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

This story was censored on Medium (above) after 48 hours, and it is hard to find when you search for it.  But here it is:

https://coronawise.substack.com/p/open-letter-and-challenge-for-rachel

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.

The FDA's "approval" of Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine is a Bait and Switch that makes mandates illegal

 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/

2 Things Mainstream Media Didn’t Tell You About FDA’s Approval of Pfizer Vaccine

Buried in the fine print of Monday’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are two critical facts that affect whether the vaccine can be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries. 

By 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Meryl Nass, M.D. 

7

Link copied

Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.

The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now requiredthe vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.

But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency’s cynicism.

First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has insufficient stocks of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — available for use.

The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

Second, the FDA pointed out that both the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, and the existing vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

There is a huge real-world difference between products under an EUA compared with those that FDA has fully licensed. EUA products are experimental under US law.

Both the Nuremberg Code and Federal Regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-authorized vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products.

The program’s parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date — and not a single COVID vaccine injury — despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from an generous retinue of liability protections.

But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford’s exploding Pinto, or Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.

And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

The FDA’s clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.

Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume that COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.

While the media has trumpeted that the FDA has approved COVID vaccines, the FDA has not approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, nor any COVID vaccines for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.

And FDA has not licensed any Moderna vaccine, nor any vaccine from Johnson & Johnson — so the vast majority of vaccines available in the US, if not all, remain unlicensed EUA products.

Here’s what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says “Comirnaty,” it’s a licensed product. If it says “Pfizer-BioNTech,” it’s an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse.

If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.

The FDA is playing bait and switch with the American public — but we don’t have to play along. If it doesn’t say Comirnaty, you have not been offered an approved vaccine.