Tag Archives: Covid vaccine

Hey, Man! Not My Fault!

Posted on by

Dissecting the New York Times’ Plea for Vaccine Amnesty

Reviewing a remarkably disingenuous “apology” and what actually caused the vaccine disaster

A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR
MAY 12, 2024

Story at a Glance:

•Repeatedly forcing the public (e.g., through mandates) to use unsafe and ineffective therapies (that injured millions) has created a public relations disaster for the establishment.

• Various attempts have been made to do the impossible—restore the public’s trust in our medical institutions without any of them admitting fault.

•Here, I review each of the previous attempts and how they were used to create the recent infamous article by the NYT—which while monumental for bringing attention to the COVID vaccine-injured, also repeats a variety of strategic and very harmful lies to protect the vaccine industry.

•One of the mysteries of the COVID-19 response is what could have possibly justified breaking the public’s trust in the medical institutions our society revolves around. Here I will review the most compelling explanations we’ve come across after three years of investigating this commonly asked question.

For decades, I’ve noticed propaganda campaigns in the media will subtly signal what is in the works and it’s been a longstanding challenge for me to see if I can use those signals to accurately predict the future (e.g., this is how I predicted the course of the pandemic at the end of 2019).

In organic chemistry, one of the common subjects students are tested on is chemical synthesis. In synthesis problems, students are given a set of chemical reactions that can be performed, and are then expected to deduce how a combination of those reactions can be sequentially performed to transform a starting chemical to the desired final product.

The reason it’s essentially possible to “predict” the future by studying a public relations (propaganda) campaign is that like the synthesis problems, the PR field has a fairly limited number of tools to accomplish its agenda, and as a result, if you see one step being enacted, it often cleanly fits into a 10-step campaign you’ve seen conducted before (e.g., if it matches the 4th step of the previous campaign, you can reasonably infer the 10th step will likely to come to pass in the future).

As a result, I tend to view many media campaigns as “synthesis” problems. I consider their sponsors’ likely goals, the sequential steps that would need to be taken to enact those goals, and then see if what I’m currently observing fits into one of those sequences.

In turn, I’ve been amazed at how frequently this process has allowed me to know what’s in the pipeline, and over the years, I’ve reached a few key conclusions:

1. Synthesis problems are something college students typically struggle with (while not that complicated, they differ from the typical “first-order” thinking students are typically tested on, where they are just expected to memorize things and then regurgitate them). I believe this same blind spot is what prevents people from recognizing that when the same propaganda “synthesis” campaigns are conducted in the media again and again.

2. While propaganda is incredibly effective and appears monolithic (e.g., consider the complete insanity it made people unshakably believe throughout COVID-19), the majority of people who orchestrate it typically aren’t that intelligent or creative. Instead, they tend to use the same proven steps again and again, which while not optimal, are effective enough to accomplish their goals because they always have the weight of the mass media behind them.
Note: one of the best illustrations of this was Trump’s interactions with the media, as he regularly gave the response which effectively countered the current PR campaign against him. Yet rather than adapt and effectively respond to Trump’s response, the entire media would double-down on its initial message, frequently leading to their PR campaign boosting rather than undermining Trump’s popularity. Yet, despite this approach clearly not working, the media kept on doing it, which I took as a sign their adaptability within their campaigns was actually quite limited.

3. One of the biggest “red flags” for me is seeing a propaganda campaign unfold that is structured in a significantly different way from the baseline I’ve come to expect from watching previous iterations of those campaigns.

For example, I am used to the media whipping up hysteria about an inconsequential infectious disease (e.g., bird flu) every few years. The key thing which told me COVID was going to turn into a global disaster was the fact during the first few months (November 2019-March 2020) the media instead downplayed it as much as possible (e.g., the “it’s just a flu bro” meme was everywhere and anyone who raised concerns about it was accused of being racist towards Chinese people). Given that the entire biosecurity apparatus has been begging for something like COVID-19 for decades to justify their existence (and funding), the fact that they were downplaying it signaled that something much more nefarious was in the works.

Note: years ago, I learned that Corporate America would often commission “Tiger Teams” composed of talented employees to solve a problem (e.g., how to monopolize a sales market), and like tigers tearing apart a piece of meat, relentlessly attack the problem until a solution was found. Since these “solutions” often required complex multi-year campaigns, it was easy for me to wrap my head around the idea that PR firms would conduct similar endeavors.

The COVID Vaccine Campaign

When I observed the campaign used to sell the COVID vaccines, a few things jumped out at me:

•A lot of work went into setting up the campaign (e.g., the lockdowns, the messaging around the lockdowns, an immense effort to discredit any off-patent therapy that could treat COVID-19, and historically unprecedented online censorship to monopolize the narrative).
Note: the key thing all of the approaches we took to “addressing” COVID-19 had in common was that they were useless, and in many cases made things much worse.

•Before the vaccines came out, we repeatedly heard messaging stating that if you felt awful, that meant “it was working.” This for context was not something I’d heard from any other vaccine.

•The campaign was done in sequential stages where once a “softer” approach (e.g., gift cards) had maxed out how many sales it could get, a “harder” one was immediately implemented (e.g., pseudo-mandates like being unable to go to concerts without being vaccinated).

•Give or take, every stop that could be pulled out was used to sell the vaccines. Before long, this included ridiculous things like Krispy Kreme giving everyone who was vaccinated a free donut each day for the rest of the year, and CNN not only covered it but also covered it again when this was changed to two donuts rather than one. Not long after, it pivoted to draconian mandates that permanently broke many people’s trust in the medical system.

Note: I compiled some of the most ridiculous vaccine promotions here (e.g., lotteries, drugs, alcohol, and complementary brothel visits).

From all of this, I inferred that a decision had been made to do whatever was needed to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible (as best as I can guess, due to Biden’s repeated messaging on it, the goal was 70% of Americans 6 months into the campaign). Additionally, it appeared the people who chose to push the vaccines were fully aware of how unsafe and ineffective they were,

I hence concluded that the people pushing the vaccines knew they had a limited window to get everyone vaccinated and were willing to do whatever was necessary to vaccinate the world before that window closed—even if it was immensely costly for them in the long term.

Note: as best as I can gather, the “window” was either due to people inevitably becoming aware of the adverse effects of the vaccines (particularly the medium and long-term ones), people realizing the vaccine didn’t work, or COVID-19 becoming extinct (something which happened in many of the African countries which didn’t vaccinate).

from:    https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dissecting-the-new-york-times-plea?publication_id=748806&post_id=144482508&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Question

Posted on by

Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?

02 April 2021
K Polyakova   Consultant    London

Dear Editor

I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.

Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.

Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?

Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.

Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.

I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid. Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.

What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?

Competing interests: No competing interests

from:    https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n810/rr-14

A Little Shot of Cancer, Perhaps?

Posted on by

(Please note that I have excerpted a good deal of the text which is available at the link below)

Sausage Making at FDA: How Human Cancer Cells Got Into Vaccines

In a 2012 meeting, the FDA voted to allow the use of human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines, despite acknowledging the many risks, including that vaccine recipients might later develop cancer.

“If the American people knew some of the things that went on at the FDA, they’d never take anything but Bayer aspirin.” — Len Lutwalk, FDA scientist

“The FDA, by spinelessly knuckling under to every whim of the drug companies, has thrown away its high reputation, and in doing so, forfeited our trust.” — Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA

…

Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee today

Today — Thursday, Dec. 10 — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) internal panel that licenses new vaccines as “safe and effective,” will meet to consider Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. VRBAC will meet in one week, Dec. 17, to consider approval of the Moderna vaccine.

The damning safety studies in Pfizer’s late release clinical trial data dump, and the severe (life-threatening) allergic reactions that bedeviled the vaccine’s UK rollout, have raised red flags and public anxiety about the safety of the companies’ mRNA vaccines. Anthony Fauci has addressed growing skepticism about COVID vaccines and the Operation Warp Speed program, by reassuring the public that “VRBPAC” is an “independent panel of leading experts” whom the public can absolutely trust to assure vaccine safety.

…

How FDA originally approved use of fetal cells in vaccines

FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells, there are no fetal cells, cell debris or DNA in their final products.

However, according to company documents, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous.

The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous.

Normal primary cells, which are unable to replicate indefinitely, ultimately die. Immortalized cell lines are derived from known malignant cancer cells such as those obtained from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa) or created in the laboratory by introducing viral oncogenes or chemical exposures capable of mutating normal primary cells into immortal tumor cells.

According to FDA’s “The Pink Sheet” dated Nov. 29, 1999, for two decades the agency has been acutely aware of the inherent risks of using immortalized cell lines for vaccine development. The FDA CBER Director Dr. Peter Patriarca, M.D. explained that continuous cell lines are used for their ability to self-propagate, making them an ideal substrate on which to grow viruses, “the worst thing we are concerned about is …  malignancy, because some of these continuous cells have the potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”

Patriarca further conceded that “the technology to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work.”   …

We call vaccines “biologics” because vaccinologists have traditionally grown their antigens on biological substrates — usually animal tissue. Competing companies culture COVID vaccines on a variety of animal strata. The Merck and IAVA COVID vaccines are manufactured in vero monkey cells, and thus contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from vero monkeys in the final product. The Sanofi, GSK, and Novavax COVID jabs are manufactured in insect cells and thus contain insect cellular debris and DNA fragments in the final products.

Public health advocates criticize the use of animal tissues in vaccines due to risks that they carry endogenous viruses, microbes, parasites and lack safety testing. (Plague of Corruption, Mikovits 2020). …

Researchers and regulatory agencies have worried for more than 50 years about the potential for injected DNA to cause cancer.  …

Regulators have in the past predicted that the odds of that happening were less than 1 in a trillion. However, in early gene therapy trials this event did indeed occur in 4 of 9 boys, 1 of whom died from the leukemia the insertions caused.

…

FDA as an arm of Big Pharma

…

Between 2000 and 2010, pharmaceutical companies paid the FDA $3.4 billion to gain rapid drug approvals. Today, Pharma companies underwrite three-quarters of FDA’s budget for scientific reviews (ProPublica) and fund nearly 50% of the FDA’s total annual budget through PDUFA fees. In exchange, the agency increasingly fast-tracks expensive drugs and vaccines with significant side effects and unproven health benefits.

Corrupt vaccine approval panels

But as corrupt as FDA is, the internal panels — VRBAC — that approve new vaccines make the rest of the agency look like a Sunday church picnic.

When Dr. Fauci, Paul Offit, Peter Hotez and Bill Gates tell you that you needn’t worry because FDA is the “gold standard” for vaccine safety and that the ultimate licensing decision will be made by an “independent panel of experts,” they are talking about VRBPAC. But VRBPAC is far from “independent.” It is not even comprised exclusively of public officials. Instead, it is populated by outside “experts” who are almost all pharmaceutical industry insiders.

In 2003, following a 3-year investigation, the United States Congress’s House Oversight Committee found VRBAC was completely dominated by the vaccine industry.

“Examples of Conflicts of Interest:

  1. “For instance, 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee (VRBPAC) members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  2. “One out of five voting members’ employer had a $9,586,000 contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  3. “One out of five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop a rotavirus vaccine.
  4. “One out of five voting members received approximately $1 million from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.”

Congressional investigators concluded that, “Altogether, four out of the five committee members had conflicts of interest that required waivers, and their recommendation for approval of the vaccine was unanimous.”

Here’s what happened at the 2012 FDA meeting on fetal cells

HHS acknowledges that the FDA and Centers for Disease Control committees that contract and review new vaccines have historically not used “evidence-based medicine.” To illustrate what this means, one only need read (below) the astonishing transcript of the 2012 panel that first approved the use of adult cancer tumor cells in vaccines.

This transcript shows what the public is never supposed to see: the behind-the-scenes sausage-making of federal vaccine approvals. Here, you will read for yourself how the “independent,” “gold standard” panelists entrusted with protecting your children made monumentally consequential decisions, not on evidence-based science, but by rolling the dice and taking what they knew was a horrendously risky bet on public health

In any other realm, this transcript would be proof of negligent homicide. … We are all lab rats in their high-risk population-wide experiment. At FDA’s vaccine division, that sort of reckless decision-making is routine.

In 2012, most live virus vaccines were from animal tissue and the idea of putting potentially cancerous tumor cells from adult “donors” in vaccines was still a daring and audacious gamble. That September, the FDA VRBPAC committee met to discuss this risky innovation. The transcript of that meeting — showing captive FDA officials considering a proposal by the pharma cabal to allow the use of human cancer cells (HeLa) to replace animal tissue in the manufacture of vaccines — is proof of reckless criminal conduct.

The HeLa cells are well known to cause cancer in animals, but Big Pharma wanted to lower production costs of vaccines and this method is cheaper and faster than using animal tissue for the cultivated media. …

Unbelievably, FDA voted to allow pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines using human cells without reviewing a single scientific study to determine if the outcome would be safe.

Before, I quoted some of the criminally reckless statements from the meeting directly. A more detailed account appears in this article.

This was a full meeting of FDA’s VRBPAC in 2012 to decide on the use of human tumor cell lines for the production of vaccines. I list these speakers and their titles at that time:

  • Dr. Philip Krause, Acting Deputy Director of OVRR (Office of Vaccine Research and Review) and FDA’s CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research). Also, Principal Investigator for Vaccine Safety: Virus Detection and Latency.
  • Dr. Doug Lowy, Director of the National Cancer Institute of the NIH.
  • Dr. Robert Daum, Chair of the VRBPAC.
  • Donald W. Jehn M.S., Designated Federal Officer for VRBPAC.
  • Keith Peden, PhD, Chief of LDNAV, DVP/OVRR/CBER.
  • Dr. Marion Gruber, Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines.
  • Dr. Nathanial Brady, a self-described clinician.
  • Dr. Pamela McInnes, a vaccine development expert and the Director of the Division of Extramural Research at the NIH’s National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, and previously a Deputy Director under Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Pharma knew that their tumorigenic vaccines might cause tumors in recipients.

…

FDA officials knew that tumors might occur decades after vaccination.

…

FDA openly acknowledged that its primary objective was not to assure public safety but to help vaccine manufacturers.

…

FDA officials knew that they could not prove vaccine safety using test animals to assess oncogenicity.

…

FDA officials deliberately terminated animal safety tests too early in order to conceal consequences.

…

FDA decided to keep the tumor cell lines secret, because doctors and the public may be alarmed and say “Oh, my God!” if they knew the truth.

…

FDA decided to use deceptive language to convince doctors and the public that the vaccines were safe even when they, themselves, were unconvinced of safety.

…

FDA decided to hide information about their use of tumor cells and omit it from package inserts. 

…

Health authorities were skeptical about safety of the tumor lines, but they decided to subject the public to the risk, so that they could perform a global population-wide live human experiment.

…

FDA officials opted to toss the dice, perform the population-wide human experiment, and learn about the risks as time goes by.

…

The committee formally approves the method of making vaccines from human cancer tumors.

..

Prior to voting to go forward, the committee made the following conclusions:

  • Making vaccines with cells that are directly derived from human cancer tumors is faster and cheaper than breeding animals for the culture media.
  • Millions of potentially cancer-causing vaccines will be produced.
  • The vaccines may possibly cause genetic mutations.
  • Millions of dollars will be made by vaccine promoters.
  • The health of millions of consumers may be jeopardized.
  • Information about how vaccines are made will be hidden from doctors and

Finally, it’s worth considering that cancer treatment drugs like Keytruda are among pharmaceutical companies’ largest profit makers. Precipitating a cancer epidemic in human populations only benefits vaccine makers’ bottom line.

Remember, these are the same companies and the same FDA regulators that brought us the opioid epidemic.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-cancer-cells-in-vaccines/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8fc80363-cace-4de1-bcd2-9e309b779ac5

THey Will Pay You to Vaccinate Your Child

Posted on by

FDA Lets Pfizer Test Experimental COVID-19 Vaccine on U.S. Children

Pfizer becomes first company in U.S. to include children in Phase 3 COVID vaccine trials.

Americans have been following COVID-19 vaccine trial developments for weeks, watching companies jockey for frontrunner status like contestants in a reality TV show. And though participants in some of the studies (by Moderna, Oxford, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer) have surfaced with reactions serious enough to pause several of the trials, market analysts remain “bullish” about the near-term prospects for approval of these liability-free products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

On Oct. 16, Pfizer’s CEO indicated the company would likely file for FDA Emergency Use Authorization for its experimental BNT162b2 vaccine in late November. That statement came three days after Pfizer announced that it had received FDA permission to administer the unproven vaccine to children as young as 12, becoming the first company in the U.S. to include young participants in Phase 3 trials. In the UK, Oxford and AstraZeneca gained approval to test their vaccine in children aged 5-12 back in May, a couple of months before two of their adult clinical trial participants developed transverse myelitis.

To date, Pfizer has administered two doses of vaccine to almost 35,000 adult participants in five countries. Unworried by the dramatic side effects reported by some of these adults — including high fever, pounding headaches, body aches, exhaustion and shivering intense enough to crack teeth — more than 90 parents have already expressed interest in volunteering their teenagers.

Are these parents (perhaps left unemployed by coronavirus restrictions) tempted by the financial incentives offered to clinical trial participants, reportedly anywhere from $1200 to $2000? Otherwise, their motivation for wanting to throw their children into the experimental fray is unclear; as the director of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital stated, “most of the time, what a coronavirus causes is a cold” that does not even make children “sick enough to where a parent says they need to go to a doctor.”

The Cincinnati physician has, nonetheless, just started giving Pfizer’s shot to 16- and 17-year-olds (and soon to 12-15-year-olds). To entice additional young participants, he tells parents that the COVID-19 death rate in children is “not zero” — but declines to spell out that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the survival rate in those age 19 and under is 99.997%. Using similarly vague language, a Memorial Sloan-Kettering health policy expert said that a COVID-19 vaccine’s benefits for the young would likely be “secondary’ in nature” but characterized the gesture as “an act of service to help protect others.”

However, reports in Pediatrics and other journals assert that children are not a source of infection and are far more likely to acquire COVID-19 from adults “rather than transmitting it to them.” In other words, policymakers expect children to accept a risk-benefit equation heavily tilted toward risk.

Corporate bad guy

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer — the second-largest drug and biotech company in the world and the fourth-highest earner of vaccine revenues — has seen a 7% increase in its share value this year. However, though Pfizer claims to be a standard-bearer for “quality, safety and value,” it has a corporate rap sheet a mile long. Pfizer is routinely mired in controversies involving alleged price-fixing, bribery, kickbacks, tax avoidance, regulatory misdirection and other unsavory practices and has also repeatedly paid fines for environmental violations at its research and manufacturing plants.

Critics point to decades of aggressive and questionable marketing. In 2009, this behavior earned Pfizer the dubious distinction of paying the largest-ever criminal fine at the time — $2.3 billion — for fraudulent and illegal promotion of four drugs, including a painkiller marketed at “dangerously high” doses. In 2016, a British regulator levied a $106 million fine against Pfizer for a 2600% increase in the price of a widely prescribed anti-epilepsy drug that increased the National Health Services’ expenditures from one year to the next — for a single drug—from $2.5 million to $63 million.

Perhaps to compensate for its unpleasant track record, Pfizer is the top drug company spender in state elections, even outspending the industry’s own lobbying group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRM). As a just-published analysis of drug company political spending by STAT and the National Institute on Money and Politics shows, Pfizer’s “prolific” state-level spending ($778,000 since January 2019) “mirrors its behavior at the federal level, where its [political action committee] was also the top political spender among drug companies” — roughly $1 million over the same time period. The report pointedly notes that while the amounts paid out to legislators represent a “pittance” for a company earning tens of billions a year, “those small chunks of corporate change can have a significant impact.”

Pfizer’s vaccines

Pfizer is responsible for two vaccines on the U.S. childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule: the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnar-13 (given to children under 5 and also to older adults) and the meningococcal vaccine Trumenba (approved for 10 – 25-year-olds). Package inserts link the two vaccines to a large number of serious adverse events, including anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions, severe headaches and chronic muscle and joint pain. Among the roughly 40 harms listed in the Prevnar-13 insert are sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and half a dozen other fatal outcomes.

Pfizer developed its COVID-19 vaccine — which uses experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) technology — in partnership with the German biopharma company BioNTech. Although mRNA vaccines must be stored in special ultra-low-temperature freezers that pose certain logistic obstacles, Pfizer is gung-ho on the never-before-approved approach because it bypasses the more costly and difficult methods used in traditional vaccine production. It does this by essentially turning recipients into “vaccine factories” — with long-term risks that are unknown.

Pfizer and BioNTech brought their COVID-19 vaccine candidates “from concept into clinical development” in under three months, perhaps helped along by the current Pfizer CEO’s efforts to restructure Pfizer into a more “nimble” company. At the same time, observers who now place Pfizer at the head of the pack for COVID-19 vaccines credit the company’s “well-oiled system,” remarking that “Pfizer’s incredibly organized and is always … a couple steps ahead, planning where they want to go.”

Conflicts of interest and revolving doors

In the summer of 2019, after having served as the Trump administration’s FDA commissioner for two years, Scott Gottlieb passed through the revolving door to join Pfizer’s board of directors as well as becoming a regular contributor on CNBC. For the past four decades, stepping onto pharmaceutical boards has been par for the course for departing FDA commissioners, though Gottlieb may have upped the ante by also joining the boards of the AI- and big-data-reliant genetic testing start-up, Tempus, and the biotech company Illumina.

While at the FDA, Gottlieb presided over a record number of drug approvals. According to one commentator, this “trail-blazing” FDA stint and Gottlieb’s focus on “hustling up the [drug approval] process … helped endear him to the industry, making him one of the most popular commissioners in FDA history.” As the director of a consumer watchdog group put it, “He’s basically been a shill for pharmaceutical corporations for much of his career.” Two months before stepping down from the agency, Gottlieb attracted notice when he strongly denied any link between vaccines and autism while publicly threatening that the federal government might be “forced” to intervene in states with vaccine exemptions to make vaccines mandatory across the board.

Gottlieb’s affiliation with CNBC may explain why he has been a frequent public face during the coronavirus pandemic, promoting the U.S. as a world leader in the vaccine race but also vocally endorsing measures like universal masking, universal testing and restaurant and school shutdowns. On October 19, Gottlieb dourly told Americans that the U.S. is “entering a pretty difficult period” and that “the hardest part is probably [still] ahead.” Ironically, around the same time that Gottlieb was using positive test results to hype ongoing restrictive measures, a former Pfizer vice-president and chief science officer in the UK characterized mass testing as “inappropriate,” asserting that “it is impossible for the positives to be much other than false.” Discussing the harsh policies that have been particularly disastrous for children, the former Pfizer executive agreed that they have essentially been based on “completely fake data.”

Kids at risk

Reporter Whitney Webb recently outlined how Operation Warp Speed is awarding contracts to vaccine companies through a nongovernmental defense contractor intermediary, a tactic that shields the contracts from oversight and federal regulation. Meanwhile, Moncef Slaoui — who heads up the Operation Warp Speed initiative — stated that after a round of testing in adolescents, he expects the leading coronavirus vaccines to also be tested in toddlers and babies. Parents would do well to keep their children on the sidelines of these experiments. If vaccine clinical trials, including Pfizer’s, are already generating concerning results in adults capable of describing their symptoms, what will happen when preverbal babies experience similar adverse outcomes?

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-pfizer-experimental-covid-vaccine-children/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=b18c0c6e-fe4c-4d23-b98f-d41da6147716

What’s In Your Vaccine? Oh, Nanoparicles, Metals, Control Mechanisms, etc….

Posted on by

What could they put in the COVID vaccine?

by Jon Rappoport

Tiny, tiny biosensors?

From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

We begin with excerpts from an important article at Children’s Health Defense, “Microchips, Nanotechnology and Implanted Biosensors: The New Normal?” by Pam Long. [1]

Buckle up.

“U.S. military personnel will be the first subjects in nanotechnology trials in the pursuit of optimizing health and early detection of disease outbreaks. Profusa has research contracts for bio-integrated sensors with the U.S. Department of Defense and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), pending U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in early 2021.”

“Profusa’s promotional video shows how the bio-integrated sensor enables a soldier to be tracked by remote computers using GPS in addition to monitoring real-time biomarkers, such as oxygen levels and heart rate. While this biotechnology is portrayed as potentially lifesaving to a soldier on the battlefield, the implications of GPS tracking individuals is a terrifying step towards a surveillance state in the general population. Furthermore, tracking people in stages of sickness can only result in medical tyranny in the hands of any government. The Profusa influenza study requires patients to wear the wearable version of the reader 24 hours a day, with continuous biomarker information collection into a database, and aims to detect four stages of infection: healthy, infected, asymptomatic and recovery stage. These unreliable detection stages could become the criteria for different levels of individual participation in society as experienced in the unsustainable COVID-19 state-level lockdowns for the masses.”

“This Profusa nanotechnology has three components: an inserted [implanted] sensor called hydrogel, a light-emitting fluorescent sensor reader on the surface of the skin and an electronic software component that transmits to an online database…and there is no information on how the technology could be removed, if at all. ‘Tiny biosensors that become one with the body’ could imply a lifetime commitment.”

So…implanted nano-bio sensors. Could this be taken a step further? Instead of placing the sensors just under the surface of the skin, could they be injected with a vaccine?

Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines?

Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology, 24 January, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses” [2]: A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity. This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19 virus?]

Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases” [3]: In the last several years, the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy, immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins, metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”

There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.

Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” [4] Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.

Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?

ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.

TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.

If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.

The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.

I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.

Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

But wait. Suppose untold numbers of nanoparticles are ALREADY in traditional vaccines? And suppose we have no idea how they got there? Or whether they are “only” dangerous contaminants that could affect human health in many damaging ways…or are some of them ALSO nanosensors that can receive and transmit information? Do these contaminating nanoparticles represent an earlier stage of research in implantation of vaccine-nanos into humans?

A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:

The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.

Many of the particles are metals.

We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.

To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study: [5]

International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines:
Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari

“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”

Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”

“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”

“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”

This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.

Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.

Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.

Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated.

“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”

“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (<100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”

“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”

“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”

“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”

“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”

“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”

I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.

“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”

—It’s obvious from what I’ve written so far in this article that research and development of nanoparticles as vaccine components is far along. And while much of what is already in the vaccines may be nano-contamination, there has also been a very strong push to refine the research—INSERT NANO SENSORS IN THE BODY AND BRAIN THAT WOULD RECEIVE AND TRANSMIT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS.

Just to give you an idea of how important nanoparticles-in-vaccines is to the pharmaceutical establishment, here is what happened to the two Italian researchers who uncovered the presence of nanos in traditional vaccines, the authors of the study I quoted from above:

James Grundvig, at GreenMedInfo.com and the World Mercury Project, reported (3/7/18): [6]

“Last week, the Italian police raided the home and science laboratory of Drs. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari. The police snatched all of the digital assets owned by the husband and wife team of nanopathologists, grabbing laptops, computers, and flash-drives—and with it, years of work and research.”

“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles…to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”

“When the scientists published their findings in January 2017, “New Quality‐Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro‐ and Nanocontamination,” the logical next step for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should have been to open an investigation into their claims, hire independent scientists to run their own lab tests to confirm or refute the findings. If confirmed, then the healthcare agencies would enact new policies on safety of the vaccine supply chain, and enforce strict quality control and quality assurance programs.”

“But none of that happened. A year went by. It was cheaper for the authorities to attack the Italian scientists than upset the vaccine gravy train that supports the politicians.”

Now, it appears we are on the cusp of an approval for one vaccine, the COVID shot, to be certified for injection into every person in the world.

What better opportunity for implanting nanotech particles in humans?

Here is just one example:

New England Journal of Medicine, September 2, 2020; “Phase 1–2 Trial of a SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Spike Protein Nanoparticle Vaccine.” [7]

“rSARS-CoV-2, developed by Novavax and manufactured at Emergent Biosolutions, is a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine constructed from the full-length (i.e., including the transmembrane domain), wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein…”

“We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1–2 trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the rSARS-CoV-2 vaccine (in 5-μg and 25-μg doses, with or without Matrix-M1 adjuvant, and with observers unaware of trial-group assignments) in 131 healthy adults. In phase 1, vaccination comprised two intramuscular injections, 21 days apart…”

It’s happening. It’s in progress.

What is on the horizon? Through the use of implanted nanosenors that can receive instructions, the enactment of an agenda of collectivist thought. An attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared…

Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

SOURCES:

[1] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/military-vaccines/microchips-nanotechnology-and-implanted-biosensors-the-new-normal/

[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00022/full

[3] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02224/full

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1748013219306929

[5] https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html

[6] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-third-digital-revolution-to-unleash-the-power-of-anti-censorship/

[7] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026920

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/07/what-could-they-put-in-the-covid-vaccine/