Note (27JUN2022): With regard to vaccines, the evil continues. The corrupt FDA has given approval to inject babies at six months of age — babies at no risk from the virus, SARS-CoV2 — with an experimental vaccine of documented immediate risk and possible unknown delayed risk. The rationale is to protect the elderly and chronically ill. Risk the lives of the young and healthy to protect the old and infirm. Such is the level of obscenity to which “humanitarianism” has sunk. Oh, right! The very young can’t vote. What, however, rewards such behavior among non-elected bureaucrats?

Previously, this commentator, a licensed physician, posted a warning in May of 2020 about new vaccines entitled “Danger! New Vaccine.”. That warning may have been well advised.

Then, several weeks ago, this commentator was stricken with a moderate case of CoViD-19 lasting a week or so with no apparent serious residua or sequelae. The virus struck despite two vaccinations with the vaccine by Moderna shortly less than a year before and extreme care in avoiding contacts. Clearly, the vaccine imparts far less than lifelong resistance.

So, effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is less than that for which we had hoped. The new vaccine by Novavax may offer significantly better protection, however. If relatively ineffective, are they dangerous? A recent newsletter from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons [AAPS news 78:4 (April 2022)] presents data supporting the allegation that they are; whereby, the risks outweigh the benefits especially for young and healthy adults; never mind children, few of whom are at any risk, at all. Clearly, vaccinating children at no risk with an experimental vaccine, the risks of which only now are becoming known, represents a reprehensible act by reprehensible miscreants.

According to the newsletter, Pfizer is guilty of submitting fraudulent results from so-called clinical trials. The newsletter lists the fraudulent offenses by Pfizer. If true as the allegations appear to be, those at Pfizer responsible deserve to be arrested and indicted as criminals for fraud.

Given the seriousness of the allegations affecting hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people, this commentator merely will submit selected quotes from the newsletter. You, the reader, may judge for yourself. If you find this posting sufficiently alarming, you may wish to pass it along to others. Keep in mind that Biobehavioral Science has documented that most people prefer pleasant lies that they know are lies to unpleasant truths that they know are truths.

The “winter of severe disease and death” that Biden predicted for the unvaccinated did not happen. Raw data from Public Health Scotland show that over the four week period ending on Feb. 4, deaths per million population in the twice-vaccinated were three times as high as in the unvaccinated, and in the once-boosted were twice as high as in the unvaccinated. After this, PHS stopped stopped releasing such data.


Most of the post-injection deaths have occurred in the first week. However, a second wave of deaths peaking around 180 days in seven states is pointed out by researcher Craig Paardekooper. Paardekooper states that Pfizer was developing three different types of vaccine, using non-modified mRNA, nucleoside-modified RNA that contains pseudouridine, or self-amplifying RNA.


Different vaccine lots also differ greatly in the integrity of the active ingredient, mRNA. In some, only 55% is intact, far below the generally accepted standard yet intentionally accepted by regulators, stated Sasha Latypova.


The extreme variability in adverse event reports between batches with 1 in 200 lots having more than 1,000 reports in VAERS, suggests that vaccine manufacturers are doing toxic dose range testing without consent, writes James Hill, M.D., J.D.


The knowing distribution of adulterated or mislabeled products signals intent. Establishing fraud would remove the manufacturers’ liability shield; thus, investigation must be suppressed.


Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech claim that the messenger RNA is quickly degraded. However, writes Dr. Robert Malone it is known to persist for at least 60 days in lymph nodes. In fact, the vaccine mRNA differs from natural mRNA in having pseudouridine randomly incorporated during the manufacturing process. Unlike uridine, pseudouridine can pair with all other bases, not just adenine. This could account for interference with the innate immune response and the reactivation of latent DNA viruses. Failure of regulators to investigate those effects before authorizing widespread use is appropriately classified as “willful ignorance’.


After getting the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), Pfizer hired 600 people to process adverse event reports and expected to need 1,800 more.


No genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies were done on RNA LNP-based (Editor: Lipid NanoParticle) products. Pfizer obscured the effects of natural immunity (0 severe cases in either trial or placebo groups with previous infection) by combining patients with and without previous infection in their efficacy analysis.


The second dump reveals that Pfizer deliberately did not tell people that in the initial days post shot they were susceptible to infection — not just from COVID — and should not be out and about. Moreover, in calculating efficacy Pfizer attributed infections during the first 14 days to the unvaccinated. Pfizer and government officials knew that the failure to account for the period of negative efficacy is fraud.


So, dear reader, given the contents of the quoted article in the newsletter, judge for yourself. Guilty or Not Guilty?

To be injected with an experimental vaccine that may do more harm than good or not to be injected? That is the question.

Whether it be wiser to reject the vaccine and hope to survive CoViD-19, thereby, gaining natural resistance or to accept the vaccine and hope that the alarming adverse reports do not reflect the ugly truth?

Who would bear such fardels in the context of known lying by pharmaceutical representatives and governmental bureaucrats — and bear them without retaliating? You? (Apologies to the Bard.)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x