Vaccine Crimes

[Gwin Ru]

Dr. David Martin Files Lawsuit Against Joe Biden

March 24, 2022 Dr. David Martin 0

Dr. David Martin

Dr David Martin filed a federal lawsuit filed on March 3, 2022 in Utah against Joe Biden, the director of the Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Medicare and Medicaid directors, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) mandate directors.

Martin described the multi-step lawsuit that establishes that Covid mRNA vaccines are not vaccines, but are gene therapy, and it aims to stop coercion of individuals. The first lawsuit gives rise to the other lawsuits that end in the discovery of criminal conspiracy. The government’s responses to discovery will be an admission of the next crime, and the next crime. The goal is to get felony convictions for the perpetrators of this crime so that the immunity shield falls away from the manufactures and all of the injuries and all of the deaths from the injection become civil liabilities to the manufacturers.

G. Edward Griffin

Link for video: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-da...xBqkwP987.html

During a recent interview Dr David E. Martin discussed a federal lawsuit filed on 3 March in Utah against: Joe Biden; the director of the Health and Human Services (“HHS”); the Medicare and Medicaid directors; and, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Mandate directors.

Patrick Gentempo, creator of Covid Revealed, interviewed Dr. Martin earlier this month where he explained:

“The body becomes a biological weapons factory, manufacturing the spike protein, a scheduled pathogen with genetic sequences derived from SARS-CoV-2: a known toxin on the list of scheduled bioweapons in the US code.

“The injection does not stimulate any immunity to SARS-CoV-2. At best you’re getting immunity to the first variation of the computer simulated first spike protein that was first thought to be associated with SARS-CoV-2. The only thing you could have alleged to get immunity to was the first fragment of spike protein from the first model.”

Read full article here…

[gord]

from The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter

Why Anger towards the Unvaccinated was Intentional Psychological Manipulation

A look at a study from 2020

Mar 21

As the first wave of the pandemic died down in 2020, the narrative was already being pushed that vaccines were the only way out. However, even before it was clear that the vaccines would predominantly be mRNA based, many were rightly hesitant to receive a novel vaccine that had been produced at warp speed.

With The Science™ so convinced that their solution was the only solution, something had to be done to increase uptake. Even though there were many opposing opinions (that were ignored), it was thought that without high rates of vaccine uptake, the pandemic would likely be prolonged.

Something had to be done about vaccine hesitancy, so along came Yale University with a study which began in July 2020. The study, which was not published online until October 2021 (once everyone was vaccinated) was to test “how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions”.

Recent studies had shown that explaining vaccine herd immunity increased willingness to receive a vaccine and reduced the time people would wait to get vaccinated. However, other work found that prosocial appeals did not increase vaccination intentions and prosocial concerns were absent in densely populated areas. They were unsure whether saying “get vaccinated to protect others” would increase willingness to vaccinate.

The authors of the study suggested that something else would be needed to get people to encourage others close to them to get vaccinated and to hold negative judgments of those who don’t get vaccinated.

“Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate. By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior. This would be consistent with theories of cooperation, like indirect reciprocity or partner choice, that rely on free riders being punished or ostracized for their past actions to encourage prosocial outcomes. Thus, effective messaging could have outsized effects on promoting vaccination if it both causes people to vaccinate themselves and to encourage those around them to do so.”

They divided the study in to two experiments. The first experiment tested “a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the ideas that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security”.

The messages that were tested in the first experiment were:

• Baseline (To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.)

• Self-Interest (Stopping COVID-19 is important because it reduces the risk that you could get sick and die. COVID-19 kills people of all ages, and even for those who are young and healthy, there is a risk of death or long-term disability. Remember, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the single best way to protect yourself from getting sick.)

• Community Interest (Stopping COVID-19 is important because it reduces the risk that members of your family and community could get sick and die. COVID-19 kills people of all ages, and even for those who are young and healthy, there is a risk of death or long-term disability. Remember, every person who gets vaccinated reduces the risk that people you care about get sick. While you can’t do it alone, we can all protect every-one by working together and getting vaccinated.)

• Community Interest + Guilt ((3) (Imagine how guilty you will feel if you choose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone you care about.)

• Community Interest + Embarrassment ((3) + Imagine how embarrassed and ashamed you will be if you choose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone you care about.)

• Community Interest + Anger ((3) + Imagine how angry you will be if you choose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone you care about.)

• Not Bravery (Soldiers, fire-fighters, EMTs, and doctors are putting their lives on the line to serve others during the COVID-19 outbreak. That's bravery. But people who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 when there is a vaccine available because they don't think they will get sick or aren't worried about it aren't brave, they are reckless. By not getting vaccinated, you risk the health of your family, friends, and community. There is nothing attractive and independent-minded about ignoring public health guidance to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Not getting the vaccine when it becomes available means you risk the health of others. To show strength get the vaccine so you don't get sick and take resources from other people who need them more, or risk spreading the disease to those who are at risk, some of whom can’t get a vaccine. Getting a vaccine may be inconvenient, but it works.)

• Trust in Science (Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective means of protecting your community. The only way we can beat COVID-19 is by following scientific approaches, such as vaccination. Prominent scientists believe that once available, vaccines will be the most effective tool to stop the spread of COVID-19. The people who reject getting vaccinated are typically ignorant or confused about the science. Not getting vaccinated will show people that you are probably the sort of person who doesn’t understand how infection spreads and who ignores or are confused about science.)

• Personal Freedom (COVID-19 is limiting many people’s ability to live their lives as they see fit. People have had to cancel weddings, not attend funerals, and halt other activities that are important in their daily lives. On top of this, government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 limit our freedom of association and movement. Remember, each person who gets vaccinated reduces the chance that we lose our freedoms or government lockdowns return. While you can’t do it alone, we can all keep our freedom by getting vaccinated.)

• Economic Freedom (COVID-19 is limiting many people’s ability to continue to work and provide for their families. People have lost their jobs, had their hours cut, and lost out on job opportunities because companies aren’t hiring. On top of this, government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have stopped businesses from opening up. Remember, each person who gets vaccinated reduces the chance that we lose our freedoms or government lockdowns return. While you can’t do it alone, we can all keep our ability to work and earn a living by getting vaccinated.)

• Community Economic Benefit (Stopping COVID-19 is important because it is wreaking havoc on our economy. Thousands of people have lost their jobs and are unable to pay their bills. Many others have been laid off by their employers and do not know when they will be called to return to work. Remember, every person who gets vaccinated reduces the risk that someone else gets sick. While you can’t do it alone, we can all end this outbreak and strengthen the national economy by working together and getting vaccinated.)

This was a large trial. Over 4,000 participants were randomly assigned to one of the treatment messages or a placebo group which looked at the effectiveness of bird feeders.

The first baseline message described how important it was to receive a vaccine so as to reduce your own risk and reduce transmission. It also emphasised that it was safe, effective and saved millions of lives.

The subgroup of messages focussed on “what other people might think of someone who chooses to be a free rider by not vaccinating”.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth messages added an invocation of an emotion, Guilt, Embarrassment, or Anger, to the Community Interest message. These messages prompted people to think about how they would feel if they chose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone else in the future. Emotions are thought to play a role in cooperation, either by motivating an individual to take an action because of a feeling that they experience or restraining them from taking an action because of the emotional response it would provoke in others. Further, anticipated emotional states have been shown to promote various health behaviors, like vaccination.

The seventh and eighth messages evoked concerns about one’s reputation and social image, which influences their attractiveness as a cooperative partner to others. The seventh, a Not Bravery message, reframed the idea that being unafraid of the virus is not a brave action, but instead selfish, and that the way to demonstrate bravery is by getting vaccinated because it shows strength and concern for others (“To show strength get the vaccine so you don’t get sick and take resources from other people who need them more”). The eighth message was a Trust in Science message that highlights that scientists believe a vaccine will be an effective way of limiting the spread of COVID-19. This message suggests that those who do not get vaccinated do not understand science and signal this ignorance to others (“Not getting vaccinated will show people that you are probably the sort of person who doesn’t understand how infection spreads and who ignores or are confused about science.”).

The final three messages drew on concerns about restrictions on freedom and economic activity that were widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pair of messages focused on how vaccination would allow for a restoration of Personal Freedom (“Government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 limit our freedom of association and movement”) or Economic Freedom (“Government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have stopped businesses from opening up”). These messages take a value that is commonly invoked in individuals’ decision to not vaccinate and reframed vaccination as something that would actually restore freedoms that had been taken away. The final message, Community Economic Benefit, argues that a vaccine will help return people’s financial security and strengthen the economy This message is similar to the Community Interest messages that are described above, but instead focuses on cooperating to restore the economy (“We can all end this outbreak and strengthen the national economy by working together and getting vaccinated”).

The authors found that the baseline message only produced a modest increase in intention to vaccinate. However, Community Interest plus Guilt, Embarrassment, Anger, Not bravery, Trust in Science and Personal Freedom messages all produced largest effects with Not Bravery, Community Interest and Embarrassment messages being the most promising. It was predicted that using those messages would increase vaccine uptake by 10.4 - 15.9 percent.

When they looked at the effects of the messages for advising a friend to receive a vaccine and the effect for negatively judging someone who refuses to receive one, the Not Bravery, Trust in Science, Personal Freedom, Community Interest, Guilt and Embarrassment messages all had large effects on the outcomes. The embarrassment message increased uptake by 27 percent. The Not Bravery message increased uptake by 21 percent when looking at the negative judgment of non-vaccinators.

They even broke it down further and examined what would work best on those who endorsed liberty, men versus women, age, risk takers, Democrats versus Republicans etc etc.

Next, they took the best performing messages and tested them on a nationally representative sample in September 2020.

This time, Community Interest + Embarrassment messages worked the best for vaccine uptake. When it came to giving advice to others and negative judgements of non-vaccinators, Not Bravery, Trust in Science and both Community Interest message produced the desired effects.

The most effective message when advising others was the Community Interest + Embarrassment message and the Not Bravery and Trust in Science were best for judging non-vaccinators.

With the Trust the Science message the authors noted that it “had large effects on beliefs and actions toward others but appeared ineffective in changing an individual’s own intended vaccination behavior”.

The authors conclude that

“Not only does emphasizing that vaccination is a prosocial action increase uptake, but it also increases people’s willingness to pressure others to do so, both by direct persuasion and negative judgment of non-vaccinators. The latter social pressure effects may be enhanced by highlighting how embarrassing it would be to infect someone else after failing to vaccinate.

Our findings are consistent with the idea that vaccination is often treated as a social contract in which people are expected to vaccinate and those who do not are sanctioned. In addition to messages emphasizing the prosocial element of vaccination, we observed that messages that invoked reputational concerns were successful at altering judgment of those who would free ride on the contributions of others. This work could also help explain why social norm effects appear to overwhelm the incentive to free ride when vaccination rates are higher. That is, messages that increased intentions to vaccinate also increased the moralization of non-vaccinators suggesting that they are fundamentally linked to one another.

It remains important to convince the mass public of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that the threshold for herd immunity is reached. Our experiments provide robust evidence that appealing to protecting others has effects on intentions to get vaccinated and to apply social pressure to others to do so as well.”

The wording throughout this study is almost identical to that used over the last few years.

• “Safe and effective”
  
• “Getting vaccinated is the single best way to protect yourself”
  
• “Reduces the risk that members of your family could get sick and die”
  
• “How guilty would you feel?”
  
• “How embarrassed and ashamed would you feel?”
  
• “How angry would you be?”
  
• “People who don’t get vaccinated aren’t brave but reckless”
  
• “There is nothing attractive and independent minded about ignoring public health guidance”
  
• “You risk the health of others”
  
• “Trust the Science”
  
• “People who reject vaccination are ignorant or confused about the science”
  
• “Not getting vaccinated means you are probably the sort of person who doesn’t understand science”
  
• “It reduces the chance of lockdowns”

How many times did you hear someone parrot one or more of the lines above almost word for word?

You may have naively believed that the fear, pressure and psychological toll of the pandemic caused your friends, family or colleagues to act in an unrecognisable way but it was all carefully planned. They conducted a study (and I’m sure this wasn’t the only one) to see which pressure points would work best on different parts of the population and then carefully released mountains of propaganda (funded by you) to turn your friends and family against you. This nudging was all done to get you to take a vaccine you decided you didn’t want.

The ethics statement in the study says the experiments conducted were fielded under an exemption granted by the University. It’s not difficult to understand why.

Whether mass vaccination was the only way out of the pandemic or not, behaviourally nudging citizens to guilt each other into taking a novel treatment was not the way a civilised society should have acted.

They wanted you to get angry in order to get vaccinated but they failed. But they wanted you to get angry, so get angry. Get angry that the population was psychologically manipulated to turn on one another. Get angry that your friends and family were nudged into parroting the phrases used in the study to make you feel guilty, stupid or embarrassed. Get angry that you were socially ostracised and de-invited from events. Get angry that your colleagues made you lose your job. And if you were one of those who tried to convince someone to get vaccinated, get angry that you were so easily manipulated.

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/backtolife_2022/...eb4Qsgp5IARtwQ

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by gord (here)
from The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter

Why Anger towards the Unvaccinated was Intentional Psychological Manipulation

A look at a study from 2020

Mar 21

As the first wave of the pandemic died down in 2020, the narrative was already being pushed that vaccines were the only way out. However, even before it was clear that the vaccines would predominantly be mRNA based, many were rightly hesitant to receive a novel vaccine that had been produced at warp speed.

(...)

Whether mass vaccination was the only way out of the pandemic or not, behaviourally nudging citizens to guilt each other into taking a novel treatment was not the way a civilised society should have acted.

They wanted you to get angry in order to get vaccinated but they failed. But they wanted you to get angry, so get angry. Get angry that the population was psychologically manipulated to turn on one another. Get angry that your friends and family were nudged into parroting the phrases used in the study to make you feel guilty, stupid or embarrassed. Get angry that you were socially ostracised and de-invited from events. Get angry that your colleagues made you lose your job. And if you were one of those who tried to convince someone to get vaccinated, get angry that you were so easily manipulated.

Absolutely brilliant and essential piece.

It proves that we were not presented with one blunt and amorphous juggernaut which provoked a "mass psychosis", but rather with an entire array of motivators at different moments in time and different emphasis for each of us in time, so that we in a way not only ranked those motivators implicitly (and/or subconsciously) or explicitly (consciously and in dialogue with others) but also continuously re-weighted them at different points in time — but this extremely differentiated presentation of motivators targeted only one goal – and in fact reached that goal to a very large extent. There was unity in the target, but extreme variation in the paths leading to that goal. That last aspect was also why it did not appear – to most of its victims – as concerted, but rather as a spontaneously, naturally developing and evolving set of causes of social fragmentation and reasons for unity.

This sophisticated array of motivators evolving as a dynamic in time and place (within the U.S. for instance: different plans for different states, maybe even for different counties; in Europe for different countries and provinces/regions etc.) then met, in each individual, a highly differentiated set of possible reactions as grown from each person’s life event track record or biography or "psycho-social" makeup.

It is my belief that the refined, almost fractal deployment of these arrays of motivators through several formats was able to achieve the targeted collective response because AI made the calculations and adjustments in real time, with all possible negative reactions (from critical thinkers, expressed in forums like this) being re-fed into the system so as to always maximise the chances to secure the desired outcome at any time.

And this process is going on. We are witnessing in real time how the decennia old military provocations from NATO and the geometry of the present Russian military operation and its outcomes are already re-fed into the system as well (the sophisticated and evolving narrative about the bio weaponry). Soon enough uncertainties about the safety of the stuff cooked up in the bioterror kitchens will turn into "war modulated and mitigated" hazards justifying new lockdowns, new masks and new "vaccines".

[Delight]

We are in a world where a snow ball starts rolling down hill, gains mass and force and can become an avalanche.

The Hidden Truth - a conversation with Dr Ali Ajaz about what has entered our bodies via the Covid-19 vaccinations
March 25th, 2022

Kate Blewett, multi-EMMY and BAFTA award-winning documentary Director - in conversation with Dr Ali Ajaz, NHS Forensic Psychiatrist Consultant - about the COVID-19 vaccination programme and what we are not being told in the mainstream media narrative. It is important that we ask questions, rather than to simply sleepwalk into more boosters. The bigger message is what this all means, in the long term, to mankind…

[mountain_jim]

https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/th...e-just-got?s=r

Brian Cates - Political Columnist ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Forwarded from
We The Media ⭐️⭐️⭐️
(
Pepe Deluxe
)
Mar 30, 2022

The Department of Defense Just Got Caught Lying About Vaccine Injuries

Whistleblowers claim a DoD database was changed to hide the truth

The attorney Thomas Renz has just discovered that the Department of Defense is altering data to hide the number of our service members who have been injured by the experimental and deadly COVID vaccines.

Mr. Renz also has the sworn statements of four whistleblowers inside the DoD serving as Army medical officer who have reviewed the relevant information and corraborated that important medical data has been altered. All of them had access to the relevant database — called the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (“DMED”) — and they independently verified the findings.

What did they find?

They found dramatic increases in serious conditions after vaccination: a 456% increase in acute myocardial infarction, a 468% increase in pulmonary embolism, a 296% increase in all cancers, a 275% increase in myocarditis.

The Department of Defense responded to these whistleblower accounts by claiming that the increases in illness were actually false — due to “previously unreported” errors in the DMED database itself:

Following the exposé, the DOD responded with a statement that the dramatic spike in disease and medical conditions in DOD personnel immediately following the vaccine rollout in DOD was purely coincidental, and the result of a previously unannounced “glitch” in its DMED database, and had nothing to do with the vaccines themselves. The DOD maintains that the database glitch resulted in artificially low incidence numbers in the years 2016-2020, but that the 2021 data is accurate.

According to the whistlebowers, the DoD then took the entire DMED database offline and fraudently altered the information on the database...

Moar at link

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/...oLDiXCBfqk0OOg

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/u...stleblower?s=r

$1M reward for a CDC or FDA whistleblower


The data was clear in January that the vaccines were unsafe. How come nobody at the CDC or FDA noticed? They ignored all attempts to alert them. If you have proof of corruption by insiders, let's talk

Steve Kirsch



I wrote an article earlier on how the safety signals in VAERS were flashing red back in January 2021. Yet nobody at the CDC or FDA said anything even though they were watching VAERS like a hawk (as the FDA’s Steven A. Anderson admitted on video).

It’s simply impossible not to see the safety signals if they aren’t corrupt or incompetent.

Since everyone in authority says these organizations are competent, then there is only one alternative left: they are corrupt.

I am willing to pay up to $1M for information that I can give to the DOJ and state attorney generals to bring criminal charges against these people.

You don’t have to reveal your identity. All you need to do is supply information that we can authenticate that shows the corruption for how all the safety signals were ignored. You can keep your job at the CDC or FDA. Nobody has to know.

You can contact me at stevekirsch-request@protonmail.com and put WHISTLEBLOWER in caps in the subject line of your message and put in the body what evidence you have, why the evidence is credible, and we can go from there.

Armed with this information, we’ll also see whether any members of Congress call for an investigation. This will allow us to identify corrupt members of Congress.

Note to members of DHS: By seeking this information, I am not a “domestic terrorist” since my goal is to expose corruption to restore faith in government institutions.

Here is a complete list of members of Congress who agree that the CDC must be either incompetent or corrupt:

< this space intentionally left blank>

Subscribe to Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Thousands of paid subscribers

I write about COVID vaccine safety and efficacy, corruption, censorship, mandates, masking, and early treatments. America is being misled by formerly trusted authorities.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[Delight]

GENE EDITING? DEPOPULATION? WHAT ARE THESE SHOTS REALLY FOR? DRS NAGASE, MERRITT, FLEMING, COWAN

(comment from Robert on telegram)

The video is mind boggling, serious ....
We are over 5 billion jabbed, and they show no intention to slow down

They talk about permanent modification of the human genome

Half the 5 billion jabbed are women, 2.5 billion, half the women are eligible to reproduce

Their analysis

Anyway ,

Their eggs have been permanently modified

And they now have a silent gene , for the spike protein, inside ...

Like a non dominant gene , ( blue eyes versus brown eyes , blue eyes are recessive or silent )

So, when 2 silent spike proteins recessives mate , they can get a spike protein dominant , and all the health issues

Also, they hint there may be ways to turn the gene on , whether through chemistry , or?

Maybe something in the food supply

Anyway, they estimate we will lose over a billion kids , right now

The whole human race is in peril, this could be an extinction level event

Might take 2 generations , but once the eggs are polluted , no going back

All the offspring will carry that gene , etc

And they talk about the shedding ,

It's all pretty bad news

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/sjmfpqxXs4NM

[Ravenlocke]

https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/...69868936060933

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/enlightened_u/st...3s5Xegy04BwBFw

[onawah]

Pfizer Hired 600+ People to Process Vaccine Injury Reports, Documents Reveal
04/05/22
By
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...9-77275f0a202a


"Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to hire 1,800 more by June 2021, newly released documents reveal.

Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine, newly released documents reveal.

According to the documents, Pfizer said, “More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”

The information was contained in a 10,000-page document cache released April 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and made public as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The latest revelations appeared in a document, “Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, highlighting such adverse events identified through Feb. 28, 2021.

The document was previously released in November 2021, but was partially redacted. The redactions included the number of employees Pfizer hired and/or was planning to hire.

According to the unredacted document released April 1:

“Pfizer has also taken a multiple actions [sic] to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.

“To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs).

“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”

The unredacted version also revealed the number of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses shipped worldwide between December 2020 and February 2021:

“It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer EUA vaccine] were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”

The number of shipped doses previously was redacted.

Remarking upon this newly revealed information, Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender:

“The rollout of the Pfizer vaccine has led to an unprecedented number of adverse events reported — 158,000 adverse events in the first two-plus months of the rollout means that the rate of reported AE [adverse events] was approximately 1:1000, with many of the AEs graded as serious. This is based on a denominator of 125,000,000 vaccines distributed.

“It is no wonder that an army of 1,800 individuals was needed to process all of the information.”

Hooker noted the total number (1,205,755) of COVID vaccine adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 25, 2022, now eclipses the total number (930,952) of adverse events reported in the 32-year history of the database.

Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, previously reported on the same Pfizer document, before the unredacted version was released.

“In that piece, I alluded to Pfizer’s admission that they needed more staff to process all of the adverse events being reported to them,” Setty said.

“It seems this document has now been updated. 600 FTEs [full-time employees]! … I wonder how many extra people the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection] has hired? Given how they are operating, I would say zero.”

Pfizer downplayed adverse reactions in request for full FDA license

The April 1 document release also included “request for priority review” — the documentation Pfizer in May 2021 submitted to the FDA for full licensure of its Comirnaty COVID vaccine.

In this document, Pfizer described its vaccine as fulfilling an “unmet medical need,” claiming:

“Mass immunization with a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 can dramatically alter the trajectory of the pandemic.

“According to policy briefing by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published on 31 March 2021, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death in the US with up to 100,000 additional deaths projected in the US between March and July 2021, many of which can likely be prevented with COVID-19 vaccination.”

Pfizer expressed “concerns” about lifting COVID-related measures, such as lockdowns, on the basis that the lifting of such restrictions would “counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort.”

The document states:

“Vaccination against COVID-19 began with EUA/conditional approvals in December 2020, in a phased rollout defined by national/regional guidance.

“However, there continue to be concerning trends that may counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort, including:

“[L]imitations in access to obtaining a vaccine due to infrastructure challenges (ie, clinic and appointment capacity and systems)
“[I]ncreasing viral transmission fueled by relaxed compliance with mitigations as the pandemic surpasses the 1-year mark (ie, masks, physical distancing, limiting travel)
“[I]ncreasing circulation of emerging variants of concern (which are currently driving continued spread of viral infection in Europe despite extensive mitigation mandates).”
Pfizer justified its request for full licensure of its COVID vaccine on the following basis:

“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 (ie, 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.”

The same document glossed over the adverse effects for which the company previously admitted it hired a significant number of new employees to process, claiming:

“Based on Phase 1 data from the FIH Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 [various vaccines tested during the trial period] were safe and well-tolerated in healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings.

“Phase 2/3 safety data were generally concordant with safety data in Phase 1 of the study, both overall and with regard to younger and older participants.”

This is despite hard figures regarding adverse reactions provided later in the document:

“Through 28 February 2021 (data lock point aligned with Pharmacovigilance Plan), there were a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Cases were received from 63 countries.

“Consistent with what was seen in Phase 2/3 of Study C4591001, most reported AEs were in System Organ Classes (SOCs) with reactogenicity events: general disorders and administration site conditions (51,335), nervous system disorders (25,957), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), and gastrointestinal disorders (14,096).

“Post-authorization data have also informed the addition of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the experience of reactogenicity to the product labeling.”

Release of Pfizer vaccine documents still in progress

Many of the documents released as part of the April 1 tranche appear to include more mundane information and data related to the Pfizer COVID vaccine trials.

These documents include:

Peer-reviewed scientific articles funded by Pfizer-BioNTech, titled “Phase 1/2 Study of COVID-19 RNA Vaccine” (August 2020) and “Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RANA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2020.These studies supported “further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate” despite the apparent appearance of serious adverse effects in one of the 12 participants receiving 30 μg and 100 μg doses of the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine during the trial phase. This, however, does not appear to have been the final vaccine formulation that ultimately received an EUA.
A questionnaire that vaccine trial participants were required to complete, along with a study book displaying the information to be collected from those participating.
Documents outlining the randomization scheme used for identifying vaccine trial participants and those who received doses of the vaccine or a placebo.
Documents listing anonymized demographic characteristics of vaccine trial participants.
An anonymized listing of important protocol deviations.
Consent forms that vaccine trial participants were asked to complete, as well as other related documents submitted by Pfizer for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and information regarding institutions participating in the IRB process.
Clinical study approval forms.
Audit certificates for vaccine trial locations.
The next set of documents — an expected 80,000 pages — is scheduled to be released on or before May 1."

(More news from Children's Health Defense here: https://childrenshealthdefense.salsa...b-cf84941660dc )

[onawah]

Horrific Admission: Is Pfizer Running Global Health Policy?

"First, they failed to disclose that 70% of vaccinated employees got COVID infections in August 2021, then they admitted the 95% effectiveness statistic came from CNN, which was based on - wait for it - a press release from Pfizer. And now she's accusing the public of this."

Revealed: 7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 05, 2022
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1453069349

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QabAtYBnqro

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data reveal 70% of vaccinated U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees got breakthrough COVID infections in August 2021
March 3, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky gave a presentation at Washington University, during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s 95% effectiveness from CNN, which was based on a press release from Pfizer
Walensky claims she was unaware the shots might lose effectiveness over time.
Yet scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness
Walensky has also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white” when, in fact, “science is gray.”
Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored to stifle scientific debate, and Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science
Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is coadministered by the FDA and the CDC.
VAERS reveals the COVID jabs are the most dangerous vaccines ever created

February 2, 2022, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request1 with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requesting records showing “the number of COVID-19 infections, and of those, the number of breakthrough infections” among CDC employees in August 2021.

Breakthrough infections refer to infections that occur in those who have received one or more COVID jabs. March 28, 2022, ICAN issued a legal update,2 stating they had received an official response,3 showing approximately 70% of all COVID-19 cases among CDC employees in August 2021 occurred among “vaccinated” employees.

7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID
Following are the official numbers for June, July and August 2021, listed in the FOIA response:4
Number of Positive Reports Number of Breakthrough Cases
June 2021 4 0
July 2021 18 10
August 2021 36 25
As reported by ICAN:5

“Now, we don’t know the percent of CDC employees that were vaccinated as of August 2021, but if the CDC’s vaccination rate reflects that of adults in the United States, it was far less than 70%.

But even if more than 70% of CDC employees were vaccinated, the fact that by the end of Summer 2021, 70% of its COVID-19 positive employees were vaccinated should have been a shocking figure and should have served as a wake-up call to the CDC about the failure of these vaccines to prevent infection.”

‘CYB Excuses’
According to ICAN, the CDC’s response included “a whole bunch of caveats, meaning, ‘cover your butt’ excuses” for why the breakthrough infections rate was so high, including that many CDC employees were telecommuting at the time and not required to report their vaccination status and/or any test results.

According to U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, who questioned CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky about the percentage of vaccinated CDC employees during a November 4, 2021, Senate hearing (above), an estimated 75% of CDC employees were working remotely during the pandemic.

Walensky claimed she did not know the true number, and the FOIA response also did not specify how many were actually working remotely. Either way, “These excuses are unpersuasive,” ICAN says, adding:6

“There is no reason to believe that CDC employees would not disclose their vaccination status. There is also no reason to believe those vaccinated would be more likely to report being COVID-19 positive. If anything, those vaccinated would have been less likely to report being COVID-19 positive given that, as the CDC itself says, ‘persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested.’”

Walensky Didn’t Realize COVID Jab Effectiveness Might Wane
Interestingly, March 3, 2022 — the same day the CDC replied to ICAN’s FOIA request for data on breakthrough infections among CDC employees — Walensky gave a presentation to medical students at Washington University during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s effectiveness from CNN.7

CNN’s report, in turn, was based on a press release from Pfizer, which stated that the jab was 95% effective. Walensky was not told, she said, that the shots might lose effectiveness over time (and a short amount of time, at that).

These are truly shocking admissions. Writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, investigative journalist Paul Thacker discussed the timeline of events that led to Walensky believing the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.8

He concluded Walensky was likely referring to a November 18, 2020, CNN report9 by Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy, who appear to have done little to augment the story after pulling information from a Pfizer press release published the same day.10

So, what we have here is a remarkable instance where a story in CNN, regurgitated from a press release, appears to have influenced Walensky’s thinking about the injections and the future guidance from the CDC. As noted by Thacker:11

“The Pfizer press release ... became CDC pandemic policy ... [Y]ou rarely get such direct evidence of a corporation influencing federal policy by laundering their press release through media outlets like CNN. Further, republishing press releases seems a pervasive practice in how the media covers COVID-19 vaccines — meaning, they don’t do much reporting. This has been obvious since late 2020.”

Does the CDC Rely on Science at All?
Walensky’s apparent ignorance about the potential for waning effectiveness is equally shocking. Scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness.

Nearly every scientist in the world expected the virus to mutate, because that’s what viruses do. Yet Walensky did not consider this possibility,12 despite having been a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School with years of experience dealing with viruses.13

Even those with no expertise in virology suspected mutations might impact the shot’s effectiveness. For example, two days after Walensky’s speech at Washington University, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson wrote,14 “She’s right. Nobody could possibly have known variants might be a problem.”

Underneath, he reposted a tweet dated January 20, 2021, in which he had stated, "Spoiler alert: the vaccines probably don't work against at least one new variant and they're going to want you to get vaccinated again next fall."

By August, Twitter had permanently banned Berenson for “repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”15 Ironically, the tweet that put Twitter over the edge compared the COVID jab to a “‘therapeutic’ with a limited window of efficacy ...” — a statement that I and many other experts would agree is 100% factual and true.

Gaslighting at Its Finest
During her Washington University appearance, Walensky also alluded to people in the media who “reject evidence,” saying,16 "There are a lot of people who are using their voice that may or may not be helpful for public health,” and that this “decreases public health in general.” For this reason, “we have to be clear” about our messaging, she added.

However, Walensky’s admissions during that talk really make one wonder who is making our public health decisions, and why. It’s difficult to imagine that one of the largest and most powerful health care agencies in the U.S. is led by a director who is basing her decisions on CNN reports and drug company press releases — and by doing so, is misleading the public. Consider that during this talk, she:

Admitted learning about the Pfizer 95% efficacy — information which was then used to formulate CDC guidelines — from a CNN report, which was nothing more than a republished press release from Big Pharma.
Claimed the CDC is transparently publishing data in a “pedal-to-the-metal” scenario17 even though The New York Times, only days earlier, had revealed the CDC is withholding crucial data from the public.18
Claimed “no one told her” that the virus might mutate and render the vaccine ineffective,19 yet during a Pfizer earnings call, held February 2, 2021, a financial analyst was astute enough to ask Pfizer how the 95% efficacy rate might change in light of mutations.20
Walensky also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white,” when in fact, “science is gray.” Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored and fake "fact-checked" so the debate over science would never see the light of day. Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science.

Her colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been the face of COVID-19 for the White House — has even gone on record claiming that HE is the science, and that attacking his recommendations is an attack on science itself.21 Walensky, for some reason, never corrected him either.

Walensky Has Tried to Undermine Confidence in VAERS
Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is coadministered by the FDA and her own agency, the CDC.22 During her January 11, 2022, testimony before the Senate,23 Walensky stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS.

Specifically, she used the example of an individual who gets vaccinated and then gets hit by a car and dies. She clearly implied that such a death would be recorded in VAERS and logged as an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But this is patently false.

First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.

As reported by Health Impact News,24 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and then entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:25

“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?

Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress, not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”

VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system, and it works well for that. While it’s true that anyone can file a report, it’s time-consuming, requires knowledge of medical details that a patient oftentimes won’t have, and there are penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.

The fact of the matter is that VAERS is showing the COVID shots are the most dangerous vaccines ever created. It’s hard to imagine why Walensky would want to undermine confidence in this system — unless she wants everyone to simply ignore the warning signals it’s giving us.

CDC Has Had a Clear Pro-Pharma Agenda
During the November 4, 2021, Senate hearing, featured in the video at the top of this article, Cassidy also highlighted another area where the CDC has acted as if it’s intentionally disregarding basic science, namely that of natural immunity.

Cassidy cited research showing 92% of those who recover from COVID have T-cells, B-cells and antibodies that provide robust immunity for at least six to eight months. Yet the CDC has refused to acknowledge natural immunity, saying those who recover still need to get a COVID shot.

Cassidy noted that the CDC has access to tens of thousands of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient identifiable data as to who tested positive and had symptomatic infection. With that data, they could easily confirm or disprove claims that natural infection confers adequate protection against reinfection. And, if confirmed, those who have had symptomatic infection could then be excluded from vaccine mandates.

So, why has the CDC not done any prospective studies when they have patient identifiable EHRs that they can use to precisely determine who gets reinfected and who doesn’t? According to Cassidy, the only reason we don’t know whether natural immunity is as good as the COVID jab is “because we decided not to look.”

Walensky’s replies to Cassidy’s questions are as telling as the admissions in her Washington University presentation. There’s an awful lot she and the CDC apparently don’t know, including core basics.

Can a virus mutate? Walensky “wasn’t told” it could and therefore didn’t think it would. Can a mutation affect the effectiveness of the jab? Walensky wasn’t aware of such a possibility and CDC recommendations have reflected that ignorance.

How many CDC personnel are working remotely? She has no idea. How many of the CDC’s employees have been jabbed? She has no clue. Why has basic research not been done to determine whether natural immunity is as adequate as the jab? She provides some circular argument about not having unbiased correlative data, even though Cassidy just told her how the data they already have could be used to find this answer.

She pats herself on the back for her agency’s transparency, while evidence is presented showing the CDC is intentionally withholding crucial vaccine data. She says science is a gray zone while simultaneously accusing people of spreading misinformation when they don’t agree with her.

She lies about the types of adverse events that are reported to VAERS in what appears to be a blatant effort to undermine this valuable safety tool, and admits to making public health decisions based on Pfizer press releases instead. The fact that 7 in 10 vaccinated CDC employees got breakthrough infections didn’t even clue Walensky in to the possibility that the COVID jab might be useless.

On a side note, more evidence of this was recently revealed by Princess Cruises, which reported an outbreak onboard the Ruby Princess in March 2022, despite a 100% vaccination rate among both crew and passengers, plus proof of a negative COVID test prior to boarding.26

Just how are we supposed to trust the CDC when they seemingly know nothing about anything that matters, don’t follow the science, and protect Big Pharma to the point of undermining confidence in their own safety tools? I’ll let you be the judge."

Sources and References
1 ICAN FOIA Request February 2, 2022
2, 5, 6 ICAN March 28, 2022
3, 4 DHHS FOIA Response March 3, 2022
7 YouTube, March 3, 2022
8, 11 The Disinformation Chronicle, March 8, 2022
9 CNN, November 18, 2020
10 Pfizer, November 18, 2020
12, 19 YouTube, March 3, 2022 Min 29:24
13 Mass General Hospital, Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH Appointed CDC Director
14 Unreported Truths, March 5, 2022
15 The Hill, August 29, 2021
16 YouTube, March 3, 2022 Min 41:00
17 YouTube, March 3, 2022 Min 27:00
18 The New York Times, February 20, 2022
20 The Motley Fool, February 2, 2021
21 National Review, November 29, 2021
22 VAERS, About
23 YouTube, January 11, 2022, Min 2:49:30 to 2:52:00
24 Health Impact News January 13, 2022
25 Twitter Pam Long January 12, 2022
26 Epoch Times March 29, 2022

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/...gUrw8m4zSivPQw

[onawah]

Kim Iversen: Latest Pfizer VAX DATA DUMP Shows Natural Immunity WORKS. ADE, Fertility Unknown
308,824 views Apr 4, 2022
19K
The Hill
1.55M subscribers

"Kim Iversen reviews newly released documents related to Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine research.

According to the CDC people who were unvaccinated and did not have prior COVID-19 infection remain at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization. Those who were previously infected, both with or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.

Additionally, a study by The Cleveland Clinic found that both previous infection and vaccination provide substantial protection against COVID-19. Vaccination of previously infected individuals does not provide additional protection against COVID-19 for several months, but after that provides significant protection at least against symptomatic COVID-19.

More than 559 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine had been given in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 28, 2022. According to Pfizer and the CDC, potential side effects from the vaccine include pain, redness, or swelling at the injection site. Other side effects could include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and nausea. In rare cases, people have experienced serious health events after the COVID-19 vaccination. Any health problem that happens after vaccination is considered an adverse event. An adverse event can be caused by the vaccine or can be caused by a coincidental event not related to the vaccine.

According to the CDC: Although the overall risks are low, if you are pregnant or were recently pregnant, you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 compared to people who are not pregnant. Evidence continues to build showing that COVID-19 vaccination before and during pregnancy is safe and effective. It suggests that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any known or potential risks of vaccination during pregnancy.

COVID-19 vaccines cannot cause COVID-19 infection in anyone, including the mother or the baby. None of the COVID-19 vaccines contain live virus. Vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 in people who are breastfeeding. Recent reports have shown that breastfeeding people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have antibodies in their breastmilk, which could help protect their babies. More data are needed to determine what level of protection these antibodies may provide to the baby.

There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems (problems trying to get pregnant) in women or men.

There is limited research on COVID-19 vaccination and the menstrual cycle. However, research to date has found no meaningful change in menstrual cycle length associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Currently, no evidence shows that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause male fertility problems. A recent small study of 45 healthy men who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine looked at sperm characteristics, like quantity and movement, before and after vaccination. Researchers found no significant changes in these sperm characteristics after vaccination. However, one study found that COVID-19 infection may be associated with a decline in fertility for men for up to 60 days after infection.

The National Library of Medicine defines ADE as the enhancement of virus entry and replication. ADE not only promotes the virus to be recognized by the target cell and enters the target cell, but also affects the signal transmission in the target cell. Studies show that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 RBD or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can cause a strong neutralizing antibody response in rodents, and antiserum does not mediate ADE."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5eJ5TIT6zvk

[Satori]

More about Pfizer's and the FDA's et al. fraud.

https://dailyclout.io/how-pfizer-cov...dverse-events/

https://dailyclout.io/pfizers-advers...-confidential/

[Delight]

The news here is SO BAD, SO TERRIBLE.........

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi - "God Save Us!!!" - World Governments Are Murdering People
mariazeee Published April 6, 2022

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi joined us in an emotional address to urge global citizens to take a lawful stand against their governments and health authorities who are clearly pushing a global depopulation agenda, aimed as mass-murdering their citizens.

If you would like to support Zeee Media to continue getting the truth out, you can donate via this link:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hoste...=48KZT6SYT2R44

Website:

https://www.zeeemedia.com

Uncensored on Telegram:

https://t.me/zeeemedia

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vxadop

[DaveToo]

Posted by Satori (here)
More about Pfizer's and the FDA's et al. fraud.

https://dailyclout.io/how-pfizer-cov...dverse-events/

https://dailyclout.io/pfizers-advers...-confidential/

Great work Satori.

[TomKat]

possibility of accountability in Europe for those who promoted the hoax and the "vaccine."

https://rumble.com/vzu85y-eu-finally...-pandemic.html

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vx8254

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/...gUrw8m4zSivPQw

The moment I understood, in the very beginning of 2020 on a sunny warm winter day, sitting on a town-square bench sipping a delicious hot coffee in a small picturesque town of Southern France’s Occitania region, that we were being had, was when I noticed an electronic billboard in front of me which – oh surprise now! – displayed exactly the same list of symptoms in exactly the same order – with an accompanying message stating: "the moment you experience ANY of these symptoms, have yourself tested immediately for COVID”.

Not: ANY FIVE or ANY THREE — : ANY. The moment you experience EITHER shortness of breath OR you feel exhausted or tired OR your body is aching... OR... OR... etc.

In other words ANY small symptom of unwellness for which you would just have taken an aspirin normally SHOULD deliver you into the arms of Moloch.

And most people, who do not understand the logical difference between EITHER/OR and BOTH/AND obliged.

[mountain_jim]

https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/pfize...-documents?s=w

Pfizer's Covid-19 Vaccine Documents Counter "Safe And Effective" Narrative

9-pages of side effects, 158,893 adverse events, 42,086 case reports, 1,223 fatalities in Pfizer's first three months and a record death rate among American millennials during the second half of 2021.

KanekoaTheGreat





Attorney Aaron Siri and a group of scientists and medical professionals called the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain the documentation used to approve the Pfizer mRNA vaccine in August 2021.

The FDA managed to consider all 329,000 pages of data and grant emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine within just 108 days but then asked for 75 years to fully release that information to PHMPT and the public.

Siri wrote on his Substack, “So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?”

While the court case was ongoing, the first 91-pages of Pfizer documents released in November 2021 revealed that within the first 90-days after the Emergency Use Authorization approval of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, the company had already received 158,893 adverse event reports and 42,086 case reports including 1,223 fatalities.

These adverse reactions included 25,957 nervous system disorders, 17,283 musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, 14,096 gastrointestinal disorders, 1,972 blood and lymphatic system disorders, and 1098 cardiac disorders.

In January, a judge ordered the FDA to release their clinical data on Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccines, which resulted in a tranche of Pfizer documents —more than 10,000 pages— being released by the FDA on March 1, 2022.

This tranche of documents included which list 1,291 potential adverse events in alphabetical order.

In a separate table called “Safety concerns”, Pfizer informed the FDA that anaphylaxis was an “identified risk”, vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) was a “potential risk” and that the pharmaceutical giant was “missing information” in regards to use in pregnancy, use in pediatric individuals, and the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Another tranche of documents released at the end of March revealed that Pfizer had so many adverse events reports in the initial three months after the vaccine rollout that they hired 600 full-time employees just to process the adverse event reports of vaccine side effects, with a plan to hire another 1200 by June 2021.



The Blaze’s Daniel Horowitz reported that Pfizer was aware that the rate of myocarditis might be as high as 1 in 1,000:

“When it became apparent to the public earlier in 2021 that myocarditis was a known side effect of the shots, the government and the media immediately claimed the incidence rate was exceedingly low. Numerous “studies” tried to downplay the risks. One paper from Kaiser Permanente in JAMA suggested the rate was just 6.6 per million. Another JAMA study from last June found a 1 in 50,000 rate among the military (which we now know was woefully underreported). Well, thanks to ICAN’s FOIA, we now have the Pfizer informed consent document (p. 5) that shows the company recognized the risk can be as high as 1 in 1,000.”



The Blaze also revealed last month that the U.S. government paid hundreds of media companies to advertise the Covid-19 vaccines while those same outlets repeated the mantras of “safe and effective” and “pandemic of the unvaccinated” without informing the public about any contrary scientific studies or data.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Blaze Media, HHS revealed that it bought advertising from ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations.

These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that was nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety,” Blaze Media reported.

While the federal government and corporate media repeated the “safe and effective” and “pandemic of the unvaccinated” mantras, data from Israel, Iceland, and Singapore showed the majority of Covid-19 cases were in the fully vaccinated during the summer of 2021, and data from England showed over 70% of Covid-19 deaths occurred in the fully vaccinated during September 2021.

Furthermore, multiple official government databases have flashed warning signs that the mRNA vaccines are far from as safe.

The total number of deaths associated with the Covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is 26,396 which is nearly triple the 9,619 deaths associated with all other vaccines combined over the last 32-years.

There have been a total of 1,205,753 reports associated with the covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) including:

There have been a total of 1,205,753 reports associated with the covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) including:

• 145,781 hospitalizations
  
• 125,791 urgent care
  
• 48,852 permanently disabled
  
• 41,320 severe allergic reactions
  
• 37,579 myocarditis/pericarditis
  
• 26,396 deaths
  
• 14,949 bell’s palsy
  
• 13,527 heart attacks
  
• 13,224 shingles
  
• 9,533 anaphylaxis
  
• 6,256 thrombocytopenia
  
• 4,423 miscarriages

The CDC claims that none of these deaths were caused by the Covid-19 vaccines, but their own data shows that 50 percent of deaths occur within 48-hours of getting vaccinated with a direct correlation between the number of deaths and the number of days after vaccination.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the United States.



Military physician whistleblowers released the Department of Defense’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) and signed sworn affidavits that the data correlated with their clinical experience in treating soldiers in 2021. The data showed these percentage increases of diseases among military personnel in comparison to the average of the last five years:

1. Hypertension – 2,181% increase
   
2. Heart Attacks - 269% increase
   
3. Cancer 300% - increase
   
4. Pericarditis - 175% increase
   
5. Myocarditis - 285% increase
   
6. Pulmonary Embolisms - 467% increase
   
7. Cerebral Infarction - 393% increase
   
8. Bell's Palsy - 319% increase
   
9. Guillain-Barre - 250% increase
   
10. Immunodeficiencies - 275% increase
    
11. Menstrual Irregularity - 476% increase
    
12. Multiple Sclerosis - 487% increase
    
13. Miscarriage - 306% increase
    
14. HIV - 590% increase
    
15. Chest Pain - 1,529% increase
    
16. Labored Breathing - 905% increase
    
17. Neurological Issues - 1048% increase

The Department of Defense responded through a fact-checking website saying that it was a glitch in their database that caused the last five years of data to be underreported and that the glitch was only discovered after these military physician whistleblowers had brought the increase in disease to their attention.

The risk of myocarditis or heart inflammation, especially for younger males has been established by numerous governments around the world leading to eight nations suspending Covid-19 vaccines for younger age groups due to the risk of myocarditis.

Taiwan suspends 2nd Pfizer vaccine for 12-17

▪️Iceland suspends Moderna for all ages

▪️Sweden suspends Moderna for under 30

▪️Finland suspends Moderna for under 30

▪️Denmark suspends Moderna for under 18

▪️Norway suspends Moderna for under 18

▪️France suspends Moderna for under 30

▪️Germany suspends Moderna for under 30

Furthermore, Sweden and Norway do not recommend Covid-19 vaccines for all children under 12 years old and the United Kingdom does not recommend Covid-19 vaccines for the majority of children under 18-years old.

While there has been a corporate media and big tech blackout on anything opposing Pfizer’s mantra of “safe and effective”, more than 17,000 medical doctors and scientists signed the Rome Declaration recommending against the vaccination of all healthy children due to the risk of adverse events, the unknown long-term safety profile of these mRNA vaccines, and the negligible risk of Covid-19 to children.

The corporate media has suppressed autopsy studies that show the Covid-19 vaccines as the cause of death.

Dr. Peter Schirmacher, a world-renowned German pathologist, published an autopsy report in August 2021 of 40 people who died within two weeks of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines.

He determined that 30 to 40 percent of those persons died from the vaccination.

Dr. Shirmacher opined that the frequency of fatal vaccination consequences is underestimated. The pathologist cited “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases.”

Dr. Peter Schirmacher is the acting chairman of the German Society of Pathology, director of the Institute of Pathology at Heidelberg University Hospital, and president of the German Association for the Study of the Liver.

The media didn’t report on it and Big Tech banned accounts that attempted to share Dr. Schirmacher’s report and Steve Kirsch revealed that Schirmacher’s “family was threatened if he continued to speak out. So he stopped talking. That’s the way science works today.”

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr. Arne Burkhardt conducted separate autopsies of persons who died within a range of 7 days to six months after being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines.

They determined that 14 out of the 15 (93%) of the autopsied persons died from ailments caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Their study, published on or about December 10, 2021, is also facing media suppression. The doctors concluded:

“Histopathologic analysis show clear evidence of vaccine-induced autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs. That myriad adverse events deriving from such auto-attack processes must be expected to very frequently occur in all individuals, particularly following booster injections, is self evident. Beyond any doubt, injection of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines places lives under threat of illness and death. We note that both mRNA and vector-based vaccines are represented among these cases, as are all four major manufacturers.”

Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi presented their autopsy study on December 10, 2021, but have been largely ignored, maligned, or censored by the corporate media and big tech.

CDC data and the CEO of a $100 billion insurance company said that the death rate in 2021 for those aged 18-64 has risen an astonishing 40% over pre-pandemic levels and the majority of deaths are not being classified as due to Covid-19.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” said Scott Davison, head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica that’s been in operation since 1877 and has approximately 2,400 employees.

The increase represents “huge, huge numbers,” among “primarily working-age people” who have employer-sponsored group life plans through OneAmerica, according to The Center Square.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” Davison said during an online news conference last week. “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic.”

“So 40% is just unheard of,” he added.

This record increase in death rates among those aged 25-64 which began in July 2021 can be seen in the CDC mortality data charted below from USMortality.com:




As I have previously published, a critical analysis of the original Pfizer clinical trial data shows that more people died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.

Pfizer unblinded the trial after two months, skipped testing biomarkers that would have been early warning signs for disease, and reported one of their 12-year-old trial participants who has been paralyzed in a wheelchair and forced to eat from a feeding tube as “functional abdominal pain”.

In 2008, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies.”

Pfizer delayed the publication of negative studies, spun negative data to place it in a more positive light, and controlled the flow of clinical research data in order to promote its epilepsy drug Neurontin.

In 2010, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Pfizer Gives Details on Payments to Doctors”.

Pfizer admitted that it paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009. Pfizer also paid $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials in the same period.

Pfizer, which has a multi-decade history of paying billions in criminal fines, managed to completely capture the corporate media, big tech, and the regulatory agencies during the Covid-19 crisis, but their own documents counter the “safe and effective” narrative that has been spoon-fed to the American public.



To turn this passion into a career, I need your support: subscribers who sign up for $5 a month will enable me to do this work full-time. For the price of a cup of coffee, you become my largest benefactor, and my work continues to be beholden only to truth, freedom, and the American people.

< subscribe at link >