Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve.
In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks. Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”
These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.
I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.
Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming. But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.
Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.
Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.
The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips. But we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.
Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.
Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.
Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.
The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
High pressures could heal the brain after spike protein injury
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is a treatment that increases blood oxygen levels to boost wound healing and clear bacterial infections. Recent studies and doctors’ clinical experiences suggest that it may be useful for treating long COVID and post COVID vaccine symptoms.
“When I first heard about it [HBOT] I thought, ‘this is goofy,’” said Dr. Paul Marik. Then he encountered a competitive cyclist patient who became bedridden after COVID vaccinations. “He was completely incapacitated. He went for hyperbaric oxygen [and] within about five or six sessions [he] was back on his bicycle.”
Marik, co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), told The Epoch Times, that some patients who have spike protein injuries have responded particularly well to hyperbaric oxygen.
Epigenetics are factors that change gene activity. Depending on environmental factors including stress, diet, drugs, and treatments, certain genes can be activated or suppressed.
“Surprisingly, it is the increased pressure, rather than the increase in the concentration of dissolved oxygen, that appears to mediate these effects,” the FLCCC doctors wrote in their treatment recommendations.
For HBOT, the higher the oxygen pressure, the greater the change in gene expression, and the higher the general benefit.
Therefore the FLCCC recommends to use HBOT at a high atmospheric pressure. But treatment regimens need to be monitored by a clinician to prevent oxygen toxicity.
An in vitro study on human microvascular cells found that cells exposed to a HBOT treatment at 2.4 standard atmospheres (ATM) for 60 minutes, had changes in gene expression in 8,101 genes 24 hours later.
HBOT increased the expression of anti-inflammatory genes and reduced the activity of pro-inflammatory genes.
Since cells exposed to pure oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure had “minimal change” in their gene expression, this demonstrated that pressure is the key player in the overall therapy.
Another study on rats further indicated the importance of pressure. The study showed that depending on the pressure of the environment, different numbers of genes were expressed.
The authors of the study exposed rats to normal air and pure oxygen at normal atmospheric pressure and higher pressures. The data showed that in rats, as oxygen levels increased from the pressure would cause an increase in gene expression.
Studies showed that HBOT could reduce inflammatory pathways and reduce the action of pro-inflammatory toll-like receptor pathways, both of which are often activated in acute COVID infections and spike protein-induced diseases.
Mitochondria are responsible for breaking down the sugar we ingested through our food, into energy, and uses oxygen as a key reactant of this biochemical process.
During inflammation experienced in long COVID and post-vaccine syndromes, the spike protein can stress the mitochondria in the cell, leading to reduced energy production and more production damaging radical species. Therefore the extra oxygen provided through the treatment gives ample material for use by the mitochondria to increase energy production for the body.
HBOT also induces the release of stem cells and tissue growth factors.
Many studies found the treatment to be beneficial in promoting tissue regeneration including the regeneration of muscle cells and generation of new blood vessels, this indicates that HBOT can help in the repair of tissue damaged from spike protein injuries.
Neurological symptoms are some of the major symptoms in long COVID and post-vaccine symptoms. There are also studies that showed that HBOT enhanced neurogenesis, though HBOT has not been approved by the Foods and Drug Administration for such treatment yet.
Harch has had successes in treating wounds in the brain including a near-reversal of brain damage in a drowned 2-year-old girl in 2017.
The girl had suffered from a deep brain injury and had “no speech, gait or responsiveness to commands with constant squirming and head shaking” he said.
But following 40 sessions, the girl had near-normal motor function, normal cognition, gait, and temperament, and improvement on nearly all neurological exam abnormalities. Her speech improved to a greater level than pre-drowning and she also discontinued all of her medications, according to the LSU Health New Orleans School of Medicine media release.
Studies have also found HBOT treatments increased blood flow and induced microstructural changes; this led to improved brain function including cognitive functions, gait, and sleep.
Studies on HBOT therapies have shown it to be beneficial against COVID and long COVID. There is much literature on HBOT that find positive outcomes in treating COVID infections.
All of the COVID patients presented low oxygen levels, rapid breathing, and inflammatory markers. After one to six sessions of HBOT, inflammatory markers fell and the rapid breathing ceased.
“Most importantly, HBOT potentially prevented the need for mechanical ventilation,” the authors wrote.
In a randomized controlled study from Argentina, HBOT was used to treat for low oxygen in COVID-19. The study was stopped after the interim analysis of 40 patients’ outcomes. The differences between the treatment and the non-treatment group were obvious.
Patients under treatment for HBOT improved their blood oxygen levels in three days, compared to the non-treatment group which took 9 days.
In particular, studies on long COVID showed that HBOT has significant improvements on fatigue, and brain fog by improving attention, memory, information processing, and mental health.
In an Israeli study published in July 2022 on 73 long COVID patients, half (37) were treated with HBOT and the other half (36) with placebo. The patients received treatments five times a week and the protocol included breathing pure oxygen by mask at 2 ATM for 90 minutes.
The authors noticed improvements in the HBOT treatment group in global cognitive function, attention, and executive function, with significant improvements in energy, sleep, mental health, and reduced pain.
Brain scans of these patients further showed improved blood flow in certain areas of the brain, suggestive of blood vessel formation.
The FLCCC recommends HBOT as a third line treatment as it is considered to be a treatment that “may be lifesaving for one patient and totally ineffective for another,” and is therefore less applicable for the general population.
Marik also acknowledged that the high cost of the therapy and differences in pathophysiology may not make the treatment suitable for everyone. They currently recommend HBOT only for severe neuropathologies in patients suffering from post-vaccine syndromes, particularly peripheral neural pain. Contraindications for this treatment include people with untreated pneumothorax.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
So much basic scientific data and so many best practices and ethical standards in public health were abandoned during the Covid pandemic, it would be difficult to list them all.
Nevertheless, we must remember just how much reality has been warped since March 2020 and try to understand how that warping occurred. Maybe if we understand what happened, we can prevent it from happening again. Maybe we can unwarp the narrative enough so that more people can see clearly what went wrong.
For my own sanity, I need to understand what happened, so I can come to terms with why people behaved the way they did, and why so many of my own assumptions were shattered during the pandemic.
I want to know why real science got thrown out as misinformation, propaganda turned into absolute truth, the free press morphed into a government mouthpiece, and supposedly liberal and scientific institutions abandoned ethical standards and critical thought to impose zero-evidence, zero-Covid authoritarian lockdowns and mandates.
How did my family, friends and neighbors – who I thought shared my liberal, humanist values – turn into a group-thinking, bullying herd? What forces were exerted to erase scientific and intellectual integrity from the minds of literally millions of doctors, scientists, economists, journalists, educators and other normally curious and compassionate people worldwide?
To answer these questions, I am less interested in an exact timeline than in a story that makes sense of seemingly senseless behaviors. I am also less interested in the culpability of specific individuals than in an examination of the factors – psychological, social, historical, political – that drove those behaviors.
Overall, I believe four extremely powerful forces converged catastrophically to initiate, and then perpetuate, the snowball that became the avalanche of Covid insanity. And by insanity, I mean the imposition of unprecedented, untested and predictably unsuccessful – not to mention horrifically damaging – pandemic containment measures.
Those four forces were: panic, politics, propaganda, and profits.
Panic
I believe pandemic panic was driven from above – from the highest echelons of the most powerful governments – and below – within populations primed for disaster and perpetually on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Panic from above: it had to be a lab leak
The stratospheric level of panic unleashed over a virus of relatively low lethality (estimated overall infection fatality rate <0.2%) has always seemed wildly disproportionate to me. When previous, muchmore lethal viruses were discovered in various populations, nothing near the level of Covid hysteria happened.
I therefore surmise that, at the onset of the Covid pandemic, there was a spark of panic from a very powerful place that ignited the fear already smoldering in the population.
Much has been written about the lab leak hypothesis in terms of detailed timelines and specific people involved. To me, the most compelling argument in its favor is psychological: Without the lab leak there would be insufficient momentum to fuel such a juggernaut of global panic, causing scientists and public health experts to abandon everything they knew about respiratory viruses, and leading democratic governments to adopt Chinese-inspired authoritarian policies.
Specifically, the Wuhan lab leak makes sense as the source of initial panic because the research conducted there is highly sensitive and controversial. It involves EPPPs – enhanced pandemic potential pathogens – viruses engineered to be very contagious so their spread can be studied in animal models. Interest in this type of research comes not just from the virology and epidemiology fields, but also from national security and intelligence agencies focused on bioterrorism.
If both public health and intelligence officials knew, or suspected, that a virus had leaked from a lab studying EPPPs, there would be huge levels of apprehension, not to say hysteria, in that group, even if initial data showed, as it did, that the virus was not very dangerous to most people and affected mostly those over 65 with multiple underlying conditions.
If the virus was intentionally engineered for its pandemic-causing potential, it could be way more dangerous than just any old pathogen jumping from animals to humans. Who knew how an engineered virus would evolve? How much more virulent could it become? Intelligence and national security officials, in particular, might push for a maximal response without reference to standard epidemiologic or public health protocols.
In fact, it is almost impossible to explain the drastic abandoning of everything scientists and public health practitioners knew and believed about flu-like pandemics, without adding to the equation the terrifying unknown of what an engineered pathogen might do.
And to top off the panic palooza, if and when the truth of the virus’s origins came out, those involved with the EPPP research, already riddled with safety concerns, would be blamed. Major international and diplomatic crises could ensue.
Further strengthening this hypothesis is the fact that the countries with the strictest and most prolonged lockdowns, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, were all members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, along with the US and UK. It makes sense that precisely those countries sharing the earliest and most detailed intelligence about the lab leak felt not only justified, but compelled, to carry out the strictest lockdowns.
All of this leads me to conclude that a small group of top intelligence and public health officials, fearing a catastrophically deadly engineered virus had been released (regardless of its observed effects in the real world), convinced themselves, their governments, and in turn their populations (without publicly revealing the virus’ origin) that the strictest containment measures were needed or else millions would die.
Panic, then, became not just a reaction to the virus but, in the minds of those instigators, a necessary state in which to hold the population in order to elicit maximum compliance with containment measures. As inertia set in following the big initial push, panic and compliance became not just means for supposedly ending the pandemic but goals in and of themselves.
Scientists and media enlisted in panic campaign
All major media outlets, including the billionaire owners of the largest social media platforms, were likely asked by panicked government officials for their help in supporting draconian virus-suppressing measures. It seems likely, based on the strict adherence to the panic narrative, that guidelines were disseminated as to how the pandemic should be discussed, warning that any deviation therefrom would lead to countless unnecessary deaths. The threat of the virus could not be overstated. Questioning anti-virus measures was taboo.
Although prominent epidemiologists and public health experts outside the inner circle tried to publicize alternative, more realistic scenarios, based on data already gathered about the virus’s actual fatality rates, I believe the government’s allies in academia – some perhaps apprised of the EPPP situation, some politically motivated and/or petrified by the propaganda (as discussed below) – brutally silenced any discussion or debate.
Panic from below: the madness of crowds
The US population was primed to react strongly when massive panic from above was unleashed upon it. Covid fears had already been building since early 2020, with the proliferation of terrifying videos and reports of people falling dead in China’s streets from a hitherto unknown virus. We now know these videos were most likely fake and related to the Chinese propaganda campaign discussed later in this article. But at the time, they went viral, fomenting fear of the new virus.
Even before that, in the years leading up to the pandemic, especially in liberal coastal cities, a culture of hyper safety and risk aversion had taken hold. It was a perfect setup – in addition to the strong political forces acting on the very same populations (as described below) – for pandemic hysteria to proliferate even more virulently than the pathogen that prompted it.
Once large socioeconomically and politically homogeneous groups embraced the panic, as Gigi Foster, Paul Frijters and Michael Baker so cogently explain, herd mentality, or the madness of crowds, took over. To this day, the crowd madness continues to block any critical analysis or questioning of Covid policies in these groups.
Politics
If the pandemic had not happened during the Trump presidency, the panic from above and below might not have garnered enough scientific and media buy-in to turn the entire Democratic Party, as well as other self-regarding liberal governments around the world, into mirror images of totalitarian authorities they so often decried.
Trump was considered by the politically left-leaning coastal elites in the US (myself included!), and their allies around the world, to be a menace the likes of which had never been elected before, and a clear and present danger to the very foundations of democracy. For over three years, these groups, largely controlling the mainstream marketplace of ideas, spent much of their time ridiculing, lambasting and whipping up fear of Trump’s incompetence and nefarious intentions.
Like many others on all sides of the political spectrum, I believe criticism of Trump was largely justified. However, for many Democrats, Trump hatred went beyond rational debate and came to dominate not just the discourse but the very identity of the party, fostering a self-righteous superiority complex displayed through ritualistic virtue signaling, and engendering the apt label “Trump derangement syndrome.” The derangement part was the turning of anti-Trumpism into a self-identifying obsession and singular standard of virtue, to the exclusion of any objective examination of Trump’s words or deeds.
Anything Trump said, the anti-Trump camp felt it their civic and moral duty not just to proclaim, but to deeply believe, the opposite.
When it came to the pandemic, this meant that:
If Trump warned that prolonged lockdowns would wreck the economy, left-leaning economists derided anyone who, as they myopically contended, put economic concerns over human life.
If Trump claimed children were immune to the virus, every Democrat was convinced it would kill their own children and everyone else’s, and that schools should be closed indefinitely.
If Trump said masks don’t work, doctors who for years had known masks to be useless at blocking transmission of flu-like viruses, now believed masks should be mandated everywhere forever.
If Trump suggested that the virus came from a lab in China, editorial boards at major newspapers believed this must be a racist smear which should never ever be entertained, let alone investigated.
And, in my personal life, if I tried to share data showing Covid was not very lethal or that mask mandates did not work, instead of discussing the merits of the data, my friends (who knew very well my ultra-leftie politics and socialist worldview) would turn to me in horror and ask: “Are you a Trumpist?”
Thus was Trump derangement syndrome seamlessly transmuted into Covid derangement syndrome. All the rage directed at Trump was redirected toward anyone who, like Trump, dared to doubt its deadliness or question the authoritarian measures used to fight it.
To top it all off, the pandemic happened during an election year. So Trump hatred and pandemic hysteria were effectively bundled together to get Trump voted out and Biden, a Democrat more aligned with the public health establishment, in. Subsequently, anyone elected on a pro-lockdown, zero-Covid agenda was incentivized to continue advocating for the strictest measures for as long as possible.
Although they knew from the experience of past epidemics, and from basic epidemiologic science, that it is not possible to stop the spread of a flu-like virus once it has seeded itself throughout a global population, I think public health and national security officials – especially those in the lab leak group, as described above – desperately wanted to believe that the Chinese measures were working. After all, nothing like that had ever been tried before. If China said it was working for them, maybe it would work everywhere else. It had to work. Otherwise, they feared, millions of people would die and they would be blamed.
Even as months and years passed, and the virus continued to infect every population in every other country, the world continued to believe China’s zero Covid reports. In fact, the scientifically and medically nonsensical “zero-Covid” goal became the mantra for the authorities imposing Chinese-style virus containment measures everywhere else.
Scientists and media successfully propagandized
One very influential part of the effort to freak the world out about Covid was the early modeling provided by the Imperial College of London in early 2020. Not coincidentally, as proudly declared on its own website, Imperial College is one of China’s top academic and research partners in England.
A scientific and journalistic consensus quickly coalesced around these models and the necessity for the zero-Covid measures they supposedly proved. As mentioned above, dissenting views were silenced, but they were also a small minority. The toxic confluence of panic, politics and propaganda worked like an anti-truth potion to preclude even the possibility that someone would think, let alone publicize, anything suggesting it wasn’t as bad as everyone – the Chinese, the US government, the leading newspapers and scientific journals – said it was.
Profits
President Biden took office just as Covid vaccines became available. This was supposed to be the beginning of the end of lockdowns and a return to normal.
Alas, at this point so many profit-driven interests had piled onto the zero-Covid train, that it continued to hurtle forth at unstoppable speeds.
The nonsensical, non-scientific zero-Covid measures that had begun from a place of mortal panic, spread through political polarization, and amplified by Chinese propaganda, now generated unprecedented profits for anyone who made anything related to the pandemic.
As far as these money interests are concerned, the pandemic might as well go on forever.
In assessing the potential influence of profits on the indefinite continuation of the state of Covid emergency, the numbers speak for themselves. Here are just a few of the jaw-dropping reports on the beneficiaries from never-ending Covid:
Big Tech
In October 2021 the New York Times reported: “In the last year, the five tech superpowers — Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook — had combined revenue of more than $1.2 trillion. … some of the companies are growing faster and are more profitable than they have been in years.”
Test Makers and Sellers
In January 2022 CBS reported “Windfall profits for test makers,” including Abbott Laboratories ($1.9 billion in third-quarter sales related to COVID-19 testing, up 48% compared to the year-ago period). Other beneficiaries with skyrocketing profits were labs that process PCR tests and drugstore chains like CVS and Walgreens.
Vaccines
In February 2022 The Guardian reported that Pfizer made nearly $37 billion in sales from its Covid-19 vaccine in 2021 – making it one of the most lucrative products in history. Pfizer’s overall revenues in 2021 doubled to $81.3 billion, and it expects to make record revenues of $98 – $102 billion this year.
Billionaires
In January 2022 OxFam reported: “The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty.”
“If these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth tomorrow, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people on this planet. They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.”
Conclusion
An engineered pandemic potential pathogen leaked from a high-security US-funded lab in Wuhan long before it was acknowledged by China. By the time it became known, it was too late to contain.
Having outlined the cataclysmic convergence of forces I believe came together to create the Covid catastrophe, I now have a Covid story that makes sense to me:
When they found out, top US intelligence and public health officials affiliated with the Wuhan research panicked, fearing millions of deaths, international mayhem and personal culpability. This caused them to disregard real-world data about the virus and to abandon basic epidemiological principles and best practices in public health.
The Chinese authorities adopted scientifically nonsensical zero-Covid policies not because they thought they would work but to deflect attention from China’s role in the viral leak and coverup. In a brilliant propaganda coup, they turned the pandemic into a celebration of their authoritarian measures, convincing the world to follow their example.
All Democrats in the US and their allies elsewhere reflexively and uncritically favored all the policies that President Trump – viewed as their mortal enemy – opposed. These were the very same scientifically bogus policies that the panicked officials and Chinese propagandists were pushing.
Many who controlled the narrative in media, academia, public health and medicine were particularly susceptible to panic, politicization of the pandemic, and Chinese propaganda, which all came together to induce widespread groupthink and herd behavior. As cogently explained inThe Great Covid Panic, such behavior is detached from logical reasoning and the ability to objectively evaluate reality.
Major industries and individuals with enormous wealth and influence saw huge gains from the pandemic. It was, and still is, in their best interests to push for more testing, more treating, more vaccinating, more remote work and learning, more online shopping, and more of everything else pandemic-related.
Although terrifying and depressing to the extreme, this story helps me understand how so many people’s views of data, science, truth, ethics and compassion became so warped. I hope the telling will at least help a little with the unwarping.
new scientific study entitled “Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials” provides the best evidence yet concerning the safety of the mRNA Covid vaccines. For most vaccines in common use, benefits far outweigh risks, but that may not be the case for the mRNA covid vaccines, according to this study by Joseph Fraiman and his colleagues. It depends on your age and medical history.
The randomized controlled clinical trial is the gold standard of scientific evidence. When regulators approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, tworandomized trials showed that the vaccines reduced symptomatic covid infection by over 90% during the first few months after the second dose.
Pfizer and Moderna did not design the trials to evaluate long-term efficacy or the more important outcomes of preventing hospitalization, death, or transmission.
The randomized trials did collect adverse event data, including the presence of mild symptoms (such as fever) and more serious events requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Most vaccines generate some mild adverse reactions in some people, and there were considerably more adverse such reactions after the mRNA vaccines compared to the placebo.
That is annoying but not a major issue. We care about severe health outcomes. The key question is whether the vaccine’s efficacy outweighs the risks of severe adverse reactions.
The Fraiman study uses data from the same Pfizer and Moderna-sponsored randomized trials presented to the FDA for vaccine approval, but with two innovations that provide additional information.
First, the study pools data from both mRNA vaccines to increase the sample size, which decreases the confidence intervals’ size and the uncertainty about the estimated harms.
Second, the study focuses only on the severe adverse events plausibly due to the vaccines. Serious adverse events such as gunshot wounds, suicide, animal bites, foot fractures, and back injury are unlikely to be due to a vaccine, and cancer is unlikely to be due to a vaccine within a few months after vaccination. By removing such random noise, the ability (statistical power) to detect genuine problems increases. If there is no excess risk, shorter confidence intervals bolster confidence in the safety of the vaccines.
Classifying adverse events into the two groups is not a trivial task, but Fraiman et al. do an excellent job to avoid bias. They rely on the pre-defined Brighton Collaboration definitions of adverse events of special interest (AESI). Founded in 2000, the Brighton Collaboration has two decades of experience using rigorous science to define clinical outcomes for vaccine safety studies.
Moreover, Fraiman and colleagues blinded the process where they classified the clinical events as AESIs. Adjudicators did not know whether the individual had received the vaccine or the placebo. Hence, any criticism of so-called p-hacking is unwarranted.
So, what are the results? There were 139 AESIs among the 33,986 people vaccinated, one for every 244 people. That may sound bad, but those numbers mean nothing without comparison against a control group. There were 97 AESIs among the 33,951 people who received a placebo. Combining these numbers implies 12.5 vaccine-induced AESIs for every 10,000 people vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1 to 22.9 per 10,000 people. To phrase it differently, there is one additional AESI for every 800 people vaccinated (95% CI: 437-4762).
That is very high for a vaccine. No other vaccine on the market comes close.
The numbers for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 10 and 15 additional events per 10,000 people, respectively, so both vaccines contributed to the finding. The numbers are similar enough that we cannot confidently say that one is safer than the other. Most excess AESIs were coagulation disorders. For the Pfizer vaccine, there was also an excess of cardiovascular AESIs.
While these safety results are concerning, we must not forget the other side of the equation. Unfortunately, the study does not calculate composite estimates that also included the reduction in serious covid infections, but we have such estimates for mortality.
Dr. Christine Benn and her colleagues calculated a combined estimate of the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality using the same randomized trial data as Fraiman et al. They did not find a mortality reduction for the mRNA vaccines (relative risk 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.71).
One important limitation of both Fraiman’s and Benn’s studies is that they do not distinguish the adverse reactions by age, comorbidities, or medical history. That is not their fault. Pfizer and Moderna have not released that information, so outside researchers do not have access.
We know that the vaccine benefits are not equally distributed among people since covid mortality is more than a thousand times higher among the old. Thus, risk-benefit calculations must be done separately for different groups: with and without prior covid infection, by age, and for the first two doses versus boosters.
Covid-recovered people have natural immunity that is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity. So, the benefit of vaccination is – at best – minimal. If the risk of adverse reactions is the same as in the randomized trials, there is a negative risk-benefit difference. Why are we mandating people in this group to be vaccinated? It is both unethical and damaging to public health.
While everyone can get infected, children have a minuscule risk of covid mortality. There is very limited safety data from the trials on children. If the risk of adverse reactions is the same as for adults, the harms outweigh the risks. Children should not receive these vaccines.
Older people above 70 have a much higher risk of covid mortality than the population in the Fraiman study. If their risk of adverse reaction is the same, then the benefits outweigh the harms. Hence, older people who have never had covid and are not yet vaccinated may benefit from these vaccines. However, we do not know if they are better than the Johnson & Johnson and Astra-Zeneca vaccines.
It is unclear from the clinical trial data whether the benefits outweigh the risks for working-age adults who have not been vaccinated and who have not already had covid. This is true both historically, for the original covid variants, and currently for the newer ones.
The Fraiman study analyzes data after the first and second doses. Both risks and benefits may differ for booster shots, but no randomized trial has properly evaluated the trade-off.
These results concern only the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Fraiman et al. did not analyze data on the adenovirus-vector vaccines marketed by Johnson & Johnson and Astra-Zeneca. Benn et al. found that they reduced all-cause mortality (RR=0.37, 95% CI:0.19-0.70), but nobody has used trial data to analyze AESIs for these vaccines.
Critically, the Fraiman and Benn studies had a follow-up of only a few months after the second dose because Pfizer and Moderna, unfortunately, terminated their randomized trials a few months after receiving emergency use authorization. Of course, a longer-term benefit can provide a basis to tolerate negative or neutral short-term risk-benefit differences. However, that is unlikely since we know from observationalstudies that mRNA vaccine efficacy deteriorates a few months after the second dose.
There may also be long-term adverse reactions to the vaccine regarding which we do not yet know. Since the randomized trials ended early, we must look at observational data to answer that question. The publicly available data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is of low quality, with both under- and over-reporting. The best observational data is from CDCs Vaccine Safety Datalink(VSD) and FDA’s Biologics and Effectiveness Safety System (BEST), but there have only been limited reports from these systems.
Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers and FDA to ensure that benefits outweigh harms. They have failed to do so.
How is it that The HighWire’s reporting on Covid has been so far ahead? How did we know so much about the public health players, and the games they would play with lockdowns and vaccines? Because, they’ve done it all before. The HighWire presents “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” the movie that exposes one of the biggest public health scandals of all time. They say ‘vaccines don’t cause autism,’ but they never told you this.
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 02: (L-R) Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, attend a briefing on the administration’s coronavirus response in the press briefing room of the White House on March 2, 2020 in Washington, DC. Earlier in the day, President Trump and his Coronavirus Task Force team met with pharmaceutical companies representatives who are actively working to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
By Zachary Stieber
The claim that the virus that causes COVID-19 definitely was not from a laboratory, put forth in a paper quietly shaped by Dr. Anthony Fauci that was cited by other scientists who called the lab idea a “conspiracy theory,” was “antithetical to science,” a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director says.
“The purpose of science is to have rigorous debate about different hypotheses. I’ve never really experienced in my life where there was private telephone calls among scientists that had a decision on what position they would take collectively, and to see that position then published in a scientific journal like Lancet, to say that individuals that thought like myself, had a different scientific hypothesis, somehow had to be put down and viewed as conspirators, this is really antithetical to science,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the agency’s head until Jan. 20, 2021, said during a Jan. 26 appearance on Fox News.
Emails recently made public show that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), played a key role in shaping a paper published by Nature in early 2020.
The authors, most of whom messaged repeatedly with Fauci, joined him on a teleconference shortly before the paper was published, and have since received millions from Fauci’s agency, claimed that their analyses “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
The Nature article was one of those cited by EcoHealth Alliance founder Peter Daszak and a separate group of scientists in an article later published in The Lancet. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” wrote Daszak, whose group funneled money from Fauci’s agency to scientists in Wuhan, China, and the other authors.
Many experts later acknowledged there’s no clear evidence that the CCP virus has a natural origin, and some have said the bulk of the evidence points to it coming from the set of laboratories in Wuhan.
Redfield is one of them.
“I don’t think it’s biologically plausible that this virus emerged from a bat to some intermediate species into humans and became one of the most transmissible viruses that we know in human disease. This virus clearly had a detour and that detour was being educated how to infect human tissue in the laboratory. I think that’s the most plausible explanation,” he told Fox.
Dr. Francis Collins, Fauci’s boss when he was the head of the National Institutes of Health, and Fauci were trying to “protect science” by suppressing debate over the virus origins, Redfield posited. The problem is, “there’s very limited data” to support their position, he told Fox.
Asked if Fauci, who has been in his position since 1985, should be fired, Redfield demurred but said he did think Fauci should “reflect on this and then provide the science leadership that we need to move forward.”
“I have a lot of respect for him over the years. I think he needs to step back and not try to second guess and make things a way that he thinks the world can hear. We should just tell the truth,” Redfield said.
NIAID didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Redfield also said that he believes scientists will eventually solve the mystery of the origin of the virus.
The “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington D.C. drew thousands of peaceful protesters in support of the common cause of opposing mask and vaccine mandates. Robert Kennedy Jr., founder and Chairman of Children’s Health Defense delivered a speech to the rally attendees was focused on Big Pharma, which has escaped accountability and demands for transparency despite their core responsibilities during the Covid pandemic. His words were so provocative they ignited a media firestorm.
“You cannot sue that company,” he reiterated. “They have a license…”
“These are criminal companies, by the way,” he proclaimed. “These are serial felons.”
“The four companies that make all four of our U.S. vaccines for the children’s program… have paid $35 billion in criminal penalties for hundreds of violations and damages in the last ten years,” he went on.
“These are the companies that gave us the opioid crisis,” he added. “That kills 56,000 children a year. More American kids every year than the Vietnam War killed in twenty years.”
“These are not good citizens,” he emphasized. “These are criminal enterprises.”
“And now you’re taking away any economic or legal incentive for them to behave?” he asked rhetorically. “What do you think they are going to do?”
“Do you think they’ve found Jesus, suddenly?” he went on. “And they’re going to take care of us and our children, they’re suddenly concerned with public health?”
“No,” he said.
“They took away due process rulemaking, they’ve taken away our right to be free of warrantless searches and seizures, this very intrusive track-and-trace surveillance, etcetera,” he went on.
“We are watching something now that I never believed that I would see in my lifetime,” RFK Jr. said. “I have read Orwell and Kafka and Aldous Huxley, this dystopian science fiction novels that someday the United States would be overtaken by fascism.”
“Fascism, incidentally, is defined… Mussolini defined it as the merger of state and corporate power,’” he added.
“And orchestrated by Tony Fauci,” he went on as the crowd booed loudly.
“What we’re seeing today is what I call ‘turnkey totalitarianism,’” he continued. “They are putting in place all of these technological mechanisms for control we’ve never seen before.”
“It’s been the ambition of every totalitarian state from the beginning of mankind to control every aspect of behavior, of conduct, of thought, and to obliterate dissent. None of them have been able to do it,” he added.
“They didn’t have the technological capacity,” he noted. “Even in Hitler’s Germany you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father. And met people who had climbed the wall and escaped. So, it was possible. Many died, surely. But it was possible.”
“Today, the mechanisms are being put in place,” he warned. “That will make it so that none of us can run, and none of us can hide.”
“Within five years, we are going to see 415,000 low orbit satellites,” he claimed. “Bill Gates and his 65,000 satellites alone will be able to look at every square inch of the planet 24 hours a day. They’re putting in 5G to harvest our data and control our behavior. Digital currency that will allow them to punish us from our distance and cut off our food supply. Vaccine passports.”
This part of the speech ignited a media firestorm. They pounced on RFK Jr.’s bit about satellite surveillance and issues with 5G, hardly fringe matters, to lambaste his speech and brandish him a “conspiracy theorist,” which essentially means it is beneath them to address his concerns.
Jake Tapper called him “an ignorant lying menace.” Adam Klasfield of Law Crime News weirdly commented, “The obscene Holocaust invocations and analogies, from RFK Jr. and others at this anti-vaccine rally, sound eerily similar to the rhetoric that appears in legal briefs for indicted Oath Keepers extremists.” Professor Peter Hotez, CNN’s resident vaccine fanatic, opined: “Since June 200,000 unvaccinated Americans lost their lives needlessly to COVID19, victims of antivaccine disinformation, aggression, dog whistles from extremists who compare vaccines to the Holocaust, or promote conspiracies about Bill Gates, Tony Fauci, Me, other US scientists.” Poor guy. It turns out the disinformation has been coming from his side all along.
The reflexive “conspiracy theorist” label was invoked, just as it has countless times in the past before the “theory” actually became the “reality,” such as with “vaccine passports” themselves… which are now being used all over the world to deny people work and access to public spaces.
Even if it is difficult to verify all of RFK Jr.’s claims, the epithet “conspiracy theorist” no longer has the power to unilaterally shut down conversation. It would be remiss not to point out there is no biggest perpetrator of “conspiracy theories” than the mainstream media, which lied for years about Russia collusion, just like it has lied the entire time about the Covid pandemic. We continue.
“You have a series of rights, as flawed as our government is, you can still go out and go to a bar, you can go to a sporting event, you can get on a bus or an airplane and you can travel, you have certain freedoms,” RFK Jr. went on. “You can get educated, etcetera.”
“The minute they hand you that vaccine passport, every right that you have is transformed into a privilege contingent upon your obedience to arbitrary government dictates,” he added.
“It will make you a slave!”
“What do we do?” he asked. “We resist.”
At the end of the day, this is about accountability. It is about accountability for the elected leaders and unelected public health officials who have seized upon a pandemic to wantonly violate every American’s unalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to travel, and the right to bodily autonomy.
RFK Jr. has issued a rousing clarion call for all those who believe that the unlawful vaccine and mask mandates are simply “public health issues.” They are much more than that. They are about rights.
Nothing less than the future of Western civilization is on the line. There are dire implications if we fail to resist the authoritarian state’s escalating violations of human rights. No matter what its pretexts.
Face of Lady Justice in dark grunge brown background
By Ken Becker
The Food and Drug Administration had requested that it be granted at least 75 years to issue the full ‘redacted’ clinical trials data that Pfizer-BioNTech submitted to get its original Emergency Use Authorization in December 2020.
The judge in the case has now ordered the FDA to turn over the documents at a rate that is over a hundred times what it had requested.
“This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal ‘health’ authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waningimmunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission,” Siri continued.
The earlier court filing from the non-partisan Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency explained the need for urgent transparency.
“The FDA has proposed to produce 500 pages per month which, based on its calculated number of pages, would mean it would complete its production in nearly 55 years – the year 2076,” the court filing said. “Until the entire body of documents provided by Pfizer to the FDA are made available, an appropriate analysis by the independent scientists that are members of Plaintiff is not possible.”
“The entire purpose of the FOIA is to assure government transparency,” the plaintiffs argued. “It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.”
The federal judge in the case has now issued a striking judgment against the FDA for attempting to cover up the clinical trials data at a pivotal time when the U.S. government and many states are claiming that we are presently in the middle of a pandemic-caused “emergency.” No.
“No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure,” Siri said. ” And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.”
“In ordering the release of the documents in a timely manner, the Judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities,” he continued. “He then aptly quoted James Madison as saying a ‘popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy’ and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a ‘nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people’.”
The public transparency is critically important as news has surfaced that Pfizer buried the reporting of deaths in the placebo group prior to the “vaccine” authorization. And in November, a whistleblower came forward with revelations about how vaccine-maker Pfizer ‘falsified data’ and manipulated clinical trials.
Brook Jackson, a former clinical trial auditor who was fired after raising her concerns, came forward with inside information and documented evidence about Pfizer’s operations in a stunning BMJ investigation conducted by Paul Thacker. The disturbing report sends up red flags that the FDA and Pfizer were engaging in massive fraud against the American people to justify vaccine mandates.
Due to the federal judge’s order, however, there is at least some hope for transparency and for accountability for Big Pharma and the public health bureaucrats who perpetrated this massive fraud on the American people.
No isolated Certified Reference Materials for “covid-19” virus.
PCR tests that find “positive” results for covid merely the result of amplified instrument background.
FDA admits PCR tests were developed without any isolated covid-19 virus samples. So they simulated the virus.
Virologist Dr. Judy Mikovitz confirms common coronaviruses and monkey viruses fraudulently labeled “covid.”
Dr. Jane Ruby explains the lack of any viral isolate and why the pandemic is based on coordinated science fraud.
CDC FOIA documents reveal proof the CDC has never isolated covid-19.
The spike protein bioweapon is real, and covid “vaccines” are kill shots to achieve depopulation.
CDC Director Walensky admits the covid vaccine doesn’t stop covid infections.
Sen. Rand Paul calls for Americans to resist covid tyranny.
Last year when covid skeptics were saying “there’s no such thing as a covid virus,” I strongly disagreed. As a published food scientist, laboratory owner and inventor of two published patents based on mass spectrometry analysis, I was aware that SARS-CoV-2 had been genomically sequenced. Surely, I mistakenly thought, it had been isolated, purified and determined to be the cause of covid-19 sickness.
How did I come to realize the medical and scientific establishment has fabricated all this? And what’s the explanation for the very real sickness that people are experiencing?
I’ll share that story here, but in short, common cold viruses and monkey virus fragments found in flu shots are being mislabeled “covid,” and there is a weaponized spike protein bioweapon that’s being distributed via vaccine injections. That’s all real. But there’s no such thing as a real, physical, isolated covid-19 virus that has been harvested from sick people and shown to infect other people and make them sick. What we’re really witnessing here, it now seems, is three distinct things:
1) A cocktail of common cold viruses labeled “covid” which are circulating and causing sickness in some people, most likely because of the lack of immune system exposure to wild type viruses during all the global lockdowns.
2) A weaponized spike protein toxic nanoparticle that’s being injected into people as a “clot shot” … and it’s likely shedding, causing harmful side effects in other, unvaccinated people.
3) A wholly fraudulent PCR “casedemic” scheme that’s designed to flag almost anyone as “positive” based almost entirely on how many cycles the PCR sample prep instruments are instructed to carry out, thereby amplifying instrument noise to the point of a “positive” hit. Almost anything can be flagged as “positive,” including genetic material fragments from previous years’ flu shots.
These three things — combined with the media’s mass hysteria programming — have achieved a level of global fear and psychological terrorism that the world has never seen before. But it’s all based on lies, it turns out. And here’s how we know.
No certified reference materials for isolated SARS-CoV-2 “covid-19” virus
As a lab owner, published scientist and mass spec analyst myself, I am extremely familiar with the process of using certified reference materials (CRMs) to validate analysis methods and instrument calibration sequences. (I’ve spent far too many evenings creating serial dilutions of standards using a Gilson pipette, trust me…)
Here’s how the process normally works in a legitimate science lab:
Step 1) Acquire the CRM of the thing you want to test (“analyte”). This means acquiring a purified, isolated standard with a known concentration, usually in a carrier such as water, or as a dry powder. For example, when I’m testing for mercury in food, I have a certified mercury standard with a known concentration of mercury, dissolved in water, nitric acid and hydrochloric acid.
Step 2) Run the CRM as a sample, at different concentrations, to build a “curve” that effectively teaches the instrument what the analyte looks like and how the instrument detector responds to different concentrations of the analyte. The end result is a “quant curve” that will be used in step 3.
NOTE: Instruments will “match” the thing you’re looking for by a variety of methods, filtering out all other things that don’t match. In mass spec work, molecules are identified by their molecular mass, ion fragmentation patterns, and elution time on chromatography columns. For a substance to match, it has to hit all these parameters. In PCR testing, a “match” is a genomic sequence made of base pairs, defined in a digital library that may or may not have ever been run against a real, physical standard in the real world.
Step 3) Run unknown samples through the instrument (of blood serum, urine, saliva, water, food sample extracts, etc.) and see if the unknown sample contains any of the thing you were looking for (the analyte). Because you built a quant curve, you can also then determine the concentration of the analyte in the original sample. This is typically described as mass over volume, such as ng / ml (nanograms per milliliter). A nanogram is a billionth of a gram. When we test foods for glyphosate, we can detect as little as 1 nanogram per milliliter, which tells you something about the extreme sensitivity of high-end instruments.
This is the process to test something and identify how much of something is found in something else. For example, if you were going to determine if someone was sick with “covid,” you would need to determine the concentration of covid-19 viruses in their blood (i.e. the “viral load”). This is science / biology 101.
So what’s the problem, then?
You’d be stunned to realize how deep the science fraud really goes. Consider these critical points:
Point #1: There appear to be no isolated, purified Certified Reference Materials available for SARS-CoV-2 “covid”. I’ve seen companies that claim to be selling “isolates” containing covid viruses, but in their own description, they explain that their vials contain genetic material from “host cells” (human cells) as well as bovine serum cells, which means it’s a cocktail stew of who-knows-what. Yet it’s called an “isolate.”
Case in point: BEI Resources, which offers something they call an “isolate” of covid-19, that you can find at this link. As the description states for this covid-19 “isolate:”
…[T]his product is not suitable as a whole cell antigen preparation because the protein content is largely contributed by the host cell and the fetal bovine serum used during virus propagation.
In other words, most of the genetic material in the “isolate” is actually from human cells. So it’s not an isolate at all. The covid virus isn’t isolated. In fact, this “isolate” contains viral genetic material, human genetic material and bovine genetic material, plus whatever other viruses were present in the blood of the people and the cows. This could be millions of different nanoparticles present, each containing their own sequences of genetic material.
Point #2: If you have no isolated, certified reference materials, you can’t develop a legitimate analysis test. And this is exactly what the FDA admits in its own documents, which state that since covid-19 viruses weren’t available for the development of the PCR test, they “simulated” it by using human cells and gene bank coronavirus fragments. From the FDA’s own document:
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA … spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.
In other words, they faked the covid virus by using gene bank cells which were deliberately and falsely labeled “covid.” This is how the PCR test was developed. The FDA admits it all. The PCR test is a fraud.
Point #3: If you don’t have a CRM isolate, you can’t calibrate instruments against a known sample. And this means the PCR tests aren’t being calibrated against anything real and physical. Instead, they’re relying on downloaded digital libraries provided by none of than the CDC, the very same Big Pharma front group that’s spearheading this covid scam.
Point #4: PCR instruments are incapable of quantitative analysis.The “positive” hits are nothing but amplified background noise. No PCR instrument can tell you how much of some genetic material was found in an original sample. It can merely detect the presence of material on a yes / no basis. In lab science, this is called a “qualitative” analysis, not a quantitative analysis.
In qualitative analysis, the key factor is the “Limit of Detection” (LOD) of the instrument. How little of the sample will still create a “hit” for the instrument? In all instruments, for the LOD to be scientifically valid, it must be something that rises above background noise, or it’s scientifically meaningless. All instruments produce background noise, which are “peaks” or “hits” that represent detector static, you might say. These exist at a background level even when you’re running nothing in the instrument.
To show you what this looks like, consider the following graphic. It shows some mass spec results across a spectrum of masses. The horizontal axis here is m/z (mass over charge), which is simplified to just “mass” for general discussion. It’s the mass of the molecules or particles being detected.
Notice the red and orange lines across the bottom of each chart. That’s largely “background” noise across all the masses. Then notice the very tall orange peak which rises above the background. This is the mass of the molecule they’re looking for. It might be a pesticide, or a contaminant, or a nutrient, etc.
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.”
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 …”
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:
“Waives sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer.”
Not apply its domestic laws to the company.
Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays.
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 vaccinatedare 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?
Liberty International News 