officials are also preparing for key decisions on future COVID-19 vaccine shots ... In the short term, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recently told reporters that her agency was in talks with the Food and Drug Administration about extending the option for second boosters to more adults.”

If Walensky’s logic makes your brain feel like it’s been beat with a meat mallet, you’re not alone. It’s so beyond irrational as to be inexplicable. If boosters make you more prone to infection, is giving boosters to more people really the prudent answer?

Three Doses Makes You More Infection-Prone Than Two

Overall, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new COVID dashboard2 show boosted Americans are catching COVID at nearly twice the rate of the unboosted — a statistic John Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, attributes to the boosted feeling “more protected than they actually are,” and therefore taking fewer precautions.3

Considering we know that masks, social distancing and lockdowns don’t work to prevent infection spread, Moore’s explanation is flimsy at best. It’s far more reasonable to conclude that the COVID injections are the problem.

According to the CDC, the unvaccinated still account for a majority of positive COVID tests, at a rate of 188.2 per 100,000 as of April 23, 2022. Those with a primary series plus one or two booster shots are catching the infection at a rate of 119.94 per 100,000, while those with the primary series clock in at a rate of 56.44 per 100,000.

Of course, CBS is careful to note that “The new data do not mean booster shots are somehow increasing the risk” of COVID, but rather that “the shift underscores the growing complexity of measuring vaccine effectiveness at this stage of the pandemic.”4

CBS also misleadingly claims that while the boosted have more than double the rate of infections of the unboosted, it’s still “but a fraction of the levels among unvaccinated Americans.” However, 120 (rounded up from 119.94) is hardly “but a fraction” of 188. At 64% of the unvaccinated rate, using the term “a fraction of” seems like an intentional attempt to downplay just how common COVID is getting among the boosted.

COVID Jab Also Causes Repeat Reinfections

In related news, Pfizer’s pediatric trial reveals the shots raise rather than lower the risk of reinfection (meaning catching COVID more than once).

In his Substack article,5 “Finally Proven: Pfizer Vaccine Causes COVID Reinfection, Disables Natural Immunity,” Igor Chudov — a businessman and mathematician6 — points to the black-and-white data on page 38 of the documentation7 submitted to the FDA for its COVID jab Emergency Use Authorization request for use in children 6 months through 4 years of age. Here’s a screen shot with Chudov’s markings and notes:

In all, 12 of the children in Pfizer’s trial were diagnosed with COVID twice within the follow-up period, which ranged from one to four months. Of those, 11 had received two or three jabs; only one child in the placebo (unvaccinated) group got COVID twice.

“So, what caused vaccinated children to develop a disproportionate amount of repeat infections? The vaccine, of course. It’s a randomized controlled trial, after all,” Chudov writes.8

“Thanks to Pfizer, we finally know that COVID reinfections are real and that their vaccine causes them by disabling natural immunity. A little caveat is that Pfizer made the trial purposely complicated (because it is a resuscitated FAILED trial where they added one more booster dose and more kids).

Pfizer vaccinated the control group. This complication somewhat affects the 6-23-month age category, but still shows obvious vaccine failure. The 2-4-year-old group is much less complicated: all reinfections happened in the vaccinated participants, five of six were from the first-vaccinated group.

‘All of these participants received 3 doses of assigned study intervention, except for one participant ... who received two doses.’ We have a smoking gun that reinfections are vaccine driven.”

This post-jab reinfection anomaly has also been stressed by Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist,9 who reviewed some of the most damning data from Pfizer’s pediatric trial in a recent video (below).

Moderna Data Also Show Repeated Infections Are Likely

Data from Moderna’s trial also suggest the shot makes adults more prone to repeat infections, thanks to an inhibited antibody response. A preprint study10 11 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, found adult participants in Moderna’s trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.

Placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of their inhibited antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections.

These findings are further corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report12 13 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections indeed have lower levels of these antibodies.

Pfizer’s Data Do Not Support Use in Children

Another crucial piece of information that Craig highlights in her video is that of the 4,526 children enrolled in the trial, a whopping 3,000 dropped out. Pfizer does not explain this highly suspicious anomaly. Oftentimes, trial participants will drop out when side effects are too severe for them to continue.

Drug companies will also sometimes exclude participants who develop side effects they’d rather not divulge. This is one of those nasty loopholes that can skew results. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Pfizer’s pediatric trial data also show that:

• Six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, the likelihood the shot is causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it’s preventing it.

• The only child who required hospitalization for COVID was also in the “vaccinated” group.

• In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 of the children in the vaccinated group and 13 of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. That means the children’s risk of developing symptoms of COVID within the first three weeks of the first dose actually increased by 30%. These data were ignored.

  Between doses two and three, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too was ignored. After the third dose, incidence of COVID was again raised in the vaccine group, and this was ignored as well.

  In the end, they only counted three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They literally ignored 97% of all the COVID cases that occurred during the trial to conclude that the shots were “effective” in preventing COVID.

More Evidence of Vaccine Failure

There’s really no shortage of evidence indicating the COVID shots are a complete failure and should be stopped immediately. One example I haven’t reviewed in previous articles is the difference between Portugal and Bulgaria.In his article, Chudov14 presents the following graph from Our World in Data, which shows the rate of new COVID cases in these two countries. The vaccination rate in Portugal is 95%, whereas Bulgaria’s is 30%. Guess which country has the higher COVID case rate? The graph speaks for itself.

In mid-June 2022, The Times of Israel also reported15 a sudden 70% spike in seriously ill COVID patients from one week to the next. According to Reuters’ COVID data tracker,16 Israel has administered enough doses to vaccinate 100.4% of its population with two doses, so it has one of the highest vaccine uptake rates in the world.

“Despite a significant increase in antibodies after the fourth vaccine, this protection is only partially effective against the Omicron strain, which is relatively resistant to the vaccine.” ~ Professor Gili Regev-Yochay

In mid-January 2022, Israel reported17 a fourth dose (second booster) was “only partially effective” against Omicron. Lead researcher, professor Gili Regev-Yochay, told reporters, “Despite a significant increase in antibodies after the fourth vaccine, this protection is only partially effective against the Omicron strain, which is relatively resistant to the vaccine.”

The latest spikes in both Israel and Portugal are being blamed on a new variant mutated from Omicron, referred to as BA.5.18 According to The Times of Israel,19coronavirus czar Dr. Salman Zarka said “the new variant BA.5 is quickly gaining traction and is more resistant to vaccines than previous strains.” So, what’s Israel’s answer? More shots to encourage “herd immunity” and more mask wearing.

Natural Immunity Versus the COVID Jab

An analysis of the Omicron wave in Qatar is also illustrative of vaccine failure. June 21, 2022, The Epoch Times reported20 on the study,21 published the week before in the New England Journal of Medicine. In summary:

• People with previous infection (natural immunity) and no COVID jab had 50.2% immunity against symptomatic BA.1 infection (a subvariant of Omicron) for at least 324 days. Against the BA.2 variant, natural immunity was 46.1%

• People with no previous infection (no natural immunity) who got two doses of the Pfizer shot had immunity against BA.1 infection ranging from −16.4% on the low end to 5.4% on the high end on day 268 after the last dose. The average was -4.9%. Against the BA.2 variant, immunity was -1.1% on average. Most entered the negative ranges around the six-month mark

• The effectiveness of three doses and no previous infection against BA.1 was 59.6%, which persisted for at least 42 days (the extent of the follow-up). Against BA.2, immunity topped out at 52.2%

Though the authors’ conclusion was that there were “No discernable differences in protection” between vaccination and natural immunity, ask yourself which you would rather have: 50% immunity for at least 10 months, or 50% immunity for about six months followed by an increased risk of infection (negative protection) thereafter?

Clearly, if your goal is to avoid infection, you would avoid anything that will — immediately or in the future — raise your risk. Yet, in the upside-down world we now find us in, the answer continues to be: “Get another shot.”

As discussed in “FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression,” Pfizer’s trial data also reveal they’ve not ruled out the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement, and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is listed22 as an “Important Potential Risk.” (ADE and VAED are two terms that basically refer to the same thing — worsened disease post-injection.)

So, not only are you at increased risk of COVID infection, and repeated reinfections, if you get the jab — especially if you get boosted — but you may also experience more severe illness, which is the opposite of what anyone would want. U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:23

• Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19

• Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19

• Three times more likely to die of COVID-19

Final Thoughts

In closing, it’s clear there are no long-term benefits to the COVID jabs, only risk. How much more data do we need before our health agencies snap to and start protecting public health?

I don’t have an answer to that question, seeing how nothing works the way it’s supposed to anymore. Our health agencies have been captured by the drug industry and have basically gone rogue. They ignore even the most basic rules and ethics nowadays.

Something will clearly need to be done about that, but until then, the best advice I have is to take control of your own health and make decisions based on actual data rather than corporate press releases.

If you’ve already taken one or more COVID jabs and now regret it, first, the most important step you can take is to not take any more shots. Next, if you suspect your health may have been impacted, check out the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) post-vaccine treatment protocol, I-RECOVER,24 which you can download from covid19criticalcare.com in several different languages.

Footnotes
1

CBS June 6, 2022

2

CDC COVID Dashboard

3

CBS June 6, 2022

4

CBS June 6, 2022

5

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

6

Igor.chudov.com

7

FDA VRBPAC June 15, 2022

8

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

9

Twitter Clare Craig

10

medRxiv April 19, 2022 DOI: 10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936

11

The Defender May 4, 2022

12

UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 13

13

The Defender May 4, 2022

14

Igor Chudov Substack June 19, 2022

15

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

16

Reuters COVID Data Tracker, Israel

17

Health Policy Watch January 17, 2022

18

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

19

Times of Israel June 17, 2022

20

Epoch Times June 21, 2022 (Archived)

21

NEJM June 15, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

22

5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5

23

Daily Expose April 3, 2022

24

FLCCC I-RECOVER Post-Vaccine Treatment Protocol (PDF)

A New Analysis of "Vaccine" Trial Data shows that Pfizer, Moderna Shots are More Likely to Cause Serious Injury Than Reduce Risk of COVID Related Hospitalization

By [Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.] A new analysis of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trial data shows the risk of serious injury following the vaccine is greater than the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations, according to a study posted June 23 on Social Science Research Network.

“Combining the trials, there was a 43% increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest and an absolute risk increase of 12.5 serious adverse events of special interest per 10,000 vaccinated participants,” the authors of the pre-print paper wrote.

Based on their findings, the authors called for a harm-benefit analysis of COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers — among them Peter Doshi, Ph.D., senior editor at The BMJ and associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy — concluded:

“A systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups. Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, well over a year after widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant-level data remain inaccessible.”

Doshi leads the Restoring Invisible & Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, which seeks to ensure clinical trial publications are accurate and complete, and data are publicly available.

The study’s other authors are:

• Robert Kaplan, Ph.D., who leads Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center and previously led the behavioral and social sciences programs at the National Institutes of Health and served as the chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.

• Dr. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., associate clinical professor of pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

• Sander Greenland, Ph.D., professor emeritus of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA who served as an advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Sciences.

• Mark Jones, Ph.D., associate professor of health sciences and medicine at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, as well as a biostatistician at Bond University in Robina, Australia.

• Juan Erviti, Ph.D. Pharm. D., qualified hospital pharmacist at Navarre Health Service, Spain.

• Dr. Joseph Fraiman, emergency medicine doctor at Louisiana State University’s Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center.

“This important study uses actual Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data to show that the risks of serious adverse events outweigh the benefits of these vaccines against COVID-19 hospitalization,” said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and associate professor of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.

“The public, and public health officials, need to immediately consider the implications of these study results,” Hooker added.

What the researchers did, and why

The researchers analyzed data from the clinical trials the FDA used as the basis for granting Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines “to investigate the association between FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and serious adverse events identified by the Brighton Collaboration.”

According to the researchers, the Brighton Collaboration in March 2020 created and later updated a priority list of “potential adverse events of special interest relevant to COVID-19 vaccine trials” in collaboration with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations partnership, Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines.

The priority list identified serious health events as being “adverse events of special interest for safety monitoring” (AESIs) if they met one or more of the following criteria:

• Known association with immunization or a specific vaccine platform.

• Occurrence during wild-type disease as a result of viral replication and/or immunopathogenesis.

• Theoretical association based on animal models.

The AESIs noted on this list included serious adverse events (SAEs) of the following types: cardiac, dermatologic, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hematologic, liver, kidney, multisystem inflammatory syndromes, musculoskeletal, neurologic, ocular, respiratory and pregnancy.

The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety endorsed the list as a safety monitoring tool and recommended AESIs be reported based on the list — yet no research using the list was conducted on randomized trial data to determine the association between vaccination and the occurrence of AESIs, according to the study authors.

For this reason, the authors of the study conducted an analysis of SAEs reported in the placebo-controlled, Phase 3 randomized clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427).

How they conducted the analysis

First, the team searched Pfizer and Moderna trial data on the FDA and Health Canada websites to locate SAE results tables for the trials.

Following regulatory norms, the two pharmaceutical companies used nearly identical definitions for what constituted a “serious” adverse event by deeming any adverse event to be an SAE if it resulted in any of the following conditions:

• Death

• Life-threatening at the time of the event

• Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization

• Persistent or significant disability/incapacity

• A congenital anomaly/birth defect

• Medically important event, based on medical judgment

Although Pfizer and Moderna were expected to follow participants for two years, within weeks of the FDA granting EUA of the vaccines, “the sponsors began a process of unblinding all participants who elected to be unblinded,” the authors said.

Additionally, participants who initially received the placebo were offered the vaccine.

“These self-selection processes may have introduced nonrandom differences between the vaccine and unvaccinated participants,” wrote the authors, “thus rendering the post-authorization data less reliable.”

To “preserve randomization,” the researchers used “the interim datasets that were the basis for emergency authorization in December 2020, approximately 4 months after trials commenced.”

Next, for each of these dataset trials, the researchers prepared blinded SAE tables — showing types of SAEs but not showing results data.

Then, two clinical reviewers used the tables to independently judge whether each SAE was an AESI.

Using statistical analyses, the team then calculated risk ratios and risk differences between the vaccine and placebo groups for the incidence of SAEs.

Finally, the researchers used a simple harm-benefit framework to place their results in context by comparing the risks of excess AESIs against reductions in serious complications of COVID-19.

What the results showed

The Pfizer trial reported a “36% higher risk of [SAEs] unrelated to COVID-19 in

175 vaccinated participants” compared with placebo recipients, the study’s authors reported.

“The Moderna trial reported a 5% higher risk of SAEs unrelated to COVID-19 in vaccinated individuals compared to those receiving placebo,” they wrote.

The researchers’ blind and independent review determined the majority of SAEs were AESIs — meaning most of these events were the type known to be of particular safety concern related to the COVID-19 vaccine.

The researchers’ findings contrast with Pfizer’s previous claim that nearly all SAEs during the vaccine trials were “not related” to the vaccine.

As The Defender reported, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents released June 1 by the FDA revealed numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials.

Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.

According to the study:

“In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000).

“In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).”

The authors noted limitations of their study, such as that their analysis used an existing dataset rather than recent data.

However, they noted, “Our analysis has an advantage over postmarketing observational studies in that the data are from blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trials vetted by the FDA, and uses the Brighton Collaboration AESI list, which was pre-specified, endorsed by WHO, and established well before the availability of the clinical trial results, and designed for use in COVID-19 vaccine trials.”

They also noted their results showing a heightened risk of AESIs in the vaccine group represented an average across the group.

“SAEs may not be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others.”

“Knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefits analysis,” they added

Francis Boyle: Elites on Both Sides Have More in Common w/Each Other than they Do w/Their Own People. Governments Mandated COVID Shots to Kill, Control and Profit Off Citizens [free range slaves]

As defined in FUNKTIONARY:

territorial gangsters – individuals (masquerading as “the State” so-called) who skillfully use fraud, coercion, and terror to claim “jurisdiction” (so-called) over their victims who happen to be in some geographic territory. Territorial gangsters brainwash their victims (the pixelated populace) so that they will work for them not only like slaves but actually as slaves. (See: Stationary Bandits, Statutory Oppression, Jurisdiction, Allegiance, Involuntary Servitude, Slave & Tyrant-Paradigm)

"Authority-" is not a force but a farce! "Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." —Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. "The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." —Stanley Milgram Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out "orders" Milgram states, "Thus there is a fragmentation of the totai human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society." At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed "authority." "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government." —Dr. Martin L. King. Jr.. 1967. Read "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram, and "Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. (See: Violence, Government. Yurugu, BOG. "The Law," Hierarchy. Obedience, Duty, Defiance, Disobedience, Compliance Priests, Preachers, Citizens, States, Involuntary Taxation, Tax Invasion, Behavior, Orders, Allegiance. Internal Revenue Service, Corporate State, Anarchy. Taxtortion, Power, Experts, Doggy & Neuropeans)