Editor of the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi’s latest paper shows COVID-19 vaccines associated with increased risk of serious adverse events.

Editor of the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi’s latest paper shows COVID-19 vaccines associated with increased risk of serious adverse events.

Doctor Crashes FDA Meeting and Shares the Whistleblower Story They Ignored - Tennessee Star

Peter Doshi, editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) is once again bravely sticking his neck out with his latest co-authored paper.

He and six other authors from the US, Spain and Australia decided to investigate serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials.

They used a World Health Organisation (WHO) endorsed priority list of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) to identify serious adverse events that occurred during phase III clinical trials on which emergency use authorisation (EUA) was based. The list comprised of adverse events based on the specific vaccine platform, adverse events associated with prior vaccines in general, theoretical associations based on animal models and COVID-19 specific immunopathogenesis.

The study looked at the Pfizer and Moderna trial data which was expected to follow participants for two years. However, after EUA, participants were unblinded and those in the placebo arm offered the vaccine. This meant post authorisation data was less reliable so, to preserve randomisation, the authors used interim datasets from approximately 4 months after the trials commenced.

A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgement.

SAE tables were located for both the Pfizer and Moderna trials submitted for EUA in the US. For the Moderna trial, these SAEs were from dose 1 but for Pfizer they were from dose 1 to 1 month after dose 2.

The authors found that, in the Pfizer trial, there was a 36% higher risk of SAEs, unrelated to COVID-19 in vaccinated participants in comparison with the placebo group. The Moderna trial had a 5% higher risk of SAEs. Combined there was a 15% higher risk of SAEs in the vaccine recipient group.

52 AESIs were reported in the Pfizer vaccine group versus 33 in the placebo group. This meant there was a 57% increased risk of serious AESIs and an absolute risk increase of 10.1 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants.

In the Moderna trial, there were 87 serious AESIs in the vaccine group versus 64 in the placebo group, representing a 36% increased risk. In this trial, there was an absolute risk increase of 15.1 serious AESIs per 10,000 vaccinees.

Combined, there was a 43% increased risk of serious AESIs and an absolute risk increase of 12.5 serious AESIs per 10,000 vaccinated participants.

In both trials, the largest increase in absolute risk was in coagulation disorders. There were more cardiovascular AESIs in the vaccine group in the Pfizer trial but it was balanced in the Moderna trial.

Taking into consideration the harm-benefits, they compared AESIs with vaccine risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation. With the Moderna vaccine, the risk of AESIs was 15.1 per 10,000 participants compared with a Covid hospitalisation risk reduction of 6.4 per 10,000. The Pfizer trial had a AESI risk of 10.1 per 10,000 compared with a hospitalisation risk reduction of 2.3 per 10,000 participants. Therefore, with both vaccines, the risk of AESIs surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation.

The paper looks at the FDA reviews of SAEs which concluded that, for Pfizer, were “balanced between treatment groups”. For Moderna, the FDA said that SAEs were “without meaningful imbalances between study arms”. This current study, however, found an increased risk of SAEs so they tried to understand how there could be two very different conclusions. They concluded that the main reason for the discrepancy may be because the FDA used a different, larger analysis population. This was because the FDA included all individuals who had received at least one dose, irrespective of the duration of post-injection follow up time. The authors, in this paper, used a study population with medial follow up >2 months after dose 2, of which 98.1% had received both doses. Therefore, the FDA’S analysis included thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received 1 dose.

The authors discuss the results which show an excess risk of serious AESIs greater than the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalisation. They say that these results are compatible with another analysis (Benn et al) which found no evidence of a reduction in overall mortality. They say that both papers point to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses especially in individuals at low risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death.

It is suggested that because the majority of SAEs are relatively common events (e.g. stroke), signal detection is complicated because clinical suspicion of adverse vaccine reactions will be lower than less common SAEs such as myocarditis. Therefore, there is likely to be over and under reporting. Public health messages assuring safety may lower clinical suspicions whereas messages about potential harms may stimulate reports.

Because this study only looked at SAEs occurring past 1 month after dose 2 there may have been undercounting of serious AESIs.

The authors conclude that 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.

Source: nakedemperor.substack.com/p/editor-of-the-british-medical-journal-6d1?utm_source=email

Source

University of Miami to Reverse Vaccine Mandate

University of Miami to Reverse Vaccine Mandate

Jun 23, 2022

Under Florida law, colleges in Florida are required to offer students the option to decline vaccines for meningococcal meningitis and hepatitis B by offering a waiver.  While the University of Miami (UM) previously abided by the law and gave students the opportunity to opt out of these vaccines on its immunization records form, UM recently changed its form as well as its Student Health Service website to eliminate the option to decline the meningococcal vaccine.  Worse yet, UM threatens incoming students that they may have their registration cancelled if they do not meet UM’s immunization requirements.

On behalf of a parent whose child was seeking to enroll at the University of Miami, ICAN’s attorneys challenged UM’s unlawful policy in a June 8, 2022 letter demanding that UM reverse its illegal policy and change its form to reflect that students are entitled to decline meningitis vaccines. On June 10, 2022, after review of the ICAN-sponsored letter, UM’s legal office wrote back stating, “[U]ndergraduate students may decline the hepatitis B and meningococcal meningitis vaccines; our processes will be updated to reflect this option.”

It is because of supporters like you that ICAN is able to successfully ensure that students retain as many rights as they are entitled to and are not coerced into taking an unwanted medical product.

Source: https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ican-ensures-that-university-of-miamis-vaccine-policies-allow-students-to-decline-college-vaccines/

Source

ALERT: Meta-Analysis of 65 Studies Reveals Face Masks Induce Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES)

ALERT: Meta-Analysis of 65 Studies Reveals Face Masks Induce Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES)

A first-of-its-kind literature review on the adverse effects of face masks, titled “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?,” reveals there are clear, scientifically demonstrable adverse effects for mask wearers, both on psychological, social and physical levels.

Newly published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a team of German researchers acknowledge that theirs is the first comprehensive investigation into the adverse health effects that masks can cause — a surprising fact considering that many countries around the world introduced universal mask wearing in public spaces for containing SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 as a mandatory health policy without investigating nor communicating to their citizens the true risks of masks, hence violating informed consent.

According to the German research team, their work is designed to “provide a first, rapid, scientific presentation of the risks of general mandatory mask use by focusing on the possible adverse medical effects of masks, especially in certain diagnostic, patient and user groups.”

The researchers summarize their study as follows:

“The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines.

In this paper, we refer to the psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described because of their consistent, recurrent and uniform presentation from different disciplines as a Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES).

We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks.

Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.”

The researchers provided the following important context for their work:

“The potential drastic and undesirable effects found in multidisciplinary areas illustrate the general scope of global decisions on masks in general public in the light of combating the pandemic. According to the literature found, there are clear, scientifically recorded adverse effects for the mask wearer, both on a psychological and on a social and physical level.

Neither higher level institutions such as the WHO or the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) nor national ones, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, GA, USA (CDC) or the German RKI, substantiate with sound scientific data a positive effect of masks in the public (in terms of a reduced rate of spread of COVID-19 in the population) [2,4,5]

Contrary to the scientifically established standard of evidence-based medicine, national and international health authorities have issued their theoretical assessments on the masks in public places, even though the compulsory wearing of masks gives a deceptive feeling of safety [5,112,143].”

The authors provided the following summary of the problem with the widely disseminated narrative that masks are a priori “safe and effective.”

“From an infection epidemiological point of view, masks in everyday use offer the risk of self-contamination by the wearer from both inside and outside, including via contaminated hands [5,16,88]. In addition, masks are soaked by exhaled air, which potentially accumulates infectious agents from the nasopharynx and also from the ambient air on the outside and inside of the mask.

In particular, serious infection-causing bacteria and fungi should be mentioned here [86,88,89], but also viruses [87]. The unusual increase in the detection of rhinoviruses in the sentinel studies of the German RKI from 2020 [90] could be an indication of this phenomenon. Clarification through further investigations would therefore be desirable.

Masks, when used by the general public, are considered by scientists to pose a risk of infection because the standardized hygiene rules of hospitals cannot be followed by the general public [5]. On top of that, mask wearers (surgical, N95, fabric masks) exhale relatively smaller particles (size 0.3 to 0.5 μm) than mask-less people and the louder speech under masks further amplifies this increased fine aerosol production by the mask wearer (nebulizer effect) [98].

The history of modern times shows that already in the influenza pandemics of 1918-1919, 1957-58, 1968, 2002, in SARS 2004-2005 as well as with the influenza in 2009, masks in everyday use could not achieve the hoped-for success in the fight against viral infection scenarios [67,144]. The experiences led to scientific studies describing as early as 2009 that masks do not show any significant effect with regard to viruses in an everyday scenario [129,145].

Even later, scientists and institutions rated the masks as unsuitable to protect the user safely from viral respiratory infections [137,146,147]. Even in hospital use, surgical masks lack strong evidence of protection against viruses [67]. Originally born out of the useful knowledge of protecting wounds from surgeons’ breath and predominantly bacterial droplet contamination [144,148,149], the mask has been visibly misused with largely incorrect popular everyday use, particularly in Asia in recent years [150].

Significantly, the sociologist Beck described the mask as a cosmetic of risk as early as 1992 [151]. Unfortunately, the mask is inherent in a vicious circle: strictly speaking, it only protects symbolically and at the same time represents the fear of infection. This phenomenon is reinforced by the collective fear mongering, which is constantly nurtured by main stream media [137].

Nowadays, the mask represents a kind of psychological support for the general population during the virus pandemic, promising them additional anxiety-reduced freedom of movement. The recommendation to use masks in the sense of “source control” not out of self-protection but out of “altruism” [152] is also very popular with the regulators as well as the population of many countries.

The WHO’s recommendation of the mask in the current pandemic is not only a purely infectiological approach, but is also clear on the possible advantages for healthy people in the general public. In particular, a reduced potential stigmatization of mask wearers, the feeling of a contribution made to preventing the spread of the virus, as well as the reminder to adhere to other measures are mentioned [2].

Morever, the researchers pointed out that there are recurring patterns of related health issues associated with mask wearing, leading them to coin the term mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES), which encompasses the following pathophysioloical changes and subjective complaints:

  • Increase in dead space volume [22,24,58,59] (Figure 3, Section 3.1 and Section 3.2)
  • Increase in breathing resistance [31,35,61,118] (Figure 3, Figure 2: Column 8)
  • Increase in blood carbon dioxide [13,15,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] (Figure 2: Column 5)
  • Decrease in blood oxygen saturation [18,19,21,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,34] (Figure 2: Column 4)
  • Increase in heart rate [15,19,23,29,30,35] (Figure 2: Column 12)
  • Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity [31] (Section 3.2)
  • Feeling of exhaustion [15,19,21,29,31,32,33,34,35,69] (Figure 2: Column 14)
  • Increase in respiratory rate [15,21,23,34] (Figure 2: Column 9)
  • Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath [15,19,21,23,25,29,31,34,35,71,85,101,133] (Figure 2: Column 13)
  • Headache [19,27,37,66,67,68,83] (Figure 2: Column 17)
  • Dizziness [23,29] (Figure 2: Column 16)
  • Feeling of dampness and heat [15,16,22,29,31,35,85,133] (Figure 2: Column 7)
  • Drowsiness (qualitative neurological deficits) [19,29,32,36,37] (Figure 2: Column 15)
  • Decrease in empathy perception [99] (Figure 2: Column 19)
  • Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions [37,72,73] (Figure 2: Column 20-22)

The researchers point out that the effects described above have been observed in studies of healthy people, implying that sick people will have even more pronounced effects from wearing masks. Also, they pointed out that these effects observed in previous studies involved exposure times significantly lower than what is presently expected to be the case in the general public under current pandemic regulations and ordinances.

The study goes into great depth on the harms of mask wearing and adds to a growing body of underreported, if not outright censored and suppressed, biomedical literature that has accumulated that refutes the widely disseminated narrative that masks are both safe and effective, and that their recommendations for use by agencies like the CDC are evidence-based, which clearly they are not. Learn more by visiting the GreenMedInfo.com database Face Masks (Lack of Safety and Ineffectiveness Research).

Source: https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/alert-meta-analysis-65-studies-reveals-face-masks-induce-mask-induced-exhaustion-?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20ALERT%3A%20Meta-Analysis%20of%2065%20Studies%20Reveals%20Face%20Masks%20Induce%20Mask-Induced%20Exhaustion%20Syndrome%20%28MIES%29%20%28WftGYR%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIksydlhBeSIsICJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJkci5yaW1hQG5hdHVyYWxzb2x1dGlvbnNmb3VuZGF0aW9uLmNvbSJ9

“© [Article Date] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

Source

Science magazine admits covid “vaccines” are useless and harmful

Science magazine admits covid “vaccines” are useless and harmful

Image: Science magazine admits covid “vaccines” are useless and harmful

British researchers say that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” do not provide any real protection against the latest “variant” of the disease, which the establishment is calling “Omicron” (Moronic).

A new paper published in the magazine Science reveals that both antibody and T-cell protection are nowhere to be found post-injection. Meanwhile, the shots leave behind mystery substances inside a person’s body, often leading to chronic illness or early death.

Another thing the paper found is that the “fully vaccinated” are suffering so-called “breakthrough” infections with Moronic, as their T-cell response is now artificially tuned towards earlier variants of the disease such as Delta.

“… when vaccinated but previously uninfected people suffer breakthrough Omicron infections, their T-cell response is biased toward earlier versions of Sars-Cov-2 – not to the Omicron variant that has actually infected them,” writes Alex Berenson on his Substack.

“In other words, the mRNA shots appear to permanently wrongfoot the immune systems of people who receive and bias them toward producing T-cells to attack variants that no longer exist – even though they never were infected with those variants at all.”

Covid jabs destroy natural, non-specific immunity

Natural immunity that has not been damaged by pharmaceutical shots bears a component called non-specific immunity that targets invading pathogens non-specifically. In the case of covid, this means fighting against the virus generally rather than specifically in terms of variants.

After a person gets injected, however, that non-specific immunity becomes altered, and suddenly the body is no longer able to fight off infections as they morph and mutate.

“While antibodies are the first line of defense against infection and try to clear the virus from the bloodstream, T-cells are the crucial second line,” Berenson adds. “They attack and destroy infected cells and also work with other parts of the immune system to produce more and better targeted antibodies later.”

“Vaccine advocates have claimed endlessly that mRNA-generated T-cells help keep people from becoming severely ill with Covid even after frontline antibody protection against infection disappears … This study suggests that supposed protection may be a myth, and the low death rates from Omicron are simply a result of Omicron’s general lack of virulence in vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike.”

The British study further found that another big part of the body’s ability to fight off infections, antibodies, also become damaged by the shots. Post-injection, the immune system is left with the ability to produce only one type of coronavirus antibody, when the reality is that many different antibodies are needed.

Those other antibodies would be produced naturally by the body without the shot. But once synthetic mRNA (messenger RNA) chemicals are dispensed, the immune system is left permanently damaged with no way to fight off illnesses that are constantly changing.

The study acknowledged this fact, however it was buried in highly technical language, suggesting that it was simply too politically incorrect to state plainly. The study also failed to compare the immune responses of the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, which is problematic, to say the least.

“Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the scientists did not look at the immune responses of anyone who was not vaccinated – with or without previous infection,” Berenson explains. “Thus the paper offers no direct comparison of the way Omicron may affect antibody and B- and T-cell responses in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”

“Why didn’t the researchers include unvaccinated people? Maybe because nearly all British adults are vaccinated and most boosted, so the authors wanted to concentrate on the risks Omicron poses to vaccinated people … Or maybe because they worried about what they’d find if they directly compared the two groups.”

Source: www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-23-science-magazine-admits-covid-vaccines-useless-harmful.html

Source

Sweden: A Cautionary (Supplement) Tale

Sweden: A Cautionary (Supplement) Tale

Sweden’s supplement restrictions show why mandatory registration for supplements in the US is such a disastrous idea.

For a while now, ANH-USA has been reporting on Senator Durbin’s (D-IL) efforts to limit access to dietary supplements. We’ve said that this legislation brings us closer to a European-style system in which high-dose supplements are effectively banned. This isn’t an exaggeration, as Sen. Durbin, the original architect of these supplement restrictions, and his allies may want you to believe. Just last month, Sweden moved to change its vitamin D and iodine limits; before that, Sweden started a process to adopt the supplement limits set by European Union (EU) regulators. The point is, once we start moving down this road, it will become more and more difficult to prevent similar restrictions in the US.

It may not seem all that scary that a country across the Atlantic Ocean is preparing to set limits on vitamin D and iodine. Maybe you don’t even use those supplements. But the point is that this is the blueprint for US regulators if Sen. Durbin’s mandatory product registration for supplements passes. Restrictions may start on supplements you don’t care about, but the ones you do care about will be next.

Last month, Swedish authorities released a proposal to limit vitamin D dosages to 4,000 IU (100 mcg) and iodine doses in supplements to 200 mcg. For vitamin D, a 4,000 IU limit may not seem all that bad, but the problem is that it limits the tools available to patients and integrative doctors unnecessarily. For example, for significant vitamin D deficiency, doctors may advise patients to take a mega-dose of 50,000 IU vitamin D once a week for six to eight weeks. Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is also more common than you might think. About 40 percent of the US population is vitamin D deficient; 95 percent of Americans don’t meet the government’s benchmarks for adequate vitamin D intake. Integrative medicine experts often recommend taking 5,000 to 8,000 IU vitamin D during the winter months.

Such restrictions will make it harder for Swedes to deal with vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency, which are linked to a host of negative health outcomes including: heart disease, diabetes, infections and immune disorders, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and more. Deficiency also means we are not reaping the health benefits of the sunshine vitamin, which include: maintaining bone health, supporting immune, brain, and nervous system health, regulating insulin levels, supporting lung and cardiovascular health, and more. It isn’t hard to see why so much evidence links poor vitamin D status to negative COVID outcomes.

A 200 microgram limit on iodine is also absurd. When iodine intake falls below a certain level, hypothyroidism occurs; about ten million Americans are hypothyroid, and about 10 percent of women have some degree of thyroid hormone deficiency. When a patient is low in iodine, integrative doctors will start them on 25 milligrams a day—which is 25,000 micrograms!—and potentially more if the patient has an endocrine disease. Higher doses of iodine have other clinical uses, such as for cyclic mastalgia (breast pain).

But the vitamin D and iodine limits are the just the tip of the iceberg in Sweden’s march toward supplement restrictions. In 2018, Sweden proposed using the “tolerable upper limits” (ULs) for vitamins and minerals created by the European Food Safety Authority (the EU equivalent of the FDA) as legally-binding maximum permitted levels. We’ve demonstrated some of the consequences of these absurd limits in recent coverage, such as restrictions on vitamin D, magnesium, and vitamin B6.

If you think that this can’t happen in the US, think again. The framework is already in place for US regulators to do exactly what Sweden is doing in restricting the amount of nutrients supplements can deliver to you based on ULs. US authorities developed ULs for a variety of vitamins and minerals years ago. In fact, a previous version of Sen. Durbin’s bill included an additional section calling on the Department of Health and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to create a list of supplement ingredients that could cause “potentially serious adverse events.” NASEM is the very body that created ULs for nutrients in the US. It seems obvious, then, that Sen. Durbin intends for his bill to be used to eliminate high-dose supplements; this second section was omitted in the current bill, but we believe his intent and long-term plan is the same. In fact, the new version of the bill specifically requires companies to submit the amount per serving of ingredients and the percent of the daily value of each ingredient.

All of the pieces are falling into place to eliminate the supplements that compete with drug companies. This isn’t just speculation. In 2018, at the request of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, NASEM convened a workshop to look at how to standardize supplement dosages across the world. The big players, like the pharmaceutical giants and the supplement companies they own, want global harmonization because it makes it easier to do business. These discussions are being had, hidden behind layer upon layer of bureaucracy. This is a very real threat.

We cannot let Sen. Durbin and his allies succeed.

Source: anh-usa.org/sweden-a-cautionary-supplement-tale/

Source

The Massacre of the Innocents

The FDA and CDC launch a reckless nationwide medical experiment on children

I. The government is coming for your kids

Last week was shrouded in darkness. We saw the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) assemble the pieces of their Final Solution.

The meetings were surreal as so-called “experts” displayed no critical thinking skills and instead wallowed in clichés supplied to them by the pharmaceutical industry.

Over the course of five meetings in five days we witnessed crimes against humanity, the end of the bourgeoisie, and the likely end of America.

Let’s talk about what actually happened at the meetings, the short and long-term implications of the decisions that were made, and where we go from here.

II. The meetings themselves

The clinical trials of Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots in kids all had the same flaws — enabled and encouraged by the permissive FDA. Moderna and Pfizer each:

1. Failed to demonstrate actual health benefits (so they relied on junk science “immunobridging” even though there are no valid correlates of protection);
2. Wiped out the control group, so there is no long term safety data; and
3. Caused catastrophic adverse events.

Contrary to their statutory obligations, the FDA/VRBPAC and CDC/ACIP do not act as regulators. Instead they see themselves as partners with Pharma. Indeed FDA and CDC officials often slip and say “we” when referring to the applicant — it’s all one big happy crime family.

At the meetings, the FDA and CDC went to great lengths to exaggerate the risks of Covid in children. As you know, there is no Covid-19 emergency in kids But Emergency Use Authorization requires a public health emergency so the FDA and CDC manufacture one.

Many presentations at the meetings last week cited the same British pre-print study that claims that Covid-19 was the 4th or 5th leading cause of death in children in the U.S. This is false.

Kelley Krohnert from Covid Georgia dismantles the pre-print.

The British academics who wrote the paper make two obvious errors. First they count deaths “with Covid” (tested after they got to the hospital for some other reason or underlying condition) as “from Covid.” If you remove the “with Covid” from the tally, the numbers shrink by about 35%.

The second major error in the pre-print is that the authors “compare the cumulative number of Covid deaths over 26 months to deaths from other causes over a one year period.” Whoops. So the FDA and CDC made their case by double-counting Covid-19 deaths in children.

Once these errors are corrected, Covid-19 drops down to the 8th or 9th leading cause of death. But as Ms. Krohnert explains:

Even given the corrected rankings above, there are also issues with the entire concept of showing the impact of Covid deaths in children using rankings. Rankings overstate the impact of Covid, because the top few causes of death far outweigh the causes further down the list. For example, in ages 1-4, accidents account for almost 25 times as many deaths as Covid-19 on an annualized basis. Furthermore, for each of the 4 age groups covered by the CDC slide, the very broad “accidents” is the leading cause of death. If we break that down further, causes of death like drownings, vehicle crashes, drug overdoses, would be individual causes of death greater than Covid in various age groups.

For those who want to argue, “if-it-even-prevents-one-death(TM)”: Covid-19 is NOT a vaccine-preventable-disease given that these shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death. And given adverse events, Covid-19 shots will cause a net increase in deaths not a decrease.

If one really cares about the health of children, mandate fences around swimming pools, not experimental gene-modifying injections for the entire childhood population.

Ms. Krohnert contacted the authors of the paper to alert them to these errors and now they are revising the paper (a new draft is due next week). Of course, the FDA and CDC never admit that they were wrong because they don’t actually care about data.

At these meetings it is standard practice for FDA and CDC to lie about the benefits of these shots. Indeed the FDA went to great lengths to downplay the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in the briefing documents for Moderna and Pfizer. In preparing these documents the FDA relies on fixers — Matt Oster, Tom Shimabukuro, and John Su at CDC and Nicola Klein at Kaiser Permanente — to manipulate the data to fit the Pharma narrative.

However, one of the unusual things about the VRBPAC meeting on Tuesday is that Ruth Link-Gelles from CDC just straight up admitted that these shots have negative efficacy.

Then Tom Shimabukuro (citing his own slides and those from John Su and Nicola Klein) just straight up admitted that these shots cause myocarditis:

So I’m watching at home thinking… ‘no observed health benefits (that’s why they had to switch to immunobriding) and they are admitting that the shots have negative efficacy and cause myocarditis, therefore the risks outweigh the benefits. So how are they going to try to get out of this?’

And their argument is (supplied by Jacqueline Miller, Senior VP at Moderna) that the risk of myocarditis from Covid is greater than the risk of myocarditis from these shots. One of the obvious problems with that argument is that THESE SHOTS DO NOT PREVENT COVID. So the FDA is accepting a known risk from these shots in return for an imagined benefit that does not exist in the real world.

The VRBPAC and ACIP do not care about the facts at all. As George Lakoff famously observed, “facts bounce off of frames” and the frame that guides these public health zombies is, “vaccines are infallible.”

Adverse events. Others have done a better job of flagging adverse events in these clinical trials. Quant genius Jessica Rose wrote an excellent article about the harms in the Pfizer clinical trial and the Moderna clinical trial.

Look at pages 169 to 171 of the FDA briefing document for Moderna that showed 18 serious adverse events in the vaccine group as compared with only 1 in the placebo group in kids 6 through 23 months of age.

Furthermore, no one at the FDA/VRBPAC nor CDC/ACIP can explain why VAERS reports skyrocketed following the introduction of Covid-19 shots at the end of 2020 and why reports of vaccine injury in kids skyrocketed following the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA shot in kids last fall. Indeed FDA honcho Peter Marks had a meltdown at the end of the VRBPAC meeting on Wednesday because VAERS was trending on Twitter (apparently the public was not impressed with the VRBPAC’s self-serving nonsense).

Further observations:

At these meetings there is no critical thinking, no hard questions, and no debate.

There’s no science at all at these meetings, just a theatrical performance of science-y sounding things.

Quite literally, these so-called experts apologized to Moderna for asking them questions.

No one asks about adverse events.

There’s no discussion of antibody dependent enhancement, prion disease, or any of the other nightmare possibilities that seem to be emerging.

No VRBPAC member ever uses the phrase “negative efficacy” — even though the Pfizer application in kids showed negative efficacy between dose 1 and dose 2 and negative efficacy against the Omicron variant.

Antibodies are accepted as a valid measure even though everyone knows that there are no correlates of protection.

No one questioned the fact that FDA and CDC spent a year minimizing the risks of myocarditis and still could not get the safety signal to go away entirely.

No one questioned the fact that the international scientific consensus is that mRNA shots cause myocarditis in young people and that the U.S. is the only country in the world to push these shots on little kids.

The VRBPAC and ACIP members live in an alternative universe where sacrificing children is always acceptable to serve “The Greater Good(TM).”

VRBPAC and ACIP meetings are a horror movie come to life.

While these shots showed no benefit and catastrophic harms… the VRBPAC members wanted MORE, MORE, MORE!

Paul Offit led the charge on Tuesday by arguing that Moderna’s toxic shot should be a THREE dose series instead of the two doses that Moderna was applying for. Because VRBPAC members are selected for ideological conformity and groupthink, several other members piled on and echoed Offit’s call for MORE Moderna doses in kids.

On Wednesday, Offit again led the charge by arguing that Pfizer was “underdosed” (his word) at 3 mcg of mRNA in little kids and that they should have put MORE mRNA in there to produce a larger antibody response — adverse events in children be damned.

At this point, the bloodlust of these committees is unquenchable.

In the end, there was no need to even hold the meetings because the decisions were already made before they started.

On Tuesday, VRBPAC voted 21 to 1 to authorize the Moderna EUA application to inject mRNA into kids 6 to 17 years old. (There was 1 abstention — from the new guy, Bruce Gellin.)

On Wednesday, VRBPAC voted 21 to 0 to authorize the EUA applications to inject Moderna into kids 6 months to 5 years old and Pfizer into little kids 6 months to 4 years old.

On Saturday the CDC let it slip that Covid-19 shots in kids will be 10-dose vials. 10-dose vials are terrible because administration errors go up and because it’s impossible to guarantee consistency across doses (unless perfectly shaken before each dose, the ingredients may not be evenly distributed across the 10 doses). The federal government has paid billions of dollars to these companies up front for these shots. The fact that they did not require single dose vials shows that they do not know what they are doing and they have absolutely no concern for your health.

At the end of the meeting Saturday ACIP voted 12 to 0 to authorize the applications to inject Moderna and Pfizer into little kids.

Rochelle Walensky signed off on the Final Solution on Saturday night.

The federal government’s massacre of the innocents began Monday June 20, 2022.

III. The short and long-term implications of these decisions

The VRBPAC and ACIP believe that they achieved some sort of great victory. They got nostalgic at the end of the meeting as they looked back over the Final Solution that they had constructed over the last year. One can imagine Reinhard Heydrich and the other participants in the Wannsee Conference in 1942 felt the same way.

The reality is quite different. The FDA and CDC have guaranteed their own collapse.

Here’s how the next few years are likely to play out:

About one-third to half of the Democratic Party (including the overwhelming majority of the public health establishment) are afflicted with hypochondria, Stockholm Syndrome, and/or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. They are going to take their kids to be injected right away at any nearby CVS, Walgreens, or out of the back of a windowless van down by the river. They don’t care — “needles into arms (and legs)” is the only thing that Democrats believe in now. They’re junkies who get high from deadly virtue signaling.

Those poor kids are going to develop a wide range of adverse events — myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, autoimmune disorders, cancer, endocrine disorders, infertility, and sudden “unexplained” death, to name a few. The over-boosted adults will suffer a similar fate. The bourgeoisie will lose their health, their dignity, and then all of their wealth to the Pharma cartel.

Over time, about half of injured families will come over to our side and become single issue medical freedom voters. That will give us the numbers we need to take power and prosecute the evil doers. All of the demographic advantages that Democrats thought would carry them to permanent majorities will evaporate.

Republicans, who understand vaccine injury better than Democrats at this point, will win the November midterm elections, the 2024 Presidential election, and the majority of local, state, and federal elections for the foreseeable future. Republicans will control all of the appropriations committees and oversight committees that have purview over HHS, FDA, CDC, and NIH. Fauci, Walensky, Califf, and Marks will all quickly retire to avoid being called to testify.

The meritocratic bourgeoisie system that has guided the U.S. for two centuries has already collapsed. It turns out that meritocracy was always a lie. Many of the most esteemed bourgeois institutions in the country were represented at the meetings last week — Stanford, Harvard, NEJM, and the Rockefeller Foundation — and they have no credibility now. When the fate of our nation was on the line they revealed themselves to be fascist clowns whose ideology renders them less smart than the average homeschooled fifth grader. The trust that was the lifeblood of our system is no more.

By failing to listen to the majority of the country that is deeply skeptical of these shots, the FDA and CDC deepened the polarization and made reconciliation nearly impossible.

These decisions will make no difference on the pandemic. If anything these authorizations of more shots for kids mean that the pandemic will continue for years — because the shots do not work and they fuel the evolution of variants that evade vaccines.

One might think that these decisions will lead to civil war or partition of the country into separate independent red and blue countries. At this point there is no need for red states like Texas and Florida to split off to form their own countries because Republicans are about to control EVERYTHING — Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts.

IV. Where do we go from here?

We’re all traumatized right now but we need to keep our head in the game. We need to become the leaders who will take over as things begin to fall apart.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is still going to vote on Thursday June 23, on Moderna’s EUA application to inject mRNA into kids 6 to 17. You can still register a formal comment — look for the blue comment button in the upper left hand corner or upload your own file.

Then, eight days from now the FDA is going to vote on the “Future Framework”. It’s a proposal to exempt Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers from clinical trials for reformulated shots. It’s literally the worst idea in the history of public health.

Long term we need to shift our strategy from lobbying others to taking power ourselves. Right now it seems the Republican Party is the best vehicle for accomplishing this goal. But honestly at this point, how many national Republican leaders (10? 20?) actually understand the enormity of the catastrophe that has been inflicted upon us over these past two years?

We need to make the point every chance that we get that the November midterm election is not about inflation, guns, abortion, drag shows, nor Ukraine. The 2022 midterm election is about stopping the Pharma genocide. Vote for politicians who publicly speak out against all of the following ongoing atrocities:

• Tony Fauci funded the creation of a gain-of-function virus that got loose and killed 6 million+ people.

• The medical establishment blocks access to safe and effective treatments in order to create the market for vaccines.

• Hospitals used and continue to use the wrong protocols because all of their financial incentives are not aligned with health.

• Poorly tested genetic experiments were injected into BILLIONS of people worldwide causing an increase in all-cause mortality and a wide range of horrific adverse events that are going to wreck human health and the economy for DECADES.

• Social media companies censor life saving information to protect the cartel while enriching themselves; the entire mainstream media is complicit in covering up the genocide.

• Schools and universities are incapable of conducting even basic risk benefit assessments and instead sacrifice the students in their care to the predatory pharmaceutical industry.

• The FDA and CDC sold the American people to the pharmaceutical industry.

THAT’S what needs to be addressed, unraveled, and prosecuted. Everything else is secondary.

Source

World’s largest cricket farm finishes construction in London, Ontario

World’s largest cricket farm finishes construction in London, Ontario

The massive facility will employ just 60 workers and will rely mostly on artificial intelligence, technology that won the developers awards from the United Nations for commitment to Sustainable Development Goals.

Canada is now home to the world’s largest cricket farm, as construction firm EllisDon announced on Twitter that development at Aspire Food Group’s new plant in London, Ontario was finished.

The massive facility run by Aspire, which the CBC describes as “a global industry leader in the production of edible insects,” will generate 9,000 metric tons of crickets that can be consumed by humans and pets, Canadian Manufacturing reported.

The outlet also reported that Aspire claims to already have orders for the next two years, and Producer.com says that around four-billion crickets will soon be transferred to the facility.

With food costs rising worldwide, the company hopes more consumers will purchase crickets as a cheap source of protein.

Just 60 employees will work at the massive facility, which is mostly operated through artificial intelligence.

Aspire’s cricket farm uses DarwinAI, developed by another Ontario company, to manage its automated storage and retrieval system.

“A growing population and increasing demand for food and material requires sustainable, scalable solutions,” Mohammed Ashour, CEO of Aspire told London Inc. “We are honoured that the IRCAI saw the value in an AI solution which will accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable ingredients and materials through insect technology.”

Source

Fauci and the Highest Stage of White Coat Supremacy

K. Lloyd Billingsley  •  Friday, June 17, 2022

“Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden, tested positive for COVID-19 on a rapid antigen test,” the National Institutes of Health announced Wednesday. Embattled Americans have reason to be puzzled.

As the NIH explains, Dr. Fauci “is fully vaccinated and has been boosted twice,” so the vaccines he has recommended must not be effective. As it happens, Dr. Fauci wants children ages 2-4 to receive three vaccination doses.

The NIH says Dr. Fauci “is currently experiencing mild symptoms,” with no explanation of what, exactly, the symptoms might be. Americans might expect the National Institutes of Health, with a budget of more than $40 billion, to provide more detail, as it does on the division Dr. Fauci commands.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 and in 1968 took a job with the NIH. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, but in 1984 the NIH proclaimed Fauci director of NIAID. Kary Mullis, who earned a PhD in biochemistry at UC Berkeley and won a Nobel prize for the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), is on record saying that Fauci “doesn’t understand electronic microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.”

Fauci, 81, has reversed himself many times but now claims “I represent science,” and that those who criticize him are attacking science itself. If embattled Americans thought that was a symptom of megalomania it would be hard to blame them.

Dr. Fauci represents white coat supremacy, the exercise of executive-level power with no need to face a vote of the people. White coat supremacy continues, even when the fallibilities of the ruling bureaucrats and their agencies are on full display. The NIH does not get into Dr. Fauci’s past failures, or the fallout from his pandemic mandates, but there is no cause for alarm.

Source: https://blog.independent.org/2022/06/17/highest-stage-white-coat-supremacy/

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)