Health

by

Leaked Document Reveals ‘Shocking’ Terms of Pfizer’s International Vaccine Agreements | Children’s Health Defense & Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance:

  • A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.
  • Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”
  • In the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their vaccine order.
  • While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.50 per dose — Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose.
  • The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: both their efficacy and risks are unknown.
  • Purchasers must also “indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer … from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine.”

Vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental COVID-19shots, even if they cause serious injury and death, as they enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from COVID-19 vaccines or any other pandemic vaccine under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005.

The full extent of their COVID-19 vaccine indemnification agreements with countries, however, is a closely guarded secret, one that has remained highly confidential — until now. A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.

“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy,” he wrote. “As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”

An ironclad agreement, all on Pfizer’s terms

The alleged indemnification agreement, reportedly between Pfizer and Albania, was originally posted in snippets on Twitter, but Twitter now has them marked as “unavailable.” Copies of the tweets are available on Treadreader, however.

The Albania agreement appears very similar to another contract, published online, between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic. It covers not only COVID-19 vaccines, but any product that enhances the use or effects of such vaccines.

Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”

And in the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their order. Ivermectin, for instance, is not only safe, inexpensive and widely available but has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%. Yet, it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.

“If you were wondering why #Ivermectin was suppressed,” Ehden wrote, “well, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided.”

Even if Pfizer fails to deliver vaccine doses within their estimated delivery period, the purchaser may not cancel the order. Further, Pfizer can make adjustments to the number of contracted doses and their delivery schedule, “based on principles to be determined by Pfizer,” and the country buying the vaccines must “agree to any revision.”

It doesn’t matter if the vaccines are delivered severely late, even at a point when they’re no longer needed, as it’s made clear that “Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.” As you might suspect, the contract also forbids returns “under any circumstances.”Whistleblowers Welcome! Help Humanity – Securely Share COVID-19 Corruption

The big secret: Pfizer charged U.S. More Than Other Countries

While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.5011 per dose. Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose, while the EU paid $14.70 per shot. While charging different prices to different purchases is common in the drug industry, it’s often frowned upon.

In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine. Still, Ehden noted, “U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.” Also, Pfizer makes a point to note that countries have no right to withhold payment to the company for any reason.

Apparently, this includes in the case of receiving damaged goods. Purchasers of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines are not entitled to reject them “based on service complaints,” unless they do not conform to specifications or the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. And, Ehden adds, “This agreement is above any local law of the state.”

While the purchaser has virtually no way of canceling the contract, Pfizer can terminate the agreement in the event of a “material breach” of any term in their contract.

Safety and efficacy ‘not currently known’

The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: Both their efficacy and risks are unknown. According to section 5.5 of the contract:

“Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.

“Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”

Indemnification by the purchaser is also explicitly required by the contract, which states, under section 8.1:

“Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research …

“from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine …”

Meanwhile, the purchaser must also keep the terms of the contract confidentialfor a period of 10 years.

Purchasers must protect and defend Pfizer

Not only does Pfizer have total indemnification, but there’s also a section in the contract titled, “Assumption of Defense by Purchaser,” which states that in the event Pfizer suffers losses for which it is seeking indemnification, the purchaser “shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified Claim is rightfully brought.” Ehden notes:

“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including … fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser.’”

Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,” is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists.

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured by a COVID vaccine (or a select group of other vaccines designated under the act), you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,25 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

The CICP also has a one-year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly, which is also difficult since it’s unknown if long-term effects could occur more than a year later.

Pfizer accused of abuse of power

As is apparent in Pfizer’s confidential contract with Albania, the drug giant wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it. Pfizer has also demanded that countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.

New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION) reported in February 2021 that Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” The demands includedthat Brazil:

  1. “Waives sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer.”
  2. Not apply its domestic laws to the company.
  3. Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays.
  4. Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects.

STAT News also referred to concerns by legal experts, who also suggested Pfizer’s demands were an abuse of power. Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, told STAT:

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Signs of COVID vaccine failure, adverse effects rise

Pfizer continues to sign lucrative secret vaccine deals across the globe. In June 2021, they signed one of their biggest contracts to date — with the Philippine government for 40 million doses.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 “breakthrough cases,” which used to be called vaccine failures, are on the rise. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 19, 5,914 people who had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were hospitalized or died from COVID-19.

In the U.K., as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 67.1% had received two. Yet, symptomatic cases among partially and fully vaccinated are on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.

In a July 19 report from the CDC, the agency also reported that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine — more than doubling from the 6,079 reports of death from the week before.

Soon after the report, however, they reverted the number to the 6,079 from the week before, indicating by default that no deaths from the vaccine had occurred that week,34 raising serious questions about transparency and vaccine safety.

Many other adverse events are also appearing, ranging from risks from the biologically active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the vaccine to blood clots, reproductive toxicity and myocarditis (heart inflammation). As you can see in the confidential indemnification agreements, however, even if the vaccine turns out to be a dismal failure — and a risk to short- and long-term health — countries have no recourse, nor does anyone who received the experimental shots.

One question that we should all be asking is this: If the COVID-19 vaccines are, in fact, as safe and effective as the manufacturers claim, why do they require this level of indemnification?

Source: Children’s Health Defense & Mercola

by

Masks Off? or Masks On? A History of the CDC’S Consistently Inconsistent Advice on Face Coverings | Waking Times & Open Source Truth

By Tom Cox

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stayed true to form by deciding that its current mask guidance – not to be confused with its previous and repeatedly revised guidance – needs to be reversed. Again.

It’s a shame so many Americans do not appreciate the new rules concerning the use of face coverings among the fully vaccinated. After all, asking jabbed citizens to mask up after telling them they don’t need to mask up, after suggesting to them that wearing two masks almost all the time would be even better, must be the best possible and most consistent public health policy under the current circumstances.

Enough, already: The historical record is self-explanatory. The CDC, together with America’s trusted public-health bureaucrats, have always pursued evidence-based policymaking and have never once bowed to mass panic. The below timeline should finally put to rest all the feeble-minded moaning leveled against US health authorities during these trying times.

November 2004

The CDC publishes guidance in response to “questions about the role of masks for controlling influenza when suboptimal immunization of the public could increase the frequency of influenza infection” – a surprisingly topical issue, almost 20 years later.

Masks are not usually recommended in non-health-care settings, the advisory states. The CDC explains that, even though flu symptoms can take up to a week to appear, there is no apparent benefit from asymptomatic individuals wearing face coverings.

“No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza.”

April 2009

The CDC issues recommendations for the use of face masks and respirators in areas where H1N1 ‘swine flu’ has been detected.

“Information on the effectiveness of facemasks and respirators for the control of influenza in community settings is extremely limited,” the agency explains. Face coverings should only be used when caring for sick individuals or in other specific circumstances, the CDC says, adding that “relying” on masks for protection in crowded settings is ill-advised. The health authority maintains this position throughout the duration of the pandemic.

February 5, 2020

As Covid-19 begins to spread across the globe, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president, receives an email from a former senior US government official asking if she should wear a mask while traveling, as a precautionary measure.

He advises against it: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out [the] virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

February 28, 2020

February 29, 2020

Americans begin to panic-buy masks, greatly irritating the nation’s top health authorities.

“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,” US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams tweets. He adds that ordinary Americans should focus more on hand-washing and other sanitary measures, and let healthcare workers wear the masks – advice in perfect harmony with years-old CDC guidance. The tweet is later deleted, but the internet never forgets.

March 8, 2020

A month after the Trump administration declares a public health emergency due to the coronavirus outbreak, Fauci says in an interview with 60 Minutes: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”

In keeping with longstanding CDC guidance, he stresses that masks should be reserved for healthcare providers and those who are ill.

March 29, 2020

(In case you’re wondering, the name of the Twitter account has changed because there’s a new Surgeon General.)

March 31, 2020

In an article dunking on Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans could wear scarves to shield their faces from Covid-19, NBC facetiously reports: “While the science behind whether masks can prevent a person from catching the coronavirus hasn’t changed (a mask does not help a healthy person avoid infection), public guidance may be shifting.” In the same article, the outlet stresses that there is “no scientific evidence that wearing face coverings would have a measurable impact on flattening the coronavirus curve.”

On the same day, CNN reports that Fauci supports “broadening” mask use among the general public, provided there are enough face coverings for healthcare workers.

“Because if, in fact, a person who may or may not be infected wants to prevent infecting somebody else, the best way to do that is with a mask. Perhaps that’s the way to go,” Fauci declares, in a bold U-turn from his previous position on the matter.

April 2, 2020

The CDC’s FAQ page about Covid-19 reads: “CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including Covid-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have Covid-19 and are showing symptoms.”

April 3, 2020

Americans are suddenly informed that facemasks should actually be worn by just about everyone.As cities across the United States begin to lock down, the CDC advises Americans to voluntarily don cloth face masks, purportedly in a data-backed bid to help halt the virus. President Trump explains that the new guidance is prompted by concerns that seemingly healthy people are transmitting the disease: “You don’t seem to have symptoms and it still gets transferred.”

More than a decade of established public health policy goes out the window: The public should mask up. But not with medical-grade respirators – those are reserved for healthcare workers. Instead, people are urged to don cloth masks, which can be made at home in accordance with FDA manufacturing protocols.

The Masked War against Asymptomatic Spread of a Respiratory Virus –  long regarded by the CDC as an unnecessary and futile endeavor – begins.

April 4, 2020

The CDC updates its FAQ page about Covid-19. Citing “new data about how Covid-19 spreads, along with evidence of widespread Covid-19 illness in communities across the country,” the agency now recommends the use of cloth face coverings. They should be worn by “people older than 2 years of age in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.” The CDC stresses that these new recommendations do not apply to people who are “unconscious.”

May – December 2020

At the direction of the CDC, state and local governments begin to impose mask mandates. ‘Karens’ do battle with maskless grocery shoppers across the country. General chaos and deep paranoia ensue.

An article in the British Medical Journal notes that the whole debate seems rather silly considering that PCR tests do not distinguish live virus and therefore cannot reliably identify “asymptomatic” individuals: “As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.”

February 10, 2021

The CDC publishes a study of its own claiming that two face masks – colloquially known as “double masking” – can reduce an individual’s exposure to coronavirus particles.

However, the agency notes that the findings do not mean that Americans should wear two disposable masks at the same time. Instead, the data points to why “wearing a well-fitting mask is so important.”

Everyone is very impressed, but by now masks are not in fashion. Millions of vaccinated Americans, who’d been told that getting jabbed would give them unprecedented protection against Covid-19, begin to wonder why they are being nudged to put on another mask instead of being encouraged to take off the face-covering that they’re already wearing. Patience, little lambs.

March 8, 2021

Finally: Fully vaccinated Americans don’t need to wear masks when meeting indoors with close friends and family who have also been jabbed, the CDC announces. Vaccinated individuals are still warned against traveling or gathering in large groups.

April 27, 2021

The CDC says that fully vaccinated people can forgo masks at small outdoor gatherings. However, masks are still recommended when attending large outdoor events. Vaccinated individuals should also limit nursing home visits to “compassionate care situations.”

May 13, 2021

Americans who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 do not need to wear masks or adhere to social distancing rules indoors or outdoors, except under certain circumstances, the CDC announces.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky describes the policy shift as an “exciting and powerful moment.”

July 9, 2021

Fully vaccinated teachers and students don’t need to wear masks inside school buildings, the CDC says, in updated guidance for schools.

July 21, 2021

Fauci tells CNBC that “the broad overall CDC recommendation is that if you are vaccinated, you are protected and you don’t need to wear a mask indoor or outdoors.” He then suggests that people living in areas with a “high level of transmission” should mask up anyway.

“If you want to go the extra mile of safety, even though you’re vaccinated, when you’re indoors, particularly in crowded places, you might want to consider wearing a mask,” he says, seconds after citing CDC guidance stating the exact opposite.

July 27, 2021

Citing the spread of the more infectious Delta strain, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated Americans living in areas with “substantial or high transmission” of Covid-19 should once again resume wearing masks indoors.

The agency also says that masks should be required of all staff and pupils at K-12 schools. Vaccinated individuals should wear face coverings when around family members who have compromised immune systems, or children who are too young to get the shot, the CDC further advises.

Heads down, masks up

So there you have it. As this modest historical survey demonstrates, the CDC, Fauci, and the entire US medical establishment have shown tremendous bravery as they diligently pursue this week’s rendition of The Science. Evidence can change over time. But only with masks does it seem to turn on a dime.

Americans live in the best of all possible masked worlds, and they have Anthony Fauci and the CDC to thank for it.

Source: Waking Times & Open Source Truth

by

University Lab Analysis: Children’s Masks Found to Contain 11 Dangerous Pathogens | Becker News

By Kyle Becker

A University of Florida laboratory analysis of a sample of children’s masks suggests that masking young, healthy persons may not only be unnecessary, it may be harmful to their health. The results of a small sample of masks showed the presence of 11 dangerous pathogens, including the bacteria that cause pneumonia, tuberculosis, diphtheria, and meningitis. The results were shown by the group Rational Ground.

A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, sent 6 face masks to a lab at the University of Florida, requesting an analysis of contaminants found on the masks after they had been worn,” Rational Ground said. “The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. Although the test is capable of detecting viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, only one virus was found on one mask (alcelaphine herpesvirus 1).”

The analysis detected the following 11 dangerous pathogens on the masks:

  • Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
  • Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
  • Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
  • Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
  • Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs—resistant to antibiotics)
  • Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
  • Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
  • Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
  • Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease)
  • Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)
  • Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

“Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria,” the report added. “One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.”

The lab analysis conducted by the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center studied six “new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11.” One mask was submitted by an adult for comparison. No pathogens were found on ‘control’ (unworn) masks.

Ms. Amanda Donoho, one of the parents who requested the lab analysis, points to the need for more research: “We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow.”

The risk posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to children is statistically negligible. The CDC’s latest figures show that 324 children with SARS-CoV-2 have died with the virus out of more than 100,000,000 people under 18 in the United States. An estimated 95% of those cases are highly at-risk children with 4 or more comorbidities, according to the CDC. For comparison, the CDC reports that “in 2018, 636 children 12 years old and younger died in motor vehicle traffic crashes, and more than 97,000 were injured.”

Futhermore, there are surging concerns about the “Delta variant,” which is being used as a rationale to reinstate mask mandates. The early data on the “Delta variant” shows a 99.9% case survival rate, as shown by U.K. government data that was reported by Jordan Schachtel. Vaccinations for adults, and especially for seniors and at-risk adults, appear thus far to be mitigating the mortality rate of the Delta variant.

Furthermore, a Centers for Disease Control advisory group released a statement on the ‘likely link’ between COVID-19 vaccinations and rare heart inflammation cases for young persons on Wednesday. In over 300 cases of reported myocarditis or pericarditis, a Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccination preceded the heart condition.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group noted the adverse reaction in vaccinated males between the ages of 16 and 24. The development of the heart condition was observed in adolescents and young adults and was considerably higher after the second dose in males.

Earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed the use of the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccines in children as young as 12. That position has not yet been revised.

Source: Becker News & Trending Politics

by

Texas Bans All Government Entities & Businesses From Requiring Proof of Vaccination | Collective Evolution

By Arjun Walia

“Texas is open 100%. Texans should have the freedom to go where they want without any limits, restrictions, or requirements. Today, I signed a law that prohibits any TX business or gov’t entity from requiring vaccine passports or any vaccine information,” tweeted Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas. He made the announcement on Monday and the news went viral across social media platforms and independent media outlets. It hasn’t really received much substantial coverage from mainstream media, in fact, debating or calling into question the idea of “vaccine passports” has not really been a welcomed conversation despite the fact many health experts have been condemning the idea since they were first introduced.

Texas will be the seventh state to sign such a measure into law. Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, and North Dakota have also banned businesses and government entities from requiring proof of vaccination, while Utah and Arkansas have barred just governments from requiring proof of vaccination

As far as the United States as a whole, the Biden administration has said on multiple occasions that a national vaccine passport won’t happen. Instead the U.S. is working on a system that will allow Americans who travel internationally to show proof that they have been vaccinated. This will be required given the fact that multiple countries around the world will saying they will require it, like several European Union nations, and Canada.

Why ban vaccine passports? Well, there are multiple reasons, and I’ve covered these reasons in depth before. In an article I published in April titled “The top four reasons why some people, doctors & scientists refuse to take the COVID vaccine,” many of the points outlined indicate why freedom of choice and informed consent are paramount when it comes to COVID vaccines.

The fact that many of these points, as well as the doctors, scientists, and peer-reviewed papers that are raising concerns about the COVID vaccine, are being completely censored, and in some cases ridiculed and called a “conspiracy theory,” is also very unsettling and suspicious. You would think in a time of a global pandemic, all concerns that are being raised would be open to discussion, transparency and a healthy debate.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. – Paddy Rawlinson, Law Professor, Western Sydney University. (source)

Source: Collective Evolution

by

Former Cell Phone Company Boss Blows Whistle on 5G Coronavirus | BitChute

Source: BitChute

by

Explosive If True: “I’m a Clinical Lab Scientist, C19 Is Fake, Wake up America” | The Truth Defender

By Derek Knauss

What we found was that all of the 1500 samples were mostly Influenza A and some were influenza B, but not a single case of Covid, and we did not use the B.S. PCR test. We then sent the remainder of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a few of the University of California labs and they found the same results as we did, NO COVID. They found influenza A and B. All of us then spoke to the CDC and asked for viable samples of COVID, which CDC said they could not provide as they did not have any samples. We have now come to the firm conclusion through all our research and lab work, that the COVID 19 was imaginary and fictitious.

The flu was called Covid and most of the 225,000 dead were dead through co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, emphysema etc. and they then got the flu which further weakened their immune system and they died. I have yet to find a single viable sample of Covid 19 to work with. We at the 7 universities that did the lab tests on these 1500 samples are now suing the CDC for Covid 19 fraud. the CDC has yet to send us a single viable, isolated and purifed sample of Covid 19. If they can’t or won’t send us a viable sample, I say there is no Covid 19, it is fictitious. The four research papers that do describe the genomic extracts of the Covid 19 virus never were successful in isolating and purifying the samples. All the four papers written on Covid 19 only describe small bits of RNA which were only 37 to 40 base pairs long which is NOT A VIRUS. A viral genome is typically 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs.

With as bad as Covid is supposed to be all over the place, how come no one in any lab world wide has ever isolated and purified this virus in its entirety? That’s because they’ve never really found the virus, all they’ve ever found was small pieces of RNA which were never identified as the virus anyway.

So what we’re dealing with is just another flu strain like every year, COVID 19 does not exist and is fictitious. I believe China and the globalists orchestrated this COVID hoax (the flu disguised as a novel virus) to bring in global tyranny and a worldwide police totalitarian surveillance state, and this plot included massive election fraud to overthrow Trump.

Source: The True Defender

by

What are the ingredients of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine? | Technology Review

By Antonio Regalado

Here, for instance, is what the US Food and Drug Administration says is in Pfizer’s vaccine:

  • Active Ingredient
    • nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
  • Lipids
    • (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis (ALC-3015)
    • (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide (ALC-0159)
    • 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine (DPSC)
    • cholesterol
  • Salts
    • potassium chloride
    • monobasic potassium phosphate
    • sodium chloride
    • basic sodium phosphate dihydrate 
  • Other
    • sucrose

Reading the ingredient list is like looking at the side of a cereal box, except that you need a degree in organic chemistry to understand it. We got help from various scientists and biotech entrepreneurs to understand what each of the ingredients does and make some educated guesses about others.

The mRNA

Pfizer’s vaccine is the first on the market that consists of actual genetic information from a virus in the form of messenger RNA, or mRNA, a type of molecule whose usual job is to transport copies of genetic instructions around a cell to guide the assembly of proteins. Imagine an mRNA as a long ticker tape carrying instructions. It’s fairly delicate stuff, and that’s why Pfizer’s vaccine needs to be kept at around -100 °F (-73 °C) until it’s used.

The new vaccine, delivered as a shot in the arm muscle, contains an RNA sequence taken from the virus itself; it causes cells to manufacture the big “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which the pathogen uses to glom onto a person’s cells and gain entry. On its own, without the rest of the virus, the spike is pretty harmless. But your body still reacts to it. This is what leaves you immunized and ready to repel the real virus if it turns up.

The mRNA in the vaccine, to be sure, isn’t quite the same as the stuff in your body. That’s good, because a cell is full of defenses ready to chop up RNA, especially any that doesn’t belong there. To avoid that, what’s known as “modified nucleosides” have been substituted for some of the mRNA building blocks.

But Pfizer is holding back a little. The spike gene sequence can be tweaked in small ways for better performance, by means that include swapping letters. We don’t think Pfizer has said exactly what sequence it is using, or what modified nucleosides. That means the content of the shot may not be 100% public.

The lipids

The Pfizer vaccine, like one from Moderna, uses lipid nanoparticles to encase the RNA. The nanoparticles are, basically, tiny greasy spheres that protect the mRNA and help it slide inside cells.

These particles are probably around 100 nanometers across. Curiously, that’s about the same size as the coronavirus itself.

Pfizer says it uses four different lipids in a “defined ratio.” The lipid ALC-0315 is the primary ingredient in the formulation. That’s because it’s ionizable—it can be given a positive charge, and since the RNA has a negative one, they stick together. It’s also a component that can cause side-effects or allergic reactions. The other lipids, one of which is the familiar molecule cholesterol, are “helpers” that give structural integrity to the nanoparticles or stop them from clumping. During manufacturing, the RNA and the lipids are stirred into a bubbly mix to form what the FDA describes as a “white to off-white” frozen liquid.

Salts

The Pfizer vaccine contains four salts, one of which is ordinary table salt. Together, these salts are better known as phosphate-buffered saline, or PBS, a very common ingredient that keeps the pH, or acidity, of the vaccine close to that of a person’s body. You’ll understand how important that is if you’ve ever squeezed lemon juice on a cut. Substances with the wrong acidity can injure cells or get quickly degraded.

Sugar

The vaccine includes plain old sugar, also called sucrose. It’s acting here as a cryoprotectant to safeguard the nanoparticles when they’re frozen and stop them from sticking together.

Saline solution

Before injection, the vaccine is mixed with water containing sodium chloride, or ordinary salt, just as many intravenously delivered drugs are. Again, the idea is that the injection should more or less match the salt content of the blood.

No preservatives

Pfizer makes a point of saying its mixture of lipid nanoparticles and mRNA is “preservative-free.” That’s because a preservative that’s been used in other vaccines, thimerosal (which contains mercury and is there to kill any bacteria that might contaminate a vial), has been at the center of worries around over whether vaccines cause autism. The US Centers for Disease Control says thimerosal is safe; despite that, its use is being phased out. There is no thimerosal—or any other preservative—in the Pfizer vaccine. No microchips, either.

The vaccine is still known by the code name BNT162b, but once it’s authorized, expect Pfizer to give it a new, commercial name that conveys something about what’s in it and what it promises for the world.

Source: Technology Review

by

No need for vaccines, COVID pandemic is over, says Former Vice President of Pfizer | National Herald India

The pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS. Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life, says former VP of Pfizer

While Pfizer pharmaceutical had made headlines on the release of their Coronavirus vaccine, a former Vice President and Chief Scientist of the company Dr. Michael Yeadon has said that there is no need for any vaccines to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.

According to an article published in Lockdown Sceptics, Dr. Michael Yeadon wrote, “There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”

His comments come at the end of a comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central government in emergencies.

SAGE has played an important role in determining public lockdown policies in the UK, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.

Yeadon also highlights fundamental errors by SAGE in their presuppositions which cause their overall conclusions to go radically awry leading to the “torturing [of] the population for the last seven months or so.”

“ SAGE says everyone was susceptible and only 7% have been infected. I think this is literally unbelievable. They have ignored all precedent in the field of immunological memory against respiratory viruses. They have either not seen or disregarded excellent quality work from numerous, world-leading clinical immunologists which show that around 30% of the population had prior immunity.”

“They should also have excluded from ‘susceptible’ a large subset of the youngest children, who appear not to become infected, probably because their immature biology means their cells express less of the spike protein receptor, called ACE2. I have not assumed all young children don’t participate in transmission, but believe a two thirds value is very conservative. It’s not material anyway,” Yeadon wrote

“So SAGE is demonstrably wrong in one really crucial variable: they assumed no prior immunity, whereas the evidence clearly points to a value of around 30% (and nearly 40% if you include some young children, who technically are ‘resistant’ rather than ‘immune’),” wrote Yeadon

And considering the reality of herd immunity, when susceptibility to a virus falls this low, at around 28 to 35%, “that population can no longer support an expanding outbreak of disease,” and thus the virus “wanes and disappears.”

“The pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS (National Health Service). Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.” concludes Yeadon

Source: Lockdown Sceptics & National Herald India

by

COVID-19 will push as many as 150 million people into extreme poverty by 2021 | World Bank & RT.com

Extreme global poverty is expected to rise in 2020 for the first time in over 20 years due to the disruption caused by the “extraordinary” coronavirus crisis, the World Bank has warned.

According to a new report, the Covid-19 pandemic is expected to push an additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme poverty this year, with the total rising to as many as 150 million by 2021, depending on the severity of the economic contraction.

Extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 a day, is likely to affect between 9.1 percent and 9.4 percent of the world’s population this year, it said. That would represent a regression to the rate of 9.2 percent in 2017. Had the pandemic not convulsed the globe, the poverty rate was expected to drop to 7.9 percent in 2020

“The pandemic and global recession may cause over 1.4 percent of the world’s population to fall into extreme poverty,” said World Bank Group President David Malpass. “In order to reverse this serious setback to development progress and poverty reduction, countries will need to prepare for a different economy post-Covid, by allowing capital, labor, skills, and innovation to move into new businesses and sectors.”

The World Bank estimates that by 2030, the global poverty rate could be about seven percent.

While less than a tenth of the world’s population lives on less than $1.90 a day, close to a quarter of the population lives on less than $3.20 a day, and more than 40 percent of the world’s population (almost 3.3 billion people) live on less than $5.50 a day.

“The current moment of crisis is extraordinary. No prior disease has become a global threat so quickly as Covid-19. Never have the world’s poorest people resided so disproportionately in conflict-affected territories and countries. Changes in global weather patterns induced by human activity are unprecedented,” said the report.

Source: RT.com

by

DARPA’s Bio Chip Implants Due Out 2021 | Principia Scientific International | Mint Press News

By Raul Diego

The most significant scientific discovery since gravity has been hiding in plain sight for nearly a decade and its destructive potential to humanity is so enormous that the biggest war machine on the planet immediately deployed its vast resources to possess and control it, financing its research and development through agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and HHS’ BARDA.

The revolutionary breakthrough came to a Canadian scientist named Derek Rossi in 2010 purely by accident. The now-retired Harvard professor claimed in an interview with the National Post that he found a way to “reprogram” the molecules that carry the genetic instructions for cell development in the human body, not to mention all biological lifeforms.

These molecules are called ‘messenger ribonucleic acid’ or mRNA and the newfound ability to rewrite those instructions to produce any kind of cell within a biological organism has radically changed the course of Western medicine and science, even if no one has really noticed yet. As Rossi, himself, puts it:

“The real important discovery here was you could now use mRNA, and if you got it into the cells, then you could get the mRNA to express any protein in the cells, and this was the big thing.”

It was so big that by 2014, Rossi was able to retire after the company he co-founded with Flagship Pioneering private equity firm to exploit his innovation, – Moderna Inc., attracted almost a half billion dollars in federal award monies to begin developing vaccines using the technology.

No longer affiliated with Moderna beyond his stock holdings, Rossi is just “watching for what happens next” and if he’s anything like the doting “hockey dad” he is portrayed to be, he must be horrified.

Remote Control Biology

As early as 2006, DARPA was already researching how to identify viral, upper respiratory pathogens through its Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) program, which led to the creation of the agency’s Biological Technologies Office (BTO), as reported by Whitney Webb in a May article for The Last American Vagabond. In 2014, DARPA’s BTO launched its “In Vivo Nanoplatforms” (IVN) program, which researches implantable nanotechnologies, leading to the development of ‘hydrogel’.

Hydrogel is a nanotechnology whose inventor early on boasted that “If [it] pans out, with approval from FDA, then consumers could get the sensors implanted in their core to measure their levels of glucose, oxygen, and lactate.” This contact lens-like material requires a special injector to be introduced under the skin where it can transmit light-based digital signals through a wireless network like 5G.

Once firmly implanted inside the body, human cells are at the mercy of any mRNA program delivered via this substrate, unleashing a nightmare of possibilities. It is, perhaps, the first true step towards full-on transhumanism; a “philosophy” that is in vogue with many powerful and influential people, such as Google’s Ray Kurzweil and Eric Schmidt and whose proponents see the fusion of technology and biology as an inevitable consequence of human progress.

The private company created to market this technology, that allows for biological processes to be controlled remotely and opens the door to the potential manipulation of our biological responses and, ultimately, our entire existence, is called Profusa Inc and its operations are funded with millions from NIH and DARPA. In March, the company was quietly inserted into the crowded COVID-19 bazaar in March 2020, when it announced an injectable biochip for the detection of viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary

In July, a preliminary report funded by Fauci’s NIAID and the NIH on an mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluding that mRNA-1273 vaccine. provided by Moderna for the study, “induced anti–SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in all participants, and no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified,” and supported “further development of this vaccine.”

A month earlier, the NIH had claimed a joint stake in Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, citing a contract signed in December, 2019, stipulating that the “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by both parties. Moderna disputes the federal government’s position, stating that the company “has a broad owned and licensed IP estate” and is “not aware of any IP that would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, including mRNA-1273.”

A poster seeking volunteers to take part in a COVID-19 vaccine study by the NIH and Moderna Inc., July 27, 2020, in Binghamton, N.Y. Hans Pennink | AP

The only obstacle is a delivery system, which though Moderna claims to be developing separately, is unlikely to get FDA approval before the federal government’s own DARPA-developed hydrogel technology, in tandem with Profusa’s DARPA-funded light sensor technology, which is expected to receive fast track authorization from the Food and Drug Administration by early 2021 and, more than likely, used to deploy a coronavirus vaccine with the capacity to literally change our DNA.

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently investigating Moderna’s patent filings, claiming it failed to disclose “federal government support” in its COVID vaccine candidate patent applications, as required by law. The technicality could result in the federal government owning a 100 percent stake in mRNA-1273.

Source: Principia Scientific International