Read this testimony I wrote in 2019, which seems to have been extremely prescient

This was testimony for Massachusetts and the potential removal of vaccine passports.  I had given a similar, longer testimony to legislators in New Brunswick, Canada in August 2019:

1.  The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits. Dare I say out loud that our children’s arms and bodies are the delivery system for transferring money from the citizens of the Commonwealth to the pharmaceutical industry?

The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide.

The pharmaceutical industry exerts enormous influence on government regulators, [1] their advisors,[2] professional medical organizations,[4] key opinion leaders[5] and medical journals[6] as well as the mass media and lawmakers.[7] This is not debatable [8]–there are dozens of studies proving it. Merck has a list on its website of over 1,000 candidates for state and federal offices to whom they gave money in 2018[9]. Merck also lists payments to hundreds of professional medical organizations, patient organizations, Pharma lobbying groups, and scores of Republican and Democratic PACs and committees.[10] Julie Gerberding, the former CDC Director, became president of Merck Vaccines as soon as she was allowed.[11] The last FDA Commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, just left for Pfizer.[12] The revolving door is slamming Americans.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent $6.4 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in the US in 2016, and $29.9 billion total on medical marketing.[13] Pharma money does double duty:  it purchases the allegiance of our major media corporations, in addition to buying advertising. And, it’s tax deductible.

 

The pharmaceutical industry does not play by the rules you and I must follow.  Instead, the industry makes it a rule to break the law, regularly paying civil and criminal penalties in the billions of dollars. Big Pharma CEOs have not been sent to jail in decades and paying settlements for their illegal behaviors has become simply the cost of doing business.

This is an industry that has thrived by taking big risks–even when manufacturers knew in advance that their products killed. Merck paid out $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 Vioxx injury claims, after it was estimated the drug caused 38,000 deaths from heart attacks.[14] But annual sales had topped $2.5 billion/year, likely leading them to break even.

According to Public Citizen: “From 1991 through 2015, a total of 373 settlements were reached between the federal and state governments and pharmaceutical manufacturers, for a total of $35.7 billion.”

Pharma’s latest risky strategy is trying to rid the world of vaccine exemptions, to prevent vaccine opt-outs — before a new crop of vaccines, with inadequate safety and efficacy testing, [15] and for which they will have no liability once placed on the childhood schedule, are approved.

I doubt this is what you have been told. But the industry moves deliberately, one step at a time.  First it got the 21st Century Cures Act passed, in November 2016. This Act:

• directed the FDA to more readily license vaccines, using “real world evidence” in place of randomized, controlled clinical trials.
• directed CDC to immediately place each newly licensed vaccine before its advisory committee, to be considered for inclusion in the childhood vaccine schedule. Inclusion in the schedule is the criterion needed to get a vaccine its waiver of manufacturer liability.
• directed that all vaccines recommended for use in pregnant women (currently influenza and Tdap, but many more are in the pipeline) were granted liability waivers.

Getting a vaccine approved for use during pregnancy is the newest Pharma gold rush. This despite evidence [16][17] (which CDC disputes) that flu vaccine is associated with a doubling of miscarriage rates, and evidence that anthrax vaccine increases the miscarriage rate.[18]Neither flu nor Tdap vaccines were tested and approved by FDA for use in pregnancy. According to the WHO[19]:

“…pre-licensing clinical trials of vaccines do not usually include pregnant and lactating women. Reports available also provide limited post-licensing data, as once again, pregnant women are usually not included in clinical trials. This in turn has limited the ability to make evidence-based decisions and provide optimal guidance on the use of vaccines in this population.”

Despite this, pregnant women are being told to receive both flu and Tdap vaccines during every pregnancy. Don’t you see something sick in this?

The year-long media blitz over measles didn’t only usher in bills to remove vaccine exemptions. It was also a bonanza for sales. Merck, which makes the only measles vaccines in the US, saw sales of its MMRV vaccine increase 58% in 2019.[20]

It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill. Contaminated batches of vaccine do occur.[21]Usually contaminated lots are discarded, but in the case of anthrax, polio and other vaccines, millions of doses were used.[22][23]

Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy. (Both were side effects of swine flu vaccines used in the 2009 pandemic.)

Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary.  Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them. Only when vaccinated individuals have rates of illness at least 10 times higher than the unvaccinated, is the side effect likely to be linked to the vaccine.

A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents.[24] This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics. Countries that bought the swine flu vaccines, through WHO, were required to waive manufacturer liability as a condition of purchase. Litigation by those injured continues to be active in the UK, where both the manufacturer and the UK government deny any responsibility for
injuries.

It should be apparent, but isn’t: government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.

The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.

2.  There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations, either in Massachusetts or the United States.

Here is the rest of the testimony:  https://merylnassmd.com/my-testimony-on-legislation-to-remove_4/

The Simpsons predicted the pandemic, perhaps. Apocalype Meow. 1 minute 42 seconds

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaFH9slcxJo

Moving fast toward international requirement for vaccine passport

https://www.who.int/news/item/27-08-2021-moving-towards-digital-documentation-of-covid-19-status

Go to the link for the complete document

 

Senator Ron Johnson asked the FDA to explain the differences between the licensed and the EUA Covid vaccines last week

Children's Health Defense and Global Research discuss the letter here.

A copy of the letter Senator Johnson sent is here:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-08-26-Letter-to-FDA-re-Comirnaty.pdf

Ivermectin Metaanalysis

Tess Lawrie's group's metaanalysis of ivermectin research papers, published in June, has received a great deal of positive attention.  It was, as expected, carefully done.  The authors graded the quality of the papers they reviewed.  

The abstract noted:

"Therapeutic Advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n 5 2438; I2 5 49%; moderate-certainty evidence)..." This means that using only evidence of moderately good quality (high quality is often hard to come by, especially using observational data), if 100 people sick enough with Covid to die are given ivermectin, only 38 will die, and 62% will be saved.  

"Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%)." 

More doctors are using the drug.  More patients are hearing about it.  I have been getting more calls from patients who want to know about it.  The NY Times said pharmacists are filling 88,000 scripts a week now.

Covid death rates, compared to the number of cases diagnosed, are way down compared to 2020 and last winter.  While the NYT says there are 100,000 Covid patients in hospital now, only 1,500 are dying daily, or 1.5%, a much lower percentage than previous waves.

This is probably due to lower virulence of current variants, some benefit from vaccination, less use of ventilators and more use fo effective therapeutics.

And so now the CDC is coming down hard and many pharmacist have decided to stop filling the scripts in the past week.  More on this in my next post.

Moderna: visible stainless steel particles in 3 lots of Japanese vaccines won't hurt you/ Reuters

From Reuters:

"Stainless steel is routinely used in heart valves, joint replacements and metal sutures and staples. As such, it is not expected that injection of the particles identified in these lots in Japan would result in increased medical risk," Takeda and Moderna said in a joint statement.

I guess this means:  "Get used to it."  The vaccine companies are calling the shots.  "Get in line and shut up.  We decide how often you have to get it, and we decide whether our adulterated vaccines are just fine for you."

Reuters noted playfully, 

"Moderna shares were up 2.6% following the statement," and "The contamination issue gained more attention after the health ministry said on Saturday that two men, aged 38 and 30, died in August within days of receiving their second Moderna doses. Each had received a dose from one of the suspended lots...Each had a fever the day after his second dose and died two days after getting the fever. There has been no evidence of contaminants in their shots, a health ministry official told reporters.

By Aug. 8, 991 people had died in Japan after receiving COVID-19 shots from Pfizer (PFE.N)/BioNTech, and 11 after receiving Moderna's. No causality has been established between the injections and deaths, according to the health ministry." 

ACIP vote yesterday after deceitful CDC briefings removes liability from Comirnaty, opening the door to mandates

In a nutshell:  Yesterday CDC asked its advisory committee to "recommend" the Comirnaty vaccine for 16 and 17 year olds. And it agreed, unanimously. Or pusillanimously.

The vote may seem silly or superfluous, because it had already been recommended for this age group as an EUA.

But this vote was anything but superfluous. This seemingly minor recommendation, which did not get headlines, moves the licensed Comirnaty vaccine from a place where the manufacturer is legally liable for injuries, to a berth within the Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for which there is no manufacturer liability.  Instead a $0.75 excise tax is charged per dose, which goes into a fund administered by DHHS to pay for injuries, if one is lucky enough to convince the special masters (judges) in the program that a vaccine caused your injury. Once a vaccine is recommended for children, its liability is waived no matter who receives it.

But the important part is that once this process is complete (which I expect to be only a very few weeks), Pfizer can roll out stocks of the licensed vaccine while still having its liability waived.  That means that the loophole I told you about last week is being backfilled by the USG, with the help of the supine and spineless ACIP committee members, and will soon disappear.

I say spineless with true conviction, because the briefings they received yesterday were a load of fraud and hogwash.  Yet no one challenged the data nor the conclusions. It is hard to believe that the lot of them are really that stupid that they believed what they heard.  It is also hard to believe that none of them had a conflict of interest, which they all asserted along with their vote.

Furthermore, no one ever actually said why the vote was held:  which was for liability purposes, nor that the vote would lead to mandates, which could not be implemented under the EUA.

So, it is disappointing.

Children's Health Defense went to court today in Tennessee to challenge the FDA on issuing both a license and EUA for the same product.  AFLDS also went to court today in Colorado challenging the mandate.  More on these cases later.

Live blogging the ACIP meeting

Matt Daley provides the initial summary.  On slide 4 he shows hospitalizations in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, making the claim that hospitalizations occur 16 times more commonly in the unvaccinated.

Now look closely at his slide 4.  In the center there is a peak.  The tip of the peak centers on May 1, 2021.  What he notably omits telling the ACIP members is that on May 1, in an attempt to lower the breakthrough infections, new guidelines went into effect to only report on breakthrough, vaccinated cases if they met 2 criteria:  they had to have died or been hospitalized, AND they also had to have had a positive test with PCR cycle threshold of 28 and below.  This effectively cut the reports of breakthrough cases way down, explaining the peak at May 1.

Next, the Pfizer rep speaks.  Only data collected through March 13 are provided--5.5 months ago.  He admits that the placebo group was unblinded at 2 months.

40% of the subjects had dropped out by 4 months--why? No comment of course.

As before, the safety issues are obscured by failing to provide diagnoses and instead listing the adverse events by organ systems.  Only the acute side effects are listed by symptoms.  But who actually cares about acute side effects that invariably resolve? Yet that is what Pfizer chooses to emphasize. 2 optic neuritis cases in vaccinees are finally acknowledged.

Slide 11 has more meat, but the side effects are lumped by organ system, effectively obscuring what they were and how severe they were.  It is claimed the adverse events are similar between the placebo group and vaccinated group.

15 deaths in vaccine group and 14 in placebo group--we have seen all this information months ago, and I have no idea why it is being presented again, except to make it appear that ACIP is being brought up to date.  Remember, the placebo group was vaccinated last December--8 months ago--so these data are at least 8 months old.  And they are uninterpretable.

For serious AEs they claim to have collected them through March.

What about the AEs of special interest?  We are presented a handful of anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions.  Somehow Pfizer has managed to add 2 Bell's palsy victims to its placebo recipients, but maybe after they got vaccinated?  Hard to make sense of his chart.

Pfizer magically had a placebo group that has almost identical AEs as its vaccinated group, for example for allergic angioedema. One case of GBS occurred in the placebo group.  This is also remarkable, since GBS only occurs about once /100,000/year.  In this case it occurred in 1 in 22,000/2 months.

PEs 8 each, thromboembolism cases equal in both groups, strokes were equal, heart attacks occurred more in placebo group.  More miscarriages in the placebo group.  Pfizer is extremely fortunate that apart from anaphylaxis, its vaccine seems to be protective against every other potential adverse effect.

Over 2500 myo and pericarditis cases have been reported, CDC manages to reduce the number they are studying, such as 765 cases reported within 7 days of a dose--where are the other 1800?  Even losing most reported cases, teen males are at least 25x expected--strangely the Pfizer vaccine myocarditis peaks in the  youngest (12-15 y/o) while the Moderna induced most cases in young adults. 742 met the CDC case definition (which I earlier pointed out is too restrictive) and the vast majority of these required hospitalization, over 700. 253 of these are 90 days out and are "eligible for interview." 

Now a study is being planned to see what happens to all these unfortunate people with cardiac inflammation--I'd say it is about time, since the problem was identified in April, 4 months ago. The new FDA documents filed last Monday with the license admit they have NO information on the myocarditis outcomes.  Guess they were too scared to look.

I have had to miss bits of this--sorry.

Grace Lee, new ACIP chair, just presented on rates of myocarditis, which are quite high, but then compares them to rates of myocarditis after Covid.  She neglected to include several important items:

1.  Many people are already immune so not susceptible to Covid and will only face risk without benefit--this is totally ignored.

2.  Furthermore, the claims of high rates of myocarditis after Covid were NOT age stratified.  Very few kids, who are at highest risk of myocarditis, have such complications of Covid.

3.  Early treatment means you don't get myocarditis or any other late sequelae

4.  Not everyone who isn't vaccinated will get Covid!

Dr. Rosenblum tries to scare us re young peoples' hospitalizations--but never gives the totals hospitalized with a bizarre chart that lacks a Y axis.

She cherrypicks good outcomes in myocarditis patients.  No one mentions the college student who needed a heart transplant, then died a month later.

And she uses the VAERS reporting rate of myocarditis as if VAERS collects every case.  This is criminal negligence, since CDC knows there is massive underreporting, and says so on its website.

In the 16-17 year age group for males, 73 cases of myocarditis are expected per million doses--or 146 cases for those full vaccinated per million people.

That is 1 case of myocarditis per 7,000 vaccinated young males, assuming the VAERS reporting rate is the actual rate.  Prior analyses of VAERS suggest the VAERS reporting rate is 0.01-0.1.  Using these estimates, you would see one case of myocarditis per 70-700 males vaccinated, aged 16-17.

CDC's Dr. Gargano now comes in for the kill:  getting ACIP to vote to put Covid-19 vaccine on the childhood schedule, which will effectively give it a liability shield for all recipients, all ages, moving the vaccine into the NVICP.

She states that all sorts of methods were used to make various estimates, none of which she provides any details for.  She then wastes everyone's time going over the GRADE scale for evaluating reliability of evidence--in other words, a method to take subjectivity and try to convert it to objectivity. Which is widely used in medicine and requires no explanation.

Note that the speakers, especially the women, have a tone of voice and rhythm that suggests they are speaking to primary schoolchildren, apart from the medical buzzwords. I think they are chosen for this manner of speech, which tends to hypnotize the listener. Putting you to sleep seems to be the goal.  Could this be more bland?  Does CDC's PR division write the talks for them?

Now we are told the efficacy is 90%.  Even though we know it is about 40% or less now, and no one mentions that Pres. Biden has already announced boosters will start in 3 weeks due to poor efficacy.

But we must believe that in 8 studies efficacy was 92%.  And for severe disease efficacy has climbed to 95-100%.  Maybe true (I doubt it) but for how long?  For a month or two after vaccination?  Once you add in the negative efficacy of the first 2-3 weeks post vaccination, these numbers are a lot less impressive.  When you add in the brief period during which efficacy is high (if true) the benefits fall further.

Furthermore, the analysis assumes the vaccine protects, assumes the vaccine does not ever make disease worse (ADE) and assumes everyone unvaccinated is going to get a symptomatic case of Covid, even though in kids most develop asymptomatic cases and many will probably never get Covid, since it is likely there is some cross protection from coronavirus-caused colds.

Myocarditis post-vaccination is minimized by choosing an age group of 18-39 to study rather than the 16-17 year olds, who have a higher rate. Glad one of the ACIP members asked for clarification.  The speaker gave no real explanation why they did not use teens.

Then when the issue of risk due to anaphylaxis arises, the VAERS reporting rate for anaphylaxis (4.7/million doses) is chosen, to drastically minimize that serious side effect.  This is the most important trick:  using the VAERS rates as the real world rates of adverse events. When we know from the MGH-Brigham study the real world rate of anaphylaxis was 50-100x higher.  We don't have data this reliable to estimate a real world myocarditis rate.

The CDC knows that if it puts the vaccine on the childhood schedule, it will be mandated for 16-17 year olds.

Based on ethics and the law, you cannot vaccinate children to lower the overall costs of healthcare, which is part of CDC's equation.  Further, Dr. Dooling pretends that racial and ethnic minorities might be discriminated against, or suffer other impediments in their attempts ot access vaccine.  She never says that minorities have CHOSEN to be vaccinated at the lowest voluntary rate in the US.  She never admits what everyone on this call knows--that the goal is to force minorities to take the vaccine, as they are the biggest holdouts.  She keep repeating the word equitable. Like 5 or 10 times.  Then she comes up with bogus reasons for minorities to remain unvaccinated, instead of saying that 75% refused because they do not trust government public health programs.

She never used the word choice. Nor that 16-17 year olds have had access to the vaccine for 8 months, and the only unvaccinated persons are those who chose not to vaccinate.

So what is the ACIP actually recommending? In the real world, they are recommending a vaccine mandate for 16-17 year olds that will disproportionately fall on the very minorities they claimed to champion.  And they are giving Pfizer a way to avoid all liability for a licensed vaccine.  Neither of these actual reasons for this vote have been spoken.

Here is another lie that CDC keeps repeating, while it has been proven wrong in Israel:  vaccination prevents severe disease.  And another lie:  the dread deadliness of Delta.

OMG, someone actually asked about the liability.  Someone tries to talk around this. Then she decides she better "turns it over to Amanda" "bobble-head" Cohn to do the verbal spaghetti. I was unable to decipher what Amanda said.  All I can say is that she dodged the question.

Someone points out that we don't know how the vaccine deals with Delta. All the data presented is pre-Delta.  Why won't someone say the vaccine has clearly been shown to have less efficacy against Delta and may have no efficacy against future strains?

Amanda is back talking about "challenges to equity" and leveraging things "in the service of equity." You just want to slap her upside the head.  They all know they are voting to force minorities to be jabbed, but no one admitted it.  The word mandate has not been used.  The liability issue has not been discussed.  But those are the only two reasons this meeting is being held.

Finally someone is telling about the CICP and NVICP, but naturally does not inform the public that only 3% of applicants have prevailed at the CICP so far.  As soon as a notice is published in the Federal Register the liability shield will go up.

Australian public health doctor answers a question, spills the beans--repeat Covid shots for the forseeable future. 1 minute

Extraordinary admissions.  Extraordinary facial expressions.  I typed exactly what she said:

"Booster doses, repeat doses will be part of it...  I can assure you that the Commonwealth government has purchased large quantities of vaccine into 2022 and this will be a regular cycle of vaccination and revaccination as we learn more aabout when immunity wanes"

https://twitter.com/razorback11111/status/1432161229179539460

A beautifully written tale of ivermectin and Rachel Maddow and the YES-NO, Right-Left divide

 https://dianeperlman-24337.medium.com/open-letter-and-challenge-for-rachel-maddow-d75cddde06e0

My "Under the Wire" interview from a few days ago

 My interview with Meryl Dorey from northern New South Wales, a longtime activist on health freedom.  My part starts about 17 minutes in.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KmN68FZTjd89/

Last month Public Health England recommended AGAINST Covid vaccinations for healthy children

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people

Press release

JCVI issues advice on COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is today advising that children at increased risk of serious coronavirus (COVID-19) disease are offered a vaccine.

From:  Public Health England
Published. 19 July 2021
Last updated 19 July 2021 — See all updates

Following a request from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for advice on a possible extension of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, the JCVI has looked at the available evidence around vaccinating children and young people under the age of 18.

From today, the JCVI is advising that children at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease are offered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

That includes children aged 12 to 15 with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.

The JCVI also recommends that children and young people aged 12 to 17 who live with an immunosuppressed person should be offered the vaccine. This is to indirectly protect their immunosuppressed household contacts, who are at higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 and may not generate a full immune response to vaccination.

Under existing advice, young people aged 16 to 17 with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious COVID-19 should have already been offered vaccination.

The JCVI is not currently advising routine vaccination of children outside of these groups, based on the current evidence.

As evidence shows that COVID-19 rarely causes severe disease in children without underlying health conditions, at this time the JCVI’s view is that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.

Almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19. Symptoms, when seen, are typically mild and fewer than 30 children have died because of COVID-19 in the UK as of March 2021.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is the only vaccine that has been authorised for children in the UK, for those aged 12 or older. This followed a US clinical trial in around 1,000 children aged 12 to 15 that found side effects in this group were generally short lived and mild to moderate.

Real-world data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children is currently limited, but there have been extremely rare reports of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in millions of younger adults.

Until more safety data is available and has been evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.

Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair of the JCVI, said:

The primary aim of the vaccination programme has always been to prevent hospitalisations and deaths. Based on the fact that previously well children, if they do get COVID-19, are likely to have a very mild form of the disease, the health benefits of vaccinating them are small.

The benefits of reducing transmission to the wider population from children are also highly uncertain, especially as vaccine uptake is very high in older people who are at highest risk from serious COVID-19 infection.

We will keep this advice under review as more safety and effectiveness information becomes available.

Operationally, it is considered reasonable to allow a lead-in time to offer vaccination to children who are within 3 months of their 18th birthday to ensure good uptake in newly turned 18-year-olds.

Public Health England press office

Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG

Emailphe-pressoffice@phe.gov.uk

In 2019, FDA's head of Epidemiology explained the FDA'a pharmacovigilance systems. These safety systems disappeared after Covid vaccines appeared

Below I have linked to a talk by Steve Anderson, PhD, the Direct or Epidemiology and Biostatistics at FDA's Center for Biologics (vaccines etc.)

Steve is the sorry scientist who "didn't get a signal" from his systems in June despite the fact that his systems reported that myocarditis in vaccinated male teenagers was occurring at 50 times the rate it was occurring in vaccinated males over 65.  Yet it had been reported in hundreds of kids. What does it take to get a signal? 

Not only that, the problem had been reported in Israel a full 2 months earlier.  But Steve's systems, touted for the hundreds of millions of data points they encompassed, failed to even hint at a problem.

I don't know what you call that, but I call it fraud.  Some elephants in the room are just too big to be missed.

Director Steve Anderson, with numerous MDs and PhDs working under him, seems not to have asked the question why, when male teenagers are developing cardiac complications at high rates, not a single one of his systems flashed red?

There are only two possible answers.  Either the data were cooked, or the algorithms by which they were evaluated were cooked.  Which is it, Steve?

Here is a slide presentation from 2019, the good old days before Covid, when Steve could brag about his BEST system.  You know, the one that we have not heard mentioned once since October 2020. Yet another elephant in the room.

https://pharm.ucsf.edu/sites/pharm.ucsf.edu/files/cersi/media-browser/Steve%20Anderson.pdf

A media bait and switch on ivermectin

STAT News, a medical online news service that includes Pharma-paid content, issued an article by Elizabeth Cooney, citing CDC this morning.  The powers that be fear they are losing control of the suppression of ivermectin, a highly effective drug for Covid that was derived originally from a soil organism in Japan. 

Look at the article for a couple of seconds.  The text says that Ivermectin calls to poison control centers spike.  Immediately below it is a graph with a spike.

Except, the spike is the number of prescriptions for ivermectin that were dispensed by pharmacists during the week of August 13.  I probably wrote some of them.  It has nothing to do with calls to poison control centers.  In fact, though the texts says CALLS to poison centers have spiked, the author only cites two people who took excessive amounts and required hospitalization.  Were the calls perhaps simply inquiring about the drug?

The federal powers that be are trying to stop people accessing this safe and effective drug for Covid.  We must not let them succeed.

Ivermectin calls to poison control centers spike

THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OUTPATIENT IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTIONS DISPENSED FROM U.S. RETAIL PHARMACIES FROM MARCH 2019 TO AUGUST 2021. (CDC/IQVIA NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION AUDIT WEEKLY DATABASE)

Last month, U.S. poison control centers fielded five times the pre-pandemic number of calls about ivermectin, the antiparasitic that's been touted to fight Covid-19 despite zero evidence that it works.  The calls align with a recent spike in outpatient ivermectin prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies, which climbed to more than 88,000 in the week ending Aug. 13 — a 24-fold increase from before the pandemic. The medicine — which some people got via over-the-counter veterinary formulations — has serious side effects, landing people in hospital emergency rooms. Some people have been ingesting creams or lotions meant for animals. Two examples from the CDC’s warning yesterday:

• One man drank an injection intended for cattle. He ended up with confusion, drowsiness, visual hallucinations, abnormally rapid breathing, tremors, and a nine-day hospital stay. 
• One person, later hospitalized, was disoriented and had trouble answering questions and following commands after swallowing five days of tablets bought on the internet.

BIG NEWS!!! You cannot be forced to get the Covid vaccine. Here is the way out.

Let me show you how FDA, Pfizer and BioNTech colluded to fool everyone about the EUA status of the vaccine Americans will be offered.  But close reading of their document gives you an escape route.  The "Fact Sheet for Recipients, "dated August 23, 2021, is approved by FDA and is on FDA's website, and is signed by BioNTech and Pfizer.

Direct quotes from this easy to read 8 page document are below, and I suggest you print the document out, as it will help you avoid a vaccine mandate.  Pay close attention.  I added numbers to the most interesting excerpts.

After stating that you might receive the licensed vaccine or a vaccine under EUA in item 2, item 6 indicates that both the licensed vaccine AND the EUA vaccine are both under EUA.  (This may be the way chosen to shield the licensed vaccine from liability.) Item 5 says that while under EUA, it is your choice whether or not to receive the vaccine.

Show this document to your college, your hospital, your boss. They cannot force you to receive either of these vaccines!

-----------------

1.  The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.[1]

2. You are being offered either COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.

3. The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.

4.  WHAT IF I DECIDE NOT TO GET COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) OR THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?

5.  Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.

6.  This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed. 

Manufactured by Pfizer Inc., New York, NY 10017 

Manufactured for BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH An der Goldgrube 12 55131 Mainz, Germany LAB-1451-7.2 Revised: 23 August 2021 

FDA says licensed vaccines are identical but distinct. Are EUA AND approved. FDA wants to have its cake and eat it too. Don't let them.

How has FDA attempted to explain the confusing and contradictory information it issued on Monday?  Look at FDA's word salad:

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

"Will the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine remain in effect after the approval?

The EUA will continue to cover adolescents 12 through 15 years of age and the administration of a third dose to certain immunocompromised individuals 12 years of age and older. Additionally, for logistical reasons, the EUA will continue to cover the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID 19 Vaccine in individuals 16 years of age and older; this use is also now approved."

Sorry, FDA, you are lying in the prior sentence.  A vial of vaccine is either approved (licensed) or authorized under EUA.  It cannot be both, unless the licensed drug/vaccine is being used off-label.  In fact, you pointed out that the vaccine under EUA, compared to the fully approved, licensed vaccine, was "legally distinct."  And in the paragraph below you contradict yourself, saying providers can use the EUA vaccine as if it was approved. A licensed vaccine, being used for the purpose for which it was licensed, is not supposed to get an EUA liability waiver.  It's one more scam.--Nass

How is Comirnaty (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) related to the PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?

The FDA-approved Pfizer-BioNTech product Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under EUA have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns.  Therefore, providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed doses. The Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers provides additional information about both the approved and authorized vaccine."

On October 22, FDA had an advisory meeting to discuss Covid vaccines in general.. The presenters were upbeat, showing loads of new data sets that would-be used to monitor the safety of Covid vaccines

Friday, July 16, 2021.  . REPOST

FDA promised very extensive surveillance for adverse effects of Covid vaccines--presentation to FDA VRBPAC Advisory Committee, October 22, 2020

https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download

It should be apparent that FDA was aware by October 22, 2020 of many of the side effects of Covid vaccines that the public only learned about later.  It should also be apparent that FDA (and CDC has access to even more methods for surveillance) has many databases to learn about vaccine safety--whose data are being hidden from the public.  The EUA statute requires that known benefits and risks be provided to potential vaccine recipients.  That is not happening.

The first slide below, "Slide 17" at the URL above, would suggest that FDA was well aware, presumably from the clinical trials, of all the severe adverse events that have subsequently been publicized.  But if FDA knew about these 9 months ago, it has been slow to tell the public.  For instance, we only just learned about Guillain Barre syndrome last week being a known adverse effect.  I have seen no evidence these databases are actually functional.

 

Just how much COVID-19 vaccine money (and how many doses per person) is on the table? A whopping $157 Billion through 2025, report says (and 8 doses apiece)/ Fierce Pharma

 Sunday, May 2, 2021.    REPOSTING

It is hard for me to fathom what is going on.  The article below indicates that the Pharma industry does not think Covid will be going away; instead it will switch from pandemic to endemic, with outbreaks here and there--apparently justifying lots of vaccine boosters. Harvard's Marc Lipsitch, PhD had this interesting comment in the May 3 NY Times:

Reaching a high level of immunity in the population “is not like winning a race,” Dr. Lipsitch said. “You have to then feed it. You have to keep vaccinating to stay above that threshold.” 

Moderna says it will produce up to1 billion doses of vaccine in 2021, but it is expanding and expects to produce 3 billion doses/year starting next year.

UPDATE May 4:  Pfizer says they will produce 3 billion vaccine doses in 2021.

Netanyahu says Israelis need to anticipate another shot for themselves, and their children (after the first 2 Pfizer doses) in 6 months.  Two month ago, Netanyahu was looking to buy 36 million more doses, 3 times what had already been purchased.

On March 11, 2021, the Washington Post reported that the US had bought enough vaccine to fully immunize 3 times as many adults as live in the US--nearly 8 doses per person, since most comes from Moderna and Pfizer.

So, if we are truly anticipating that Covid will become an endemic illness, don't we instead require a better, more long-lasting vaccine, instead of untested shots that need to be repeated every six months, and whose longterm side effects are a huge question mark?

Why does the EU (9 shots pp), Israel (8 shots pp) and the US (almost 8 shots pp) need so many shots? 

Since there is no need to vaccinate those who have recovered, and some estimates are that they include half the population, but doses have been bought for everyone, and CDC insists we all need them--is this not actually about Covid protection?  It is certainly possible the immunity the shots provide will last for years. Do the powers that be have a telescope into the future? How can they possibly know that everyone needs so many injections? Or that the shots will be safe in children and babies?  Why is there no visible concern for possible side effects?

More and more and more studies are showing that the Spike protein, the main immunizing ingredient in all the licensed Covid vaccines, is actually dangerous, causing damage to blood vessels throughout the body, including the brain.

What is really going on? What is the true reason for these vaccinations?  Why was the spike protein chosen as the main antigen for all the Covid vaccines? 

From FiercePharma:

Drugmakers who seized the opportunity to develop vaccines against the coronavirus are on their way to reaping significant revenues.

Exactly how much money is on the table?

In its annual forecast for global drug spending, the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science put the figure at $157 billion through 2025.

It’s one of the many intriguing projections in this edition of IQVIA's annual drug spending forecast, the group’s first since the coronavirus pandemic put the worldwide economy on tilt.

For example, IQVIA projects global spending on medicines to reach $1.6 trillion by 2025, an increase from $1.25 trillion in 2019, representing annual growth of 3% to 6%. The $1.6 trillion figure does not include spending on coronavirus vaccines.

“We reflect what we expect to be happening over the next five years in terms of the drivers of change in demand for medicines and spending on medicines,” IQVIA executive director Murray Aitken explained in an interview.

In regard to global COVID-19 vaccine spending, IQVIA projects roughly $53 billion this year and $51 billion in 2022. The group sees a precipitous drop in total spending in 2023, to roughly $23 billion. 

The spending decrease over time can be attributed mostly to a drop in price rather than demand, Aitken said. While IQVIA puts the average cost per dose at $22 this year and $19 in 2022, Aitken sees prices falling to approximately $9 per dose by 2023, then to $7 by 2024 and all the way to $5 by 2025.

“We think the prices will keep coming down as we get beyond this immediate period of trying to get everyone vaccinated,” Aitken said. “There are 11 vaccines in use in one part of the world or the other and there may be more coming, so we can expect that prices will decline over time.”

Other factors that will influence global vaccine spending include an increased availability of single-shot options, an increased supply to developing countries and the need for booster shots for those who have already been vaccinated.

In coming to its estimates, IQVIA also took into consideration planned global manufacturing capacity, vaccinations to date, announced rollout strategies and company contracts.

The group assumed an average of 1.8 vaccine doses per person this year and next. From 2023 to 2025, when boosters will presumably be in use and more single-shot vaccinations will be available, IQVIA shifts the average to 1.3 doses per person.

Another assumption in the model: IQVIA believes that by the end this year, 40% of the world’s population will be in countries that have achieved herd mentality. By the end of 2022, 70% of the world’s population will be vaccinated.

For the purpose of the estimate, IQVIA also assumed one-shot boosters on a two-year cycle in the 2023 to 2025 period, though this issue has yet to be resolved by vaccine producers.

Making projections during a pandemic is risky business, IQVIA admits in its report. 

“The impact of COVID-19 defied expectations throughout 2020 but the evolution from pandemic to endemic is reasonably certain even if the interplay between vaccination levels and periodic outbreaks around the world remains challenging to predict," the group said.