Just in case you thought there really was some Comirnaty in the US and Pfizer was really going to stand by its product, and sell it while it was subject to ordinary product liability claims, watch this less than 1 minute video.
In it, the head of the World Bank explains that Pfizer is unwilling to sell its vaccine to any country unless it is given a waiver of liability.
Let me again point out that the mass use of EUA products presents a "perfect storm." Manufacturers are incentivized not to test, not to collect data, and to claim that their products are safe and effective. It is only if they KNOW there is a problem that they could potentially be sued. And when millions of people get the vaccine at the same time, they are vaccinated before the evidence becomes available.
So the manufacturers just don't know. Their clinical trials are specially designed not to collect the information that might tarnish the product. FDA colludes with allowing this biased collection and very short-term trials, and colludes in ending the control group asap.
Except of course the mfrs know. Because if they really thought they had a good product, they would sell it without the waiver of liability.
https://conspiracies.win/p/140JFUYiJw/president-of-the-world-bank-expl/c/
5 comments:
I agree that the incentives at every level are toward avoiding any inquiry that is likely to reveal problems. But the regulators still want to maintain a few fig leafs around their otherwise total lack of independence.
In fact, regarding the one safety issue that these regulators have admitted, namely around myo- and pericarditis, I recall that the FDA's licensing letter specifically tasked Pfizer to do a post-licensing subclinical study, e.g. lab work on troponin levels before and after the vax.
I was interested to hear, in the recent Project Veritas series on Pfizer - I believe it was Part 4 - the information that the company does appear to be following through with this kind of study.
Will be interesting to see if the results ever see the light of day. That's part of the urgency of ramping up inoculations before they do, no doubt. But the fact that a post-licensing study of subclinical myocarditis is underway is something we should be paying attention to.
I think there are 4 studies underway which will provide their reports between 2024 and 2027--long after every American will have been jabbed, if the Biden admin has their way with us.
The studies in babies under 6 months will have been long completed by then. Pfizer must present FDA with its plan to study these infants by end of Jan 2022.
Tonight I noticed a study that separated the younger male kids from older teens and the rate in the 12-15 year olds was 1/6,000 second doses, while the rate in the 16-17 year olds was 1/11,000 second doses.
So why have the federal agencies claimed that 5-11 yeaer olds will have less myocarditis than the yonger kids, when all the data suggests otherwise?
I'm appalled at how they are pushing this for kids. From Santa Clara Public Health: https://youtu.be/wjafGK3I3fw?t=46
This pediatrician says this about whether there are long term side effects for kids:
"There are really no long term side effects."
How can she say this? How can she possibly know?
"This vaccine has been studied in great detail"
This is a common dodge I see, but just because something has been studied doesn't automatically mean it is safe. It's a lazy, misleading way to make an argument.
Regarding whether the shots cause fertility problems:
"The answer is no. There are no reports that this will affect your child's fertility in the future."
Just because there are no reports, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. And at the least there have been reports about stillborn deaths. I've personally know women with severe menstrual problems after the shot, so it's at least a temporary possibility.
Vaccines have this type of almost cult-like belief system surrounding them. Plus, with public health, apparently you can say anything you want.
Thank you, Dr. Nass.
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/dailymed-announcements-details.cfm?date=2021-09-13 might clear up the Comirnaty question. But it shouldn't be this hard to find.
As for the federal agencies claiming that kids ages 5-11 will have less myocarditis, that's probably the tromethamine card trick that FDA/Pfizer seem to be playing (https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine#additional; I sent a post to you about this on a different page; sorry I didn't see this page first!).
Thanks, Dr. Nass, for the additional points and information. That is a shockingly large difference between the two age groups, and even more shocking that they would ignore the implication of a reasonable extrapolation to even younger age groups.
Note that they should have the ability to do additional tests, even without collecting any new data, regarding this extrapolation, by looking at differences by age within the 12-15 year old subgroup.
Post a Comment