Tag: safety

What Does a Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Study Look Like?

New vaccines should be proven safe before they are accepted onto the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine schedule.

Here is what is actually happening: Vaccine companies are doing studies that claim to demonstrate the safety of new vaccines but are carefully designed and conducted to intentionally hide the toxicity of these vaccines.

To see how this is done, read on.

What does an honest vaccine safety study look like? 

An honest safety study must have a test group that gets the vaccine and a control group that gets a harmless placebo. Injuries and deaths are compared in the two groups.

If the test group has many more adverse events than the placebo control group, the vaccine is not safe.

Most people would be shocked to learn that none of the vaccines on the CDC vaccine schedule have been safety tested in this way.

What does a fraudulent vaccine safety study look like? 

Rule No. 1 for conducting a fraudulent study: Do not have a placebo control group. Here is where the fraud is happening: The “control group” is deliberately given something that is as toxic as the vaccine being tested. It can be an older vaccine or the vaccine ingredients minus the antigen.

The results will show that the injuries and deaths are similar in both groups. That is because they are both receiving toxic ingredients. The new vaccine is then illogically declared safe.

If there is no placebo control group, the toxicity of the vaccine is hidden. This is both clever and diabolical. Can you see it?

Keep reading

FDA Lets Chemical Companies Decide if Recycled Plastics Are Safe for Food Containers

Recycled content in food packaging is increasing as sustainability advocates press manufacturers to cut their use of virgin plastic.

Since 1990, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for ensuring food contact materials are safe, has approved at least 347 voluntary manufacturer applications for food contact materials made with recycled plastic, according to a database on its website.

Approvals have tripled in recent years, from an average of 7 to 8 per year through 2019, to 23 per year since then, and they continue to climb. The FDA has already approved 27 proposals through June this year.

Other than Coca-Cola, most manufacturers seeking approval are petrochemical giants such as Eastman Chemicals, Dupont and Indorama; and lesser-known plastic packaging manufacturers, including many from China, India and other countries.

The end buyers of the recycled materials aren’t included in the FDA database, but many popular brands are using recycled content. Cadbury chocolate bars come in a wrapper marketed as 30% recycled “soft plastic packaging.”

The Coca-Cola Co. in North America reports it sells soft drinks in 100% recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, while General Mills says its Annie’s cereal boxes use a liner made from 35% recycled plastic film.

Increasing recycled content in packaging may be good news for the planet, but researchers say the FDA has a lax approval process for plastic food packaging that hasn’t kept pace with the science on chemical hazards in plastics.

The agency’s approval process for recycled plastics is voluntary and ignores the potential risk of chemical mixtures, researchers told Environmental Health News (EHN). Companies can seek guidance on their recycling process, but they are not required to.

In addition, the FDA relies on manufacturers’ test data when it approves materials, leaving companies essentially in charge of policing themselves. Meanwhile, some studies show that recycled plastic can harbor even more toxic chemicals — such as bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates, benzene and others — than virgin plastic.

Keep reading

FDA Lets Chemical Companies Decide if Recycled Plastics Are Safe for Food Containers

Recycled content in food packaging is increasing as sustainability advocates press manufacturers to cut their use of virgin plastic.

Since 1990, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for ensuring food contact materials are safe, has approved at least 347 voluntary manufacturer applications for food contact materials made with recycled plastic, according to a database on its website.

Approvals have tripled in recent years, from an average of 7 to 8 per year through 2019, to 23 per year since then, and they continue to climb. The FDA has already approved 27 proposals through June this year.

Other than Coca-Cola, most manufacturers seeking approval are petrochemical giants such as Eastman Chemicals, Dupont and Indorama; and lesser-known plastic packaging manufacturers, including many from China, India and other countries.

The end buyers of the recycled materials aren’t included in the FDA database, but many popular brands are using recycled content. Cadbury chocolate bars come in a wrapper marketed as 30% recycled “soft plastic packaging.”

Keep reading

People Who Take Ozempic, Wegovy 45% More Likely to Have Suicidal Thoughts

People who take the popular weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy are 45% more likely to have suicidal thoughts than people taking other drugs, according to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Researchers from the Zucker School of Medicine in New York reviewed a World Health Organization global database of adverse drug effects between November 2000 and August 2023.

They compared reporting rates for semaglutide — the active ingredient in the blockbuster drugs — to other similar weight-loss drugs and all drugs in the database. They found that semaglutide was associated with “disproportionately increased reporting of suicidality.”

“Authorities should consider issuing a warning to inform about this risk,” the authors concluded, particularly given the increasing off-label use of the drug. They said in half of the cases where suicidal thoughts occurred, the drug was being taken off-label.

The signal “warrants urgent clarification,” they added.

The researchers also found a higher risk for suicidal thoughts among people on antidepressants or benzodiazepines, likely prescribed for depression or anxiety, who were also taking semaglutide.

They recommended that physicians who prescribe semaglutide inform patients of the risk and assess their psychiatric history and mental state before prescribing the drug.

Keep reading

UK doctors who challenge vaccine safety feel the GMC has helped to put a target on their backs

A group of health professionals have expressed concern to the General Medical Council (“GMC”) about the use of GMC referrals against doctors speaking out about the safety of the covid-19 injections.

They highlighted cases of doctors facing fitness to practise investigations and job losses due to their public expression of safety concerns.  And they urged the GMC to protect whistle-blowers reporting covid-19 vaccine harms.

In response, GMC Chair Professor Carrie MacEwen said that healthcare needs a culture where doctors can feel they can speak out about concerns for patient safety. 

However, in their response to Prof. MacEwen, the group expressed the lack of reassurance among doctors regarding protection when raising patient concerns and raised the online harassment and death threats that doctors receive for raising concerns about the safety of covid injections – which is a concern for patient safety. 

These concerns are often expressed online because doctors are being ignored when they raise them through the official channels.  And, despite a doctor’s right to freedom of expression being upheld in the High Court, the GMC continues to investigate reports referred to them of doctors who express concerns about vaccine safety online.

Prof. MacEwen responded again but failed to adequately address the points raised by the doctors.

“It is hard to dispel the feeling among dissident doctors that there is a target over their heads, with certain hostile actors itching to find any excuse for a GMC referral,” the HART Group said.

Keep reading

New Zealand Prime Minister laughs as he announces removal of food safety laws so lab-made products can be released onto the market

Last week in New Zealand, Judith Collins, Minister for Science and Technology, and Chris Luxon, Prime Minister, decided to introduce a policy change with a Laurel and Hardy double act on Twitter; it was full of bonhomie and laughter designed to mask a sinister intent.

Laural and Hardy were announcing new biotechnology gene editing laws.

Deregulation of biotechnology will contain provisions that take away our basic human rights of choice. They will change the face of our small island nation forever – yes, forever, Dr, Guy Hatchard says.

According to their vaudeville performance, biotechnology deregulation will enable amazing scientists to mitigate climate change, improve our health, boost our horticulture, and grow our economy. Collins effused “it is so great to be part of this government.”Luxon agreed, calling it “an amazing day.” As he sees it, some laws formulated in 1996 to protect consumers make no sense in 2024 because they prevent incredibly smart biotechnology scientists from releasing their products into the environment without having to go through public scrutiny.

Luxon added, “We’re going to make sure we do it safely, don’t worry about that”(at this point Luxon appeared to be channelling Jacinda Ardern). It would be easy to poke fun, but the consequences are too far-reaching and serious for levity. The 1996 laws do not prevent biotech food products from reaching the market as Luxon implied. Instead, they require that gene-altered ingredients be labelled as such. In other words, Luxon is taking away our right of consumer choice, our right to know what we are eating. In the near future “incredibly smart scientists” will be deciding for us.

Aside from our right to know, there is one other very important reason for the 1996 law. It involves one word “traceability.” If novel gene-altered food substitutes are not labelled, there will be no way for anyone to find out if they are causing illness. Compulsory food labelling has been a fundamental part of our global food safety system since it was first introduced in 1913. Bypassing this principle is a key strategy of biotech marketing for the simple reason that consumers don’t want biotech foods and manufacturers don’t want to face lawsuits. Thus, in one stroke Luxon’s government has taken us back into the 19th century world of food adulteration, in his words: “amazing.”

Watching the video of Luxon and Collins I was forcibly struck by how far out of touch they are with reality. They appeared to me as a pair of simpletons smirking and chuckling with glee as they thought they could pass off iron pyrites as gold. We are still in the shadow of a pandemic era where incredibly “intelligent scientists” (???)were given free rein and funding to develop a deadly virus and then a botched vaccine that killed rather than cured.

Keep reading

Pharmacide; Killing Us Softly

To many, scientific lingo is as indecipherable as hieroglyphics, not to mention all the confusing opinions of experts, drug salesmen, supplement salesmen and a corrupted phalanx of government “protective” agencies/protecting the bottom lines of the healthcare monopoly.

Who could trust anything after evil Golem Fauci’s weaponized flu and fraudulent vaxxxines killed millions. He has been shaking down congress every few years for decades just to fund phony drug solutions for “pandemics” like swine flu, AIDS, MPOX and Zika to enrich corporate cronies and complicit colleagues.   But that’s only the tip of the iceberg; crooked medicine has been crippling and killing millions each year for at least a century!!!

If anyone can sift truth from the coercive douchebaggery of government trolled/controlled mass media, please get in touch.

The Rockefeller business model depended on eliminating all competition and establishing itself as the foremost authority in medicine.  In the early 20th century they managed to disparage and have legally banned many electronic therapies including the Rife Machine, some of which surface today in conventional circles to address mental problems.  Ditto ultraviolet blood irradiation and HBOT/hyperbaric oxygen therapy. They tried to destroy Chiropractic and Naturopathy  as well as many nutritional and herbal medicines.  Their darkest “success” came when they kneecapped Linus Pauling and disparaged Vitamin C to keep the public from learning of its value.  They also suppressed many cancer cures along with chelation therapy thereby keeping a steady stream of uninformed chronic disease sufferers packing medical offices in search of a drug solution.

While the profession made great strides in trauma-care and acute interventions, they buried actual prevention and safe natural treatments leading to suffering and death for millions.

They “overlooked” nutrition, but not before floating malicious lies recommending health-wrecking polyunsaturated fats and oils with cholesterol/heart disease mythology,… when saturated fats like butter and lard are wise scientifically verified choices.  They birthed the shady idea of sun avoidance and the use of carcinogenic chemical sunscreens. They promoted ineffective side-effect riddled vaxxxines for generally non-life threatening diseases.  They bolstered their “god status” with Latinesque word-salads meant to be unintelligible to the “congregation.”

Keep reading

The virus was safer than the vaccine. Whoops!

A quick summary of what we know so far

  1. The COVID vaccines were all downside risk for no benefit. The vaccine provided no protection against hospitalization or death, and actually increased your risk of getting COVID. So there was no benefit whatsoever.They all (except maybe Novavax) increased your all-cause mortality, something a vaccine is never supposed to do.
  2. Virus safer than the shots. The adverse event profile is, in general, much higher for those taking the jabs than for those infected with COVID.
  3. The medical community is willfully blind to the harms. It is appalling that the medical literature refuses to accept 1 and 2.
  4. COVID shots are not equally safe, but nobody will publish the relative brand safety data. There are significant mortality differences between the vaccine brands. It is beyond shameful that none of the health authorities anywhere in the world will expose the numbers or even want to see them. Hiding that safety information is not in the public interest.
  5. They need to stop hiding the data. As long as they keep the record level data secret on vaccines and mortality, nobody should take them.
  6. They need to acknowledge that fully unvaccinated kids are healthier. Every study in the peer-reviewed literature shows fully unvaccinated kids are healthier than their fully vaccinated counterparts.
  7. Vaccines are the primary cause of autism and a large number of chronic disorders. The data also points very strongly that vaccines are the major cause of sexual orientation and gender dysphoria conditions. A lot of people can’t accept that but the data is stunning and cannot be explained away.
  8. It’s hard to get the truth published nowadays. It is ridiculously hard to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that goes against mainstream beliefs.
  9. The Czech Republic data where we found that Moderna increases all-cause mortality by 30%. If that’s wrong, what’s the right number and how come nobody knows what it is?
  10. You can’t keep hiding the truth. Sooner or later, however, we will see papers emerge that validate everything I’ve said above. I just can’t predict when that will happen.

Keep reading

World-Renowned Vaccinologist Publishes Paper Admitting Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies

In a stunning reversal, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, widely regarded as the godfather of modern vaccinology, has co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine1 (NEJM) acknowledging significant gaps in vaccine safety research and calling for increased funding to address these shortcomings.

This admission comes after decades of the medical establishment insisting that vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied and safest medical interventions. In the paper, titled “Funding Postauthorization Vaccine-Safety Science,”2 they make a series of revelations that validate concerns long raised by vaccine safety advocates. In a commentary, Aaron Siri, managing partner of New York law firm Siri & Glimstad, writes:3

“Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.

They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied — neither prelicensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, ‘prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations’ and that ‘there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.'”

Key Admissions Shine Light on Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies

One of the most striking admissions in the paper is the acknowledgment that prelicensure clinical trials for vaccines are inadequate for assessing safety. The authors state:4

“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity. It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

This contradicts previous claims by vaccine proponents that clinical trials provide robust evidence of safety prior to approval. The admission that these trials have limited follow-up periods is particularly notable, as critics have long argued that potential long-term effects of vaccines are not adequately studied before they are approved and recommended for widespread use.

“Let me translate,” Siri writes, “the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value.”5

Keep reading

Moderna Confirms Link Between COVID mRNA Vaccines and Cancer

Moderna has admitted its mRNA COVID vaccine causes CANCER after billions of DNA fragments were found in vials of the dangerous injection.

The revelation was made after Dr. Robert Malone recently made an appearance at an “Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines” hearing led by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), at which he revealed how Moderna’s patent shows that its (COVID-19) “vaccine” vials contain billions of DNA fragments and other contaminants linked to birth defects and cancer.

At the hearing, Dr. Malone spoke about how Moderna acknowledges in its patent that RNA is preferable to DNA in vaccines because of the risks involved, but that the company’s mRNA injection, which was administered to tens of millions of people, is contaminated with the latter.

“Moderna has a patent on the use of RNA for vaccines,” Dr Malone stated. “And in that, Moderna explicitly acknowledges that RNA is superior to DNA for vaccine purposes because problems, including the possibility of insertional mutagenesis that could lead to the activation of oncogenes or the inactivation of tumour suppressor genes.”

“FDA says they’re not aware of any concerns, but Moderna, in its own patent, lays out exactly the same concerns that exist about DNA in insertional mutagenesis and genotoxicity.

“So, Moderna knows it – DNA is a contaminant. It is left in because of the way they make it … they use DNA to make RNA, and then they degrade the DNA, and then they have to purify the degraded DNA away from the RNA, and the process they are using is not that good.”

Keep reading