Tag: vaccines

Celebrity Doctors Promoted Covid Vaccine Without Declaring Payments

The pharmaceutical watchdog is being urged to investigate after celebrity doctors discussed the Covid vaccine on primetime TV without disclosing payments of thousands of pounds from AstraZeneca. The Telegraph has more.

In April of this year, AstraZeneca admitted for the first time in court documents that its Covid vaccine can, in a small percentage of cases, cause a rare and dangerous side effect. The following month, it emerged that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is being withdrawn worldwide.

The revelations prompted a fresh round of debate about the vaccine, with celebrity doctors invited on to television shows to discuss the fallout.

Dr. Ranj Singh, who regularly appears on the BBC as a talking head, was paid £22,500 by AstraZeneca in 2021, according to records from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).

Last month, he led a discussion on the BBC breakfast show Morning Live about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the “serious but rare” complications associated with it. He failed to declare his payments from the pharmaceutical giant to either the BBC or to viewers.

A BBC spokesman said they were unaware of the payments ahead of the show, adding: “The segment on the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine was balanced and covered reported risks and benefits. We became aware of Dr. Ranj’s 2021 work for the manufacturer after this segment aired and have now addressed this within the show.”

Dr. Nighat Arif, who became a familiar face on television during the pandemic including on BBC Breakfast, was paid £10,000 by Astra-Zeneca in 2022.

Keep reading

A new study finds that covid injections cause tinnitus

There’s a new paper on the loose that supports what many of us have been stating as fact for years: tinnitus is caused by the covid-19 injections.

The paper was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology on 22 May 2024 and is entitled ‘Covid-19 vaccination-related tinnitus is associated with pre-vaccination metabolic disorders’.1 The paper demonstrates a causal link between tinnitus and covid-19 injections using a survey on 398 cases of covid-19 injection-related tinnitus, and 699,839 covid-19 injection-related reports in the VAERS from 2021.

They found 7 main things:

  1. tinnitus report frequencies for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines in VAERS are 47, 51 and 70 cases per million full vaccination;
  2. the symptom onset was often rapid;
  3. more women than men reported tinnitus and the sex difference increased with age;
  4. for 2-dose vaccines, the frequency of tinnitus was higher following the first dose than the second dose;
  5. for 2-dose vaccines, the chance of worsening tinnitus symptoms after the second dose was approximately 50%;
  6. tinnitus was correlated with other neurological and psychiatric symptoms; and,
  7. pre-existing metabolic syndromes were correlated with the severity of the reported tinnitus.

I can confirm and corroborate almost every single one of these points using only VAERS data, and in science, reproduction is ESSENTIAL. It is staggering how many (percentage-wise) peer-reviewed studies cannot be replicated.

1. Tinnitus report frequencies for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines in VAERS are 47, 51 and 70 cases per million full vaccination. (NB: these rates are for 2 doses.)

Keep reading

The bird flu operation is looking like a repeat of the covid operation. So are the vaccines safe?

On Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported that the World Health Organisation warns a new strain of bird flu has jumped to humans with “potential for high public health impact” as a man in Mexico tests positive before dying from bird flu.

“Tests showed the man, who suffered multiple underlying conditions, was infected with a strain of bird flu called H5N2, marking the first time this type has ever been detected in humans,” the Daily Mail said.

Two things are key to understanding the story that is being widely publicised.  Firstly, what test was conducted and secondly the cause of death.

The Daily Mail stated: “PCR tests carried out on 24 April revealed he had been infected with a flu virus, and later it was confirmed that the patient had H5N2.”  It’s not clear, but can we assume PCR tests were the basis for the “first laboratory-confirmed human case” of H5N2 as is being widely spread by corporate media? 

Or perhaps laboratory-confirmed means antibody tests?  The Daily Mail went on to say, “Blood tests are now being carried out to screen for antibodies against H5N2, which would indicate a previous infection.”  An antibody test doesn’t tell us much about current infections either.  A previous infection could mean the person had an infection decades ago. 

In 2008, a study of the blood of people who survived the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic revealed that antibodies to the 1918 H1N1 flu strain had lasted a lifetime. Nearly 90 years after the pandemic, the study participants, aged between 91 to 101 years, still had antibodies to H1N1.

Dr William “Bill” Schaffner, an infectious diseases expert at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, said that it was likely that increasing cases of bird flu are being detected due to a rise in the number of tests.  “We are looking very hard for bird flu infections, as a consequence of H5N1, around the world,” he told the Daily Mail.

As it was with covid, bird flu is starting to look like another “test pandemic” dubbed a “casedemic.”

Keep reading

Russia is developing an mRNA cancer vaccine

An mRNA vaccine that works on all types of cancer has shown promising results in mice, Gamaleya Center director Alexander Gintsburg said in a June 6 interview with Gazeta.ru.

The drug is “being created based on mRNA technologies like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines”, Gintsburg told the outlet, adding that his institute has its own mRNA platform that doesn’t rely on Western patents. The genetic vaccine will be custom-fit to each individual patient based on the results of tumor biopsies.

When asked about the vaccine’s safety, Gamaleya’s director said that the benefits of mRNA “therapeutic” vaccines outweigh the potential risks—but that the same cannot be said of “preventative” mRNA drugs.

Keep reading

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.

The court’s opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.

Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state’s right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.

Keep reading

Retraction scandal update

By now you’ve hopefully read my report from the weekend about the alleged forced retraction of a Covid vaccine cancer-risk study (the ‘Jiang and Mei paper’) after it generated a huge amount of publicity.

The exposé has ignited a lot of discussion, including some posts I want to recommend to you…

The Jiang and Mei story is just one of many examples of papers showing Covid vaccine harms, which pass peer-review but are later retracted following an activist witch hunt. Examples that come to mind are Mark Skidmore’s paper estimating 290,000 Covid vaccine fatalities for 2021 in the US (Skidmore was eventually exonerated and his paper published in a different journal), and several papers by 

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, 

Jessica Rose and colleagues showing various Covid vaccine harms.

We knew that activist pile-ons precipitated such retractions, but we couldn’t prove that they were the reason for the retractions… until the Jiang and Mei paper.

“This could be the first time that political pressure has been proven to have been exerted to force the retraction of a valid scientific paper of such significance,” says 

Dr Ah Kahn Syed (Arkmedic) in a follow up post to mine.

Keep reading

‘Time to Ground the Plane’: FDA Advisers Recommend JN.1 COVID Vaccines Despite Growing Evidence of Cancer Risks

In a unanimous 16-0 vote, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory committee today recommended a monovalent JN.1-lineage vaccine composition for 2024-2025 Formula for COVID-19 vaccines.

The JN.1 variant has been most dominant this year, Reuters reported.

Last year, the agency’s committee recommended COVID-19 vaccines targeting XBB.1.5, a subvariant of Omicron that dominated the U.S. from November 2021 to 2022.

The committee today also discussed which specific strains within the JN.1-lineage group — such as subvariants KP.2 and KP.3 — the vaccines should target. The FDA said it will later issue an official recommendation to manufacturers about what subvariants it wants to target within the JN.1-lineage group.

David Wiseman, Ph.D., a bioscience researcher, told the committee that in recommending continued COVID-19 vaccination, the FDA may be putting the U.S. public’s health at risk. “Based on the totality of evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the product [COVID-19 vaccines] may be unsafe,” he said.

Keep reading

Law Professor Who Wrote 1989 Biological Weapons/Antiterrorism Act Provides Affidavit That COVID 19 mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).

Dr. Boyle provided this affidavit in a Florida case involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’, in the state of Florida. It also seeks to compel Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials.

The original Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus was filed on March 3rd, 2024, in the Florida Supreme Court. It was then transferred to the Circuit Court in Leon County on March 20th, 2024. On April 9th, 2024, the Circuit Court dismissed the case. The case is now in the appellate court. The Appellate Brief was filed on Memorial Day, May 27th, 2024.

The pleadings assert that the distribution of ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’, violate – Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023); Federal Crime of Treason 18 USC § 2381; Treason § 876.32 Fla. Stat. (2023); Domestic Terrorism, 18 USC § 2331; Terrorism § 775.30 Fla. Stat. (2023); Murder § 782.04 (1)(a) Fla. Stat. (2023); and Genocide 18 USC §1091; Florida Drugs and Cosmetic Act § 499.005 (2) Fla. Stat. (2023); Fraud § 817.034 Fla Stat. (2023); Accessory After the Fact § 777.03 Fla. Stat. (2023); and Florida Medical Consent Law § 766.103 Fla Stat. (2023).

Dr. Boyle is considered one of the world’s leading legal experts on biological weapons. Dr. Boyle’s affidavit adds a tremendous amount of credibility to the case, which already has a tremendous body of evidence provided in the writ of mandamus. Affidavits stating that the injections are biological and technological weapons, were also provided by med legal advisor and biotech analyst Karen Kingston, who researched the evidence that makes of the Facts of the Case section of the Mandamus, and from Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD. Dr. Mihalcea’s research is included in the Mandamus. Dr. Mihalcea is one of the world’s leading researchers into the effects of self replicating nanotechnology in the blood of injected as well as the effects in the blood of the uninjected as a result of shedding.

Keep reading

HPV Shot Test Subjects were Injected with MASSIVE Amount of Aluminum Causing Serious Side Effects — Study

A case study on medical ethics revealed that when Merck conducted their Gardasil Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) clinical trials, they injected both the test and the placebo groups of girls and young women with a proprietary aluminum adjuvant which was extra potent, causing chronic disabling symptoms, despite the ‘informed consent’ information not mentioning the dangerous ingredient.

“The informed consent forms for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine trials appear to be seriously misleading, as a highly reactogenic adjuvant with a questionable safety record was described as an inactive placebo,” the case study said in the ‘Conclusion’ section.

An adjuvant is a vaccine ingredient that agitates the immune system into eliciting an immune response to the vaccination agent, in this case HPV.

“Merck used their proprietary amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant as the “placebo”. The V501-018 trial however, did not use a saline placebo either, but rather the Gardasil vaccine’s carrier solution which includes L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and residual yeast protein which is a potential allergen [7,8]. Moreover, only 1,781 children between 9 and 15 years of age were included in this trial; both male and female who were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either Gardasil or the “placebo” [8]. By contrast, the largest pre-licensure Gardasil trial V501-015 (the FUTURE II trial), recruited 12,167 subjects, all females between 15 and 26 years of age, who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Gardasil or the AAHS injection [9],” the case study said in section 1 of the ‘Background’ section.

The researchers said that four years after vaccination, the test subjects had “reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ, external genital lesions, and HPV-related treatment procedures. However, the HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders and general harms.” They went on to detail the specifics.

Keep reading

The mRNA story is a pack of lies—here are some of the giant ones

The first big lie

This article: The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race was published Nov. 10, 2020. The headline picture is of giant ultra-low temperature freezers, ready to store finished vials containing mRNA vaccines for injection.

The article begins:

ANDOVER, Mass. — The liquid that many hope could help end the Covid-19 pandemic is stored in a nondescript metal tank in a manufacturing complex owned by Pfizer.

Most working in the industry will know that Pfizer owns none of the physical assets required to develop, manufacture, transport and store the mRNA vaccines—it is all carried out by third-party organisations.

The next big lie

As it turned out, the ‘finished vials’ were not finished—they contained 5 patient doses, frozen down to -70°C, requiring the addition of a measured quantity of saline diluent (supplied separately) to each vial, with a subsequent mixing operation to be carried out.

Adding to the complexity, the vials containing the 5 doses were packed in trays, each tray housing 195 vials. They had to be thawed from -70°C to room temperature, in a refrigerator (+2 to +8°C). This is a tricky business, as molecular structure could alter during thawing. Studies have to be run to prove the thawing can take place safely.

The full details can be found towards the bottom of this document on the MHRA website: Conditions of Authorisation for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech (Regulation 174), updated 5 May 2022.

Pharmaceutical law requires a licensed facility to carry out the conversion

Under pharmaceutical law (in any country) the conversion of the -70°C vials must be carried out in a facility licensed to manufacture pharmaceutical products. To achieve a license, the facility owner needs to prove every operation is carried out to Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). The definition of manufacturing below should help with understanding the scope of what comes under that umbrella:

Pharmaceutical manufacturer means any entity which is engaged in the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of prescription drugs, whether directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, or any entity engaged in the packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling, or distribution of prescription drugs.

Is that clear enough for you?!

The hurriedly constructed vaccination centres had no such licenses and given none of the people working in them had any kind of skills or experience in manufacture, they would not be capable of getting one.

These licenses are not ‘nice to haves’, they are essential to ensure the proper checks and balances are in place to avoid potentially dangerous errors.

This lie led to gross non-compliances with pharmaceutical law, under the responsibility of FDA/EMA/MHRA etc.

Normally, this would call for a halt to all activities carried out in the vaccination centres, period. Why is it not happening?

Keep reading