The War with Medical Fascism

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/euphorio_/status/1859784499984474327

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/breaking-okeefe-media-group-nih-chief-confesses-covid/

[Crafty_Dog]

Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 3247
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Congressional AAR of Covid Pandemic
« Reply #2129 on: Today at 11:46:38 AM »
QuoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
And it does name some names:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.04-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT-ANS.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) extended liability protections for producers of COVID-19 vaccines through 2029. HHS said the liability shield extension is necessary because of the “credible risk” that COVID-19 will remain a public health risk in the future. The liability shield also protects healthcare professionals who prescribed or administered COVID-19 vaccines. (This is likely another instance of “Trump proofing” by federal agencies, intended to tie up any legal actions from the Trump administration or conservatives in the courts until Trump leaves office. – R.C.)

[DougMacG]

Once again, a "contract" is made by a party that has no authority to bind the government beyond Jan 19, 2025.

I would like to see a court review of this type of arrangement.

[Crafty_Dog]

RSV Vaccines for Children: Still Crazy After All These Years
Vaccine-enhanced disease raises its ugly head again. When will they ever learn?
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Dec 14

 

Stories matter; they form the foundations for how we define ourselves and our relationship with the world. Over time, fact-based stories are often transformed into myths. There are stories that define the public perception of vaccinology and the practitioners of this art. The mythic genius and heroics of Edward Jenner, involving clear-skinned milkmaids, cowpox, and the Smallpox vaccine, is the origin myth for modern western vaccinology. The competitive race between Drs. Salk and Sabin to save the world’s children from Polio is another.

But vaccinology also has its dark stories. The approved COVID vaccine narrative that will pass down through time is still either disputed or being negotiated, depending on your point of view, but I suspect history will not be kind to Operation Warp Speed and its gene therapy-based prophylactics that prevented neither infection nor disease from SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, these products did cause myocarditis, stroke, a variety of blood clotting disorders, and at this point, God only knows how many other problems, including both sudden and delayed death. Most vaccinologists are still in denial about the facts of this story.

The first licensed rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn in 1999, within a year following FDA authorization and introduction, due to its association with a complication called intussusception in which a vaccinated child’s bowel would sort of fold into itself, a tube within a tube, resulting in life-threatening intestinal blockage. Left untreated, this leads to a horrible, painful death. The subsequently developed vaccine is less frequently associated with intussusception than the first, and remains on the market. The latter was developed in part by Dr. Paul Offit, and is the basis of his claim to vaccine expertise and fame. The Rotavirus vax story embodies the ever-present risks of an unpredicted vaccine-associated disease that provides a dark warning to vaccine developers (and regulatory authorities) worldwide. No wonder vaccine developers insist on legal protection from liability if they are to continue to participate in the business.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines for Children and Infants
Historically, the darkest story for vaccinology (prior to the genetic COVID vaccines) involves the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) candidate that actually enhanced RSV disease risk and killed children during clinical trials. This was an unexpected and unanticipated severe adverse event. Every vaccine developer knows the story, and this cautionary tale hovers like a dark shadow in the minds of all except the most florid vaccine development “true believer” fanatics. During prior pediatric RSV vaccine development, vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD) was unexpectedly observed, including two toddler deaths, following administration of “old school” formalin-inactivated respiratory syncytial virus (FI-RSV) vaccines to infants in the 1960s (Fulginiti, 1969; Kapikian, 1969; Kim, 1969). This tragic and unexpected finding stalled RSV vaccine development for many years.

Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Sieber OF, et al. Respiratory virus immunization. I. A field trial of two inactivated respiratory virus vaccines; an aqueous trivalent parainfluenza virus vaccine and an alum-precipitated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969 Apr;89(4):435–448.

Kapikian AZ, Mitchell RH, Chanock RM, et al. An epidemiologic study of altered clinical reactivity to respiratory syncytial (RS) virus infection in children previously vaccinated with an inactivated RS virus vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969 Apr;89(4):405–421.

A cautionary parable is often shared between all drug and biologics investigators who work with animal models, particularly among vaccine developers. Mice lie, monkeys mislead, and the only animal model that reliably predicts human responses (safety and efficacy) is humans. Fortunately or unfortunately, the world of vaccinology and vaccine development has just been dealt another reminder of this fundamental truth. And as if Moderna and its much-celebrated Nobel Prize-winning mRNA technology has been at the center of this latest debacle which is being spun as a conundrum.

“This all seems like an incredible conundrum with lots of unanswered questions remaining—lots to still learn,” Henry Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, told a reporter from Fierce Pharma.

After hearing presentations from Moderna on its trial findings and from the FDA, the advisory committee members generally agreed that RSV shots for infants should be examined on a “vaccine platform-by-vaccine platform basis,” according to Arnold Monto, M.D., an epidemiology professor at the University of Michigan. ….. Monto, for one, said that he believes the safety signal is legitimate and it deserves more study. The answers, he said, will not emerge if companies and regulators “shut down programs.” “Either we go forward very carefully with clinical trials where we may be able to get an answer or we continue to observe natural infection in which over 50 odd years we haven’t really been able to identify anything that would helps us in answering the questions that are currently being raised.”

From a summary published by BioSpace:

Moderna’s mRNA-1345 won the FDA’s approval in May for use in adults aged 60 years and above, and is being marketed under the brand name mRESVIA. The company was also previously developing the shot for use in infants, but dropped this program in September, according to reporting by Endpoints News. According to the biotech’s website, mRNA-1345 continues to move forward in high-risk adults aged 18 to 59 years, and in a pediatric population.

Meanwhile, mRNA-1365 is being developed as a combination vaccine for RSV and the human metapneumovirus. The candidate is currently in a Phase I study in this indication.

In its briefing document, the FDA revealed that in one study, inoculation with mRNA-1365 led to a case of severe or very severe RSV LRTI in the subgroup of participants aged 8 months to less than 24 months. In a younger subpopulation—aged 5 months to less than 8 months—five such side effects were reported after mRNA-1635 administration.

Moderna was made aware that there were at least two positive RSV LRTI tests in the study by July 17, triggering one of the study’s pause criterion. A few days later, Moderna enacted a “study-wide pause,” according to the briefing document, amid its ongoing safety investigation.

These new safety data come as a blow to Moderna, which was already struggling to find its footing in the RSV vaccine space, where it is in third place. GSK became the frontrunner in this field when it won the FDA’s first approval in May 2023 for Arexvy, which has since gone on to corner around two-thirds of all retail RSV vaccinations in the U.S.

Pfizer has fallen to second place with its Abrysvo, though recent approvals in a broader adult population and in immunocompromised adults could help the pharma shore up sales for its shot.

Why the emphasis on vaccinating infants and young children for prevention of RSV-associated disease?

Like SARS-CoV-2, influenza, bacterial pneumonia, mycoplasma and other upper respiratory infections, RSV disease is associated with an increased risk of death in the elderly. In adults and older, healthy children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) symptoms are mild and typically mimic the common cold. Self-care measures are usually all that's needed to relieve any discomfort.

RSV can cause severe infection in some people, including babies 12 months and younger (infants), especially premature infants, older adults, people with heart and lung disease, or anyone with a weak immune system (immunocompromised). Severe RSV disease is associated with a range of symptoms, including upper respiratory disease that can progress to lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD), leading to respiratory distress, respiratory failure, and death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends RSV vaccines for adults aged 75 and older, and those aged 60-74 with risk factors for severe RSV disease, such as chronic heart or lung disease, weakened immune system, diabetes, or living in a nursing home. Vaccinating these high-risk individuals to reduce their chance of dying from or with RSV pneumonia appears to make sense - there is a positive benefit/risk ratio for people in this category. Apparently, because all of these elderly have been previously infected with RSV and therefore have been immunologically “imprinted,” they are not at risk for developing VAERD - or at least that is the hypothesis. That said, there is no evidence to suggest that the adult RSV vaccines prevent transmission of RSV to others. The vaccines are designed to protect the individual who receives them from developing severe illness if they contract RSV, rather than preventing transmission to others. If you are not at risk of severe disease or death from RSV infection, there is no reason for you to take these vaccines. As with any vaccine there is risk, but in the case of RSV vaccines administered to healthy adults and children over two years, no apparent benefit. Frankly, if your physician or pharmacist recommends accepting an RSV vaccine and you are not in the CDC-recommended high-risk groups, you should find another physician or pharmacist, as yours is probably accepting some sort of enticement to make such a recommendation. Financial enticements for physicians and pharmacists to recommend vaccination are common in the industry.

By the age of two years old, virtually all children have been infected with RSV, and develop some degree of natural immunity to subsequent RSV infection. This immunity is not “sterilizing” or perfect. Those that have been infected with RSV are often infected again, but develop a less clinically significant or even clinically “silent” infection. Previously infected healthy normal children and adults can be infected with RSV, and can infect others, but rarely develop clinically significant disease. This fact demonstrates that it is unlikely that a vaccine that prevents infection and spread of RSV can be developed; as with influenza (and coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2), a vaccine that reduces disease severity may be possible, it is difficult or unlikely that one could develop a vaccine that will be more effective than natural infection, and extremely unlikely that a vaccine to prevent infection or spread can be achieved. As healthy normal children older than 2 years are not at significant risk of RSV disease (due to universal natural immunity at that age) if they receive an RSV vaccine there is only risk of vaccine-associated adverse events- no probability of any significant benefit. Current RSV vaccines do not prevent infection or spread, and it is highly unlikely that a RSV vaccine could be developed to prevent infection or spread since natural immunity does not confer sterilizing protection.

That said, RSV infection and disease notoriously kills premature infants and the very young at a relatively high frequency. The immune systems and lungs of these children, particularly premature infants, are still developing, and by definition they do not have the benefit of having natural immunity from a prior RSV infection.

At the root of this is that the immunology that underlies the development of RSV vaccine VAERD in infants and young children is not well understood. One leading hypothesis for RSV VAERD is that the folding of a key RSV protein found in the original formalin-inactivated vaccine, upon injection, results in formation of antibodies that act to enhance RSV infection in some way. You may recall that the FDA was concerned about this same possibility occurring with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, as it had repeatedly compromised prior coronavirus vaccine development programs. Something about having a natural RSV infection seems to prevent this process - the current hypothesis invokes the vague term “immune imprinting,” which is not the same as actually understanding what is going on.

In the case of the Moderna vaccine candidate, based on the spectrum of adverse events associated with the Moderna and Bio N Tech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines, it is possible that the increased disease signal detected in these recent RSV vaccine studies in children may include additional toxicities associated with the Moderna mRNA platform technology.

Because there is a market (unmet medical need) for RSV vaccines, years of animal model experiments were performed to try to better understand and predict the cause, consequence, and prevention of VAERD associated with RSV vaccines. What has been demonstrated in the intervening years is that if you (or an experimental animal) have previously been “naturally” infected with RSV, then your chances of developing VAERD plummet. There is something that happens, some form of immune imprinting (?), that happens with natural infection that prevents this. But, of course, the important clinical need is to protect premature and newborn infants that have not been infected previously!

So, what is an obstetrician or pediatrician to do?

Many years ago, a spinout corporation with roots in US Army infectious disease research programs called “Medimmune” came up with an answer. A monoclonal antibody directed against RSV, which was FDA authorized and is now widely available and standard of care in premature infants. Since that initial product, another has been developed which may have some useful advantages. But the bottom line seems to be that these products, when used as directed, greatly reduce the risk of developing severe disease if the infant is infected with RSV. According to the FDA briefing document Considerations for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Safety in Pediatric Populations, “Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with activity against RSV are a critical element of a preventive strategy in infants; however, availability and cost may limit global implementation.” Therefore, the justification for developing an RSV vaccine for neonates, the only major unmet medical need, distills down to a problem of “global implementation.” In other words, there could be a market in economically underdeveloped regions (where things like malnutrition and clean water are a much more compelling, clear and present danger to neonates), but in the developed world one can administer monoclonal antibody preparations.

Which leads to suspicions that there is some other commercial agenda here driving Moderna to try to push its RSV product down into children. Such as the indemnification that would be associated with getting the product authorized for the pediatric schedule and the Federal government vaccines for children acquisition program.

The bottom line is that there is not a clear, compelling clinical need for an RSV vaccine for children- who have universal immunity, let alone for neonates. Why should we continue to pursue clinical testing of these products in neonates when every child enrolled in such clinical trials will be at risk of VAERD due to some poorly understood mechanism? This has all the hallmarks of another example of an industry that has become enthralled with its own narrative of the power of its technology to solve all related infectious disease problems, and is willing to pursue every potential indication and market opportunity at the expense of humanity.

If I were the incoming Director of CDC or Commissioner of the FDA, I know what I would do about this. I would just say no.

For those seeking additional details and information, I strongly recommend the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting briefing document of December 12, 2024. I have served on many large Federal grant and contract study sections addressing RSV vaccine development, and have read extensively on the subject. I have rarely, if ever, read such a well-written and generally objective summary of the history and state of the art of this domain as the corresponding sections of this document. Whomever at FDA was responsible for preparing this document deserves a hearty “thank you” from all concerned, and their diligence was rewarded by the reasonable and responsible conclusions reached by the VRBPAC in this case.

I only wish similar depth, accuracy and objectivity had characterized the various briefing documents developed and presented in the context of the Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J COVID “vaccine” products. If this had been the case, we might have had a very different outcome.

[Body-by-Guinness]

I suspect incompetence owns a piece of this, but for all the noise they made you'd think they could lay their hands on this stuff:

CDC can't substantiate COVID vaccine ingredient claims, FDA forced to turn over Pfizer data

New dashboard lets users search free-text fields from vaccine-injury data the CDC tried to hide. Louisiana ditches "one-size-fits-all paternalistic guidance" on vaccinations, urges doctor-patient decisionmaking.

Federal public health agencies are known for black-and-white public service announcements that portray their favorite COVID-19 treatments as universally beneficial without providing supporting data, particularly the effectiveness of each new vaccine formulation.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner-nominee Marty Makary once accused the current officeholder, Robert Califf, of wildly exaggerating data in claiming that since-rescinded bivalent vaccines, which targeted two COVID strains, showed a "significant reduction in hospitalization and death in all populations examined, which is clinically meaningful."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which similarly claims COVID vaccines are safer than infections for all populations, has now been caught empty-handed when asked for data to support its claim, on the same "myths and facts" page, that "nearly all the ingredients" in the therapeutics are found "in many foods – fats, sugars, and salts."

The Informed Consent Action Network and Mississippi Medical Professionals for Informed Consent filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all documents including "studies, journal articles, manufacturer data, etc." that are "sufficient to show the foods that contain the same ingredients as those found in the COVID19 vaccines" to verify the CDC's claim.

They also asked for data on foods that contain the ingredients listed in the vaccine inserts, in another five FOIA requests: "recombinant spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus … nucleoside-modified messenger RNA  …extracts from the soapbark tree" and exotic-sounding chemicals such as "methyl-α-D-mannopyranoside," and evidence that the body responds the same to an ingredient whether eaten or injected.

The CDC's response to the broadest request? Its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases does not have "any documents pertaining to your request."

The FOIA officer told the entities to ask the FDA for the data because "the subject matter expert notes that ingredients in specific vaccines fall under the responsibility of the FDA," and also told them how to appeal the agency's response up the FOIA command chain.

"Typically, if one agency points us to another, ICAN will have us submit the same requests to that other agency although here, ICAN was questioning the evidence justifying a statement on CDC’s own website so it’s unclear why CDC would have no records yet FDA would have them," ICAN's lawyer Elizabeth Brehm told Just the News in an email.

She shared the agency's responses to all six FOIAs, which gave the same no-records response but also cited various CDC and FDA pages, including kinds of vaccine ingredients and examples, such as the stabilizer gelatin and "residual inactivating ingredient" formaldehyde, and a long explanation of why certain ingredients are in vaccines.

"CDC’s approach to truth and data is a joke," Brehm's colleague Aaron Siri, who leads the effort, wrote on X. ICAN alleged the agency's shrugging response shows it's violating the Information Quality Act by not being able to "substantiate the quality of the information it has disseminated."

The CDC didn't respond to Just the News queries.

The agency's inability to back up its public messaging comes as the feds continue hiding safety data, healthcare workers worldwide express hesitancy toward COVID vaccines and some state public health agencies ditch one-size-fits-all recommendations.

Another FOIA filer beat the FDA this month, with a federal judge ordering the agency to produce its emergency use authorization file on the Pfizer COVID vaccine by June 30, 2025.

The FDA argued the EUA file isn't covered by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency's FOIA request for the "biological product file" in the formal application for licensing, but U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman quoted its own press release on the vaccine's formal approval, which said it used and builds on the EUA's data.

The Biden administration pulled out all the stops to delay the release of the FDA's COVID vaccine safety data that are kept apart from the public Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, in response to Just the News litigation.

The docket shows the feds secured a stay of the proceedings before Donald Trump's election victory. The case is scheduled to resume five months into the second Trump administration.

ICAN recently launched a dashboard for searching the "free-text" entries from the CDC's v-safe surveys for the earliest COVID vaccine recipients, which the feds unsuccessfully fought to withhold for a year after turning over the "checkbox" answers from v-safe.

It took months longer to get the complete data, "with additional fields that allow us to see the date of injection, the number of days after injection each reaction was reported, and the MedDRA codes assigned for each reported reaction (a standardized coding system to classify medical events) along with every free text entry," ICAN said.

A relatively young National Institutes of Health branch director recently admitted in undercover video that he wouldn't get an updated vaccine because it would "increase my risk for the known myocarditis," questioned whether COVID vaccination "does anything" and suspected vaccines were rushed to full approval in 2021 to justify boosters.

A newly published survey of 7,000 healthcare workers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom, found a fifth had "strong or moderate" COVID vaccine hesitancy.

The most likely to be hesitant were midwives, followed by nutritionists, pharmacists, nursing professionals and public health professionals, according to the study in the journal Public Health. Large majorities believe "side effects were minimised by pharmaceutical companies" (67%) and public authorities (64%).

Louisiana joined Florida by dropping what its Department of Health calls "one-size-fits-all paternalistic guidance" and adopting a "more informative approach" that promotes individuals making decisions "in consultation with their doctor."

While Surgeon General Ralph Abraham, who partly oversees the agency, "has expressed personal concerns about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine," the department believes immunization, mask-wearing and social distancing "are an individual’s personal choice," the statement reads.

It is shifting to public health priorities that were "often deprioritized during the pandemic," including overdoses, maternal mortality and chronic disease.

NPR said four LDH employees confirmed that officials told "high-level managers" at a November meeting that they weren't allowed to promote COVID, flu or monkeypox vaccines in any way, from press releases and interviews to vaccination offerings at LDH clinics.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-cant-substantiate-covid-vaccine-ingredient-claims-fda-forced-turn?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3SvHefNZSLjNoY6mvdTQj1boVZlWNxtdnbfaFjpT46EHevSClgHAulBjk_aem_HEt_B8rly-FNmnhngBRCuQ

[Body-by-Guinness]

Interesting tact suggested here for having a dose of accountability land on Fauci:

https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2024/12/30/help-get-this-simple-fauci-prosecution-playbook-to-trump-please-n4935517?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3d2yTMm0i2EnncqR_RBw3M5erQiA1Q8b-cFh5DSVxGaxGhqYY6o0FdSQw_aem_KCw2pVx8UTvPce8UwYhpmQ#google_vignette

[Crafty_Dog]

Posting this elsewhere:

[Crafty_Dog]

https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/exclusive-fda-lab-uncovers-excess?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1044435&post_id=150972780&utm_campaign=583200&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/pfizers-secret-documents-reveal-that

[Body-by-Guinness]

Biden pardons Fauci to avoid a deeper dive into the whys and wherefores of Covid. That war should be engaged in nonetheless, IMO:

Why Joe Biden Had to Pardon Anthony Fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci watches on during a press conference
               ES             
Lee esto en Español
Tags:
Big Government,
Bureaucracy and Regulation,
Law,
Media and Culture
01/22/2025
•
Mises Wire
•
Connor O'Keeffe
Print this page
On Monday, in their final hours in office, former President Biden’s team chose to issue a blanket pardon to a number of close political allies and family members. Among that group was former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci.

Fauci was pardoned “for any offense against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through the date of [the] pardon” relating in any way to his time as NIAID Director, on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, the White House covid-19 response team, or as Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor.

In the letter explaining the pardons, Biden defended the choice, saying, “baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.” Even when those individuals have done nothing wrong, Biden’s ghostwriters reason, “the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.”

Setting aside the fact that this was the exact tactic the political establishment used to try and tarnish Trump’s reputation, it’s revealing that the primary public reason presented for the pardons was to avoid investigations.

There are, of course, plenty of unseemly details about Fauci’s career that the political establishment would not like to see resurface in either the court of law or the court of public opinion. Many were detailed in RFK Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci, such as the secretive and deadly drug experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at New York City’s Incarnation Children’s Center between 1988 and 2002 and the experiment that locked the heads of Beagle puppies into cages full of flesh-eating insects.

If Fauci had come under the federal government’s microscope, episodes like those could have done much to stain the name of the man Biden recently dubbed “a true hero.”

The same goes for Fauci’s completely inaccurate projection of the danger posed by a strain of swine flu in the 1970s, along with the millions of dollars of damages the government had to pay out due to injuries sustained in the related swine flu vaccine experiments.

Fauci also made similar failed projections relating to the 2005 bird flu, the 2009 swine flu, and the 2016 Zika virus. In all these cases, the virus was nowhere near as dangerous as Fauci had claimed it would be. But his warnings did result in his department and other parts of Washington’s public health bureaucracy getting billions of dollars in new funding.

Of course, these episodes pale in comparison to what Fauci is now most famous for: overseeing the covid pandemic.

Early on, Fauci famously explained on TV that cloth masks cannot stop people infected with covid from filling the air around them with virus particles. He then completely reversed his stance and advocated for universal masking and government mask mandates.

He later claimed his earlier comments on television had been lies meant to trick the public into not buying masks to protect the supply of masks for healthcare workers who, in fact, used a different kind of mask. He then acted confused when much of the public stopped trusting him.

Fauci also went on record in early April 2020 calling for nationwide lockdowns—something he would later deny doing. When some states like Florida started to reopen months later, Fauci warned the governors they were taking “a really significant risk.”

It quickly became obvious to anyone who was actually looking that Fauci was completely wrong about the effectiveness of masking and lockdowns. But Fauci ignored the data and kept pushing for these measures into 2021, after the vaccines had become available.

Another fact that had become obvious early in the pandemic was that children posed little risk of contracting and spreading covid. Yet, Fauci pushed for school closures and later school masking long after both were clearly shown to be unnecessary.

Finally, Fauci made several high-profile claims about the covid vaccines that would quickly prove false.

But making bad projections and giving bad advice isn’t a crime. So why was the political class worried about Fauci being investigated by the Department of Justice? Because a federal investigation would likely have related to the speculation that Fauci played a role in bringing the pandemic about in the first place.

One controversial method for studying viruses involves artificially making the virus more transmissible or virulent. This so-called “gain-of-function” research allows for virus mutation or possible treatments to be analyzed much more quickly, but it brings the risk of a much more dangerous genetically-engineered virus infecting people if a sample leaks out.

We know that an NGO that gets funding from Fauci’s department bankrolled gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2017 and 2018. And that the same NGO had received federal funding while conducting gain-of-function research going back to 2014, when a three-year ban on using federal funds for such experiments had been implemented and when Fauci’s pardon happens to come into effect.

While there is no evidence that these experiments are related to the coronavirus that would eventually spread out of Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020, there is still much we do not know about the extent of US involvement in similar experiments at the Wuhan lab around the time covid started to spread.

That fact, paired with the panicked and secretive behavior of Fauci and his colleagues after the first reports of covid started to emerge, has raised suspicion about the possibility of US government involvement in covid’s origin. Biden’s DOJ refused to investigate these matters. But after Senator Rand Paul got Fauci to explicitly deny, under oath, that his department had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, an investigation into the truth of the claim to determine if Fauci had committed perjury remained a possibility.

That was until Biden pardoned him Monday morning.

A federal investigation would have all but forced the media to revisit many of Fauci’s unseemly actions, failures, and possible crimes. That would have been uncomfortable for a political establishment that has embraced and celebrated Fauci for decades.

But the real danger of a high-profile Fauci investigation, from the political class’s perspective, would come if the public started to ask themselves why a bureaucrat with such a long track record of failure was embraced and celebrated by those in power. And why he enjoyed so much professional success before retiring with a net worth of more than $11 million.

Such questions could lead people to consider that maybe the decades of mistakes that transferred hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to public health agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and the crony healthcare system as a whole were not mistakes after all. That, perhaps, the federal public health apparatus is nothing more than a racket and that officials are professionally rewarded, not for keeping us safe, but for protecting and expanding that racket.

Those are the questions that could well have arisen had a federal investigation prompted a retrospective and examination of the career and conduct of Anthony Fauci. And that is why Biden had no choice but to pardon him.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-joe-biden-had-pardon-anthony-fauci

[Crafty_Dog]

Doubling up BBG's post here as well:

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

This could live more than one place, but given the censorship angle, here will do:

Covid censorship and the shame of supine doctors
By
Jim Tumilty
-
January 20, 2025
 
THE inquiry into the disaster inflicted on the United Kingdom following the emergence, or possibly release, of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ground its glacial route to the most important issue, that of how those killed and severely injured by the so-called vaccine have been ignored and vilified by a large proportion of their fellow countrymen. This is what Module Four of the Covid Inquiry ‘Looking at Vaccines and Therapeutics’ which opened last week should be about. That Dr Rosalind Jones and several leading medics and science critics of the novel mRNA and RNA vaccine rollouts and especially of the regulatory authority, the MHRA, have not been called to give evidence, throws that into doubt.

Anna Morris KC, who is representing family groups injured by the jab and made her second appearance before the Hallett Inquiry last week, made the issue of censorship central to her opening statement. She recalled YouTube’s censorship of her preliminary statement to Baroness Hallett in September 2023 (reported by TCW here and here). It had left many of those attending in tears, laying bare the truth that so many have tried to suppress – of suicide, disability and death, the youngest victim being 14 and oldest 76, all caused by serious adverse reactions to Covid vaccinations. ‘The treatment of the vaccine-injured in this country historically been a source of shame,’ she had said. YouTube were not going to share those revelations.

In her preliminary submission last Tuesday, the opening day of this module, speaking once more on behalf of just a tiny proportion of the millions who have suffered harm, Anna Morris told the judge that ‘the inquiry must understand the stigma and censorship for the vaccine-injured and bereaved’. She reported a poll of all family members which found that 74 per cent had been censored when talking about vaccines on social media. She also reported how doctors were instructed to keep their concerns from the public, including from their own patients.

The only thing missing from this presentation was any call for immediate withdrawal of these products to prevent further harm being caused in the next decade or so, by which time no doubt this report will have quietly been put away in a bottom drawer.

No right-thinking person listening to Morris could be in any doubt about the industrial-strength censorship that allowed this travesty to occur. While the government, pharmaceutical companies and the regulators could perhaps be expected to follow their chosen route and to deny and hide their mistakes, what was most telling, and profoundly disappointing, was the action she described taken by the medical profession on the front line.

With any new treatment side-effects are certain. The patient leaflet included with the medication says so. When a new treatment is used on such a scale as were these creations, it is vital that side-effects be promptly reported to allow rapid understanding and decision-making. Lives depend on it. In the event some 2,700 ‘fatal outcomes’ of the covid vaccines have been reported.  We have the Yellow Card scheme to allow these reports. But they have been ignored by the Public Health authorities, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Executive of the NHS downwards and by medical professionals too. It needs to be stated clearly that the reporting of vaccine side-effects is not an optional task. When they give a treatment, whether a drug, a vaccine or any other intervention, they have a moral duty to monitor it and report any problems. It horrifies me to think that many of our GPs have never heard of, or used, the Yellow Card scheme. Are we to believe that they have never seen an adverse effect? Or is it simply that they choose not to?

The problem has been shown to be even deeper. Since the start of the rollout, doctors’ professional bodies and other medical organisations have steadfastly denied any link between injections and problems. Patients who have begged for help have been ignored or accused of having mental disorders. Doctors speaking out have been censored and struck off, ensuring that most remain quiet. The tyranny continues with the GMC calling the shots.

The inquiry addressed this as a problem or result of not wishing to contribute to vaccine ‘hesitancy’. But what they are facing now is no longer hesitancy, rather the start of patients’ outright refusal to co-operate due entirely to doctors’ refusal to listen to real concerns.

This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg as trust in vaccines has been all but destroyed. The current crop of mRNA offerings deserve nothing else than public scepticism. Even many of the ‘traditional’ vaccines, it is transpiring, came with far more risks than was ever acknowledged, an issue that needs separate study. But of immediate concern in medicine today are the plummeting levels of trust in doctors as a profession. They are victims of their own naivety. Many now see what was done and regret it, but remain quiet. Many still don’t see or don’t care. Or still post lies about the few who try to make the truth known.

The covid event is a medical disaster that was, by and large, self-inflicted. Doctors hid behind telephones and denied treatment to injured patients. They refused to believe the evidence of their own eyes. They attacked their colleagues and still do. They put the perceived status of the profession above their duty of care. The dearth of doctors signing the Hope Accord, which calls for the immediate suspension of all covid mRNA vaccine products, tells its own story.

GP practices may still be earning their pieces of silver by injecting the now proven deadly genetic treatments. In truth it has cost them dearly. They have lost the trust and respect of the nation.

Tumilty is a 72-year-old retired engineer living in North East England after a career in the manufacturing industry (when we still had one). He has used the last five years to research the background and responses to the ‘pandemic’.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-censorship-and-the-shame-of-supine-doctors/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-01-26/back-against-wall-cia-admits-covid-likely-emerged-wuhan-lab

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hmm, seems authoritative concerns re vaccines have been around since … Reagan:

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-99th-congress-that-called-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/czech-republic-data-vaccinated-women?utm_medium=android&triedRedirect=true

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpIMr8biAr8

[DougMacG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpIMr8biAr8

"That's his new angle to feed the wingnuts"
-----------
a. They weren't going after him, they were going after us.

b. With the theory now proven true, who are the "wingnuts" ?

[ccp]

and fauci knew this all along and tried to cover it up and now will not have to be held accountable   

and did singer "songwriter" Collins

no not Phill, 

Francis .

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1891690382779470104

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/413721.php

[Body-by-Guinness]

A takedown of Fauci.

Anthony Fauci Museum Exhibit Cancelled

February 17, 2025

By K. LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

Also published in The American Spectator Fri. February 14, 2025

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has canceled a $168,000 grant for an exhibit on Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Museum of Health and Medicine in suburban Silver Spring, Md. The cancellation might prompt people to “muse” on the career of Dr. Fauci, who in 2021 claimed that “attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.”

That’s a rather bold claim for a non-practicing physician whose bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, vital disciplines in the field of virology. So it was doubtless a purely bureaucratic move when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made Dr. Fauci head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984.

Kary Mullis, who earned a PhD from UC Berkeley, and won a Nobel Prize for the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, was on record that Dr. Fauci didn’t understand medicine and “should not be in a position like he’s in.” Fauci went on to prove Mullis right.

Dr. Fauci’s drug of choice to treat AIDS was AZT (azidothymidine, zidovudine), rejected for cancer treatment because of high toxicity. In the early 1990s, Fauci’s NIAID forced AZT and other toxic drugs on foster children in New York City, with deadly results. For further information see the BBC’s Guinea Pig Kids and The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Dr. Fauci’s prediction that AIDS would ravage the general population never came to pass, and it wasn’t even close. As Michael Fumento showed in The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, the syndrome remained most prominent among male homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and intravenous drug users. Despite the error, Dr. Fauci remained at the helm of NIAID.

In 2019, Dr. Fauci funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to perform gain-of-function research, once banned in the United States, that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible. The NIAID boss maintained that the COVID virus was “zoonotic,” arising naturally in the wild. Scientists more qualified than Fauci, including CDC Director Robert Redfield, found evidence of a laboratory origin. Dr. Fauci branded them “conspiracy theorists” and Dr. Redfield even got death threats.

The NIAID boss imposed a lockdown regime that was particularly hard on families with children in school. That prompted the scientists of the Great Barrington Declaration to push for a more humane approach. NIH Director Francis Collins tasked Fauci with a “devastating takedown” of those “fringe epidemiologists,” most if not all more qualified than Fauci and Collins.

Dr. Fauci proclaimed there was no need to wear a mask, then said to wear one mask before advocating two masks. The NIAID boss imposed distancing rules and urged vaccines even for children, the least vulnerable group. It later emerged that the masks were useless, and the distancing rules were simply made up and not based on any science. Fauci’s vaunted vaccines failed to prevent infection and transmission, which the fully boosted NIAID boss confirmed by coming down with COVID.

After more than 50 years as a government bureaucrat and nearly 40 years as head of NIAID, Dr. Fauci retired in 2023 but continued to receive taxpayer-funded transportation and security services. In November 2024, Fauci authored a paper claiming that HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, was “zoonotic,” just like the COVID virus. That reversed his position from the 1980s when he smeared the scientists who challenged him, all more qualified than himself, as “AIDS denialists.”

On Jan. 20, on his way out of the White House, Joe Biden issued a pardon for Dr. Anthony Fauci. Whatever the pardon was for—Sen. Rand Paul, author of Deception: The Great Covid Coverup, made a criminal referral to the Biden Department of Justice—wasn’t likely to turn up in Fauci’s museum exhibit. His network remains in place and that calls for deep reform.

At the very least, the NIAID director should be limited to a single four-year term, with all grants posted online in real-time. Never again must a single person control public health policy and spending on medical research. Absent these and other reforms, white coat supremacy could well mount a comeback. In 2021, Dr. Fauci explained the WCS concept:

I think what people have to appreciate is that indeed, you do have personal liberties for yourself and you should be in control of that. But you are a member of society, and as a member of society—reaping all the benefits of being a member of society—you have a responsibility to society. And I think each of us, particularly in the context of a pandemic that’s killing millions of people, you have got to look at it and say there comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision, for the greater good of society.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=15203

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.malone.news/p/none-of-the-70000-adverse-events?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=157907602&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162253125000435

[Crafty_Dog]

https://drbowden.substack.com/p/different-versions-of-the-same-crime?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=607316&post_id=158038600&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTU4MDM4NjAwLCJpYXQiOjE3NDA2Njg4MTAsImV4cCI6MTc0MzI2MDgxMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTYwNzMxNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.VegvT539inDZ1d7zP9LS63oNQMqIC_5WqRE9tct0baU&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

https://archive.is/2025.03.16-100939/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html

[Crafty_Dog]

https://coldfury.com/WRSA/WRSA-WP/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/c1a3fc5c4cdc0ba2139e12572145aa2a.webp

[Crafty_Dog]

Posting here this outstanding find by BBG:

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-performative-activism-enabled-mass-persecution/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://open.substack.com/pub/drbowden/p/adverse-cardiovascular-events-data?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=607316&post_id=161601418&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTYxNjAxNDE4LCJpYXQiOjE3NDUxNTU5NzIsImV4cCI6MTc0Nzc0Nzk3MiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTYwNzMxNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.-OqTw_zIkMm_RlAH9ctkM910xeV3hwpnqVeJERlhz9Y

[Crafty_Dog]

Hey, You’ll Never Guess What Fauci Has Been Doing Since He ‘Retired’The cash just keeps rolling in.April 23, 2025 by Robert SpencerYeah, you’re right: he has been raking in the dough.With all the revelations that have been coming out about the cover-up of the Wuhan lab leak and other ways in which the COVID-19 hysteria was pushed on Americans, you’d think that Dr. Anthony Fauci, as the chief driver of all the madness, would have retired to a monastery by now. After all, he could do a lot worse than to spend the rest of his days in prayer and meditation to try to make up for all the damage he has done.As it turns out, he is doing a lot worse: without the shadow of a hint of any remorse for his actions, Fauci has spent the fifteen or so months of his retirement (when he actually retired is a bit unclear) fattening his bank account as leftist Americans’ still-unquestioned health guru.The Daily Caller reported recently that the pint-sized far-left charlatan “earned $3.5 million in his first year of retirement from government.” Unnamed sources are still throwing huge amounts of money at the little guy: Fauci “received several six-figure deposits through 2023 totaling $1.15 million.” This is “according to a 141-page financial disclosure obtained by Open The Books, a government watchdog group.” Yet “the documents do not describe the source of the deposits.”Now even the Covid.gov website goes, according to PJM’s Catherine Salgado, “to a new webpage featuring evidence to undermine mainstream Covid dogmas, most particularly those pushed by Anthony Fauci, and to support the Wuhan lab leak theory. It calls out such corruption as Biden administration-enforced censorship, previous HHS obstruction, and totally arbitrary Covid measures touted as unquestionable ‘science.’” This is just the latest indication of how much Fauci’s credibility has suffered as more has been learned about what really happened during the COVID hysteria.Nevertheless, among doctrinaire leftists, Fauci still has considerable star power. He “leveraged his celebrity status as the top trusted messenger on COVID-19 to pad his earnings in 2023.” There was the lucrative book deal that makes a millionaire out of virtually any leftist who attains any prominence: Fauci “sold his memoir to a subsidiary of Penguin Random House for a reported $5 million in March 2023.”And the money and honors kept rolling in. “On July 1, 2023, Fauci began an appointment at Georgetown University as distinguished university professor in both the School of Medicine and School of Public Policy.”  He also was inundated with lucrative speaking gigs from like-minded leftist groups, including “the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP),” which “have policy agendas that intersect with the federal government’s COVID-19 response or the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the NIH division that Fauci led for nearly four decades.”On top of all that, the man who said he was science itself “accepted medals with monetary prizes from the highest echelons of academia including Columbia University’s Calderone Prize, worth $50,000, and the National Academy of Medicine’s Lienhard Prize, worth $40,000.” And meanwhile, he was the highest-paid official in the American government: “Fauci’s final government salary totaled an unprecedented $480,654, the highest salary earned by any of the roughly 2.4 million employees who work for the federal government, including the president, according to Open The Books.” And now that he is retired, Fauci “continues to accept a six-figure pension.”Fauci is not frittering all this money away on lifts and canolis. His net worth “roughly doubled from $7.6 million the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2019 to $15 million in 2023.” And he never has to worry about leaving his wallet at home: Fauci “also received taxpayer-funded transportation and security detail via the U.S. Marshals Service as a private citizen in 2023.”While Americans were forced into lockdowns that threatened their livelihoods and (in many cases) their very sanity, Fauci was living high on the hog. Open The Books CEO John Hart remarked: “Dr. Fauci’s assets soared during the worst of the draconian Covid lockdowns while families and small businesses struggled through school closures and lost income. Now it’s clear the cash kept coming during his first year of ‘retirement.’ He was rubbing elbows with groups like AHIP flanked by taxpayer-funded security — even as his wife remained the top bioethicist at NIH.”And on top of it all, Old Joe Biden’s autopen gave Fauci a blanket pardon as Old Joe headed out of office, despite the fact that he had not been charged with any crime. It looks as if there are at least some people among the leftists elites who are well aware that Fauci is vulnerable to legal challenge. Yet the money just keeps rolling in.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Dear me, Kennedy wants actual science practiced:

Yesterday, the Boston Globe ran a story headlined, “RFK Jr. will order ‘placebo’ testing for new vaccines, alarming health experts.” What would we do without alarmed health experts? Is there any other kind? Anyway, not only was the Globe’s article another fine example of journalistic malpractice, but for careful readers, it accidentally cut the vaccine industrial complex’s femoral artery.

image.png
On some future day, aging medical school doctors will look back on our time, and tell their fresh-faced students how, back in the day, pharma firms used to test vaccines by leaving them out overnight and seeing whether they were still there in the morning. If the wee vaccine fairies didn’t spirit the needles away in the small hours, then Bob’s your uncle: approved.

I exaggerate, but just barely.

Yesterday, Secretary Kennedy and HHS made what could be the simplest but most impactful announcement in American history (if you count in total life-years-saved). From now on, with limited exceptions (like the annual flu shot), the FDA will require all vaccines —including those already on the schedule— to be tested against an inert placebo, like pure saline.

“All new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure — a radical departure from past practices,” an HHS spokesperson told The Washington Post.

Haha, you innocent doves are probably naive enough to think that’s already how it works. You were living your lives with aplomb, bing-watching reboots of 1980’s television classics with your loved ones, arguing about the meaning of life with AI chatbots, and generally minding your own business in the blissful ignorance of trust in scientists to use common sense, and believing to the core of your beings that of course they are testing all new medicines against placebos.

It’s not like they can go around comparing new shots to injecting people with bleach or arsenic, you probably thought. How else can they determine efficacy and safety?

image 2.png
You trusted that they were doing the work. You gullible dopes actually believed they weren’t just chanting “supercalifragilistic” ten times and hoping for the best.

💉 But no. Here’s the giveaway: despite the article’s main theme was about how testing against placebos alarms experts, the Globe never bothered to explain how vaccines are currently tested. If non-placebo testing is so wonderful, then why didn’t that information come first, right up front? But that bit was conspicuously absent, concealed behind empty technical jargon and meaningless buzzwords like “correlates of protection” and “biological responses.”

Nearly every other drug except for vaccines must succeed against a placebo. But under long-standing FDA regulations, vaccines are excepted. They are not tested against placebos. They are usually tested against other vaccines, or (I am not making this up) against heavy-metal solutions, creating a kind of jabby feedback loop. Old vaccines, already approved, are assumed to be safe and effective. So if your new vaccine’s side effect profile is no worse than the old vaccine you’re testing against, then shazam, you have a winner. It’s safe!

image 3.png
Sometimes, new vaccines are even tested against older versions of the same vaccine, and sometimes the FDA will allow pharma to test a new jab against itself.

Not only that, but they don’t even test for efficacy anymore by measuring whether the drug actually reduces the disease or prevents hospitalizations. They just test whether victims’ immune systems produce certain antibodies. If so, they assume that also means fewer people will be hospitalized for the disease, which is a classic but oddly-named logical fallacy called “begging the question.”

They know it’s circular reasoning, yet they all keep pretending “everything is going to be fine.”

But now it’s all over. Placebos are back! You are probably feeling relieved and thinking, good, at least we have that debate settled, glad we have all behind us now. Sorry! Au contraire, mon ami. We must now deal with the experts.

💉 The experts, you see, do not agree that any of this is common sense. It’s right in the headline: placebo testing policy alarms experts. But why? Why are they so alarmed? Wait till you see this.

“Vaccine and public health experts,” reported the Globe, “said the statement from HHS is misinformation.” So. The experts offered three basic arguments. First, they argued it’s unethical to withhold a “known” vaccine from people who need protection (they always offer kids and measles as their example). Second, placebo-controlled trials are expensive and take longer than antibody trials, potentially slowing vaccines’ time to market. And third, they unironically argued some drugs might not make it.

Michael Osterholm, the University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert on Biden’s transition team, said the change threatened the existence of coronavirus vaccines. I’m not sure Osterholm realized what he was admitting there. If covid jabs can’t survive a placebo-controlled trial, then… they shouldn’t be sold. Again, it’s common sense, doc.

image 4.png
Jab salesman and former FDA advisory board member Dr. Paul Offit viewed improved transparency and higher safety standards as threats. “You are watching the gradual dissolution of the vaccine infrastructure in this country,” Offit said, without any exaggeration whatsoever. But Offit’s quote was another accidental confession. If the entire system collapses under the weight of gold-standard testing, then what we had before wasn’t science to begin with. It was a house of gold-plated cards held up by blind trust in bureaucratic shortcuts.

💉 The Globe and the rest of corporate media studiously ignored a very basic problem with all the experts’ arguments: the simple fact that all other drugs require placebo testing. So any ethics concerns, delays in releasing, additional expense, and ‘risks’ of non-approval are equally applicable to all other medicines. Somehow, for all other drugs except vaccines, placebo testing is considered not just acceptable but de rigueur.

What jab experts need to explain isn’t why placebo trials are ‘too risky’ — it’s why vaccines get a hall pass while new blood thinners, cancer drugs, and antidepressants must run the full gauntlet. If a heart drug that could save millions is required to beat a sugar pill in a fair fight, why not a shot you’re giving to a perfectly healthy infant?

It’s such a basic question that a child could ask it: Why should vaccines get different treatment from every other drug? And yet, not one corporate media outlet reporting on HHS’s new placebo standard dared to touch that critical distinction. Combine that with their complete omission of how vaccines are currently tested — or not tested — and it’s obvious: this wasn’t journalism.

It was institutional propaganda dressed in bylines and pull quotes. As a critical reader, always ask yourself: What obvious issue is the article conveniently overlooking?

The experts aren’t afraid that RFK Jr. is wrong— they’re afraid he’s right. They are terrified the public might start noticing how little scrutiny vaccines have actually received compared to every other drug on the market. If experts were confident in the science, they’d welcome placebo trials as vindication. Fine, go ahead and do your little placebo trials, you’ll see we were right all along. Their panic tells you they’re not afraid of being disproven — they’re afraid of being exposed.

This simple policy change was much more than a first step. It was a seismic move. With only a little luck, it could change everything.

 https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/anomalous-thursday-may-1-2025-c-and

[Body-by-Guinness]

For some odd reason the MSM isn’t saying much about this:

Four days ago, the most important covid shot study yet was published as a preprint on MedRxIV. It was blandly titled, “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida.” In a science-following world, this study would announce the beginning of the end, the great unraveling of the big “safe and effective” lie.

image.png
If there’s one thing —just one thing— a “safe and effective” vaccine absolutely shouldn’t do, it’s increase your odds of dropping dead. Death is not a side effect; that’s the reverse-opposite of vaccination. It’s like a parachute that “works great” until you pull the ripcord. Aieeeeeeee.

This week’s study was organized by co-author and Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo, a Harvard-trained M.D. and PhD. Impeccably credentialed MIT professor of statistics Retsef Levi also joined. They brilliantly scraped Florida’s Medicare database and compared the two jabs against each other, specifically, their risks of dying from any cause —“all-cause mortality”— and they found a statistically undeniable +40% risk of fatality following the Pfizer jab over Moderna.

In other words, hundreds of thousands more Floridians died in the 12 months following the Pfizer jab than Moderna, when there should have been no difference at all. Specifically, they found that +230 more people died after Pfizer for every 100,000 jabbed. Not only that, but Pfizer getters died from cardiovascular causes at a rate of +83 more often per 100,000.

The researchers were super careful to avoid leaving room for criticism. They started with known vaccinees, then excluded nursing home residents, the homeless, and people who died from violent causes (homicides and suicides). Then they took out people who got their shots more than six weeks apart (i.e., not as recommended), people who mixed shot types, people who got more than 2 shots, and people whose health records were incomplete (such as unknown gender). Finally, they separated people who died from covid.

Those left over included more than 9 million Floridians. I.e., it was a big sample. Then they matched recipients 1-to-1 based on their location (census tract), avoiding any potential regional differences.

It wasn’t even close.

image 7.png
The authors ultimately concluded that, “Florida adults who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer) in the initial series appear to have significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to mRNA-1273 recipients (Moderna).”

Pfizer’s Grim Reaper came most often for seasoned citizens. “When stratifying by age group,” the researchers wrote, “the increase in mortality risk was highest in adults 60 years and older.”

The genius of Ladapo’s study was to compare the two shots against each other. The data for those who were unvaccinated is completely unreliable, since doctors recorded anyone with “unknown” jab status as unvaccinated. But the state has very good data about who actually got the shots and then died, since hospitals and pharmacies were required to report detailed data for Medicare reimbursement, both for the original shots and then for the patients’ end-of-life care.

Simply put, comparing shots like-for-like surfaced a wide variety of deadly effects, at least for Pfizer. Though the study didn’t directly study the other shot, it remains reasonable to assume Moderna also increased death risk compared to non-vaccination, since the shots are so similar.

💉 And as bad as these results are, the truth is probably much worse. It only tracked deaths in the 12 months following the second shot, so we don’t know how high the totals are now. And it excluded people who took three, four, or more shots. It’s fair to assume that more shots don’t decrease people’s risk of death.

In other words, when it comes to mortality risk, this study’s results likely represent a floor, not a ceiling.

Death is binary. It’s not a PCR cycle. Folks either died or they didn’t. All-cause mortality is immune to narrative manipulation. You might well ask, why hasn’t the FDA already required long-term all-cause mortality studies for these products? The data is readily available. Post-marketing all-cause mortality studies are not common, but the speed at which the covid jabs were developed at warp speed and government mandates to take them aren’t common either.

If the Levi–Ladapo study is right, it implies catastrophic failure by the FDA for not requiring long-term safety data, the CDC for continuing to push boosters with no mortality data, the NIH for funding everything except what might challenge the narrative, and Big Pharma for withholding or obscuring adverse event data.

I couldn’t find a single corporate media mention about this study. The silence was deafening. As you know, media loves running headlines about weird studies linking things like “too much joy” to heart attacks and strokes. But this? Crickets. If Levi-Ladapo’s results showed that both shots had reduced 12-month mortality, that result would’ve been plastered across headlines within 24 hours and chirped three times on NPR before breakfast.

As I keep saying —and will keep saying— the steady drip of vaccine safety studies is pooling into a vast and rising lake of condemnation. At some point, that lake will be too deep for the guilty to wade across. They can tiptoe around the puddles now, but the water’s quickly coming up— and the truth will eventually drown them.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/safe-but-risky-saturday-may-3-2025