Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 62381 times)




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Fundamentalist Masktards
« Reply #403 on: April 20, 2022, 11:59:33 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: Wuhan Lab allowed to destroy secret files
« Reply #404 on: April 21, 2022, 08:16:24 AM »
Wuhan Lab Allowed to Destroy ‘Secret Files’ Under Its Partnership with US National Lab, Agreement Shows
By Eva Fu April 20, 2022 Updated: April 21, 2022biggersmaller Print

e
The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has the right to make a partnering U.S. lab wipe all data arising from their collaborative work, a legal document reveals.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) of cooperation, signed between the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch, makes it obligatory for each of the two labs to delete “secret files” or materials upon the request of the other party.

“The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials, and equipment without any backups,” states the MOU obtained by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public health, through a freedom of information request.

The MOU focused on promoting research and training cooperation between the two labs. It was signed in 2017 and stays in effect through this October. But the confidentiality terms would remain binding even after the agreement’s five-year-duration expires, the agreement states.

The document goes on to broadly define what materials are to be treated as “confidential,” opening the door to potentially all documents and data from any collaboration being subject to a deletion request.

“All cooperation and exchange documents, details and materials shall be treated as confidential info by the parties,” the MOU states.

The WIV has been at the center of the controversy due to growing speculation that the virus that causes COVID-19, which has now killed millions around the globe, may have leaked from the facility. The lab has denied these allegations but Beijing has blocked international investigators to data and records from the facility thus preventing any meaningful probe into the hypothesis.

WIV and the the Galveston National Laboratory formally declared their partnership the following year to “streamline future scientific and operational collaborations on dangerous pathogens,” according to a joint announcement in the journal Science.

Experts said the MOU terms about data removal raise alarm bells and can potentially constitute a breach of the law.

“The clause is quite frankly explosive,” Reuben Guttman, a partner at Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC who focuses on ensuring the integrity of government programs, told Right to Know. “Anytime I see a public entity, I would be very concerned about destroying records.”

“You can’t just willy nilly say, ‘well, you know, the Chinese can tell us when to destroy a document.’ It doesn’t work like that,” he added. “There has to be a whole protocol.”

Christopher Smith, a spokesperson for University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), told the Right to Know that the lab was “built by the National Institutes of Health to help combat global health threats.”

“As a government-funded entity, UTMB is required to comply with applicable public information law obligations, including the preservation of all documentation of its research and findings.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the UTMB and the lab.

Under Scrutiny

The Galveston National Laboratory is one of two federally-funded university-based highest-level biosecurity labs in the United States. It began collaborating with the WIV in 2013, a cooperation that entails training WIV scientists and conducting joint research programs. The then-Galveston lab director James Le Duc, who retired last year, made multiple trips over the years to WIV.

The Galveston lab was also among the first in the world to receive samples of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly three weeks after Le Duc urged his Chinese counterparts to share the material.

The revelations contained in the 2017 MOU appear to contradict claims from WIV scientists that they would never scrub critical research information.

Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli, who heads the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the WIV, had characterized allegations that her lab would delete such data as “baseless and appalling.”

“Even if we gave them all the records, they would still say we have hidden something or we have destroyed the evidence,” she said in a February interview with MIT Technology Review.

In September 2019, months before several of its researchers allegedly fell ill with COVID-like symptoms, the facility took its main database of virus samples offline.

The Wuhan lab’s safety standards have also attracted scrutiny since the pandemic broke out from the city. Footage from 2017 showed that some researchers from the facility were feeding a bat while wearing only surgical gloves, and at least one researcher wore only a pair of regular glasses and a surgical mask when out collecting bat samples.

Related Coverage
Wuhan Lab Allowed to Destroy ‘Secret Files’ Under Its Partnership with US National Lab, Agreement ShowsFootage of Bats Kept in Wuhan Lab Fuels Scrutiny Over Its Research
In April 2020, the Department of Education launched a probe into Galveston National Laboratory’s ties with the Wuhan lab. The Epoch Times has contacted the department for comment.

That same month, Le Duc had asked Shi to review a draft briefing he prepared for the university and the Congressional staff investigating the issue.

“Please review carefully and make any changes that you would like. I want this to be as accurate as possible and I certainly do not want to misrepresent any of your valuable contributions,” he wrote in an email to Shi that Right to Know obtained. Shi one day earlier declined to talk with Le Duc over the phone “[d]ue to the complicated situation,” but insisted that the virus “is not a leaky [sic] from our lab or any other labs.”

Smith, UTMB’s director of media relations, had told the investigative group that “the information Dr. Le Duc wanted Dr. Shi to review was a description of her research on coronaviruses as he understood it.”

In corresponding with others, Le Duc nonetheless acknowledged that he considered a lab accident a possible source of the pandemic.

“It is certainly possible that a lab accident was the source of the epidemic and I also agree that we can’t trust the Chinese government,” he wrote on April 10, 2020, according to another email obtained by the group.

Eva Fu
Eva Fu
CHINA REPORTER
Follow
Eva Fu is a New York-based writer for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S.-China relations, religious freedom, and human rights. Contact Eva at eva.fu@epochtimes.com

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
WSJ: All Hail Fauci-- note the legal stratagems
« Reply #406 on: April 22, 2022, 09:13:09 PM »
All Hail, Anthony Fauci
The doctor says courts should defer to public-health experts like him.
By The Editorial Board
April 22, 2022 6:34 pm ET


Public-health officials have often wielded power during the pandemic as if the law and Constitution don’t matter, even if they haven’t said so explicitly. Anthony Fauci is finally telling it in the raw.


“The principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC is disturbing in the precedent that it might send,” the National Institutes of Health official told CBS on Thursday.

Democrats are lambasting Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle’s well-reasoned ruling this week striking down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's mask mandate on public transportation. But few, if any, have argued like Dr. Fauci that federal courts shouldn’t be allowed to review CDC diktats. Mull over the implications of this one.

The mask mandate “is a CDC issue. It should not have been a court issue,” Dr. Fauci told CNN, adding that “we are concerned” about “courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public-health decisions.” Ah, yes, the royal “we.” Does the Covid czar think the Supreme Court should have been precluded from reviewing the CDC’s rental eviction moratorium too?


Governments at all levels have abused their emergency powers during the pandemic. Some deference to public-health officials might have been warranted amid the uncertainty early in the pandemic. But as Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in November 2020, “even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

The emergency has now stretched more than two years. While the Covid virus is becoming endemic, and vaccines and therapies have greatly reduced deaths, the Administration continues to assert that government officials should have sweeping power to take emergency actions in the name of protecting people even if there’s little evidence that they actually do.

The transportation mask mandate is a case in point. Science shows that the cloth masks that most people don make little difference in preventing transmission and illness. So why is the Administration appealing Judge Mizelle’s mask-mandate ruling?

Probably to preserve the CDC’s expansive interpretation of the law that gives it power to impose virtually whatever it wants. Don’t be surprised if the CDC decides not to extend its vacated mask mandate beyond May 3, and then argues that the issue is moot and prevents appellate review.

Under the Supreme Court’s Munsingwear doctrine, it will then argue that Judge Mizelle’s opinion is vacated. The CDC will live to rule again over everyone during the next public-health emergency.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
I sure hope this doesn't result in violence!
« Reply #410 on: May 01, 2022, 01:14:16 PM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-covid-bill-fines-parents-unvaxxed-kids-and-doubles-income-taxes

It would be tragic if someone ambushed this politician in his driveway and crushed his face with a lead pipe.



That would be wrong!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Another conspiracy theory proven true
« Reply #415 on: May 05, 2022, 07:55:29 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
Re: Another conspiracy theory proven true
« Reply #416 on: May 05, 2022, 09:25:22 AM »
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vymn/cdc-tracked-phones-location-data-curfews

They just need more money and power!

G M sarcasm alert.

Either they fire everyone involved or we defund and close the agency.  Anything short of that and we are becoming communist China.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
It is not over
« Reply #418 on: May 08, 2022, 03:14:56 PM »




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18513
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #422 on: May 11, 2022, 07:40:30 AM »
NIH workers get royalty payments from big pharma into their personal pockets ?

WHILE WORKING as "PULBIC SERVANT" for federal government?

I never heard of this

this is apart from the money for grants ?

 :-o





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18513
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #426 on: May 12, 2022, 06:19:06 AM »
If I accepted a donut and coffee from a drug salesperson

that would be frowned on
and more than trivial "gifts" would be illegal

I am shocked to hear about this.

I notice there is no disclosure on the size of the payments to the government "servants of the people"

If these are not kickbacks I don't know what is.

How do we have an agency spending 30+ billion a yr
be able to do so without transparency

Congress has to get to the bottom of this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
Biden handing US sovereignty over to the WHO.
« Reply #427 on: May 15, 2022, 12:33:28 PM »
DANGER: The WHO's Death Trap for the US
Act Fast: They Vote Next Week
by Pete Hoekstra  •  May 15, 2022 at 5:00 am

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.

The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.

"On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America's healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization's governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA)." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO's International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as 'Provisional agenda item 16.2' at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"These amendments will empower WHO's Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

"Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to "verify" the event before taking action." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.

Unfortunately, this "next pandemic" is neither far off nor a hypothetical "conspiracy theory." According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.

A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China's inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China's current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.


A World Health Organization with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? The WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. Pictured: WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pays a visit to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Naohiko Hatta/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China's bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China -- which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world's leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.

It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously -- and FAST.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: Former Pfizer VP says we are right
« Reply #428 on: May 16, 2022, 03:43:39 AM »
People Who Pushed Idea of Universal Vaccination Are ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’: Former Pfizer VP
By Enrico Trigoso May 14, 2022 Updated: May 14, 2022
 

Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon maintains that since the infection fatality ratio of COVID-19 has not been high, the vaccines should not have been mandated.

Moreover, he heavily blasted the corporate media mantras that designate these as safe, effective, and necessary to end the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic.

Yeadon is a big pharma veteran with 32 years in the industry. He worked as the head of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer from 1995 to 2011 and is the former founder and CEO of Ziarco, a biotech company acquired by Novartis. Furthermore, he has a doctorate in respiratory pharmacology and holds a Double First Class Honors degree in biochemistry and toxicology.

A shocking 1,223 deaths and 42,086 adverse events were reported to Pfizer from the first day of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine rollout on Dec. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021.

“The worst flu season over the last decade is worse than [the threat] posed by this new virus,” Yeadon told The Epoch Times via email.

“And what do we do in response to seasonal influenza? Well, nothing really, beyond offering—and not mandating—vaccines which aren’t much use.”

Of important note is that the exact number of fatalities in China, where the virus originated, has been suppressed by the communist regime and could be 366 times the official figure.

Yeadon said that being sure the vaccines would cause no harm in the long run should have been imperative.

“It was never appropriate to attempt to ‘end the pandemic’ with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it,” Yeadon states in a document he sent to The Epoch Times.

“It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last. Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.”

Yeadon argues that natural immunity was obviously stronger than any protection from the jabs, and cited an article by Dr. Paul Alexander that has over 150 studies attesting to naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19.

Yeadon feels that the novel vaccines should have not been given emergency use authorization (EUA) and that if he were directing the pandemic response, children, pregnant women, and people who already had contracted the virus would have been given a red light on the jabs.

“I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected/recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.”

He further argues that the vaccines were sure to be toxic and it was only a matter of degree of toxicity.

“Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design. Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events including death,” Yeadon said.

“There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including for the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that lipid nanoparticle formulations leave the injection site and home to liver and ovaries, among other organs, but this evidence is enough to get started.”

Earlier this month, a physician said that he has been seeing an unusual amount of fetal death and miscarriages linked to the COVID-19 vaccines—according to his observations—and noted that mRNA products, contained in nanoparticles, accumulate in the ovaries.

“From data that we have, there appears to be a concentration of the lipid nanoparticles, which are very, very small particles, which are in the vaccine that are injected into the arm,” Dr. James Thorp told The Epoch Times, “and then the vast majority of those are dispersed throughout the entire body.”

A lipid nanoparticle is a fat-soluble membrane that is the cargo of the messenger RNA.

“They appear to concentrate in the ovaries, and they appear to cross all God-made barriers in the human body, the blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier during pregnancy, into the fetal bloodstream, and all the fetal tissues inside the womb, crossing the blood-brain barrier in the fetus, the baby in the womb, which is very concerning,” he noted, since the eggs produced by women are limited in number, and they would be “exposed to a potentially disastrous toxic lipid nanoparticle.”

Another concern that Yeadon had not noticed during his initial study was that “the mRNA products (Pfizer & Moderna) would accumulate in ovaries.”

“An FOI request to the Japanese Medicines Agency revealed that product accumulation in ovaries occurred in experiments in rodents,” Yeadon said. “I searched the literature based on these specific concerns and found a 2012 review, explicitly drawing attention to the evidence that the lipid nanoparticle formulations as a class do, in fact, accumulate in ovaries and may represent an unappreciated reproductive risk to humans. This was ‘a well known problem’ to experts in that field.”

A 2012 study says that after testing with different mouse species and Wistar rats, “a high local accumulation of nanoparticles, nanocapsules, and nanoemulsions in specific locations of the ovaries was found in all animals.”

Referring to the study, Yeadon told The Epoch Times that “the authors tell untruths. They say something like ‘there was no increase in anti-syncytin-1 antibodies.’”

“No, that’s wrong. Their data is clearly 2.5X increased after vaccination and obviously statistically significant (functional significance is looking confirmed by the miscarriage rate),” Yeadon noted.

“What they’ve done is cute. They’ve chosen a completely arbitrary level they scribed on the figure below which they claim nothing matters. No evidence whatsoever for that claim. In fact, in the discussion, they confess we don’t know the relationship between antibodies and the impact on function.”

Yeadon believes that the pharmaceutical industry “definitely knew,” since 2012, that the lipid nanoparticles would accumulate in the ovaries of women that took the vaccines.

“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy.’”

Another recent study found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine goes into liver cells and is converted to DNA, a process called reverse-transcription.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: NIH funding CCP controlled labs
« Reply #429 on: May 16, 2022, 06:55:00 AM »
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie Winters
By Masooma Haq and Jan Jekielek May 15, 2022 Updated: May 15, 2022biggersmaller Print
Natalie Winters, an investigative reporter at the National Pulse, said the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) willingness to enter into agreements with Chinese labs shows a level of corruption because it is clear that these labs are limbs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

“I think that just kind of shows you how deep the rot goes, right. Something is very rotten at the NIH in terms of their ‘okayness’ with sending taxpayer funds to fund Chinese Communist Party research,” Winters said during an interview with The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders show.

“And you can see that a lot of the groups that they’re funding are branches of the People’s Liberation Army. I’m not even saying military-linked entities, I’m saying explicitly military entities,” she said.

Winters has researched the relationship between the NIH and CCP-linked labs like the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). One of the relationships she finds most alarming is the Chinese lab’s contract with the University of Texas, Galveston, which was made possible with NIH funding.

Epoch Times Photo
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Even if there was some opposition, “The fact that Galveston contract got through with that confidentiality clause on there, and there was not a single person in that entire agency who raised any red flags about that … I think it just really makes you you wonder that it’s both a personnel problem and a policy problem,” she said of the memorandums of understanding (MOU) and agreements with China.

Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) entered into a MOU with the WIV, which made it obligatory for each of the two labs to delete “secret files” or materials upon request of the other party.

“The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials, and equipment without any backups,” states the MOU obtained by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public health, through a Freedom of Information Act request.

GNL is one of two national biocontainment laboratories constructed under grants awarded by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Five years after the GNL agreement was first made with China’s WIV, Fauci’s deputy director broadened the agreement, signing off on clauses that would allow the Wuhan lab to request the GNL delete files, pathogens, materials, and backups of collaborative research, Winters said, “giving [the CCP] essentially a free for all and allowing them to dictate what’s going on at American laboratories.”

In response to an email from The Epoch Times seeking comment, UTMB replied: “Although MOUs are nonbinding and do not serve in any way as contractual agreements, upon learning of the error, the University of Texas System immediately directed UTMB to terminate any MOU that contained language that conflicts with law and policy.

“The University of Texas System recently launched a review of processes and practices at UTMB and is putting into place new levels of oversight for procedures. UTMB confirms no documents or confidential information has been destroyed, nor have requests been received to do so,” it added.

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Francis Collins speaks in Washington on Sept. 9, 2020. (Michael Reynolds/Pool/Getty Images)
In addition to the NIH’s partnering with WIV, Francis Collins, the recently retired director of the NIH, was on the advisory board of a conference called the International Conference on Genomics, which was sponsored by the China-based company BGI Genomics.

Winters said that while BGI Genomics has been flagged by the FBI “as trying to steal Americans’ genetic information, harvest their DNA,” with the agency recommending state governments against using BGI’s products for COVID-19 tests, there has been a disconnect in the government on recognizing the national security risk, given that Collins had served “essentially on their advisory board.”

Related Coverage
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersNatalie Winters: Texas Lab Agreed to Destroy Records If Asked by Wuhan Institute of Virology
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersFacts Matter (April 13): New Documents Show NIH Funded ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research in China: Expert’s Analysis
Winters posed the question: are these partnerships with CCP-backed science organizations just out of ignorance on the part of the NIH or “is there something more dangerous going on?”

“Are we now getting into the territory of compromise and collusion [with] foreign influence groups that come out of China targeting some of the most powerful voices in the United States?” she asked.

Science Organizations Aligned With CCP
In February 2020, one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, published an official statement about the origin of the COVID-19 virus, the content of which mimicked the CCP’s talking points and had the “most influence” in squelching the origin debate, Winters said.

The Lancet’s statement “basically dismissed [the lab leak] … if you dared to say the word lab, you [were labeled] a conspiracy theorist,” Winters said.

Some of the signatories of the Feb. 19 Lancet statement include Charles Calisher, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B Corley, Peter Daszak, and Christian Drosten, some of whom had professional ties to the CCP. Peter Daszak initially said he did not have a conflict of interest but later corrected that to say he did have ties to the Wuhan lab and was removed from the U.N. World Health Organization’s origins investigative committee.

Daszak heads the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit company that worked with WIV and was heavily funded by the NIH.

Epoch Times Photo
Peter Daszak (R) and other members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
The Lancet paper should have been impartial, Winters said. “But instead, it was premature judgment, premature dismissal of the lab leak theory.

“[E]very major mainstream media outlet sort of uses this document. They predicated their coverage of COVID-19, they used it as an excuse to censor people who supported the COVID-19 lab leak theory,” she said.

“So, I think it’s really interesting when you see both Big Tech having ties to a lot of the people who had signed that statement, but also the CCP having ties to people who had signed that statement.”

Winters said it is important to ask why U.S. organizations would put so much effort into squelching the origin debate and amplifying the CCP’s narrative “if these ideas had no merit, if they were so bogus, so ridiculous … why would you have to work so hard to suppress them?”

Related Coverage
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersWuhan Lab Leak Theory Is Finally Gaining Traction After a Year of Cover-Ups
Legacy Media Reporting Swayed By CCP
Winters believes that the bulk of evidence now points to the pandemic being caused by a lab leak, but that the origin debate was, in large part, shut down by the legacy media.

“It makes you wonder, it’s probably more likely that a pathogen escaped [from a lab] either intentionally or by accident, [rather] than [from] a wet market where they weren’t even selling these alleged pangolins or bats or whatever animal that the Chinese Communist Party wants us to believe it was.”

The wet market origin theory is preposterous, Winters continued. The CCP puts out that theory with no outside corroboration, and instead of trying to dig out the truth about the origin of the virus, mainstream media outlets copied the CCP-approved narrative and labeled anyone who suggests that the virus could have come from a lab leak as a conspiracy theorist.

The CCP’s official narrative was backed by claims from CCP-run scientific organizations and then “mainstream media outlets in the West totally picked up that narrative, uncritically, and shared it,” Winters said.

She said that instead of helping the Chinese citizens get to the truth, Western mainstream media companies further victimized the Chinese people by amplifying the CCP’s faulty narratives.

“You know, the fact that these mainstream media outlets just ran with the line of the Chinese Communist Party, you know, unwaveringly at that and actually dismissed people who were criticizing them for doing so, as conspiracy theorists, I think really should make us wonder, where exactly do the allegiances of the mainstream media lie?”

Fact-Checker Conflicts of Interest
Many of the organizations or individuals providing fact-checking didn’t help ward off the pro-CCP bias pushed in early reports about the origins of the virus. According to Winters, these entities have shown themselves to be heavily partisan, often with ties to either Big Tech or the CCP.

“I think social media fact-checkers really are the next front in terms of the information warfare that we see going on right now in this country and frankly, the entire world,“ she said.

In her own independent reporting, Winters uncovered the fact that pharmaceutical company Pfizer was funding Facebook’s fact-checking partner—a clear conflict of interest. In addition, one of the fact-checkers included a company called Lead Stories, which is run by a former CNN employee and funded by companies like Facebook, Google, and China-owned TikTok.

“No company that’s receiving funding from TikTok could be a neutral arbiter in terms of the origins of COVID-19 … So I think people really need to understand that these fact checkers are not fact checkers—they’re the antithesis of fact-checkers,” she said. “They’re narrative enforcers, and I think the most prime example that we saw of that was throughout the origins of COVID-19, and the sort of evidence that they were using to suppress a lot of these stories.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Lead Stories for comment.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: Secret Royalty Payments to NIH officials
« Reply #430 on: May 17, 2022, 04:16:52 AM »
Executive Received 70 Secret Royalty Payments; Colleague Got 7
By Mark Tapscott May 16, 2022 Updated: May 16, 2022biggersmaller Print
Two key National Institutes for Health (NIH) executives in positions of influence on decisions about who gets grants from the agency received a total of 77 previously undisclosed royalty payments from outside firms between 2010 and 2014.

The secret royalty payments, which were first reported by The Epoch Times, are among thousands estimated to total at least $350 million paid between 2010 and 2020. Long-time NIH Director Francis Collins received 14 payments, Anthony Fauci, who heads NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), received 23, and Clifford Lane, Fauci’s chief deputy, got eight payments.

Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak conceded during questioning last week by Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) that the undisclosed royalties have the “appearance of a conflict of interest,” but he insisted that the agency has sufficient internal safeguards to prevent such problems. Federal law and ethics regulations bar federal employees from activities that present either the appearance or an actual conflict of interest.

Dr. Michael Gottesman has been the NIH’s deputy director for intramural research (DDIR) since 1994. According to his official resume on the NIH website, Gottesman “coordinates activities and facilitates cooperation among the 24 Institute- and Center-based Scientific Directors to achieve the scientific, training, and public health missions of the NIH Intramural Research Program.

“He provides guidance for the entire intramural program and reports to [Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak]. He oversees and ultimately approves the hiring of all NIH principal investigators, and he is the institutional official responsible for human subjects research protections, research integrity, technology transfer, and animal care and use at the NIH.

“During his tenure as DDIR, Dr. Gottesman has created the post-baccalaureate training program, the Graduate Partnerships Program (which permits graduate students to conduct thesis research at NIH); implemented loan repayment programs; institutionalized an intramural tenure track and new career tracks for clinical investigators; created the NIH Intramural Database (providing online information about all researchers and research at NIH); and spearheaded multiple other programs in the realm of diversity, equity, research integrity, and leadership.”

Gottesman announced in July 2021 his resignation from the DDIR position, pending the selection of his successor. He plans to remain as Chief of the Laboratory of Cell Biology in the NIH’s National Cancer Institute after his DDIR successor is chosen.

Gottesman received 70 royalty payments during the five-year period from 2010 to 2014, according to documents recently obtained by the non-profit government watchdog Open the Books (OTB) as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for extensive data on all payments from 2o10 to the present.

Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.

The NIH initially ignored the OTB request until the non-profit filed a FOIA lawsuit in federal court. At that point, the NIH agreed to begin producing the requested documents in a series of monthly tranches.

But who paid the 70 royalties to Gottesman, the amounts of the payments, and for what purpose the payments were made cannot be known as the NIH is redacting payment amounts and the identities of the payers from the documents the agency is providing to OTB as a result of the FOIA.

The Epoch Times has requested from NIH the names of the payers of the 70 payments to Gottesman, the amounts of each payment, and the purpose for which the payment was made. No response has been received from NIH.

An additional seven royalty payments of unknown amounts and identities were made to Roger Glass, the NIH’s Associate Director for International Research. Glass was appointed to the post in 2006.

Congressional Democrats, including Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), were silent when asked last week by The Epoch Times about the secret royalty payments.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, ripped the payments as an obvious conflict of interest and called for full disclosure of all the facts.

“NIH receives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and is entrusted with making unbiased scientific assessments and recommendations,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told The Epoch Times. “Their top officials, like any public officials, need to be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the American people’s health and safety remains the agency’s top priority. The NIH must be held accountable to the American people.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the NIH “a dark money pit. They covered up grants for gain-of-function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci. If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting, “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.

“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: Higher Covid rates among vaccinated children CDC data shows
« Reply #431 on: May 17, 2022, 02:29:41 PM »
second post

Higher COVID-19 Infection Rates Among Vaccinated Children Than Unvaccinated, CDC Data Show
By Harry Lee May 16, 2022 Updated: May 17, 2022biggersmaller Print
According to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), higher COVID-19 case rates have been recorded among fully vaccinated children than unvaccinated in the age group 5-11 since February.

On Feb. 12, CDC reported a weekly case rate of 250.02 per 100,000 population in fully vaccinated children aged 5-11, compared to 245.82 for unvaccinated children in the same age group.

That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021. It remains for the following weeks till the third week of March, the latest week with available data.

Epoch Times Photo
COVID-19 case rates between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 5-11. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Epoch Times Photo
Data about COVID-19 cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 5-11. “Crude vax/unvax IR” means the unadjusted incidence rate of the corresponding outcome among the population vaccinated/unvaccinated (per 100,000 population). “Crude IRR” means unadjusted incidence rate ratio (unvaccinated : vaccinated). (Data from CDC. Highlights made by The Epoch Times)
Children aged 5–11 years became eligible for COVID-19 vaccination on Nov. 2, 2021. There are about 28 million children in this age group in the nation.

Currently, about 28.8 percent of children in this age group have been fully vaccinated, according to Mayo Clinic.

CDC’s data also show the gap in rates of cases between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated has become increasingly smaller among other age groups. The death rates show the same trend between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated for people above 50. For people under 50 years old, the death rates have not much difference since the rollout of the vaccine.

Epoch Times Photo
Rates of COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, booster dose, and age group. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Epoch Times Photo
Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status and age group. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
The data show that the COVID-19 vaccines have a “negligible effect” on people, said Dr. Peter McCullough, a renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist.

“With these results in hand, it is clear the vaccines are having a negligible effect in populations,” McCullough told The Epoch Times via email. “Given the overall poor safety profile and lack of any assurances on long-term safety, Americans should be cautious in considering additional injections of these products.”

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Peter McCullough in New York on Dec. 24, 2021. (Jack Wang/The Epoch Times)
CDC responded that several factors contribute to this phenomenon in the age group 5-11.

“Several factors likely affect crude case rates by vaccination and booster dose status, making interpretation of recent trends difficult,” Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokesperson, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Limitations include higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and un-boosted groups; difficulty in accounting for time since vaccination and waning protection; and possible differences in testing practices (such as at-home tests) and prevention behaviors by age and vaccination status. These limitations appear to have less impact on the death rates presented here.”

Reed also directed The Epoch Times to a study published by CDC in March, showing Pfizer’s vaccine reduced the Omicron infection among children and adolescents aged 5-15.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only COVID-19 vaccine that can be administered to the age group 5-17. Pfizer hasn’t responded to a request for comment.

“CDC is assessing whether to continue using these case rate data to provide preliminary information on vaccine impact,” Reed added.

On May 13, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine turned negatively effective after five months.

The protection also waned considerably against hospitalization over time, the study found. The authors said one way to combat the negative effectiveness was to get a booster dose.

McCullough said most non-randomized studies attempting to estimate vaccine efficacy (VE) had some “common flaws”, including no accounting for baseline prior COVID-19 infection; no reporting for currently boostered within a 6-month time window; and no adjudication of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 or other conditions.

“As a result, most studies of COVID-19 VE have biases towards overestimating any clinical benefit of vaccination,” said McCullough.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to authorize a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine for children 5-11 as early as Tuesday, The New York Times reported.

Last month, Moderna requested an emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months to 6 years of age. As the FDA postponed its decision in February on whether to authorize its COVID-19 vaccine for children six months to four years old, Pfizer is now working on data for a three-dose regimen.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Time for the next bioweapon release, just in time for the midterms!
« Reply #432 on: May 19, 2022, 07:52:59 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/us-confirms-monkeypox-virus-massachusetts-after-uk-spain-portugal-cases-men

"Men who have sex with men"

I was assured that male/female was a cultural construct. How do they know how the infected self-identify?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 06:58:25 AM by G M »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18513
    • View Profile
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla medical chip in a pill
« Reply #439 on: May 23, 2022, 09:03:29 AM »
https://www.westernjournal.com/pfizer-ceo-intros-horrifying-wireless-compliance-device/

funny
he goes to Davos to present this.......

who is a bigger threat to the US?

Davos people

or proud boys  :wink:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla medical chip in a pill
« Reply #440 on: May 23, 2022, 05:12:42 PM »
https://www.westernjournal.com/pfizer-ceo-intros-horrifying-wireless-compliance-device/

funny
he goes to Davos to present this.......

who is a bigger threat to the US?

Davos people

or proud boys  :wink:

Everyone knows.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: CDC wants its Covid regime made permanent
« Reply #443 on: June 11, 2022, 02:31:41 PM »
CDC Wants Its COVID Regime Made Permanent
Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker
 June 10, 2022 Updated: June 11, 2022biggersmaller Print


There is no remorse at the CDC. Far from it. The model of virus control deployed over the last 27 months is now part of normal operations. It wants it institutionalized.

The bureaucracy has now codified this into a new online tool that instructs cities and states precisely of what they are supposed to do given a certain level of community spread. The new tool doesn’t say lockdowns as such but the entire model of containment via masks and distancing is baked in, and it can be easily expanded at will.

To understand how absurd this is, consider that as of this writing, major parts of Southern Florida are supposed to be masked up, according to the map provided by the CDC, because COVID testing reveals high community spread.

Hardly anyone in Florida has worn a mask since 2020. The very notion is a joke there. However, what happens to the other states and what happens when or if political control of Florida changes to a pro-lockdown party?

Epoch Times Photo

Under the orange label (high), the following pertains:

Some standout points here. Masks have nowhere controlled the spread of COVID. We know this from countless examples all over the world. They have been a spectacular failure except as signals to others to feel a sense of alarm at the presence of disease. Neither have vaccinations achieved the stopping or even slowing of infection or spread. Note the new language too: “Stay up to date.” Vaccinations are headed toward the WEF ideal of subscription plans.

As for “additional precautions” we know what that means: lockdowns. Even now, the suggestions are to

Follow CDC recommendations for isolation and quarantine, including getting tested if you are exposed to COVID-19 or have symptoms of COVID-19
Implementing screening testing or other testing strategies for people who are exposed to COVID-19 in workplaces, schools, or other community settings as appropriate
Implement enhanced prevention measures in high-risk congregate settings
Consider setting-specific recommendations for prevention strategies based on local factors
We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a recipe for full government control of life.

In addition, this new tool can easily move to a next iteration by the addition of a red color: it could mean shelter in place, close the schools, don’t go to church, don’t see friends, and so on. I’ll say it again, there is no remorse, no regret, no rethinking at all. No admission of error. On the contrary, it is all part of the plan to do it over again.

In fact, a different version of the chart above, updated as of this posting, already has a code red, and it pertains to the entire country (one version measures “levels” and the other measures “transmission”).

Epoch Times Photo

Now, you might say that these are just recommendations, and the CDC makes such goofy recommendations all the time (cook your beef well done). The trouble is that it puts the burden to reject the recommendations on politicians at the state and local level. For that matter, there is nothing really in place that would stop a public health department anywhere in the country from implementing them on their own.

Anyone objecting is immediately on the back foott, attempting to justify the refusal to obey the CDC and thereby opening themselves up to the accusation that they are killing grandma and so on.

It truly boggles the mind that the CDC has rethought nothing given the carnage we face in the country today. They talk about “the data” and the science but pay attention to almost none of it. They forever fall back on their new doctrines and, mostly, their power.

This is about much more than lockdowns. It’s about life itself, particularly as it affects economics.

A new poll from the Wall Street Journal reveals that the percent of Americans who think the economy is poor or not so good is an incredible 83 percent. Maybe that doesn’t surprise you and gives rise to the question of what demographic constitutes the 17 percent who think things are just fine. Maybe employees at the NIH, CDC, DHS, Pfizer, and Moderna?

Ok, I take it back: too cynical. The truth is that economic prospects now are just awful. And it’s not just inflation. It’s class mobility, demoralization, goods availability, and a general sense that hope in the future isn’t what it used to be just a few years ago. That will surely have a big effect on November’s midterm elections. The winning candidates will make elaborate promises to fix the problems but how many among them will be openly critical of COVID mandates? Not many.

This matters because the connection is direct. My personal frustration is that massive failure on the part of the media, intellectuals, and average people to make the connection between the hell of the last 27 months—in the name of disease control—and these economic, cultural, educational, and social outcomes.

For some odd reason I cannot fathom, there is a general impression out there that economic life exists in some insulated machine that is somehow detached from life experience. Therefore it can be turned on and off. We turned it back on, so why aren’t things going back to normal?

Well, most all the suffering people are experiencing today traces to catastrophic policy pushed by the CDC with White House deference, thereby prompting the entire public-health machinery around the country to swing into action, closing schools, businesses, churches, and giving Congress an excuse to spending some $6T (at least) through debt finance that was quickly added to the Fed’s balance sheet via money printing. The closures interrupted supply chains and shattered economic and social functioning. The fallout is what we see all around us.

We’ve just experienced years in which it was demonstrated to the United States and the entire world how pandemic control can be deployed to utterly crush rights, freedoms, constitutional limits on states, and even everything we call civilization itself.

What the CDC pushed on the country, even the world, was without precedent. The resulting disasters are everywhere present. At minimum we should expect the CDC to cease and desist, and certainly not entrench and codify. That the latter is taking place reveals what a long struggle lies ahead.

From the Brownstone Institute

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
Mercola: Kiddie Vaxxes a ploy?
« Reply #444 on: June 18, 2022, 12:16:22 PM »
Mercola publishes regularly in ET.  Sometimes not reliable, best to consider but look for confirmation.

========================================

Is Push to Vaccinate Young Kids a Ploy by Pharma to Get COVID Shot on Pediatric Immunization Schedule?
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 14, 2022 PRINT

The FDA announced they were reviewing data for a COVID vaccine for children ages 6 months to under 5 years. But the data are based on just 10 children.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Pfizer announced preliminary data from Phase 2/3 trials in children 6 months to under 5 years would be submitted to the FDA for emergency use authorization; the data are based on 1,678 children and 10 who got sick, which Pfizer claims is an 80.3% effectiveness rate
Even vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit is dismayed at the number from which Pfizer is drawing conclusions. Just days before, New York announced the vaccine efficacy in children 5 to 11 years fell to 12% within two months after vaccination
Despite 48,833 records in VAERS of adverse events in children under 18 from the vaccine, Pfizer says the shot for 6 months to under 5 years old has “a safety profile similar to placebo”
Moderna announced their submission to the FDA for children younger than 5 years has a 37% to 51% effectiveness, which is close to the effectiveness of the flu vaccine
Data from the CDC show that as the months roll by, more Americans are not taking or completing the shots to meet CDC criteria to be fully vaccinated. The push to vaccinate children may likely be related to the pharmaceutical industry’s goal to mandate the vaccine under full legal immunity from damages
May 23, 2022, Pfizer-BioNTech1 announced preliminary results from their Phase 2/3 trial evaluating a three-dose vaccine schedule for children 6 months to under 5 years of age would be submitted to the FDA for emergency use authorization (EUA).

Many in mainstream media are hailing this development as important to children’s health, writing, “many parents of these very young children have been really anxious to get their kids vaccinated”2 and “Parents hoping to get their youngest children vaccinated against COVID-19 got some encouraging news Monday.”3

Yet, despite the continued push by mainstream media to encourage parents to vaccinate the very young, the Vaccine Monitor Survey from KFF4 found only 18% of parents with children under age 5 are planning to get their child vaccinated immediately.

Parents Expressing Concern for Children’s Safety
KFF reports that a larger number — 38% — are planning to wait to see the side effects the vaccine may have in younger children before making a decision and 27% have indicated they will definitely not have their child injected. Importantly, the survey also found that “Just over half of parents of children in this age range say they do not have enough information about the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness for children under age 5.”5

While information about vaccine injuries from the COVID-19 jab has been difficult to find on mainstream media, it is apparent from these numbers that many parents are concerned about their children’s safety and want more information before they’re willing to risk their health.

A paper published December 15, 2021, in JAMA6 referenced the previous survey by KFF,7 which found 27% of parents of children 5 to 11 years old were interested in giving their children the jab, which is a 9% drop from the survey in 2022. The paper8 sought to smooth the waters with parents who were hesitant to vaccinate their children by attributing fear to misinformation and a misunderstanding of what “EUA” means.

It is interesting to note that the author of the paper has received research grants from Pfizer and Moderna, and also serves on the advisory boards for Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Merck.

The JAMA paper states the KFF survey found the primary reason parents were concerned were reasonably the “long-term and serious adverse effects, including future fertility issues.”9 According to the author, these concerns were addressed and disproven based on just one year’s worth of data.

Pfizer’s 80.3% Effectiveness Is Based on 10 Children
Pfizer’s announcement that they were seeking an EUA from the FDA for children 6 months to under 5 years is “based on 10 symptomatic COVID-19 cases identified from seven days after the third dose and accrued as of April 29, 2022.”10

While the study included 1,678 children who received three doses of the formulation, the stated 80.3% efficacy in children is based on just 10 cases. The number is so low that even outspoken vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit — co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine11 — expressed dismay at the number, saying:12

“I mean, 10 children — you’re talking about 10 children. It’s a small number, so it’s really hard to comment or this as something more general since you don’t know because the numbers are so small.”

Pfizer announced these results after delaying the EUA application process to gather more data.13 Initially, children in the study did not produce a significant immune response after two doses, so the company delayed the request until they could give the children a third dose.

The trial reportedly was evaluating “the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”14 Curiously, Pfizer’s claim of 80.3% effectiveness in children comes on the heels of a New York state Department of Health study that showed vaccine efficacy in children ages 5 to 11 years old fell to 12% in two months after vaccination.15

In other words, 7 out of 8 kids who were vaccinated had no benefit from the vaccine two months after receiving the jab. The data taken from 365,502 children showed a striking difference between children ages 11 and 12. The effectiveness against infection in 12 year olds was 67%, but in 11-year-old children, it dropped to 11%.16

The data from the U.S. were consistent with a report from Britain17 that showed effectiveness against symptomatic infection dropped 22.6% after two months in adolescents aged 16 to 17 years.

Interestingly, the Pfizer press release published May 23, 2022, mentioned the word “safety” 22 times while discussing the COVID-19 vaccine for children, and wrote the shot was “well-tolerated among 1,678 children under 5 years of age with a safety profile similar to placebo.”18 The vaccine being used on the younger children is one-tenth the strength given to adults.19

Yet, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)20 recorded 1,878 adverse events in children aged 5 and 10,029 in children aged 6 to 11 from data published as of May 13, 2022.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics,21 as of May 2022, 35% of 5- to 11-year-olds received one dose and only 28% received both doses of the vaccine. If you extrapolate the adverse event numbers using 35% of the pediatric population that received at least one dose, there would have been 34,020 adverse events if 100% of children in the U.S. aged 5 to 11 years had been given the shot.

It seems highly unlikely that 11,907 adverse events in children 5 to 11 reported to VAERS after at least one injection would have resulted in only “mild or moderate”22 events in children aged 6 months to under 5 years, or that the shot could have “a safety profile similar to placebo.”

Moderna Is Also Requesting an EUA for Children Under 5
Moderna is also stepping up to the plate and requesting an EUA for a low dose shot in children younger than age 5. The data they have submitted show the vaccine is effective 37% to 51% of the time against the COVID variant omicron.23

Paul Burton, chief medical officer for Moderna, spoke with ABC News, saying,24 “I think for these little children, they really represent an unmet medical need. I would be hopeful that the review will go on quickly and rigorously — but if it’s approvable, this will be made available to these little children as quickly as possible.”

It’s more likely that young children represent an untapped financial windfall for the company, since the vaccine has proven to have dangerous side effects,25 while the death rate in children from the infection itself is far below any other age group.26 But, if the vaccine is added to the pediatric vaccine schedule, and if it’s mandated like other childhood vaccines, it will become an evergreen market representing billions of dollars to the drug companies.

Each year the CDC records vaccine effectiveness for flu shots for all vaccine types in all age groups. The FDA may find the COVID jab’s 37% effectiveness rate acceptable since the flu vaccine’s adjusted effectiveness is similar, ranging from 34% to 68% in children ages 6 months to 8 years during the 2015-2016 through the 2019-2020 flu seasons.27

While the flu shot is a one-jab, annual event, thus far, the CDC recommends multiple jabs with the COVID vaccine.28 This means an adult may receive up to five injections of an mRNA shot with unknown long-term effects, which has not proven to effectively protect people against an infection.29

Since the effectiveness of the COVID jab in adults and children drops in just weeks, it’s highly likely the same will happen in children 6 months to under 5 years. Again, the combination of a mutating virus, waning immunity and federal approval for a vaccine is a prime example of an evergreen business model.

More Americans Are Turning Away From the Jab
According to data released by the CDC,30 82.7% of the U.S. population over age 5 have received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine. According to the CDC, this is 258,133,282 people as of May 24, 2022. This is the sound bite you’ve likely been hearing in the news. But there’s something else that’s worthy of noting.

While the data show that 70.8% of the population are fully vaccinated by CDC criteria, 11.9% of the population who initially received the first vaccine have not gone back for the second dose.

The CDC also keeps data on the number of people who have had their first booster or second booster, and as of May 24, 2022, 48.4% of eligible people 12 years or older have received their first booster and just 20.5% of eligible people 50 years or older have received their second booster.

It is important to note that the CDC recommends boosters for people 5 and older31 but they are not currently publicly tracking that data. This means roughly 17.3% of the population eligible for the vaccine did not receive any doses. When you add that together with the 11.9% who did not go back for their second dose, it appears that 29.2% of the population have now decided they either will not take the vaccine at all or will not take another.32

Why They Are Pushing Children’s Vaccine Approval


Download Interview Transcript
In this fascinating interview with Alix Mayer, we discuss the nefarious reasons why our children are being aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection, even though CDC data show they are not a serious risk. Mayer is board president of the Children’s Health defense California chapter and is herself vaccine injured from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago, before traveling out of the country.

She’s a graduate of Duke University and Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. Historically, VAERS has shown that many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when they’re combined. Yet data from 2021 and 2022 have suggested there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.33

The lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the industry, but the hazards associated with the COVID jabs have really highlighted this issue. Because the injections are still under EUA, they have legal immunity against liability for vaccine injury.34

As Mayer points out, what you may not realize is that although the FDA appeared to approve and license BioNTech’s Comirnaty,35 the shot continues to be administered under the EUA. One reason for this is that once a product is fully licensed, the company also becomes liable for injuries.36

And, since the pharmaceutical companies understand how dangerous the shots are, they don’t want to be financially liable for injuries. So, to get immunity for a vaccine not administered under an EUA, they must have the product placed on the childhood vaccination schedule, under which they’re not personally liable if their vaccines injure someone.37,38

Once on the children’s schedule, it also allows the government to mandate the shot. As noted by Mayer: “This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”39

The reason the pharmaceutical industry is pushing for vaccines in young children is clearly based on financial interests. VAERS records show 117 children under 18 have died because of the vaccine and 48,833 have reported adverse events and injuries as of May 13, 2022.40

It is crucial to share this information with parents who are making lifelong decisions for their children and to support your local politicians whose stated goals are to protect your freedoms.

Originally published June 14, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References
1, 10, 14 Pfizer, May 23, 2022
2, 12, 23 NPR, May 23, 2022
3 AP, May 23, 2022
4, 5 KFF, May 4, 2022
6, 8, 9 JAMA, 2022;327(1)
7 KFF, October, 28, 2021
11 Regis College March 10, 2021
13 CIDRAP, February 11, 2022
15 The New York Times, February 28, 2022, para 11
16 The New York Times, February 28, 2022
17 The Lancet, 2022;22(5) para 1under Figure A/B
18 Pfizer, May 23, 2022, bullets #2
19 CIDRAP, May 23, 2022
20, 40 OpenVAERS, COVID data
21 American Academy of Pediatrics, May 18, 2022
22 Pfizer, May 23, 2022, para 6 under the bullets
24 ABC News, May 4, 2022
25, 33 OpenVAERS
26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Age in Years, 2020-2022, last table on the page
27 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, 2015-2016 through 2019-2020
28 MayoClinic, May 21, 2022
29 New England Journal of Medicine, 2022;386
30 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 Vaccinations in the U.S.
31, 32 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 24, 2022
34 CNBC, December 17, 2020
35 FDA, May 20, 2022
36 BitChute, December 22, 2021, Minute 21:50
37 History of Vaccines, Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs Subhead 3
38 Legal Information Institute
39 BitChute, December 22, 2021, Minute 22:55
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
Vaxxes and fertility
« Reply #448 on: June 26, 2022, 02:25:32 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69414
    • View Profile
ET: Contagious Vaxxes?!?
« Reply #449 on: June 27, 2022, 02:04:51 AM »
Contagious Vaccines: A Warning
BY AARON KHERIATY TIMEJUNE 17, 2022 PRINT

0:00
2:45



1

Commentary

For two decades, scientists have been quietly developing self-spreading contagious vaccines. The National Institutes of Health funded this research, in which either DNA from a deadly pathogen is packaged in a contagious but less harmful virus, or the deadly virus’s lethality is weakened by engineering it in a lab.

The resultant “vaccines” spread from one person to the next just like a contagious respiratory virus. Only 5 percent of regional populations would need to be immunized; the other 95 percent would “catch” the vaccine as it spreads person-to-person through community transmission.

This technology bypasses the inconvenience of recalcitrant citizens who may refuse to give consent. Its advocates highlight that a mass vaccination campaign that would ordinarily take months of expensive effort to immunize everyone could be shortened to only a few weeks.

Scientists have already shown proof of concept in animal populations: In 2000, Spanish researchers injected 70 rabbits with a transmissible vaccine and returned them to the wild where they quickly passed the vaccine on to hundreds more, reportedly stopping a viral outbreak. European countries are now testing the technology on pigs.

In the wake of the COVID pandemic, about a dozen research institutions in the United States, Europe, and Australia are investigating the potential human uses for self-spreading vaccines. The federal Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, is examining this technology for the U.S. military to protect against the West African Lassa fever, a virus spread by rats to humans. This project, it should be noted, doesn’t require the consent of our military service men and women.

In 2019, the UK government began exploring this technology to address the seasonal flu. A research paper from its Department of Health and Social Care advised that university students could be an obvious target group:

“They do not work so [vaccinating them] will not cause much economic disruption and most have second homes to go to, thereby spreading the vaccine.”

Researchers admitted a contagious vaccine for an attenuated flu virus would cause some deaths but estimated these would be less than the original influenza virus. As the UK government report described:

“Self-spreading vaccines are less lethal but not non-lethal: they can still kill. Some people will die who would otherwise have lived, though fewer people die overall.”

As the saying goes, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Or, in Lenin’s formulation, if you’re going to chop down a forest, then wood chips will fly. Contagious vaccines are in our future, their champions claim, and are no different from putting fluoride in drinking water. Plus, for those who find jabs unpleasant, there are fewer needles required.

Government-funded research of lab-engineered viruses to create contagious, self-spreading vaccines that bypass the consent of citizens. What could go wrong?

From the Brownstone Institute

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.