Tag: covid-19

COVID Vaccine Shedding Is ‘Real,’ FDA and Pfizer Documents Are Proof: Clinicians

The topic of COVID-19 vaccine shedding has long been controversial; now, some doctors say it is real.

“Shedding is unfortunately real,” said Dr. Pierre Kory at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) conference in Phoenix, Arizona, in early February. “The FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) knows that.”

Dr. Kory is a co-founder of the FLCCC, a non-profit advocacy group founded by physicians for the treatment of COVID-19, long COVID, and postvaccine syndromes. He is also the co-founder of the Leading Edge Clinic and has treated over a thousand long-COVID and postvaccine patients.

Mainstream fact-checkers have largely denied shedding on the basis of definition. The commonly cited definition comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, which defines shedding as the release of viruses, bacteria, and their components from live vaccines.

While mRNA and adenovirus vaccines are not live vaccines, they function similarly to gene therapy products.

All gene therapy products pose a risk of shedding, according to the FDA.

Keep reading

ASIAN MEDICAL EXPERTS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE HALT TO COVID JABS

A panel of experts in Japan called the ‘Vaccine Issues Study Group’ is calling for an immediate halt to the use of COVID mRNA gene therapy, marketed to the public as ‘vaccines.’

The group includes eminent medical and science academics, such as Masanori Fukushima (Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University), Yasufumi Murakami (Professor of Science at Tokyo University) and Masayasu Inoue (Professor Emeritus, School of Medicine at Osaka City University).

The group said they had identified 201 diseases which are caused by the mRNA gene therapy, in addition to 3,071 side effect papers. The documented side effects and diseases were from ‘all fields of medicine’, and affected ‘all organs without exception.’

As a cancer specialist Fukushima said he was well aware of the side effects from chemotherapy, but the pattern of those were ‘pre-determined and well-known.’

The side effects from COVID ‘vaccination’ however were not ‘pre-determined’ with multiple side effects and diseases occuring ‘simultaneously throughout the entire body.’

Murakami noted the tendency for mulitple COVID jab side effects to present simultaneously and affect ‘whole families.’

According to the panel, the cause of the side effects and disease was well-known – the spike protein found in the ‘vaccines’ was toxic. The Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) used to deliver it were also highly dangerous to human health.

‘The major problem is we are injecting two toxic substances into people, one of which makes human cells produce the spike proteins. Since the immune system will attack this, this causes very violent reactions.’

Keep reading

CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway.

According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in the Disinformation Chronicle,, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

“But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

Keep reading

U.S. Military Told Pharma Exec the Virus “Posed a National Security Threat” on February 4th 2020 – Weeks Before a Single Death Occurred

A leaked recording obtained by investigator and writer Sasha Latypova features an executive at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca stating the following:

It wasn’t a surprise to me when I got a call on February 4th from the Defence Department here in the U.S. saying that the newly discovered SARS-2 virus posed a national security threat.

This is an astonishing, major-newspaper headline-worthy revelation.

Here’s what was happening on February 4th 2020:

Virus activity in the U.S.:

  • According to CNN, on February 4th there were 11 “confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus” in the United States. 
  • There were zero reported deaths from the virus in the U.S.
  • As documented in my recently launched Covid Timeline Wiki Project, the New York Times had two headlines about the virus focused on China and travellers from Wuhan. There were no op-eds on the virus.

Virus activity internationally:

  • Approximately 490 reported deaths.
  • The disease caused by the virus had not even been named “COVID-19” yet.
  • The WHO said the outbreak “was not yet a pandemic”.

Behind-the-scenes virus-related activity: EUA & PREP Act:

  • Crucially, the FDA and HHS declared the first emergency basis for issuance of Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for Covid on February 4th. 
  • EUA is an authority that was granted to the FDA “to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological agents”.
  • As explained in a previous article, EUA powers were granted to the FDA to be used in situations of grave, immediate emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. They were intended to allow the use of countermeasures against biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological (CBRN) agents without going through all the usual steps of ensuring safety and efficacy, because the immediate threat of the CBRN attack would be so much greater than any potential risks caused by the countermeasure.
  • In conjunction with EUA, PREP Act protection was also granted retroactively to February 4th (announced March 17th). The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, as noted in a previous article, legally indemnifies from all liability anyone who does anything related to a product that receives Emergency Use Authorisation. Again, this was intended for very extreme emergency situations involving CBRN agents, so that if a countermeasure caused harm while being used during the attack, no one would get sued.

Origins cover-up:

  • Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes and others in the international group of gain-of-function funders and researchers were conspiring to publish multiple documents denying the possibility that the virus could have emerged from the virus lab they were funding and working with in Wuhan, China.
  • Emily Kopp at U.S. Right to Know has compiled a detailed timeline of these activities, many of which occurred on the days just before and just after February 4th 2020.

Keep reading

COVID Vaccine Injuries Deserve a Day in Court

Some 270 million Americans received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Tens of thousands have since claimed they suffered a COVID vaccine injury, ranging from minor side effects to severe adverse reactions. Around 9,000 of those people have requested compensation through the only legal avenue available to them—the federal government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

To date, the CICP has paid only $30,855 to just eight claimants. Another 1,588 people have had their claims turned down—making for a 98 percent rejection rate. Thousands more have been left waiting with no response. If their claims are also rejected by the program, they have no other means of ever getting compensation.

Typically, someone who’s been injured by a product, medical or otherwise, would be within his rights to sue the manufacturer in a state court. Since the 1980s, federal liability protections prevent people from suing vaccine makers.

But under the decades-old National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), people claiming an injury from a non-COVID vaccine are given an alternative to standard civil litigation. Injured patients instead sue the federal government in special vaccine courts, where both sides have lawyers, a special master (judge) decides claims, and people can appeal rejected compensation requests to higher courts. VICP petitioners need only show a preponderance of the evidence that they were injured by a vaccine—a relatively low burden of proof. The VICP approves about half of all claims and pays out $200 million a year (all funded by an excise tax levied on vaccine doses).

The CICP is nothing like this. The program has its origins in a piece of war on terror legislation intended to create liability protections for makers of novel, emergency countermeasures to bioweapon attacks and the like.

Keep reading

Some Service Members Say They Were ‘Coerced’ Into Taking COVID-19 Vaccine: Survey

In an independent survey conducted by the author last fall, 229 individuals currently serving in the U.S. military voluntarily participated by responding to a multitude of questions. Results helped to reveal the difficulties faced by some members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were confronted by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s August 2021 military vaccine mandate.

Part of the anonymous questionnaire addressed the COVID-19 vaccine status of the participating service member, various details about the now-rescinded military vaccine mandate, as well as the deliberate coercion faced by many who opposed it.

All branches of the military as well as enlisted and officer ranks responded to the survey. Survey participants served in the military for an average of about 16 years.

Out of the 229 participants, 169 were active duty service members. Eighty-seven percent, or 199, were unvaccinated against COVID-19. Of the 30 who were vaccinated, only two said they had wanted to do it.

Twenty out of 30 individuals who admitted taking the vaccine claim they were injured by the vaccine. Ninety-three percent of the participants said they know someone they believe has been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Epoch Times spoke to two of the survey’s participants who used a pseudonym out of concern about reprisals. Both emphasized that their views don’t reflect those of the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force, respectively.

Keep reading

The Plot Thickens: Uncovering the CIA & Rockefeller Foundation’s Role in the 2025 Depopulation Forecast released by Deagel

In a world where reality often seems stranger than fiction, the machinations behind global events can be an enigma wrapped in mystery.

One such intrigue revolves around Deagel.com, an obscure online entity known for its exhaustive data on military capabilities and eyebrow-raising depopulation forecasts for 2025.

We can reveal that recent findings appear to link Deagel directly to significant players on the world stage: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)/ The Pentagon, and The Rockefeller Foundation.

And current real-world data on excess deaths in the West strongly suggest Deagel’s depopulation forecast is not just an estimation but in fact, a target that is on track to be hit thanks to the deadly effects of Covid-19 vaccination.

Keep reading

Biden Cried ‘Book Ban,’ Then Pressured Amazon To Ban His Opponents From World’s Biggest Bookstore

Democrats and their accomplices in the media have expended an awful lot of ink, breath, and energy trying to convince voters that people on the right want to “ban books.”

The leftist firestorm attacks concerned parents working to eradicate pornography and other age-inappropriate books from taxpayer-funded schools and libraries. These works include titles such as All Boys Aren’t Blue, which contains descriptions of rape, incest, and pedophilia, and Gender Queer, which shows graphic depictions of oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual acts.

Democrat activists have come out in full-throated defense of explicit sexual content for children and likened conservatives who oppose it to Nazis who want to burn books. Last month, MSNBC host Joy Reid grilled the co-founder of Moms for Liberty about why parents should have any say in how their tax dollars are used and argued that kids who identify as LGBT “feel seen” by stories about child rape.

One Democrat governor ironically argued that Republican efforts to shield children from age-inappropriate content are “castrating them.” President Joe Biden has also smeared Republicans for “banning books,” and even announced during “pride month” that he would appoint a “book ban coordinator” to make sure schools weren’t removing filth from their shelves.

That’s why it was so ridiculous to learn this week that all while Democrats were shrieking about pornography “book bans,” the Biden White House was actively “pressuring” Amazon, the world’s largest bookseller, to nuke books that raised concerns about experimental Covid-19 shots. It’s a pretty good bet that’s not the only topic the White House pressured Amazon to ban, either.

According to internal documents and emails subpoenaed by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, senior Biden official Andy Slavitt, who pressured Facebook to censor speech, was pushing Amazon to ban books disagreeing with Democrat policies.

Because Slavitt didn’t like the “concerning” results that turned up when he searched Amazon books for “vaccines,” he emailed the corporation on March 2, 2021, to ask to whom Biden officials could speak about “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon.” The vaccine debate was, and is still, ongoing. But the White House was mad that Amazon didn’t slap a warning from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention onto books that stepped out of line from the government’s Covid claims.

Keep reading

Lockdowns Were Counterterrorism, Not Public Health 

As previously reported, in the United States, the Covid pandemic response was designed and led by the national security branches of government, not by any public health agency or official. 

Furthermore, we do not have a public record of what the national security pandemic plan actually stated. 

So what? You might ask. Why should we care if Covid policy was determined by the National Security Council (NSC) instead of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)? What’s so bad about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) taking over as lead federal agency for pandemic response, replacing Health and Human Services (HHS)?

National security is about protecting us from threats of war and terrorism

The answer to these questions is, in short, that the national security pandemic response plans, devised under the rubric of biodefense, are aimed at countering bioterrorism attacks. They focus on preventing hostile actors from obtaining bioweapons, surveilling for potential bioweapons use, and developing medical countermeasures. 

According to the World Health Organization, “biological and toxin weapons are either microorganisms like virus, bacteria or fungi, or toxic substances produced by living organisms that are produced and released deliberately to cause disease and death in humans, animals or plants.” 

In the rare event of an actual bioweapons attack – the biodefense strategy can be summarized as quarantine-until-vaccine: keep individuals as isolated from the bioweapon as possible, for as long as necessary, until you have an effective medical countermeasure (medicine/vaccine). 

Keep reading

Moderna Scientists Warn mRNA Vaccines Carry Toxicity Risks

The technology used in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine carries toxicity risks, scientists with the company said in a new paper.

“A major challenge now is how to efficiently de-risk potential toxicities associated with mRNA technology,” the scientists wrote in the paper, which was published by Nature Reviews Drug Discovery on Jan. 23.

The Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 shots use modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. The mRNA is delivered by lipid nanoparticles (LNP).

The toxicity risks include “lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs,” the authors of the paper said.

Authors of the paper include Eric Jacquinet and Dimitrios Bitounis, Moderna employees, and Maximillian Rogers, who was working at Moderna when the paper was being done.

Moderna didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The mRNA vaccines have multiple known side effects, including heart inflammation and severe allergic shock. Those may stem from hypersensitivity reactions, which can be elicited by “any LNP-mRNA component” but are most likely triggered by PEGlyated lipid nanoparticles, which is “the most potentially reactogenic component,” the scientists said.

Polyethylene glycol, or PEG, an ingredient in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, is known to cause allergic reactions. Outside scientists are divided over the mechanism behind the heart inflammation, while Pfizer has posited that the LNPs are behind the issue.

The new paper drew from prior publications and other data. The authors didn’t carry out any new experiments.

Keep reading