In the 1980s the FDA and Big Pharma literally conspired to push an expensive and deadly dose of AZT on AIDS patients while blocking cheap effective (yet far less profitable) medications and OTC supplements that were genuinely life saving. In doing so they killed hundreds of thousands, and Anthony Fauci was at the helm of those fatal decisions (exactly like he is now, blocking access to ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine while pushing the expensive & highly toxic Remdesivir). But somehow most of the population is under the impression that 35yrs later they’re suddenly more moral and less powerful. They are not. And they’re using the same playbook today, this time on billions of people.
The list of egregious acts health agencies and pharmaceutical companies collaborated on during the C19 crisis is not a short one.
They’ve inflated infection (case) rates and death risk for healthy adults and children. Published and promoted bad science to support their agenda, then colluded with social media to de-legitimize criticism & block open debate from senior scientists, doctors, and the public. They smeared and banned safe and effective over-the-counter medications & early treatments, then rushed to market vaccines that were insufficiently tested. They denied natural immunity exists (though it is a known medical fact that no vaccine in the world has ever protected better than natural immunity and even in their trials, Pfizer’s researchers saw that natural immunity was 100% effective protection when no cases of severe C19 were found in the natural immunity group), then fired all frontline healthcare workers who had natural immunity, leaving hospitals woefully understaffed in a pandemic. They lied about vaccine efficacy. They misclassified deaths by vaccine status. They fraudulently overestimated death rates in order to create more panic. They promoted the false notion that their “vaccines” create herd immunity, in order to pressure the public to “protect grandma”—knowing all along their mRNA jabs didn’t prevent infection or transmission. Nor are they effective at preventing hospitalizations. They recommended vaccination of vulnerable subpopulations (children and pregnant women) without ever testing these groups, and concealed & withheld crucial clinical trial data (and VAERS reports) from the medical community and public. Then they manipulate, slow walk, or outright hide data that defies their narrative. They convinced the world their decisions and edicts were based on “scientific consensus” when said “consensus” was attained through far reaching, illegal censorship and the demonizing of all dissenting voices.
True Case Rates & Infection Fatality Rates
The risks to adults and children were wildly overestimated. In response to a freedom of information request asking how many people under 50 died of C19 without any underlying health conditions, the Israel Ministry of Health answered "zero." Deaths occurred mainly in the elderly early in the “pandemic” due to pulmonary issues, which is to be expected from a respiratory borne illness. Public polls reveal most people were under the impression that exposure definitely led to infection and that infection had a 10-30% chance of killing them. The media did little to dispel these gross exaggerations and plenty to perpetuate them.
Actual childhood risk from C19 is effectively zero. In a meta-analysis combining data from 5 studies, Stanford researchers found a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.0027% in children ages 0-19. (More recent studies put it at 3 in 1,000,000). In children ages 5 to 11 the IFR is even lower. There is not one documented case of a healthy child dying from C19, though during the 1st year of the pandemic 170 children with comorbidities died with—not necessarily from—C19. (The flu kills around 200 children per year.) Depending on the study one looks at, C19 is slightly less dangerous or roughly equivalent to the flu in children.
Another study found IFR rates for all ages look like this:
0.0003% at 0-19 yrs
0.003% at 20-29 yrs
0.011% at 30-39 yrs
0.035% at 40-49 yrs
0.129% at 50-59 yrs
0.501% at 60-69 yrs
For all cohorts under 50, these IFR’s are far below the flu. A new Dutch study shows that people in their 30s and 40s have a risk from C19 almost too low to measure. For 50-59, the C19 IFR is comparable to flu (however a recent study shows that at a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been even lower, such as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively, and an even more recent study puts 20-29 at 0.002% and 50-59 at 0.123). Approximately 95% of C19 mortalities had multiple serious comorbidities and the average age of death was over average life expectancy. A full 85% of the at risk population was over age 75. Most deaths of all ages were with, not from, COVIID. Hospitals have finally admitted this little fact, yet the media’s scare mongering death statistics have yet to be corrected and the CDC now states there is no way to ever know how “off” those statistics are. Even with this massive conflation, C19 related deaths stand at just .084% of the world’s population—a far cry from anything previously considered a global pandemic. And almost no one under age 60 dies from just C19 alone (most of them have an average of 4 comorbidities).
Furthermore, case rates were exaggerated by mass testing of non-symptomatic (healthy) people, and largely based on tests with notoriously high false positive rates (a fact also recently admitted to, yet without any correction in the inflated statistic they created). Never in the history of epidemics or pandemics have asymptomatic people been counted as “cases” until now. Partly because it does nothing more than skew statistics in Big Pharma’s favor, especially when half those people don’t carry enough viral load to ever develop symptoms in the first place, much less carry enough to transmit to another person. On that note, the commonly used PCR tests were never meant to be used as diagnostic tools (as was adamantly and repeatedly stated by their inventor before his death in 2019), and while testing cycles over 32 are considered so inaccurate as to be worthless (due to extremely high—over 90%—false positive rates), most testing centers inexplicably set their cycles at 40 or higher.
Definition changes
The definitions of the following were changed from their historical meanings in the middle of a pandemic, in ways that would inflate statistics and/or instill more fear in the population, thereby promoting the Big Pharma narrative and increasing demand for their product.
case—historically meant a symptomatic person, now means anyone testing positive (asymptomatic included)
pandemic—historically referred to simultaneous worldwide deaths in huge numbers, now is only about illness
vaccine—historically designed to prevent infection, now means something that merely stimulates immune response
anti-vax—historically in regard to vaccines only, then included anyone who is actually pro-vax yet anti-mandate, and now includes anyone who opposes just some vaccines, like say, the flu or C19 boosters
immunity—historically “obtained after natural infection or vaccination,” now changed to through vaccination only
herd immunity—historically meant a degree of natural immunity, now changed to achieved through vaccines only
terrorism—suddenly now includes anyone involved in the “proliferation of false or misleading narratives that undermine trust in government institutions,” including in regard to C19 (which means that merely openly questioning your government or attempting to debate their version of science in any way makes you a terrorist!)
gain of function research—NIAID scrubbed the definition of gain-of-function research overnight when grant reports made it unambiguous that Fauci funded research to make coronaviruses more dangerous in Wuhan
Clinical trials
It is not an exaggeration to state that this massive “vaccine” deployment has been the largest clinical experiment performed on human beings in the history of the world. C19 vaccines were designed in 2 days using a novel technology with a history of total failure, against a type of pathogen (coronavirus) for which no vaccines have ever worked. (Among other issues, an intramuscular vaccine doesn't produce mucosal immunity and is therefore never going to be a good delivery system for a respiratory illness.) Gene therapy products typically have far stricter testing and trial requirements than standard vaccines, however those were thrown out the window from the beginning, as soon as the mRNA shot was labeled a “vaccine” (and it could be argued that’s why they were given the misleading label in the first place). The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed absolutely no all-cause morbidity or mortality benefit. There were no all-cause benefits at all. And although governments worldwide employed a wide range of propaganda and censorship to promote these products as “safe and effective” at stopping infection and spread, there were no studies performed prior to distribution that tested how well the products would prevent either.
Pfizer recently told the European Union’s commission that due to moving at the “speed of science” (a meaningless phrase at best, an offensively ludicrous oxymoron at worst) they had never tested the shots against preventing infections. Nor did they test to see if the shots would reduce hospitalizations or deaths. They claimed they only tested whether the shots produced certain antibodies (which, for the record, is not an infallible indicator if immunity). So either they knew they weren’t testing for what most people thought the vaccine was being tested for, yet continued to mislead us about it anyway, or they actually were testing their new drug against infection, failing to prove it, then pushing the drug on us under false pretenses anyway.
In truth, it was the latter. Pfizer’s description of its Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials is aimed at testing for reduced infections. Nowhere in the clinical trial description does it mention testing for reducing severity of disease. We heard a lot about that 95% efficacy, remember? Experts calculated the so-called “95% efficacy” by dividing the number of uninfected people by the total trial group. So those claims were about infections, not antibodies. And they absolutely did claim that their shot was 95% effective at preventing C19 infection. Not only did it come straight out of Albert Bourla’s mouth (CEO of Pfizer) and Anthony Fauci’s repeatedly, but in written correspondence Pfizer assured the FDA that the shots “prevent” disease—twice repeating the phrase: “BNT16262 prevents a serious and life-threatening condition (COVID-19)” in their letter. (Also their trial data clearly states they checked for reductions in illness, hospitalizations, and death. What’s more, there were 30% more deaths in the inoculated group but Pfizer was allowed to manipulate those numbers so it looked more like 5%.)
But let’s say they were only testing for antibody production. Even if that were true, at the April 6, 2022, meeting of the FDA’s expert advisory committee one member after another acknowledged that there are no “correlates of protection” for these vaccines. What that means in plain English is that you cannot use antibodies to predict whether someone is immune or not.
Now let’s take a closer look at that 95% effective claim. Because that figure refers to the relative risk reduction, whereas their data confirms an absolute (overall) risk reduction of only 0.84%. And the distinction between the two completely decimates claims of vaccine effectiveness (fyi, the “distinction” explanation starts at the video’s 2:30 mark, but suffice it to say “relative” risk reduction is a well-known tactic for misleading the public, and the FDA itself recommends always using absolute risk reduction).
Back to Pfizer’s clinical trials, it’s important to note that while there were fewer “cases” (positive tests) in the inoculated group there were also more incidents of illness, death, and adverse events (side effects), which is just one reason changing the definition of “case” was never to the public’s benefit. Also worth mentioning is that after 2 months the control group was unblinded, ensuring we will never have any longterm safety data on these experimental products. The trials we designed and executed with a complete failure to abide standard safety and efficacy protocols. They were tested primarily on the young and healthy (the trials excluded anyone with autoimmune disease, allergies or recent steroid use, pregnant women, diabetics, etc.), then immediately given to the frailest among us. It was not tested on anyone who already had natural immunity (which by the time of the rollout was a large percentage of the population). Neither did they track biomarkers in their test subjects (for issues that would become symptomatic later), meaning they didn’t test for inflammation, blood clots, cardiac damage, hypoxia, etc. And since most adverse events begin at the subclinical level this omission alone is completely inexcusable. (In their post marketing pharmacovigilance report, the results of increased death, neurological issues, and anaphylaxis alone are astounding. For example, in the 10 weeks following EUA, Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.” Of those, almost 26,000 were nervous system disorders. )
One of the biggest issues is that the wrong endpoints were used. They should’ve pointedly studied whether the shots prevented illness and death—full stop. Instead the defined endpoints were whether subjects tested positive less often after getting a shot, and then they sneakily manipulated the design of the trial to ensure the answer would be yes. (For example, of roughly 44,000 trial subjects, only 170—a fraction of one percent—were used to establish the efficacy rate and obtain the emergency use authorization, many of whom should’ve been disqualified for protocol deviations.)
More issues include that they lost chunks of information and did not bother to confirm other vital information. The trial on kids and adolescents was so small it couldn’t possibly be used to test for adverse events in our most vulnerable population. Despite that, at least one in their 1,000 subjects (Maddie de Garay) had a life-changing adverse reaction, is now in a wheelchair permanently, and fed by a feeding tube, yet Pfizer listed her condition as “function abdominal pain” and has ignored her ever since. Trial participants like Maddie who experienced severe adverse reactions were dropped from the trial after their first dose. They were cut off from the adverse reaction reporting system and not followed up with any further, ensuring their “vaccine” injury would never become part of the official data. Those who stayed said they were only allowed to check off reactions on a list with no place to write in other reactions (of which there were plenty). The end result is we have zero safety data on this “vaccine” for kids. (Concerned public comments during the authorization process were ignored.)
Multiple employees claim Pfizer falsified & manipulated data, mislabeled specimens, didn’t follow up with participants, and other acts of malfeasance—none of which was ever investigated. The trial itself was beyond sloppily executed and never should have been accepted. On top of everything, they never tested their product against transmission, yet kept their mouths shut about it while all manner of mandates were forced on the population based on that very assumption. None of this should surprise anybody, considering Pfizer has faced so many lawsuits throughout its industrious history that it’s difficult to count them all, including a record-breaking $2.3 billion fine for fraud in 2009. As part of that settlement, Pfizer paid a $1.13 billion criminal fine, the largest ever imposed in the United States for any matter—meaning the maker of a mandated C19 “vaccine” is actually a criminal organization.
Lack of Transparency & the Pfizer Document Dump
"Throughout the pandemic, we’ve been told to trust the science. How can one recommend responsibly that these products are based on science if the data are not available? Science is about sharing data. We're in an era of open science, not secret science.”
-Peter Doshi, senior editor of the BMJ
Two years after the rollout of their product, the FDA and the vaccine manufacturers are still resisting releasing the raw, patient level data. What peer-reviewed studies exist of C19 “vaccine” short-term safety and short-term efficacy, have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations. None of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies. Their conflicts of interest are impossible to overstate. Some study authors make millions off pharmaceutical companies—others have reportedly received billions in funding.
Peter Doshi, senior editor at The BMJ, was part of an international group of eminent academic researchers and physicians who managed to go back and re-analyze the (incomplete) safety data from the original randomized clinical trials. Their analysis showed that mRNA vaccines were associated with 1 additional serious adverse event for every 800 people inoculated. No wonder Doshi is frustrated with the general lack of access to this data.
By court order, late in 2021, Pfizer was finally forced to start releasing 55,000 pages per month of their internal documents (after requesting to keep them private for, at first, 50yrs, and then 75yrs). In a review by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) numerous serious issues of interest were pinpointed. Dr. Naomi Wolf put together a research team of 3,500 medical professionals, doctors, nurses, scientists, researchers, and lawyers to scour Pfizer's internal documents. This worldwide team not only releases regular (scathing) reports (50+ as of this writing), but created a highly searchable database for public use. Considering the rushed & experimental nature of the mRNA jabs, it’s something both Pfizer and Moderna should've been forced to do from the start, but weren’t.
Thus far, document revelations include that Pfizer knew before the rollout that:
within 1 month of the rollout (Nov. 2020) of the "vaccine's" rapidly waning efficacy (3-4 months).
the jab causes heart damage in teens (then approved it for them anyway).
they'd have to hire a minimum of 2,400 full-time employees for the flood of incoming adverse event reports.
4 trial participants died on the day they were injected (from a group of participants who were exceptionally healthy and relatively young), there were over 42,000 adverse events, and more than 1200 people died.
massive details regarding significant damage to all aspects of the reproductive cycle.
the jab doesn't stay in the arm (as they still claim), but in fact, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, PEG, etc., within 15 mins enter every organ in the body, concentrating in the adrenals, liver, spleen, testes and (especially) ovaries (with no visible means of leaving). They cross the blood brain barrier and compromise the placenta. These effects are dose dependent, and by the 4th jab concentrations are scarily high.
that vaccine shedding was a thing (via breath, skin, bodily fluids)—so much so they instructed married participants to use barrier protection (condoms) to prevent pregnancy and general exposure to vaccine shedding through semen.
Pfizer skewed the trial subjects so that almost three quarters were female—a gender that is less prone to cardiac damage. Pfizer lost the records of what became of hundreds of their trial subjects.
adverse events tallied up in the internal Pfizer documents are completely different from those reported by the CDC and include vast columns of joint pain, muscle pain (myalgia), masses of neurological effects (MS, Guillain Barre and Bell’s Palsy), anencephaly, every iteration possible of blood clotting, thrombocytopenia at scale, strokes, hemorrhages, ruptures of membranes throughout the body, blistering problems, rashes, shingles, and herpetic conditions.
Everyone is aware of the “First do no harm” Hippocratic Oath. The question is, why and when did we decide to throw it out the window.
Boosters
The “vaccines” were approved for emergency use on bad, fraudulent data. Boosters were approved with no data. Then so were jabs for our youngest most vulnerable children, with no data. The CDC even admits they have no data to support recommending boosters to 12-49 year olds.
Recent studies by both Columbia and Harvard found that the new boosters are no more effective than the old expired mRNA shots. Another reason the virus was never a good candidate for a vaccine is because it mutates too fast, and the shots accelerate the evolution of variants. (Case in point, the data show that less than 2 months after the introduction of the bivalent shots targeting BA.5, previously unheard of strains—BQ.1, BF.7, BQ.1.1—represented over 50% of all variants in circulation. The new boosters, which were designed and authorized for BA.4 and BA.5 lineage variants, no longer target the correct strain. As of November, the BA.4 and BA.5 strains accounted for fewer than a third of cases. By December the booster shot targeted variants will likely appear in fewer than 1 in 10 cases and be entirely nonexistent by the end of January 2023.)
(As an update, as of this edit on Dec 31, 2022, XBB.1.5 has become the largest circulating variant nearly overnight. Despite promises of “multilayered hybrid immunity” from vaccinations and multiple reinfections, there is no immunity in sight. This is already the seventh wave of Covid in New York.)
In 2021, FDA advisors (VRBPAC)—a group as rife with conflicts of interest and financial incentives as could be—made a limited recommendation for booster injections to people 65 and older or at high risk of severe disease. They stopped short of justifying them for the broader population, in part citing limited safety data on adverse events such as myocarditis in teens (which you’ll read in the next section was actually well-known to Pfizer and the FDA, at the time, and that it increases with each jab). Two top FDA officials who disagreed entirely with the booster rollout resigned, hinting that the decision to issue boosters had been imposed on them by the FDA.
In 2022, committee members complained about being given less and less data as they were asked to sign off on vaccine programs for younger and younger ages, in shorter amounts of time. VRBPAC member Dr. Paul Offit (arguably the worlds biggest vaccine proponent) said, “The fix was in,” implying the committee’s deliberations were a sham, noting the White House announced it was purchasing the vaccine right after the meeting ended. Offit himself voted no, because—in his words—“hell no was not an option.” (Not to put too fine a point on it, but when the world’s biggest vaccine proponent says “hell no” to a new vaccine or increased schedule, perhaps we should consider listening to him.) These boosters had been tested on a mere 8 mice that were then destroyed without autopsies, ensuring no longterm safety data could possibly be gleaned. This caused Offit to state that mouse data were not sufficient to rollout new boosters, which may be why the FDA chose not to give him and the other members a public venue to deliberate (which smacks of recklessness at best, gross malfeasance at worst). Instead, the FDA & CDC collaborated to issue emergency use authorization—long after any “emergency” had passed—and release the bivalent boosters without any human trails. This entire process was done in less time than any other vaccine in human history, at a speed (and sloppiness) that is unprecedented. (For the record, as of Jan, 2023, even Dr. Offit acknowledges a causal link between the C19 “vaccine” and myocarditis.)
The safety of this new booster isn’t a fringe concern. In fact, the CDC itself has conceded their own uncertainty on the matter: “We know that the myocarditis risk is unknown but anticipate a similar risk to that seen after the monovalent vaccines,” a member of the agency’s independent committee on vaccines said. If indeed the myocarditis risk of the new booster shot is “similar” to the primary series (at best, 1/3,000 second doses in young men) that would be a complete disaster. The myocarditis rates from the primary series alone are deeply alarming, and the heart condition has victimized many young males. Such a high rate for an additional booster shot is unacceptable even if young, healthy, double-vaccinated people had a tremendous potential benefit. Not one kernel of evidence suggests that is the case.
The following are highlights of an Israeli survey of people who got the booster:
0.5% of people reported hospitalization as a result of the adverse event they experienced.
4.5% of respondents reported neurological problems
17% reported shaking
10% of women under age of 54 had disruptions to their menstrual cycle
25% with pre-existing auto-immune disorders, depression, or anxiety, reported worsening of symptoms
Finland, Denmark, The UK, Norway, and Iceland have all ceased offering the “vaccine” to children and in some cases anyone under 50. (France, Germany, and Sweden ceased offering Modern to young males.) In Switzerland all vaccination recommendations were withdrawn, so that doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions (but then bear the risk of liability for vaccination damage). In America, we’re giving boosters to toddlers & infants with no clinical data to ensure their safety or effectiveness. Furthermore, any discussion of pregnancy and vaccination was forbidden at the advisory meeting. Multiple committee members asked for information on pregnancy, but the briefers steadfastly refused to provide any (though they had at least 18 months worth at the time). Nothing on hospitalizations, deaths, or fetal outcomes. (See the following section for some horrifying data on those issues.) The FDA claims the bivalent is safe because it uses the same manufacturing process as the original “vaccine”—much like saying peanut butter is as safe as almond butter because it uses the same manufacturing process.
Since then, it’s quickly become evident that these boosters are no more effective against new variants than their predecessors. One study showed that unvaccinated people with Omicron natural immunity were just as protected (91% vs 92%) from hospitalization as previously-infected people with five doses of the mRNA jabs—meaning the jabs are all risk, no reward. The “vaccines” also likely weaken overall immunity and actually increase susceptibility to C19 infection. A journal article in the BMJ states University booster mandates are straight up unethical. Mainstream media reports none of those details. Instead, The New York Times asked, “When should you get yours?” Not should you get it, just when should you get it. (Thankfully only 33% of the US agreed to be “boosted.”) One might ask why they’re being deployed at the same time C19 cases drop to their lowest numbers ever? Perhaps because of their negative efficacy, since perpetual boosters could conceivably stave that off indefinitely (while also chipping away at your overall immunity significantly, over time).
In December 2022 the FDA announced they’d authorized the updated (bivalent) “vaccine” for children 6 months to 5 years old, even though they again have NO DATA for this cohort and are authorizing it for emergency use—in an age group for which AGAIN there is NO EMERGENCY. Side effects continue same as before, which means they are significantly higher than is expected for normal vaccines. This by the way, is the understatement of the year, since the CDC’s own data show that 25% were unable to perform daily activities post booster and 20% were unable to attend school. Meanwhile, less than 600 children in the last three years have died of C19 in this age cohort and according to peer reviewed scientific studies virtually none of these deaths were in the “healthy, normal” cohort. So we’re putting them at risk with a third experimental shot…why, exactly? The FDA press release states, “The data to support giving an updated bivalent booster dose for these children are expected in January.” But how can the commissioner of the world’s premier drug regulating agency assert that mass-administering an experimental medical product in the lowest-risk population will “prevent severe illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths” a month before any data is available?
FDA, CDC, WHO oversight
C19 vaccines were authorized through mechanisms designed for the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require adherence to any laws/regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases.) What this means is that none of the laws or regulations we count on to protect us from potentially harmful medical products was applied to the C19 "vaccines." The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees.
The FDA has admitted that it is not following even its own set of already watered-down procedures for vaccine safety monitoring that were in place prior to COVID. And the CDC spent over $1 billion promoting the vaccine. How can they regulate the same product they’re promoting?
The New York Times revealed in February, 2022, that the CDC conceals the bulk of the public health data it collects. According to the Times, “Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control.”According to the Ethical Skeptic the CDC is hiding or deleting excess jab-related deaths, especially in certain flagged categories like cancer, cardiac deaths, and strokes. They’re also faking C19 death figures to make it look like the unvaccinated are dying in larger numbers than the jabbed. And now it appears as if they’re literally removing even more huge amounts of VAERS data. They’ve consistently refused to share public health data from their many (20+) sources—data which is not confidential and that the public has a right to access. The CDC responded by stating they were withholding data in order to avoid fueling vaccine hesitancy. Call me crazy, but if you’re afraid the data will cause vaccine hesitancy, perhaps that very data show justifiable reason people should hesitate to get vaccinated.
Quality control is deplorable and the manufacturing process is completely inconsistent. Nobody knows what’s in these vials but we’re beginning to find many scary issues including DNA contamination (see also here, here, and here). Despite a disturbing prohibition of independent vial testing, covert random testing of the mRNA vials has been ongoing worldwide. Reported thousands of vials have been obtained and tested by dozens of research groups working independently of each other. The quality of these studies varies and depends on the conditions of the samples acquired, access to the lab equipment, and the experience of the investigators. However, the consistent finding among all is that there is yet a single vial to be found in full conformance to the manufacturer’s label. A review of these independent testing efforts has been published recently. Another high-quality report summarizes experiences testing vials from various manufacturers in Germany.
The FDA and “vaccine” manufacturers have complete control over all testing methods and not only are the test results confidential, even the methodology used hasn’t been made public. And FDA inspections of clinical trial sites are vital to ensure the integrity of data generated in clinical trials, but only 9 of 153 Pfizer trial sites were subject to it (along with 10 out of 99 Moderna trial sites and five of 73 Remdesivir sites, which experts have called “grossly inadequate”). On top of that, the FDA is contractually forbidden from analyzing C19 “vaccine” vials for a full list of components (which they’ve always done in the past). Only 14 people are required to investigate conditions in 280 biologic plants that sell drugs and biologic products into the US, but that hardly matters since the FDA is not required to inspect the factories where EUA products are manufactured (as it must do for licensed products). Nor is it required to inspect the final product. Meanwhile, this European Medicines Agency leak is cause for significant concern. Also, one billion doses were manufactured in China—our communist existential adversary—with no oversight or ability to regulate by the US whatsoever. So is it any surprise that during the rollout, hundreds of thousands of Moderna vials were recalled (and 1.63 million in Japan) for being contaminated? Or that there were serious concerns about Pfizer batches in Germany and other concerns about AstraZeneca batches? (Facts that never made the mainstream press, of course.)
The C19 vaccines need to be stored at extremely cold temperatures in order to preserve the integrity of the mRNA (and some of the other components as well). There is no basis to assume that the storage requirements have been religiously followed. The way we would typically keep track of this sort of thing is by random testing of batches at various points in transport, storage, and thawing, which of course isn’t being done. And even if regulators wanted to do testing, it is unclear if they could do so effectively at this point, because the FDA skipped requiring the vaccine makers to do a full workup of what the chemical state of the vaccines would be at various temperatures, for various amounts of time, and so on. In other words, we don’t even have a clear baseline to test against to see if the vaccine in the vials looks like there was a failure to maintain the prescribed storage parameters. And what happens if we use degraded mRNA not kept adequately frozen? Good question.
Most of the injuries recorded in VAERS are from a very limited number of lots—known as “hot lots”—indicating some batches are more lethal or dangerous than others. This known information is not being followed up on, something one would expect or certainly hope from regulatory agencies during the rollout of a barely tested emergency use product. Except that all EUA products are granted an extremely broad waiver of liability that covers the FDA, CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the vaccine manufacturers and distributors, doctors, pharmacists and everyone involved in the vaccine program. Which means that the public has no legal recourse when damage is done by an EUA product.
Our own CDC Director, doesn’t seem to have a clue how any of this works, nor does she seem to care!
Informed Consent
Firstly, Nuremberg Code, anyone? The Nuremberg Code enshrines the right to bodily autonomy. It states that voluntary consent is essential in all medical procedures. The European Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights states that “the welfare and interests of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science.” And yet that’s not what occurred during the “pandemic” when violations [1] of personal medical rights were unprecedented.
There’s been a huge push for acknowledgement around issues of sexual consent in recent years. If no means no and “enthusiastic consent” must be required for all physical acts—much less vaginal penetration—how did we get to a place where the penetration of an unknown and largely unnecessary experimental chemical product into the arms, bodies, and bloodstreams of billions of innocent people became not only acceptable but mandated to function in society?
Considering the above information about violations of medical ethics, rampant data manipulation and fraud, and complete lack of FDA and CDC’s regulatory oversight or transparency, how can anyone receiving these jabs have been given true informed consent?
Not that it matters, because on December 21, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed “…an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject…” essential revoking patient autonomy just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremberg Code.
ARTICLES
The ivermectin coverup in a nutshell
https://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/
Another "nutshell" article about the ivermectin coverup, Andrew Hill's corruption and Tess Lawrie's research
https://drtrozzi.org/2021/12/14/dr-andrew-hill-40-million-504000-people-die/
Finland Exposes Massive Covid Reporting Scandal: Nearly 40% of ‘Covid Deaths’ Were Fraudulent
https://trendingpolitics.com/finland-exposes-massive-covid-reporting-scandal-nearly-40-of-covid-deaths-were-fraudulent-knab/
Pfizer, Moderna Data Shows No Indication that COVID Jabs Save More Lives Than They Take
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pfizer-moderna-data-shows-no-indication-that-covid-jabs-save-more-lives-than-they-take/
The Great Covid Laundering Scheme
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-great-covid-laundering-scheme/
Comments Regarding Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Phase III Clinical Study, Which Led to the Product’s EUA
New Data Exposes the Corruption Behind the COVID Response
The Fall of the Academic Publishing Cartel
Unredacted RKI [the German CDC] protocols lay bare the entire Covid farce yet again
Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 Trial - Audit Report - v1 (2024-05-31): Reanalysis of the data and anomalies inventoried
Why Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight
White House Orchestrated Cover-Up of COVID Vaccine Heart Damage
What Really Happened Inside the COVID-19 Vaccine Trials?
Pfizer and Moderna dodge questions and plead ignorance at Senate hearing
A comprehensive press release of the Israeleak files.
Failure of drug regulation; declining standards and institutional corruption
Fairly comprehensive article on all aspects of vaccine fraud. PLEASE CLICK EVERY LINK THEREIN:
Injured clinical trial participants swept under the rug
FDA Asks the Court to Delay First 55,000 Page Production and Pfizer Moves to Intervene in the Lawsuit
New England Journal of Medicine Puts Lipstick on a [CDC] Pig, Again
Fishy Findings from the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID Vaccine Clinical Trial Data - A Summary
An Elegant Demonstration of how Efficacy can be conjured out of thin air
Perspective, Values, and the COVID Crisis
Systematic review and meta-analysis are broken
NIH Email Reveals Plan to Fool Congress With Response “That Doesn’t Actually Answer the Questions”
VIDEOS
Open Science Sessions: How flawed data has driven the narrative
https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-science-sessions-how-flawed-data-has-driven-the-narrative.html
Stories of medical negligence, medical malfeasance, and medical fraud re: C19 "vaccines"
https://rumble.com/v1fsq9h-ryan-cole-on-how-to-identify-a-person-killed-by-the-covid-vaccine.html
Tess Lawrie confronts Andrew Hill about his fraudulent conclusions of Ivermectin ineffectiveness
https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html
Clayton J. Baker and Toby Rogers on Pharma & Covid 19
https://rumble.com/v5miuuk-pharma-clayton-j.-baker-and-toby-rogers.html
Andrew Wakefield on Covid & past lies about his research regarding autism and vaccines
https://rumble.com/v17xp5j-andrew-wakefield-interview.html
Pfizer trial flaws / data fraud, with evidence their shots do more harm than good (also explains relative risk reduction vs absolute reduction)
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/fr/media-resources/the-pfizer-inoculations-for-covid-19-more-harm-than-good-2/
Pfizer Document dump revelations from a team of hundreds of medical professionals, doctors, scientists, researchers, and lawyers
https://dailyclout.io/everything-youve-missed-on-the-pfizer-documents-so-far-video/
Court case (Missouri vs Biden) challenging censorship by Big Tech about everything C19 & esp vaccine injuries.
https://rumble.com/v1kozxx-uncensored-whos-naked-power-grab-and-vaccine-sociopaths.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2
C-19 Injections, Regulatory and Manufacturing Fraud
https://rumble.com/v1p69bf-c-19-injections-regulatory-and-manufacturing-fraud-tessa-lena-tallks-to-ale.html
"Was the Pfizer vaccine tested for prevention of transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" Answer: No
https://rumble.com/embed/v1kxxne/?pub=4
'Scientific fraud': Drs. Robert Malone, Ryan Cole react to CDC hiding data
https://rumble.com/vvjid8-dr.-robert-malone-and-dr.-ryan-cole-cdc-committing-scientific-fraud.html
How Pfizer Killed the Vaccine Safety Commission
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/megyn-kelly-rfk-jr-pfizer-vaccine-safety/
The Nitty Gritty of Pfizer's Falsehoods
https://rumble.com/v2k9k6g-the-nitty-gritty-of-pfizers-falsehoods-round-table-w-josh-guetzkow.html
The Truth About the C19, the “vaccine,” early treatments, and more, Dr. Simone Gold, MD (2021)
https://rumble.com/vqwue0-dr.-simon-gold-talks-about-covid-and-vaccines-exposing-the-narrative-americ.html
Trust and Transparency: Failures of the CDC & Its Director, Mandy Cohen
https://rumble.com/v4s8m32-trust-and-transparency-failures-of-the-cdc-and-its-director-mandy-cohen.html
Covid Crimes Exposed by German RKI Files
Kelley Krohnert On The CDC's Misinformation
How Did Our Vaccine Oversight System Get So Broken?
Medical ethics around C19 "vaccine" (and other) policies
Multiple instances of conflicts of interest & research fraud (UK)
Six members of European Parliament pissed & offended by Pfizer’s behavior (Oct 2022)
Subscribe to KC’s COVID Facts
Repository of COVID 19 facts in regard to virus origins, failed public policies, medical ethics, and vaccine injury
Early in the pandemic I was watching KVUE evening news, when the newscaster reported something like this:
"A woman on Reddit, claiming to be a nurse in a local Austin hospital, stated online today that their ICU beds are almost full and the hospital staff is spread thin. We called to the hospital in question to inquire, but they refused to confirm the report or tell us how many ICU beds were filled with COVID patients."
At the time I was gobsmacked at everything wrong with his reporting. Firstly, since when is a random anonymous Reddittor considered a valid source for a news story?? Second, how the hell could the so called journalists at KVUE let the hospital get away with refusing to answer the simplest question IN A PANDEMIC about how full their ICU was??
At that moment I realized something very strange was going on here. Something nefarious within the media, and perhaps even worse, something incredibly gullible or at least passive with a population that to my knowledge never noticed, or at least said anything about this bizarre reporting (other than my sole indignant tweet chastising @KVUE for their crock of shit reporting).
The very best compilation of evidence on crimes of the world's most insidious medical scandal.