+ Reply to Thread
Page 37 of 94 FirstFirst 1 27 37 47 87 94 LastLast
Results 721 to 740 of 1875

Thread: Vaccine Crimes

  1. Link to Post #721
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...2-a9c372a06637
    06/21/22
    By Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D.

    "In response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted by Children’s Health Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week admitted it never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

    In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

    The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).


    In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.

    The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”

    Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”

    After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.

    Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).

    I was wrong.

    The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).

    This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.

    If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.

    The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”



    And yet, in the agency’s response to the FOIA request, it wrote that “no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.”

    The agency suggested contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.



    CDC officials repeatedly claimed they have not seen safety signals in VAERS.

    For example, on April 27, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated the CDC did not see any signals related to heart inflammation.

    But a PRR calculation I did using the number of myo/pericarditis reports listed in the first table produced by the CDC obtained via the FOIA request reveals clear and unambiguous safety signals relative to the comparator vaccines mentioned in the briefing document (i.e., flu vaccines, FLUAD and Shingrix).

    The table is dated April 2, 2021, almost four weeks before she made those remarks.

    In fact, among the 15 adverse events for adults included in that week’s tabulations, PRRs I calculated also show loud-and-clear safety signals for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, coagulopathy, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), stroke and death.

    The actual monitoring the CDC did diverges from the one promised in the briefing document in other ways.

    For example, the CDC never created tables of the top 25 adverse events reported in the previous week, tables comparing different vaccine manufacturers, or tables of auto-immune diseases.

    And it only began monitoring in early April 2021, even though reports from COVID-19 vaccines had been flooding VAERS since mid-December of the previous year.

    To be clear, VAERS is not the only database the CDC uses to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety.

    For example, the CDC sponsored several studies of COVID-19 safety using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is comprised of millions of medical records from HMO’s across several states.

    Those studies do not raise many safety concerns. However, they make many questionable methodological choices.

    To give one example, a major safety study based on VSD data published in September 2021, in “JAMA,” compares adverse event rates that occur within 1-21 days of vaccination to the rate of occurrence from 22 to 42 days after vaccination.

    It makes no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or before vaccination versus after in the same individuals.

    Moreover, the VSD is far from infallible, having failed initially to detect the increase in myocarditis rates.

    In contrast, although calculating PRR’s is a blunt pharmacovigilance tool and far from perfect, it nevertheless has the advantage of being straightforward and difficult to manipulate with statistical sleight of hand.

    PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.

    It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.

    Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.

    And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.

    It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.

    But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), Ewan (26th June 2022), Franny (22nd June 2022), Harmony (22nd June 2022), Johnnycomelately (22nd June 2022), mountain_jim (22nd June 2022), Reinhard (22nd June 2022), Satori (22nd June 2022), TomKat (27th June 2022)

  3. Link to Post #722
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Pfizer Classified Almost All Severe Adverse Events During COVID Vaccine Trials ‘Not Related to Shots’
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...2-a9c372a06637
    By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D
    06/21/22

    "The case reports included in Pfizer clinical trial documents, released June 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events — as being “not related” to the vaccine.

    The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents reveals 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.

    The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide.

    The FDA on June 1 released the documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.

    Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), a group of doctors and public health professionals, submitted the FOIA request.

    CRFs show deaths, severe reactions to the vaccines during Phase 3 trials

    The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants.

    They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being “not related” to the vaccine.

    For example:

    A female in her early 50s (randomization number 86545) who participated in the trial at the Sterling Research Group in Cincinnati, Ohio, died of an apparent myocardial infarction on Nov. 4, 2020. She had received two doses of the vaccine, on Sept. 10 and Sept. 29, 2020.
    The patient had a medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, hypothyroidism, osteoarthritis of the knees and attention deficit disorder. Her death was listed as “not related” to the vaccine, and was instead attributed to “hypertensive cardiovascular disease.”

    A female in her late 50s (randomization number 220496), who participated in the trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, died of cardiac arrest on Oct. 21, 2020. Her death, however, was indicated as “not related” to her vaccinations (which occurred on July 30, 2020, and Aug. 20, 2020) as it “occurred 2 months after last receipt of study agent,” according to her CRF.
    The participant’s medical history included obesity, placement of a gastric sleeve, gastroesophageal reflux, sleep apnea, supraventricular tachycardia, hypothyroidism, depression and asthma.

    A male in his mid-60s (randomization number 221076) who participated in the trial operated by the Texas-based Ventavia Research Group died of an apparent myocardial infarction on Nov. 28, 2020. He had received the two doses of the vaccine on July 31, 2020, and Aug. 19, 2020.
    The participant had a medical history that included a previous myocardial infarction, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, anxiety, bilateral hip pain, type 2 diabetes, fluid retention, angina (intermittent), restless leg syndrome, Vitamin D deficiency, tobacco dependency and the placement of a coronary arterial stent in 2017.

    According to the CRF, he sustained the myocardial infarction on Oct. 27, 2020, and was diagnosed with pneumonia the following day. While both diagnoses were classified as “serious” in his CRF, they were both listed as “not related” to the vaccination, with his myocardial infection attributed to a “failed cardiac stent” and the pneumonia simply attributed to “infection.”

    A female in her teens (randomization number 104650) was diagnosed with right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis on Nov. 15, 2020, which was still ongoing as of Mar. 29, 2021, the date of the CRF. She was hospitalized and her condition was classified as “serious,” but it was indicated as “not related” to the vaccine, instead attributed to a “fracture” occurring prior to her vaccination on Sept. 11, 2020.
    The patient had a medical history including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and obesity.

    A male in his mid-70s (randomization number 227629) participating in the trial at Clinical Neuroscience Solutions Inc. (operating in Florida and Tennessee) sustained a series of adverse events following his vaccinations on Aug. 13 and Oct. 7, 2020.
    He was diagnosed with COVID-19 on Aug. 30, 2020, which coincided with several other diagnoses classified as “serious,” including abdominal adhesions (Aug. 29, 2020), altered mental status (Aug. 29, 2020, lasting through Sept. 16, 2020), and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (Aug. 30, 2020). These diagnoses required his hospitalization.

    He was also listed as having suffered from congestive heart failure on Aug. 30, 2020, but this diagnosis was listed as “not serious” and as “not related” to the vaccine, but to “prior surgery,” with no further details given. Similarly, his other serious adverse events were listed as being related to “prior” or “previous” surgery, or to “concomitant non-drug treatment.”

    Other “non-serious” adverse events listed in this patient’s CRF include hypokalemia, anemia, acute renal failure, sepsis, hyponatremia, leukopenia, small bowel obstruction, aspiration pneumonia, mild concentric left ventricular hypertrophy (symptoms of which were still ongoing as of the CRF date of Mar. 29, 2021) and urinary tract infection.

    The patient had a medical history encompassing ongoing hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, hiatal hernia and previous diagnoses of small bowel resection, small bowel perforation, inguinal hernia, osteoarthritis in both knees and knee replacement (both knees).

    A male in his mid-70s (randomization number 266982) participating in the trial at Boston Medical Center suffered a series of adverse events following vaccination, including pneumonia and peripheral edema. He had received two doses of the vaccine, on Oct. 2, 2020, and Oct. 27, 2020.
    The patient was hospitalized for pneumonia on Jan. 20, 2021, in an event classified as “serious” but also as “not related” to the vaccine. However, the cause of his pneumonia was listed in the CRF simply as “un-related to vaccine,” while his peripheral edema diagnosis was attributed to “existing neuropathy.”

    During his hospitalization with pneumonia, his blood pressure was measured as high as 179/72, with a heart rate reaching 105 beats per minute and an oxygen saturation level that fell to 92.0. In total, he had three emergency room visits during the observation period.

    The patient had a medical history that included type 2 diabetes, alcoholic cirrhosis, hypothyroidism, asthma, sleep apnea, hypertension, diabetic neuropathy, congestive heart failure, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, insomnia, excessive urination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and HIV-positive status.

    A protocol deviation also occurred involving this patient, as his diary was not activated following administration of the first dose of the vaccine.

    A male in his early 40s (randomization number 68489) who participated in the trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center sustained chronic myelogenous leukemia on Sept. 24, 2020, with the condition ongoing as of the date of the CRF on Mar. 29, 2021.
    This was classified as a “serious” and “life-threatening” adverse event, albeit one that did not require hospitalization, but it was listed as “not related” to the vaccination but instead to a “genetic change in stem cells.”

    The patient had been vaccinated on Aug. 26, 2020, and Sept. 17, 2020, and had a medical history of asthma and seasonal allergies. Other “non-serious” adverse events he sustained included leukocytosis and thrombocytosis.

    A female in her mid-40s (randomization number 49018) who participated in the trial at Clinical Neuroscience Solutions Inc. was diagnosed with kidney stones on Jan. 4, 2021.
    This was classified as a “serious” adverse event that required hospitalization, but was listed as “not related” to the vaccine, instead being related, again, to “kidney stone” (sic). She had received the two doses of the vaccine on Aug. 17, 2020, and Sept. 8, 2020.

    The patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 on Jan. 27, 2021. Her prior medical history included migraine headaches, hypercholesterolemia and a Tarlov cyst.

    A female approximately 30 years old (randomization number 53307) participating in the trial at Boston Medical Center, with nothing to report in her medical history, sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) on Sept. 9, 2020, with symptoms continuing until Feb. 8, 2021.
    This injury was listed as being related to the second dose of the vaccine, which she received on Sept. 9, 2020 (she had previously received her first dose on Aug. 17, 2020).

    A female in her late 50s (randomization number 260125) participating in the trial at Clinical Neuroscience Solutions Inc., suffered from acute exacerbation of asthma. The symptoms appeared in mid-December 2020, following her vaccination on Sept. 16, 2020, and Oct. 5, 2020.
    Her symptoms were classified as serious but not life-threatening, and she was hospitalized. However, her asthma symptoms were listed as “not related” to the vaccine, instead being related to “asthma” with no further explanation provided. On Jan. 12, 2021, her blood pressure was recorded as 183/130, with a heart rate of 98 beats per minute.

    Other less serious adverse events sustained by the patient included injection site pain, body pain, chills and a low-grade fever.

    Her medical history included cholecystitis (and a cholecystectomy), herniated disc, total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral oophorectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, endometriosis, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, rheumatoid arthritis in remission, asthma, seasonal allergies, irritable bowel syndrome and obesity.

    A male in his late 20s (randomization number 48413) who participated in the trial at Clinical Neuroscience Solutions Inc., sustained a bilateral pulmonary embolism on Dec. 14, 2020, with symptoms still ongoing as of the CRF date of Mar. 29, 2021.
    This was listed as a “serious” adverse event that required hospitalization, but was attributed to the patient’s habit of vaping and his “sedentary lifestyle.” He had received the two doses of the vaccine on Aug. 13, 2020, and Sept. 2, 2020.

    Other post-vaccination symptoms listed for the patient included fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new/worsened muscle pain, new/worsened joint pain and swelling.

    The patient had a medical history that included elevated triglycerides, genital herpes and seasonal allergies, in addition to a vaping habit.

    The many serious adverse events – and several deaths – recorded during the Phase 3 trials are also apparent in a separate, massive document, exceeding 2,500 pages, cataloging such adverse events.

    This document lists a wide range of adverse events suffered by trial participants classified as toxicity level 4 — the highest and most serious such level.

    However, not one of the level 4 (most severe) adverse events listed in this particular document is classified as being related to the vaccination.

    Level 4 adverse events listed in the document include but are not limited to the following, many of which occurred in multiple patients:

    Acute cholecystitis
    Acute respiratory failure
    Adrenal carcinoma
    Anaphylactic shock
    Aortic valve incompetence
    Appendicitis
    Arrhythmia, supraventricular
    Arteriosclerosis
    Brain abscess
    Cardiac arrest
    Chronic myeloid leukemia
    Complicated appendicitis/acute appendicitis with necrosis
    Congenital heart disease/heart anomaly
    Coronary artery occlusion
    COVID-19 illness
    Deep vein thrombosis
    Diverticulitis
    Hemiplegic migraine
    Hemorrhagic stroke
    Interstitial lung disease
    Myocardial infarction
    Orthostatic hypotension/possible postural hypotension
    Osteoarthritis
    Pericolic abscess
    Peritoneal abscess
    Renal colic
    Ruptured diverticulum
    Small bowel obstruction/small intestinal obstruction
    Spontaneous coronary artery dissection
    Subarachnoid hemorrhage
    Suicidal ideation (and suicidal ideation with attempt)
    Syncope
    Type 2 diabetes
    Worsening of abdominal pain
    An “unevaluable event/“unknown of unknown origin”
    Similarly, only a small number of toxicity level 3 adverse events were indicated as having been “related” to vaccination. Such adverse events included but are not limited to the following, some of which occurred in multiple trial participants:

    Arthralgia
    Blood glucose increase/glucose spike
    Deafness/hearing loss
    Dyspepsia
    Hypotension
    Lymph node pain
    Lymphadenopathy/lymph node swelling
    Musculoskeletal chest pain (non-cardiac)
    Neutropenia
    Pain in fingers/bilateral hands
    Pruritus
    Pyrexia/febrile syndrome
    Severe headache
    Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
    Sleep disorder/sleep disturbance
    Tachycardia
    Urticaria
    Ventricular arrhythmia
    Vertigo
    Page 2,525 of the document in question also lists six trial participant deaths, with causes of death including arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, hemorrhagic stroke and myocardial infarction.

    The small number of adverse events listed as being connected to the vaccine follows a trend noted in the previous tranche of Pfizer-BioNTech documents, released in May.

    An additional document released in this month’s tranche catalogs patients who discontinued their participation in the Phase 3 trial, or whose participation was discontinued by physicians or other medical professionals.

    While many patients were discontinued because they could not be located, because of a physician’s orders, because they moved to another region or for other personal reasons, numerous patients ended their participation due to adverse events, including but not limited to the following symptoms:

    Acute myocardial infarction
    Amnesia
    Anorexia
    Atrial fibrillation
    Cerebral infarction
    Congestive cardiac failure
    Coronary artery disease
    Deafness (unilateral)
    Depression
    Diabetic foot
    Diverticular perforation
    Exposure during pregnancy
    Eye pain
    Gait instability
    Gastric adenocarcinoma
    Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
    Hypertension
    Irregular heart rate
    Loss of taste and smell
    Myalgia
    Paraparesis
    Parkinsonism
    Presyncope
    Pulmonary embolism
    Pyrexia
    Swelling face
    Tachycardia
    Transient ischaemic attack
    Urticaria
    Vaccine allergy
    Vertigo
    In other instances, subjects withdrew because of fears connected to safety concerns related to the vaccine, or discomfort in receiving the second dose.

    Clinical review document glosses over adverse events during trials

    Also included in June’s FDA document dump was a 334-page “clinical review” document, which appears to have been approved by the FDA on Apr. 30, 2021, and which presents “pivotal data” from Phase 1/2/3 Study C4591001, conducted in the U.S., along with “supporting” Phase 1/2 data from Study BNT162-01, performed in Germany.

    This document refers to both Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which received an EUA from the FDA, and the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, which received full FDA approval but is reportedly almost impossible to find at vaccination locations in the U.S.

    As previously reported by The Defender, a federal judge found the Pfizer-BioNTech and Pfizer Comirnaty vaccines are legally distinct.

    The clinical review document states:

    “BNT162b2 has received temporary authorizations for emergency supply in 28 countries and conditional marketing authorizations in 39 countries globally.

    “The name of the product supplied under emergency/temporary use authorization for all applicable regions is Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

    “The name of the product supplied under conditional marketing authorization for all applicable regions is COMIRNATY [COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)].”

    The document states that trial participants were administered one of two candidate vaccines, labeled BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 (the latter of which ultimately received an EUA from the FDA), or a placebo. A variety of dosage levels were also tested, ranging from 10 μg to 100 μg for BNT162b1, and 10 μg to 30 μg for BNT162b2.

    In Phase 1 of Study BNT162-01, the clinical review reports that “40% to 45% of participants who received BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 across age groups and across dose levels reported one or more AEs [adverse events] from Dose 1 through 28 days (i.e., 1 month) after Dose 2.”

    In what will turn out to be a general pattern throughout the clinical review, we are told that “most AEs were considered by the investigator as not related to study intervention and mild to moderate in severity, and all AEs were reported as resolved.”

    Some specific adverse events highlighted in this part of the clinical review include:

    “Among BNT162b1 recipients, 1 younger participant in the 10 μg group discontinued the study due to a moderate AE of malaise (considered as not related to study intervention) after Dose 1 and 1 younger participant in the 60 μg group discontinued due to a dose-limiting toxicity of pyrexia after Dose 1.

    “One older participant in the 20 μg group had an SAE of severe syncope (considered as not related to study intervention) after Dose 1 and study treatment was withdrawn.

    “Among BNT162b2 recipients, 1 younger participant in the 10 μg group discontinued the study due to a moderate AE of nasopharyngitis (considered as not related to study intervention) after Dose 1.

    “One older participant in the 20 μg group had an SAE of ankle fracture (considered as not related to study intervention) after receiving both doses, was listed as recovering, and remains in follow-up.”

    The clinical review also states “no deaths occurred in the Phase 1 part of Study BNT162-01.”

    The review adds that “from Dose 1 of BNT162b2 30 μg to the unblinding date, 6 (50.0%) participants in the younger age group and 3 (25.0%) participants in the older age group reported at least 1 AE.”

    Specifically, in this portion of the study, “two (16.7%) participants in the BNT162b2 30 μg younger age group and 1 (8.3%) participant in the BNT162b2 30 μg older age group reported at least 1 severe AE,” and “in the BNT162b2 30 μg younger age group, 3 (25.0%) participants reported at least 1 related AE and 1 (8.3%) participant reported 1 severe SAE.”

    These specific adverse events, according to the review, were reported in “the system organ class (SOC) of nervous system disorders (3 [25.0%] participants in the younger age group and 1 [8.3%] participant in the older age group), followed by musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (1 [8.3%] participant in each age group). All AEs by preferred term (PT) were reported by no more than 1 participant.”

    The review adds, “from Dose 1 to the unblinding date, 1 participant in the BNT162b2 30 μg younger age group reported a severe SAE (neuritis) that was assessed by the investigator as not related to study intervention,” and “there were no Phase 1 participants randomized to BNT162b2 30 μg or corresponding placebo who died through the data cutoff date of 13 March 2021.”

    Review of results from Study C4591001

    While “incidences in the BNT162b2 and placebo were similar within the age groups for younger (9.1% vs 11.1%) and older (4.3% vs 8.9%) participants, among those who received BNT162b2 instead of the placebo, “two severe events of myalgia and gastric adenocarcinoma (which was also an SAE) were reported for 2 participants in the … younger age group, both assessed by the investigator as not related to study intervention.”

    It is further mentioned that “the only discontinuation due to an AE during this time was the participant in the BNT162b2 younger age group who reported an SAE of gastric adenocarcinoma (discontinued from the study on Day 23 after Dose 1 of BNT162b2).”

    Ultimately, from dose 1 to 1 month after dose 2 for participants during the blinded safety follow-up of study C4591001, “the numbers of overall participants who reported at least 1 AE and at least 1 related AE were higher in the BNT162b2 group (30.2% and 23.9%, respectively) as compared with the placebo group (13.9% and 6.0%, respectively).”

    Specifically, “severe AEs were reported by 1.2% and 0.7% in in the BNT162b2 and placebo groups respectively, and life-threatening AEs were similar (0.1% in both groups),” and “SAEs and “AEs leading to withdrawal were reported by ≤0.6% and ≤0.2%, respectively, in

    both groups,” while “discontinuations due to related AEs were reported in 13 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 11 participants in the placebo group (0.1% in both groups).”

    Overall, as reported for this part of the study, “in the younger age group, the number of participants who reported at least 1 AE from Dose 1 to 1 month after Dose 2 was 4233 (32.6%) and 1871 (14.4%) in the BNT162b2 and placebo groups, respectively. In the older age group, the number of participants who reported at least 1 AE from Dose 1 to 1 month after Dose 2 was 2384 (26.7%) and 1177 (13.2%) in the BNT162b2 and placebo groups, respectively.”

    The review specifies that “the most frequently reported AEs in the BNT162b2 group … were injection site pain (2915 [13.3%]), pyrexia (1517 [6.9%]), fatigue (1463 [6.7%]), chills (1365 [6.2%]), headache (1339 [6.1%]), and myalgia (1239 [5.7%]),” however, some more serious adverse events that were reported during this stage of the trial included facial paralysis, cardiac disorders, hepatic cirrhosis, cholecystitis/cholecystitis acute, biliary colic, bile duct stone, biliary dyskinesia, lymphadenopathy, appendicitis, optic neuritis and hypersensitivity/anaphylaxis.

    Overall, according to the review, “from Dose 1 to 1 month after Dose 2, severe AEs reported during the blinded follow-up period were low in frequency, reported in 1.2% of BNT162b2 recipients and 0.7% of placebo recipients.”

    During the “open-label follow-up period,” referring to the period when the initial trial has been completed but participants are invited to continue taking the study drug for an additional period, the review states “three participants originally randomized to BNT162b2 died during open-label follow-up.”

    While one of these deaths was reportedly due to a road accident, the other two were attributed to lung metastases and myocardial infarction. However, none of these deaths “were assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention.”

    Furthermore, according to the report, during this period “there were 12,006 participants who had at least 6 months of follow-up. Among these, 3,454 participants (28.8%) reported at least 1 AE and 2245 participants (18.7%) reported at least 1 related AE. Severe AEs and SAEs were reported by 2.1% and 1.6%, respectively.”

    The review provides data for participants from dose 3 (first dose of BNT162b2) to the data cutoff date. The severe adverse event incidence rate (IR) was 6.0 per 100 PY (patient-years), with specific conditions reported including pulmonary embolisms, thrombosis, urticaria, a cerebrovascular accident and COVID-19 pneumonia.

    Here, the review adds that the IR for original placebo participants who had at least 1 life-threatening AE from Dose 3 to the data cutoff date was 0.5 per 100 PY. Only one such life-threatening event, an instance of anaphylactoid reaction, was considered to be related to the vaccination. Other life-threatening, serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, gastrointestinal necrosis, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

    The report also notes, “There were 15 deaths in the BNT162b2 group and 14 deaths in the placebo group from Dose 1 to the unblinding date during the blinded placebo-controlled follow-up period.”

    However, the report does not appear to go into detail about the causes of death for either group, other than to state, “None of these deaths were assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention.”

    In the “Blinded Follow-Up Period from Dose 1 Through 1 Month After Dose 2,” in the BNT162b2 group, “SAE [serious adverse events] was similar in the BNT162b2 group (0.6%) and in the placebo group (0.5%),” with three SAEs in the non-placebo group deemed to be related to the vaccine. These included ventricular arrhythmia, lymphadenopathy and SIRVA.

    During the “open-label follow-up period” for “original BNT162b2 participants,” the report states “one younger participant with no past medical history had a life-threatening SAE of myocardial infarction 71 days after Dose 2 that was assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention.”

    However, despite its life-threatening nature, this condition “lasted 1 day and resolved the same day.”

    Overall, “from Dose 1 to 6 months after Dose 2, during the blinded and open-label follow-up periods, 190 (1.6%) participants in the BNT162b2 group reported at least 1 SAE,” and “the number of participants who reported at least 1 SAE was 73 (1.1%) and 117 (2.2%) in the younger and older age groups, respectively.”

    These SAEs were categorized as neoplasms, infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorders and injury/poisoning/procedural complications.

    An original placebo participant who received BNT162b2 for Dose 3 experienced a severe adverse event that “was assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention; specifically, “an anaphylactoid reaction 2 days post Dose 3” leading to the participant’s withdrawal from the study, despite a reported resolution.

    A separate subsection in the report specifically addressed cases of Bell’s palsy and facial paralysis among trial participants. Specifically, “during the blinded placebo-controlled follow-up period, 6 participants developed one-sided facial paralysis (Bell’s palsy): 4 were randomized to BNT162b2 (all male) and 2 were randomized to placebo (1 male; 1 female),” according to the review.

    Regarding the four vaccinated trial participants, their ages ranged from 40 to 70, with symptoms appearing three to 48 days after their last dose. Their symptoms were recorded as “mild to moderate in severity,” with duration ranging “from 3 to 68 days,” and with two of these cases “considered by the investigator to be related to study intervention.”

    Moreover, “during the open-label follow-up period, 3 participants who received BNT162b2 as Dose 3 or Dose 4 (after originally being randomized to placebo) experienced facial paralysis,” according to the review. These patients were all female, with an age range between 19 and 34. Events were recorded as beginning two to eight days after administration of the third dose, and “were mild to severe.” One case had a duration of 12 days, while the other two cases were ongoing as of the cutoff date of the trial.

    Notably, according to the review, “all these events of facial paralysis were considered by the investigator as related to study intervention.”

    The review adds, “during the open-label follow-up period for participants originally randomized to BNT162b2, a male participant 51 years of age developed Bell’s Palsy 154 days after receiving Dose 2.” No indication is given as to whether this was deemed to be related to the vaccination or not.

    From dose 1 to the unblinding date, heart-related adverse events included “6 acute myocardial infarctions, 4 myocardial infarctions group, and 1 acute coronary syndrome” in the BNT162b2 group.

    According to the review, “most of these events had onset distant (ie, >30 days following) to receipt of vaccine or placebo. None of these events were assessed by the investigator as related to study intervention.”

    Moreover, “there was 1 participant in the older BNT162b2 age group with pericarditis. The event had an onset of 28 days after Dose 2, was ongoing at the data cutoff date, and was assessed by the investigator as not related to the study intervention.”

    Additionally, “there were 8 cases of pulmonary embolism in the BNT162b2 group,” in addition to four hemorrhagic strokes and “2 ischemic strokes, 4 cerebral vascular accidents, 2 transient ischemic attacks” in this group, plus “1 case of thrombocytopenia and 1 case of platelet count decreased.”

    Furthermore, “there were 9 thrombotic events in the BNT162b2 group,” including seven instances of deep vein thrombosis, one case of coagulopathy and one case of ophthalmic vein thrombosis.

    Regarding autoimmune issues in the BNT162b2 group, the review states “there were 10 autoimmune disease cases identified,” with one case each of “autoimmune thyroiditis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, reactive arthritis, fibromyalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus, alopecia areata, psoriasis,” and two cases of psoriatic arthropathy.

    Pregnancies were largely glossed over in the review, which states:

    “At the time of the data cutoff date (13 March 2021), a total of 50 participants who had received BNT162b2 had reported pregnancies, including 42 participants originally randomized to the BNT162b2 group and 8 participants originally randomized to the placebo group who then received BNT162b2.”

    “In total, 12 participants (n=6 each in the randomized BNT162b2 and placebo groups) withdrew from the blinded placebo-controlled vaccination period of the study due to pregnancy, and 4 participants originally randomized to placebo who then received BNT162b2 withdrew from the open-label vaccination period due to pregnancy.

    “These participants continue to be followed for pregnancy outcomes. No births have been reported from individuals who have become pregnant in Study C4591001 as of the time of this submission.

    “All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. Available data on BNT162b2 administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

    Pfizer concludes vaccines are ‘safe and well-tolerated’

    Overall, despite the incidence of severe adverse events — some of which were admitted to be related to the vaccine — and deaths, as well as an admitted lack of data regarding outcomes for pregnant women who participated in the trial, the “safety conclusions” of the review indicate the following:

    “Based on Phase 1 data from the FIH Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 were safe and well-tolerated in healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings … and the AE profile and clinical laboratory results did not suggest any safety concerns.

    “Based on Phase 1 data from Study C4591001 and Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 were safe and well-tolerated in younger healthy adults 18 to 85 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings … and the AE profile did not suggest any safety concerns, including up to approximately 6 months after Dose 2 for BNT162b2 30 μg groups.

    “Based on Phase 2/3 data from approximately 44,000 participants ≥16 years of age with up to at least 6 months of follow-up after Dose 2 in Study C4591001, BNT162b2 at 30 μg was safe and well-tolerated across age groups … and the AE profile did not suggest any serious safety concerns. The incidence of SAEs and deaths were low in the context of the number of participants enrolled and comparable in BNT162b2 and placebo. The incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was also generally low and similar between BNT162b2 and placebo groups.

    “Cumulative safety follow-up to at least 6 months after Dose 2 for approximately 12,000 Phase 2/3 participants originally randomized to BNT162b2, comprising the combined blinded and open-label periods, showed no new safety signals or suggested [any] new safety concerns arising from this period of follow-up.

    “Similarly, open-label follow-up of participants originally randomized to placebo from the time of unblinding to receive BNT162b2 until the data cutoff date showed no new safety signals or concerns.

    “The AE profile among approximately 44,000 participants ≥16 years of age enrolled to date as of the most recent safety cutoff date (13 March 2021), was mostly reflective of reactogenicity events with low incidences of severe and/or related events. The incidence of SAEs was low and similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Few participants withdrew from the study due to AEs. Few deaths occurred overall in both the vaccine and placebo groups with no imbalance.

    “For participants randomized to placebo and then unblinded to receive BNT162b2 vaccination, open-label data from the time of unblinding to the data cutoff date (13 March 2021) showed no new safety findings or signals.

    “Taken together, efficacy and immunogenicity data suggest the BNT162b2 (30 μg) 2-dose regimen induces a strong immune response and provides durable protection from COVID-19 across a spectrum of individuals representative of the population at large for individuals ≥16 years of age: those with or without prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and those in higher-risk categories based on age, race, ethnicity, and/or comorbidity.”

    As a result, and based on the above data, the review makes a case for the approval of BNT162b2:

    “A vaccine program must be implemented expediently and rapidly expanded to have a significant impact on the pandemic course. Licensure of BNT162b2 is likely to enhance vaccine uptake by facilitating supply of vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech directly to pharmacies and healthcare providers/facilities.

    “The greatest impact of BNT162b2 licensure may be direct supply to healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations such as elderly patients and those who live in rural and underserved communities (i.e., individuals who might be unable to navigate the challenges of securing vaccine access using the systems in place for EUA).

    “Expansion of vaccine via licensure would ultimately improve the prospect of achieving population herd immunity to bring the pandemic under control.

    “Overall, the potential risks and benefits, as assessed by the safety profile and the efficacy and immunogenicity of BNT162b2 (30 μg), are balanced in favor of the potential benefits to prevent COVID-19 in immunized individuals.

    “Likewise, the BNT162b2 30 μg benefit and risk profile support further development in pediatric, maternal, and other at-risk populations.” "[COLOR="red"]
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), DaveToo (22nd June 2022), Ewan (22nd June 2022), fifi (22nd June 2022), Franny (22nd June 2022), Harmony (22nd June 2022), Johnnycomelately (22nd June 2022), Mike Gorman (29th June 2022), mountain_jim (22nd June 2022), Patient (28th June 2022), Reinhard (22nd June 2022)

  5. Link to Post #723
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Watchdog Finds 69% of NIH Scientists Don’t Report Foreign, China Ties; $350M Secret Royalty Payments
    10,313 views 6/21/22
    3.4K
    Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov
    781K subscribers

    🔥 Exclusive interview with former PFIZER Chief Science Officer 👉 https://ept.ms/GlobalVaccineFraudRM

    Resources:

    🔵 Sekur:

    https://ept.ms/3yW0Wul

    🔵 Full NIH Interview:

    https://ept.ms/350MSecretPaymentsRM

    🔵 Watchdog Report:

    https://ept.ms/3NajUnB

    🔵 Watchdog Analysis:

    https://ept.ms/3y9VPZT

    🔵 Science Article:

    https://ept.ms/3b70C54

    🔵 Harvard Professor:

    https://ept.ms/39JLdaK

    🔵 Cleveland Clinic:

    https://ept.ms/3HLjDqe

    Last edited by onawah; 22nd June 2022 at 05:47.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Ankle Biter (22nd June 2022), avid (22nd June 2022), Bill Ryan (22nd June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), DaveToo (22nd June 2022), Ewan (22nd June 2022), fifi (22nd June 2022), Franny (22nd June 2022), Gwin Ru (22nd June 2022), Harmony (22nd June 2022), Johnnycomelately (22nd June 2022), mountain_jim (22nd June 2022), Reinhard (22nd June 2022)

  7. Link to Post #724
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    2,616
    Thanks
    2,694
    Thanked 13,330 times in 2,365 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/cal...h-bomb-on-fda/

    During an open public hearing of the FDA, Sam Dodson, an electrical engineer called them out for doing “nothing” with the “massive safety signals,” colluding with pharmaceutical companies to suppress trial data for 75 years, ignoring fraudulent data, ignoring adverse events like myocarditis and prion diseases and ignoring issues with infertility.

    The FDA unanimously approved COVID jabs for 6-month-olds anyway.

    Nonetheless, we should ALL begin speaking this way to anybody attempting to coerce us into taking the death shot.

  8. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Ankle Biter (22nd June 2022), Bill Ryan (22nd June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), Ewan (22nd June 2022), fifi (24th June 2022), Franny (22nd June 2022), Gwin Ru (22nd June 2022), Harmony (22nd June 2022), Johnnycomelately (22nd June 2022), justntime2learn (22nd June 2022), mountain_jim (26th June 2022), onawah (24th June 2022)

  9. Link to Post #725
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    1,790
    Thanks
    5,347
    Thanked 10,971 times in 1,706 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    It was tough to decide which forum to place this thread in.
    Vax side effects, crimes etc. etc.

    I think this is probably the most appropriate.

    The people mentioned in this piece qualify as criminals to me.

    The incestuous relationship between government health bodies/individuals and the pharma industry in Canada is an in-your-face conflict of interest, unconscionable and illegal.

    Amazing Polly does excellent work once again.
    Truly a BOOM! Highly recommended:


    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/RzCthfsFnxoE/

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), Ewan (24th June 2022), fifi (24th June 2022), Harmony (24th June 2022), mountain_jim (26th June 2022), onawah (24th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022), Wookie (24th June 2022)

  11. Link to Post #726
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Pfizer, Moderna COVID Vaccines May Increase Risk of Infection, Study Shows
    6/23/22
    By Megan Redshaw
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...8-f46fb4a46f75

    "A new peer-reviewed study shows two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine yield negative protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, while previous infection without vaccination offers about 50% immunity.

    The findings, published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) analyzed information from more than 100,000 Omicron-infected and non-infected residents in Qatar from Dec. 23, 2021, through Feb. 21, 2022.

    The authors compared the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, natural immunity from previous infection with other variants and hybrid immunity (a combination of infection and vaccination) against symptomatic Omicron infection and severe, critical and fatal disease.

    Researchers found those who had a prior infection but had not been vaccinated had 46.1% and 50% immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants more than 300 days after the previous infection.

    However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but had not been previously infected, had negative immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants — indicating an increased risk of infection compared to someone without prior infection and vaccination.

    Six months after the second dose of Pfizer, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4% below an average person without infection and vaccination, which as a control, was set at 0.

    For two doses of Moderna, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3% about six months after the last dose.

    The authors said three doses of the Pfizer shot increased immunity to over 50%, but immunity was measured only at a median of 42 days after the third dose, showing a rapid immune decline in a very short period of time.

    In comparison, those who had previously been infected had 50% immunity even at 300 days after infection.

    After six months, the study showed vaccine efficacy fell to negative figures 270 days after the second dose, predicting more rapidly waning immunity for vaccines compared to natural immunity.

    The researchers concluded:

    “No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection.”

    But that statement is ambiguous, said Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, because it could lead readers to wrongly conclude the researchers found that previous infection, vaccination or some combination of vaccination and infection provided equal protection against the BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron variants.

    Setty also pointed out the lack of statistical significance in the data surrounding severe, critical or fatal infections:

    “Table S5 compares natural immunity to the Moderna formulation. With the BA.1 variant, only natural immunity has positive effectiveness that is statistically significant. You can see that for all the other combinations of vaccine doses, the window of statistical significance extends into the negative range.

    “For example, in the “Three Doses with no prior infection” row the effectiveness where we can be 95% certain ranges from -435% to 100%. This is meaningless. They cannot claim that three doses is predictive of benefit. In fact, it could very well be deleterious. We just don’t know because so few people had severe illness in that cohort.

    “The equivalent table is not given for Pfizer, however Figure 2 in the main text shows there is a statistically significant benefit against severe illness.”

    With regard to the BA.2 variant, natural immunity may also fall in the negative range (-6.8 to 92.4), as does three doses with no prior infection (-3800 to 100), Setty said. “Only when they group the two variants together can they calculate effectiveness that is statistically significant.”

    Setty said researchers also excluded a large number of cases from their calculation and failed to disclose how many people got severe, critical or fatal COVID-19.

    Setty told The Defender:

    “As is always the case right now, they only count cases from the time of maximum vaccine effect (>14 days after the second jab or >7 days after the booster). Figure S3 shows that 116 vaccinated people got COVID-19 between the first and second dose, while three people got COVID-19 within 14 days of the second dose and 156 got COVID-19 within a week of the third dose.

    “All of these cases were excluded from their calculation. Nowhere do they tell us how many of those got severe, critical or fatal COVID-19.”

    Setty also noted researchers glossed over the time frames where they compare effectiveness. He said:

    “In Figure 3, researchers only calculated effectiveness of natural immunity by adding up cases after four months. This is probably because researchers define previous infection occurring greater than 90 days earlier.

    “However, even 120 days out, a previous infection still offers greater protection than two or three doses at their maximum window of protection. Even a year out, natural immunity is still on par with a recently boosted individual.”



    Previous NEJM study showed natural immunity superior to two doses of Pfizer shot

    The June 15 NEJM study followed another NEJM study, published June 9, that found natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons.”

    Using the Israeli Ministry of Health database, researchers extracted data for August and September 2021, when the Delta variant was predominant, on all persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

    The study found both natural and artificial immunity waned over time, but individuals who were previously infected but were not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection compared to those who received two doses of Pfizer and who had never been infected.

    “Among persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, protection against reinfection decreased as the time increased,” researchers said, “however, this protection was higher” than protection conferred during the same time interval through two vaccine doses.

    “Natural immunity wins again,” tweeted Dr. Martin Makary, a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, referring to the study.
    Quote Marty Makary MD, MPH
    @MartyMakary
    ·
    Follow
    Natural Immunity wins again. New England Journal Study: Natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons.”
    nejm.org
    Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 | NEJM
    Original Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2
    5:25 PM · Jun 12, 2022
    7.3K
    See the latest COVID-19 information on Twitter
    Researchers acknowledged natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 “provides natural immunity against reinfection,” adding that recent studies have shown “waning of the immunity provided by” Pfizer’s vaccine."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), DaveToo (25th June 2022), Ewan (25th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (26th June 2022), melissanederland (24th June 2022), mountain_jim (26th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022)

  13. Link to Post #727
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Bombshell Study: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Serious Adverse Event Risks Significantly Higher than Risk of COVID-19
    From: Health Freedom Summit <healthfreedomsummit@f.kajabimail.net
    6/25/22

    "The Pfizer Phase 3 trial which was used by NIAID, FDA, and CDC to justify the emergency use authorization is a junk clinical trial which

    1. Was inappropriately halted before it even got close to meeting the intended follow up period,

    2. Did not provide a sufficiently long follow up analysis of vaccination-associated adverse events

    3. And in which the control group was intentionally eliminated.

    This resulted in basically erasing any opportunity to ever get to the bottom of what the major true risks of the Pfizer mRNA inoculations were.
    You can also find a PDF summary of this analysis and findings here.
    https://www.canadiancovidcareallianc...ec-16-2021.pdf
    Also don’t miss this wonderfully clear and accurate summary video.

    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/voaxg5/?pub=ijro7
    Last edited by onawah; 25th June 2022 at 23:38.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), DaveToo (25th June 2022), Ewan (26th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Gwin Ru (26th June 2022), Harmony (26th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (26th June 2022), mountain_jim (26th June 2022), Patient (26th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022), wondering (26th June 2022)

  15. Link to Post #728
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    8,759
    Thanks
    59,348
    Thanked 77,676 times in 8,597 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/statu...12fG5592sxjDig






    https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/statu...12fG5592sxjDig




    Last edited by mountain_jim; 26th June 2022 at 18:00.
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), Ewan (26th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Franny (27th June 2022), Gwin Ru (26th June 2022), Harmony (27th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (27th June 2022), Mike Gorman (29th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022), wondering (26th June 2022)

  17. Link to Post #729
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    1,790
    Thanks
    5,347
    Thanked 10,971 times in 1,706 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Quote Posted by mountain_jim (here)

    https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/statu...12fG5592sxjDig


    "FACT: Fertility not affected by vaccine, doctors urge"

    Did anyone else notice the obvious equivocation in the title of the article?

    It is not necessary to start an article with "FACT" unless you are trying to promote
    questionable information.
    And then to immediately follow it up with "urge" (another sign of weakness) shows
    how untrustworthy the article is without even needing to read it.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), Ewan (27th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (27th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (27th June 2022), mountain_jim (26th June 2022), wondering (26th June 2022)

  19. Link to Post #730
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    BIRX SHAKING AND STAMMERING, SAYS SHE DOESN’T KNOW IF GOVERNMENT WAS LYING ABOUT THE JABS
    6/25/22
    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/bir...bout-the-jabs/

    (Video here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c50210...-december-2020 )


    "Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, Dr Deborah Birx is looking pretty rough under questioning by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan last Thursday. Looks like fear of the gallows.

    She testifies that she knew in December 2020 and January 2021 that people who were naturally infected with COVID-19 were experiencing reinfection based on data coming out of South Africa.

    She says that officials were likely “hoping” that infection or transmission would not reoccur once the vaccines came along, saying, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.”

    Then Jim Jordan asks her, “When the Government told us, told the American People that people who had been vaccinated ‘Couldn’t get it [COVID],’ were they guessing or were they lying?”

    Birx, shaking and stammering, responds, “I don’t know. All I know is there was evidence from the global pandemic that natural re-infection was occurring and since the vaxxine was based on natural immunity, you cannot make a conclusion that the vaxxine will do better than natural infection.”

    In short, she admitted that they were lying."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), DaveToo (26th June 2022), Ewan (27th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Franny (27th June 2022), Gwin Ru (27th June 2022), Harmony (27th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (27th June 2022), melissanederland (28th June 2022), mountain_jim (27th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022), wondering (26th June 2022)

  21. Link to Post #731
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    8,759
    Thanks
    59,348
    Thanked 77,676 times in 8,597 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    https://twitter.com/fx_bean/status/1...7JKKcYs7lopYsw

    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)

  22. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (27th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Franny (27th June 2022), Gwin Ru (27th June 2022), Harmony (28th June 2022), Mike Gorman (29th June 2022), onawah (27th June 2022), wondering (27th June 2022), Wookie (27th June 2022)

  23. Link to Post #732
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    1,790
    Thanks
    5,347
    Thanked 10,971 times in 1,706 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Quote Posted by mountain_jim (here)
    https://twitter.com/fx_bean/status/1...7JKKcYs7lopYsw

    I took the time to dig deeper.
    The last thing on earth I want to be is an apologist for Bourla!

    This is an old story from March 2021 (that keeps being recycled every few months).
    Bourla's planned trip was cancelled at the time because he hadn't received his second dose.
    Officially (at least), he received his second dose a few days after the trip was cancelled.

  24. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Franny (27th June 2022), Gwin Ru (27th June 2022), Harmony (28th June 2022), mountain_jim (27th June 2022), wondering (27th June 2022)

  25. Link to Post #733
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    8,759
    Thanks
    59,348
    Thanked 77,676 times in 8,597 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    caught me out on my non-researched trigger-finger repost again - sorry!
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), DaveToo (27th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (28th June 2022), wondering (27th June 2022)

  27. Link to Post #734
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    ACTION ALERT!! All reformulated Covid-19 shots will skip clinical trials if this vote is passed tomorrow
    6/27/22
    From: Health Freedom Summit healthfreedomsummit@f.kajabimail.net
    TAKE ACTION HERE: https://healthfreedomsummit.mykajabi..._tracking=true



    "Urgent: on June 28, the ‘Future Framework” will be voted on, and if approved, all reformulated Covid-19 shots will skip clinical trials.

    The ‘Future Framework” being voted on June 28th rigs the Covid-19 v@xxine regulatory process by taking the ‘flu strain selection process’ that fails every year and applying it to future (reformulated) C 0vid-19 shots. (See approving FDA member’s emails at the end of this email).

    The FDA authorized Covid-19 shots for kids on June 14 and 15 and the “Future Framework” means shots that will be given to kids by fall will be the reformulated shots that skipped clinical trials.

    Federal bureaucrats with financial conflicts of interests will then choose which SARS-C oV-2 variants to include in a yearly (or twice yearly) C ovid-19 shot. In the process, all future C ovid-19 shots will be deemed automatically ‘safe and effective’ without further clinical trials because they are considered ‘biologically similar’ to existing C ovid-19 shots.”
    This the most reckless plan in the history of public health. This is clear proof that the FDA has completely abandoned science and its duty to protect the public.

    What does the FDA have to say for itself!? The FDA released briefing document which is less than 20 pages with just 19 references — 9 of which are pre-prints or from the CDC’s in-house newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which means they are not peer-reviewed.

    What you can do: Submit formal comment to regulations.gov.

    (P.S. There are a quadrillion x quadrillion viruses and only a handful evolve slowly enough to be candidates for a vaccine. Viruses that evolve rapidly like SARS-CoV-2, the common cold, or HIV are bad candidates for a vaccine which is why all previous attempts to develop a vaccine against coronaviruses have failed (they never made it out of animal trials because #alltheferretsdied). Read more from Toby Rogers and CHD Defender.

    Words that you will NOT find in the FDA “Future Framework” briefing document:

    Original Antigenic Sin,
    Antibody-Dependent Enhancement,
    Prion Disease,
    Myocarditis,
    Vaers, Adverse Events, or Side Effects

    The FDA is literally not looking for many important real-life scenario possibilities (following the $cience indeed)!

    To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on a document the equivalent of a C-undergrad term paper is madness.

    It’s a monetary decision. Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA Covid-19 shots that they are making over $50 billion a year off of do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Everyone knows this.

    Please forward this email on to as many people as possible. If you have been forwarded this email, please go to www.healthfreedomsummit.com to sign up for free trainings, resources such as
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-stor..._Epidemic_.pdf

    and
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-stor...etox_Guide.pdf

    ... and future emails.


    Below are the email addresses of everyone at the FDA/VRBPAC. Share your own story or copy and paste the message below.

    Subject line: All reformulated COVID-19 shots MUST go through proper clinical trials

    The safety and efficacy of all reformulated COVID-19 shots must be evaluated through:

    Large (50,000+ person) double-blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party. The treatment and control groups must be followed for life to monitor adverse events and all-cause mortality (no more wiping out the control group after 6 months to hide bad outcomes). We also demand greater than 90% efficacy against infection with less than 0.1% Grade 3 or higher adverse events; proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and impairment of fertility; and immediate release to the public of all clinical trial documents submitted to the FDA.


    sean.mccluskie@hhs.gov, commissioner@fda.hhs.gov, DeanofPublicHealth@brown.edu, Aux7@cdc.gov, Peter.Marks@fda.hhs.gov, Hong.Yang@fda.hhs.gov, Richard.Forshee@fda.hhs.gov, Huilee.Wong@fda.hhs.gov, Leslie.Ball@fda.hhs.gov, Doran.Fink@fda.hhs.gov, jerry.weir@fda.hhs.gov, hanae@bcm.edu, paula.annunziato@merck.com, adam.berger@nih.gov, hbernstein@northwell.edu, acohn@cdc.gov, anc0@cdc.gov, hjanes@fredhutch.org, hgans@stanford.edu, david.kim@hhs.gov, asmonto@umich.edu, offit@chop.edu, spergam@fredhutch.org, Jportnoy@cmh.edu, erubin@hsph.harvard.edu, erubin@nejm.org, ashane@emory.edu, swamy002@mc.duke.edu, fullerao@umich.edu, RandyHawkins@cdrewu.edu, officeofthepresident@mmc.edu, JYLee@uams.edu, ofer.levy@childrens.harvard.edu, wayne_marasco@dfci.harvard.edu, cmeissner@tuftsmedicalcenter.org, mrn8d@virginia.edu, stanley-perlman@uiowa.edu, mhsawyer@ucsd.edu, mew2@cdc.gov, jlessler@unc.edu

    Sent by Health Freedom Summit
    PO Box 2123 • Lake Charles, LA • 70602
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), DaveToo (28th June 2022), Ewan (28th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (28th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022), Patient (28th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022)

  29. Link to Post #735
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    Why Big Pharma Is Desperate to Get COVID Jab Into Babies
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    June 28, 2022
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1533147747

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is just 0.0008%.
    In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further
    Despite that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — on June 15, 2022, unanimously approved to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children
    Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old; Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years
    In granting this EUA, the FDA again ignored injury and death data and swept medical ethics aside
    The drug companies need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared “over,” the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
    Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults

    Statistics show the rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%.1 In real-world terms, that's so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further. Yet, despite such reassuring data, children in this age group are urged to get two to three doses of the COVID jab, even though side effects of the injection could harm them for life, or kill them.

    As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video below, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — "has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death."

    Sudden cardiac death is what the media and public health agencies are now glibly referring to as "sudden adult death syndrome" or SADS. The older and more appropriate description for SADS is "sudden arrhythmic death syndrome," but they don't even want to use the word "arrhythmic" anymore, as that tells you what the death is really caused by, and many are now aware that the jab can cause heart inflammation.

    By avoiding the word "arrhythmic," it's easier for them to pretend as though people are dying for no apparent reason, and certainly not because of the COVID shots. Still, real-world facts tell us that SADS didn't take off until after the shots were rolled out, and the vast majority of young healthy people who suddenly die for no apparent reason have been jabbed.2

    Also, understand that if your child or you are injured by the shot, you cannot sue the drug company for damages and, so far, the U.S. government has rejected all but one of the claims filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).3 At the current pace of about 18 claims a month, it would take 38 years just to get through the current backlog, Reuters has noted.4 Basically, many may die before their case even gets through review.

    COVID Jab Authorization Granted for Babies"
    (continued in next post )


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v15v91n/?pub=ijro7
    Last edited by onawah; 28th June 2022 at 21:22.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022), Reinhard (28th June 2022)

  31. Link to Post #736
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    (Continued)
    "As if the situation were not bad enough already, June 15, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously approved (21-0) to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to both Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID shots for infants and young children.5

    Pfizer's EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna's EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.

    In the video at the top of the page, Steve Kirsch, president of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, interviews reporter Toby Rogers, who endured the entire nine-hour day of the recent VRBPAC meeting.

    The day before that meeting, June 14, Rogers published6 a written summary of Pfizer's trial on young children, which he referred to as "an embarrassment." "Any VRBPAC member who votes Aye on this junk science application should be removed from his/her job," he wrote. Apparently, they all need to go.

    In the interview, Rogers laments the fact that the VRBPAC members remain "locked in their information bubble" and won't allow any conflicting data to influence their preconceived biases.

    As noted by Rogers, they have a sacred duty to protect public health, and they're being flippant about it. They're ignoring data, they're ignoring the pleas of the vaccine injured, they're ignoring serious questions, they're ignoring everything except the flimsiest bits and pieces upon which their narrative is built. Rogers called the experience "heartbreaking."

    VRBPAC Refuses to Answer Lawmakers' Questions

    The VRBPAC members aren't even swayed by concerns from lawmakers. They simply ignore their questions too. As reported by The Defender:7

    "The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ignored pleas from experts, the vaccine injured and a congressman representing 17 other lawmakers to halt authorization until questions about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for the nation's youngest children could be properly addressed ...

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said there are many unanswered questions ... 'I'm deeply concerned that the push to vaccinate these children is nothing more than a dystopian experiment with unknown consequences,' Gohmert told the committee. 'Some of us have outlined these questions in a letter8 to VRBPAC but have not received any answers, and I pose some of them here.' Gohmert said:

    'Number 1, why has the FDA refused to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from preapproval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data and other post-approval manufacturer data?

    Number 2, what is the cardiac risk factor in administrating these COVID vaccines to children?

    Number 3, world-renowned immunologists have raised concerns about potential antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, resulting from COVID vaccines, and since ADE was a problem in prior unrelated respiratory vaccine trials, we need to know what studies, if any, the FDA has that it's used regarding ADE from COVID vaccines in children 5 and under or any age group. Can the FDA affirm there's no risk of ADE for vaccinated children?

    Number 4, if widely approved among children 5 and under, how many lives, if any, does FDA estimate will be saved next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA's VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] system, how will FDA evaluate serious vaccine injuries versus serious COVID outcomes?

    Number 5, is it possible the proposed COVID vaccines in young children could create increased risk in future novel COVID variants?

    Number 6, why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? This change significantly lowers the expected benefits from any COVID vaccination for young children and it's of particular concern given that over 70% of that age cohort already is seropositive.'

    Gohmert said these questions and 13 other questions posed by lawmakers are critical and deserve answers from the FDA and VRBPAC prior to any EUA with the 'accompanied protection for liability for all harm done.'"

    Trial Showed COVID Jab Increases Infection Risk in Babies

    ( I could not embed this rumble video for some reason, but if you go to the link, it works)

    https://rumble.com/v197mj7-eua-amend...-children.html

    In the video above, you can see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, with a forced grin on her face, claiming "rigorous scientific review" has proven the shots to be safe and effective in infants and young children.

    The video also features excerpts from a video in which Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist and "lover of data,"9 reviews what this "rigorous scientific review" actually found and what the FDA and CDC aren't telling you. To hear Craig's full summary of how Pfizer twisted its clinical data for young children, check out the video below."

    (Continued in next post)

    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v166090/?pub=ijro7
    Last edited by onawah; 28th June 2022 at 21:23.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), DaveToo (28th June 2022), Ewan (28th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022)

  33. Link to Post #737
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    (Continued)

    "Craig points out that of the 4,526 children, aged 6 months to 4 years, who participated in Pfizer's trial, 3,000 didn't make it to the end of the trial. Why did two-thirds of the children drop out? Oftentimes, this happens when side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. 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. Moreover:

    •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, what this actually shows is that 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.

    •While they claim the triple-dose regimen reduced COVID, 12 of the children actually caught COVID twice in the two-month follow-up, and 11 of them were vaccinated.

    •The confidence interval for Pfizer's jab is -370% at the lower end of the 95%, which suggests children who get the jab are nearly four times more likely of getting sick with COVID than their unvaccinated peers.10

    Unscientific and Unethical Behavior

    As reported by The Defender:11

    "Combining all ages together, Pfizer said its three-dose regimen for children 6 months to 5 years old was 80% effective at preventing illness from the Omicron variant based on preliminary data from its clinical trial.

    The 80% number was calculated 30 days after the third dose. As noted by committee members, the efficacy number is likely to go down after 30 days and post-approval monitoring was suggested.

    Moderna said its two-shot vaccine was about 51% effective against infection from Omicron in children under 2, and about 37% among kids 2 to 5 years old, citing different efficacy numbers than what was reported by the company in March.

    In a March 23 press release, Moderna said its vaccine in the 6-month to 2-year age group was only 43.7% effective. In the older age group, the company said its vaccine was 37.5% effective. A top official at Moderna has already said a booster will be necessary."

    As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, vaccinating infants and children who have no need for the shots and don't benefit from them, just to "protect" adults, violates medical ethics. And since those who are jabbed still readily transmit the virus, the children are actually put at risk for no reason at all.

    It's All About Securing Indemnification

    Quote NEWSNANCY
    @NewsNancy9
    🧐So I’m guessing everyone is wondering why the FDA voted unanimously to give not one — but THREE shots of the C@ViD 💉to the youngest of children when there’s N🚫 emergency.

    It is IMPERATIVE they have this approval.
    R. obert K. ennedy Jr. tells us why:
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1537183431280709632

    4:21 PM · Jun 15, 2022·Twitter for iPad
    3,140
    Retweets
    375
    Quote Tweets
    4,267
    Likes
    So, how can we explain the irrational behavior of the FDA and CDC? Why don't any of the data matter? Why doesn't the science matter? Why don't any of the red flags matter? And why are they handing out EUAs when the criteria for EUA are satisfied? Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get EUA:

    There must be an emergency
    A vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective
    The known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product
    There can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines)
    Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained, yet here we are. COVID, by any reasonable measurement, is no longer an emergency, there are plenty of adequate alternative treatments, and the potential benefits in no way, shape or form outweigh the potential risks — especially not in infants and children under 5. That's three out of four criteria that, clearly, are not met.

    The short answer to the question, "Why are the CDC and FDA acting so irrationally?" is that both agencies are corrupt to the core and are no longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing profits for the drug industry, and getting EUA for infants and young children is a crucial step toward securing permanent legal indemnity for the drugmakers.

    They need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared 'over,' the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

    Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in ANY age group, including adults.
    As explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the short video clip above, they need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared "over," the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

    This is the group that decides which vaccines are to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule. Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in ANY age group, including adults.

    The only way to break that indemnity is by proving the vaccine maker knew about the safety issues and withheld that information. You can learn more about this indemnification process in "The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids."

    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Npxld717Uxd2/


    So, the end goal is permanent immunity against liability for injury and death from the COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there, they first need the EUA to cover all children. After that, the ACIP approval becomes more or less a matter of rubber stamping. This is why they're playing Russian roulette with the health of infants and young children.

    Murder Has No Statute of Limitation "

    (Continued in next post)


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v15yv60/?pub=ijro7
    Last edited by onawah; 28th June 2022 at 21:35.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), Ewan (28th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022)

  35. Link to Post #738
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    (Continued)

    "That said, if fraud can be proven, all indemnity falls by the wayside, and there's no statute of limitation when it comes to murder, which some insist is what's happening here.

    The video above features "To The Lifeboats" podcaster Sam Dodson's comments to the FDA VRBPAC during its open public hearing session to approve the COVID jabs for children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years. In a rapid-fire manner, he reviews several data points that ought to have put a halt to these injections, but didn't; several instances where the FDA knew harm was occurring from these shots, or would occur, and they did nothing.

    Another public comment was submitted by an as-yet unidentified individual. The submitted comment was provided to and reposted on Coquin de Chien's Substack. Here are some select pieces:12

    "This comment is NOTICE of possible criminal liability to Lauren K. Roth and members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee who owe duties of care, diligence, good faith, and loyalty in recommending 'for' or 'against' the EUA amendment for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age.

    Only two deaths are listed herein to establish knowledge. If the amendment is approved, it will have been done by committee members 'knowing' of felony crimes in context. Your investigation of these deaths should include death certificates, autopsy records, witness interviews, and immunization records.

    Massachusetts Death Certificate 2022 SFN 5980 is a 7yo girl died January 18, 2022 listed as died from U071 'COVID-19,' B49 'unspecified mycosis,' J450 'predominantly allergic asthma,' and R091 'pleurisy.'

    VAERS_ID 2038120 is a 7yo girl in Massachusetts, who received her 2nd dose 1/13/2022 and was reported to VAERS 1/15/2022. PRIOR_VAX states, 'Severe nausea and vomiting from 5 min post vaccination and for the next 8-10 hours.'

    SYMPTOM_TEXT states, 'Spiked a 103 fever, severe stomachache, has not had a bowel movement since the day before vaccination, which makes today 3 days without one. First vaccine caused severe nausea and vomiting from 5 minutes post injection and for the next 8-10 hours.' This little girl suffered immeasurably 4 to 5 days as her intestines shut down due likely to impeded blood vessels servicing intestines.

    Massachusetts Death Certificate 2021 SFN 56611 is a 48yo man died 11/16/2021 listed as died from U071 'COVID-19' and E669 'OBESITY.' SFN 56611 is known to have died less than 24 hours after inoculation.

    In both cases, the Medical Examiners listed the cause of death as 'COVID-19,' when it was clearly not COVID-19. And in both cases, the Medical Examiners omitted listing causes Y590 'Viral vaccines' and T881 'Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified,' when these clearly were proximate and actual causes.

    Death certificates from the state of Massachusetts are sent to the CDC, a federal entity. Thus, fraud on a state death certificate is a federal crime as it affects federal death records. Several federal felony crimes apply in this instance and are listed below.

    If you dismiss this NOTICE and recommend the EUA amendment without first investigating these two deaths, you become liable for inchoate crimes and the felony crime of 'misprision of felony.' If a single person subsequently dies as a result of the amendment, all the elements will have been satisfied for you to face felony murder charges or involuntary manslaughter. Qualified immunity is not a valid defense ...

    There were found sixty likely C19 vaccine deaths in a 25-minute perusal of the 2021 and 2022 death certificates, which extrapolates to hundreds, probably thousands of C19 vaccine deaths in Massachusetts.

    Refusal to investigate these fraudulent records is a crime that, because of the felony murder aspect, has no statute of limitations. Five, ten, or twenty years from now, if a federal prosecutor were to learn of this NOTICE, he or she would have significant evidence to bring charges for felony murder.

    In summary, this NOTICE places you in a position requiring you to investigate these deaths prior to recommending the amendment. If you dismiss this NOTICE, you may be criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter, felony murder, and a list of federal crimes and inchoate crimes ... Comment Tracking Number l4d-m52d-ge4m."

    Florida Bucks the Trend



    My home state of Florida now stands out as the only U.S. state that is recommending AGAINST the COVID jab for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds. Parents can still get their infants jabbed if they want, but the official state recommendation is not to do it, as there's simply no scientific or logical rationale for doing so.

    Florida also did not preorder any extra doses for this age group.13 In a June 18, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Robert Malone addressed the latest EUA authorization for infants and young children, and applauded Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' decision to buck the trend. It's hard to believe he is the only governor in the U.S. who resisted this murderous threat to the children:14

    "Have you looked at the VAERS data lately? The CDC apparently has not. In the USA alone, there have been 831,801 adverse events, of which 12,776 are life threatening. There have been 63,978 hospitalizations. There have been 13,293 deaths and 14,232 permanent disabilities from these vaccines.

    True, these are 'unverified' — but previous research has shown that the VAERS system under-reported adverse events associated with vaccines, not over-reported ... Then there are the international post-vaccine adverse event summaries.15

    The CDC, under Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) has now admitted16 that even though they had promised to analyze the VAERS data before advising about these vaccines for children, they did not.

    The VAERS data were NOT taken into consideration before the authorization of these genetic agents for babies and young children. Frankly, this is shocking. So shocking, it is hard for me to even write about it.

    Now, approximately 430 children with other severe illnesses have died with COVID in the last 2.5 years (that would be 172 per year). Plus there have been 2,600 hospitalizations of children, most with underlying conditions — over that 2.5 year period. These numbers show that even before Omicron, in the case of children, COVID is less severe than flu ...

    Omicron in children is much less severe. We know this. The scientific evidence is clear. Yet the FDA goes back to data from the DELTA variant when discussing the effects of this virus ... Governor DeSantis again has it right. It is time to stop. Parents must stop. The time is now to just say no."

    Last but not least, if you’re still unsure whether the COVID shot is the “right” choice for your child, please read through Dr. Byram Bridle’s “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,”17 published by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It goes through how the shots work, what the known side effects are, results from the clinical trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more."

    - Sources and References
    1 Rumble Vaccine Safety Research Foundation June 9, 2022
    2 Steve Kirsch Substack June 21, 2022
    3, 4 Reuters June 16, 2022
    5, 7, 11 The Defender June 15, 2022
    6 uTobian Substack June 14, 2022
    8 Letter to VRBPAC June 7, 2022
    9 Twitter Clare Craig
    10 Twitter Ben@USMortality June 16, 2022
    12 Coquin de Chien Substack June 13, 2022
    13 New York Times June 16, 2022
    14 Robert Malone Substack June 18, 2022
    15 World Council for Health June 17, 2022
    16 Jackanapes Junction Substack June 16, 2022
    17 Canadian Covid Care Alliance, COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), DaveToo (28th June 2022), Ewan (28th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022)

  37. Link to Post #739
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,209
    Thanks
    47,682
    Thanked 116,102 times in 20,640 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    The Vaccine Rollout Is Directly Related to Disability
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    June 28, 2022
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1533147747


    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The U.S. population, aged 16 years and over, with a disability remained stable from 2016 to 2020, but jumped sharply in early 2021, coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 injections
    In early 2021, a Twitter user named Ben, who runs a U.S. all-cause mortality site, posted a graph showing the eerily similar rise in disability and cumulative COVID-19 shots, with the number of disabled Americans rising from 30 million to 32.7 million
    Within about an hour of posting, the tweet was flagged as “disinformation,” Ben was locked out of his account and comments and sharing of the post were disabled
    As of May 27, 2022, 14,181 people reported being permanently disabled after receiving COVID-19 shots
    In April 2021, U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Harry Chang predicted that U.S. officials were likely to pause the COVID-19 mRNA injection campaign in light of increasing cases of myocarditis following the shots
    No pause for mRNA COVID-19 shots occurred, but as of June 8, 2022, more than 5,000 cases of myocarditis following the injections have been reported
    The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis runs FRED, a database of economic data that have been tracked since 1991.1
    One of its categories is the U.S. population, aged 16 years and over, with a disability — a population that remained stable from 2016 to 2020, but jumped sharply in early 2021,2 coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 injections.

    In early 2021, a Twitter user named Ben, who runs a U.S. all-cause mortality site, posted a graph showing the eerily similar rise in disability and cumulative COVID-19 shots, with disabilities among Americans aged 16 years and older rising from 30 million to 32.7 million.3

    “Is this proof, that the COVID-19 vaccines might have caused 2.9M additional disabilities in the US?” he wrote. “Sharp increase from trend occurs early 2021, when vaccinations started.”

    Within about an hour of posting, the tweet was flagged as “disinformation,” Ben was locked out of his account and comments and sharing of the post were disabled. “Hard to see the problem with the data,” wrote Substack user el gato malo. “Clearly, their issue is with the conclusion.”4

    14,181 Permanently Disabled After COVID Shots
    The Substack article highlights two points on the disability population graph — when 1% of the population had received COVID-19 shots and when 1% had received boosters. “I chose this convention,” the writer said, “because each has a sort of long tail at a very low level leading in but rose rapidly after reaching 1% so it seemed like the best inflection point for maximum relevance. As can be seen, the timing is highly suggestive.”5

    Spikes in disability can be seen after each of the highlighted points, which make sense when you look at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for COVID-19 shots. As of May 27, 2022, 14,181 people reported being permanently disabled after receiving the shots. According to el gato malo:6

    “Seeing this ... without a rise in disability reports would be surprising. we see 14k permanently disabled in VAERS. and we see a rise in the disabled rolls of 1.8 million.

    that’s pretty close to the 1-2% capture rate (more like 1%, but also likely capturing other categories as well, so hard to be precise) for reporting we’ve seen around other VAERS issues (besides death which seems to get better counted) so it feels like we’re in a ballpark here.”

    Past investigations have shown only between 1%7 and 10%8 of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, which is a passive, voluntary reporting system, so the actual number of resulting disabilities could be much higher than what’s reflected.

    Remarkable Correlation Between COVID-19 Shots and Disability
    Using data from FRED and Our World in Data (OWID), el gato malo took it a step further, charting the percentage of population that received a COVID-19 shot in a month, to get an idea of the number of people at risk of vaccine adverse events at any given time. El gato malo did the same for boosters, then plotted it against disability. The resulting graph is below:9



    The data are “starting to get past ‘suggestive’ here,” el gato malo notes, explaining exactly what the numbers show:10

    “the vaccination series started to get steep in feb 21. disability got steep in april 21.
    vaccination peaked in may. disability peaked in june.
    vaccination started to rise again after august.
    disability began to rise again after october.
    then vaxx dropped off after jan 2022 and disability flattened out in mar 2022.
    2 month lag, 1 month lag, 2 month lag, 2 month lag. 4 separate inflections all tracked in near identical and highly plausible timeframes for vaccine injury. we’re starting to get past “suggestive” here. this zigs, zags, then zigs again, then zags again all as predicted if it were causal and all with the sort of lag you’d associate with reporting, 1-2 months. (all 2 mo save may-jun 21).

    The disability series can be a little noisy month to month, but the big trends are all there. based on what we know about side effects this looks to be an odds on hypothesis at this point. i can see no better fit to the data.”

    Military Official Predicted Pause in mRNA COVID Shots
    The Epoch Times received 19 pages of email messages via a Freedom of Information Act request.11 Among them was an April 27, 2021, email from U.S. Army Lt. Col. Harry Chang to Tricia Blocher with the California Department of Public Health and other officials from California and the military.

    In it, Chang predicted that the U.S. FDA and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) were likely to pause the COVID-19 mRNA injection campaign in light of increasing cases of myocarditis following the shots:12

    “A pause of the Pfizer/Moderna administration (much like the J&J blood clot pause) will have an adverse impact on US/CA vaccination rates; assessed as unlikely due to causes of myocarditis can come from multiple sources (eg. COVID, other conditions, other vaccines/prescriptions, etc) … However, increased reported #s & media attention is likely to trigger a safety review pause by ACIP/FDA.”

    Increased cases of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis began to be reported in April 2021 after Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 shots.13 “These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within seven days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine,” according to the CDC.14

    Chang’s email, in particular, was in response to April 2021 news that the Department of Defense was tracking 14 cases of heart inflammation in military patients following receipt a COVID-19 shot.15 Israel was also exploring cases of myocarditis following mRNA shots at that time.

    Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, part of the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, was among those who received Chang’s warning, and he responded by asking colleagues for more data from Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC system that tracks vaccine safety.

    Dozens (24) of cases of myocarditis were flagged by the system but, according to The Epoch Times, “The email chain ended there, with no indication that the officials probed further to see if there was a possible link between the vaccines and heart inflammation.”16

    An Early Red Flag Ignored
    The same day that Chang sent the email suggesting that a safety review pause of mRNA COVID-19 shots was likely, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told the media that the agency had reviewed data but did not believe myocarditis was occurring at an elevated rate: “We have not seen a signal, and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given,” she said.17

    Weeks went by before the public was alerted to the higher-than-expected rates of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 shots, even though hundreds of cases had been reported to VAERS by the end of April 2021. As of June 8, 2022, more than 5,000 cases have been reported.

    “The current evidence supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis,” Shimabukuro stated at a June 7, 2022, FDA meeting.18

    In an email to The Epoch Times, Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained that health officials had knowledge of an early safety issue with the shots but ignored it in order to protect the shots’ reputation to the public:19

    “The emails ‘reveal there was an early red flag with post-mRNA COVID vaccine-related myocarditis reports in the U.S. and Israel’ but that officials were concerned that acknowledging the risk ‘would have a negative effect on public perception of COVID vaccine safety and uptake.’”

    Healthy Young People Dying After COVID Shots
    The CDC has downplayed the seriousness of myocarditis following the shots, stating that preliminary data from surveys conducted at least 90 days after myocarditis diagnosis suggest “most patients were fully recovered from their myocarditis.”20

    However, deaths among previously healthy young people have occurred, including a 36-year-old U.K. mother of two who died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot; her death was deemed to be caused by myocarditis due to the shot.21

    There’s also Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, who fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack.22 The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.23

    Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology.”24

    A study published in Scientific Reports further revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.25

    The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the volume.26

    Yet, it’s unlikely that you’ve heard about these additional red flags in the major media. Just as occurred on Twitter when someone tried to bring attention to a correlation between COVID-19 shots and disability, unfavorable statistics about these shots are quickly silenced and discredited. What we need now more than anything isn’t more censorship — it’s active investigation and research to uncover the truth, before more harm is done, that is desperately needed.

    Regarding whether COVID-19 shot rollouts correlate with the number of disabled Americans, el gato malo had this to say:27

    “i want to stress, this is still a hypothesis and this is my first run through with this data so i want to let people chew on it and see what else emerges before making claims that are too strong. but this is also REALLY provocative and unless i have really missed something, warrants research and explication, not censorship.” "

    - Sources and References
    1 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED
    2 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED, Population With a Disability, 16 Years and over
    3 Twitter, Ben, @US Mortality
    4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 27 Substack, Bad Cattitude June 9, 2021
    7 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020
    8 BMJ 2005;330:433
    11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 Archive Today, The Epoch Times June 10, 2022
    13, 14, 20 U.S. CDC, Clinical Considerations, Myocarditis
    15 Archive Today, Military.com April 26, 2021
    21 Independent May 6, 2022
    22 BitChute December 28, 2021
    23 Odysee February 17, 2022
    24 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine February 2022
    25, 26 Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (28th June 2022), Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), ClearWater (29th June 2022), DaveToo (29th June 2022), Ewan (28th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (29th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022)

  39. Link to Post #740
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    4,352
    Thanks
    39,690
    Thanked 33,467 times in 4,332 posts

    Default Re: Vaccine Crimes

    ...

    ... 700 Million Worldwide Will Die from CV19 Vax by 2028 – Dr David Martin 1:03:20

    Greg Hunter's USAWatchdog.com Published June 28, 2022 14,308 Views

    Join Greg Hunter od USAWatchdog.com as he interviews Dr. David Martin, the top expert in the ongoing and unfolding CV19 vax genocide and litigation for 6.21.22.

  40. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th June 2022), DaveToo (29th June 2022), fifi (29th June 2022), Harmony (30th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (29th June 2022), Mike Gorman (29th June 2022), mountain_jim (29th June 2022), onawah (30th June 2022), wondering (29th June 2022)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 37 of 94 FirstFirst 1 27 37 47 87 94 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts