You may have heard that COVID-19 is getting deadlier.
Specifically, there are fears that the Delta variant could wreak havoc.
The Delta variant is already causing lockdowns across Asia and Australia.
Los Angeles County is even telling people to wear masks indoors AGAIN because of this new strain of the coronavirus.
And now, Dr. Fauci is calling the Delta variant the “nation’s greatest threat” in attempting to control COVID-19.
Here’s the deal: The Delta variant is more contagious, it’s deadlier, and it’s spreading quickly around the world – leaving young, unvaccinated people more vulnerable than ever. Please, get vaccinated if you haven’t already. Let’s head off this strain before it’s too late. pic.twitter.com/9gBeRpvCe8
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.substack.com (@JordanSchachtel) June 25, 2021
It appears that mask-requirements are already coming back in the United States.
If that happens… doesn’t that mean that a lockdown could happen as well?!
The LA Times confirms that everyone in LA County, even if they are vaccinated, is being asked to wear masks indoors:
With the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus continuing to spread statewide, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is recommending that all residents wear masks in public indoor spaces — regardless of whether they’ve been vaccinated for COVID-19.
Monday’s announcement is one of the clearest signals yet of just how seriously health officials are taking the strain, and the danger it poses, particularly to those who have yet to be inoculated.
Officials have said the available vaccines appear to offer strong protection. But there’s significant concern that those who have yet to receive all their required shots, or any doses at all, remain vulnerable to the Delta variant — which may be twice as transmissible as the conventional coronavirus strains.
More than 3 in 5 Californians have gotten at least one vaccine dose to date, but fewer than half are fully vaccinated, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California has one of the nation’s highest vaccination rates, and that has many experts confident the Delta strain won’t cause the kinds of COVID-19 surges seen over the last year.
“Until we better understand how and to who the Delta variant is spreading, everyone should focus on maximum protection with minimum interruption to routine as all businesses operate without other restrictions, like physical distancing and capacity limits,” officials wrote in a statement.
Donning face coverings in public indoor places was the norm until only recently, and is still required for the unvaccinated. As part of California’s June 15 reopening, though, the state aligned with guidance from the CDC that people who are fully vaccinated no longer needed to wear masks in most situations.
JUST IN: LA Public Health Dept. reinstates indoor mask mandate regardless of vaccination status due to Delta variant; CDC officials rethinking prevention measures, even for the vaccinated – CNN
The rapid spread of the delta coronavirus variant has forced a growing number of countries to reimpose lockdowns and other public health restrictions, raising fears that the more contagious variant was hampering global efforts to contain the pandemic.
The new curbs on travel and daily life stretched from Australia and Bangladesh to South Africa and Germany, where authorities over the weekend set new limits on travelers from “virus-variant zones” such as Portugal and Russia.
South Africa on Sunday extended a nightly curfew and introduced a ban on gatherings, alcohol sales, indoor dining and some domestic travel for 14 days to halt a worrying surge in cases driven by the delta variant, President Cyril Ramaphosa said. In Bangladesh, the government pointed to a “dangerous and alarming” rise in delta-related infections and halted all public transportation starting Monday, prompting thousands of migrant workers to flee the capital, Dhaka, before the restrictions took hold.
Thai authorities declared a month-long limited lockdown in the capital, Bangkok, and neighboring provinces, amid a spike in new cases attributed to the delta variant. And Malaysia extended a nationwide shutdown that was scheduled to be relaxed Monday.
In Taiwan, which reported its first delta case on Saturday, the local Centers for Disease Control announced new restrictions for people arriving from seven “high-risk countries”: Bangladesh, Britain, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Israel and Peru.
Hong Kong also said Monday that it was banning all passenger flights from Britain beginning later this week, because of the growing number of new coronavirus cases and “widespread delta variant virus strain there,” according to a government statement.
Health experts have warned that the delta variant — which was first identified in India — is on track to become the most dominant version of the coronavirus worldwide. The World Health Organization said last week that it has been detected in at least 92 countries.
Israel has one of the world’s highest vaccination rates but has also seen delta cases jump in recent weeks, causing authorities to reinstate an indoor mask mandate that was dropped just two weeks ago.
Israeli officials on Sunday night, however, ruled against reviving more stringent coronavirus measures. Instead, the government is relying on the country’s high vaccination rate to protect residents from virus-related hospitalizations and deaths.
If President Trump were still in the White House, it’s likely that the Democrats would use the Delta variant to try to damage him politically.
Now that the Biden regime is occupying the White House, don’t be surprised if they try to put off restrictions as long as possible.
But given how often Biden bows to the radical left… don’t be surprised if new restrictions on our freedom come sooner rather than later.
An explosive new study claims researchers found ‘unique fingerprints’ in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory
DailyMail.com exclusively obtained the new 22-page paper authored by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen set to be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery
The study showed there’s evidence to suggest Chinese scientists created the virus while working on a Gain of Function project in a Wuhan lab
Gain of Function research, which was temporarily outlawed in the US, involves altering naturally-occurring viruses to make them more infectious in order to study their potential effects on humans
According to the paper, Chinese scientists took a natural coronavirus ‘backbone’ found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new ‘spike’, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible COVID-19
The researchers, who concluded that COVID-19 ‘has no credible natural ancestor‘, also believe scientists reverse-engineered versions of the virus to cover up their tracks
‘We think that there have been retro-engineered viruses created,’ Dalgleish told DailyMail.com. ‘They’ve changed the virus, then tried to make out it was in a sequence years ago.‘
The study also points to ‘deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data’ in Chinese labs and notes that ‘scientists who wished to share their findings haven’t been able to do so or have disappeared‘
Until recently, most experts had staunchly denied the origins of the virus were anything other than a natural infection leaping from animals to humans
Earlier this week, Dr. Anthony Fauci defended US funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, saying the $600,000 grant was not approved for Gain of Function research
An explosive new study claims that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats.
The paper’s authors, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, wrote that they have had ‘prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China‘ for a year – but were ignored by academics and major journals.
Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St George’s University, London, and is best known for his breakthrough creating the first working ‘HIV vaccine’, to treat diagnosed patients and allow them to go off medication for months.
Sørensen, a virologist, is chair of pharmaceutical company, Immunor, which developed a coronavirus vaccine candidate called Biovacc-19. Dalgleish also has share options in the firm.
The shocking allegations in the study include accusations of ‘deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data’ at Chinese labs, and it notes the silencing and disappearance of scientists in the communist country who spoke out.
The journal article, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com and slated for publication in the coming days, is set to make waves among the scientific community, as the majority of experts have until recently staunchly denied the origins of COVID-19 were anything other than a natural infection leaping from animals to humans.
While analyzing COVID-19 samples last year in an attempt to create a vaccine, Dalgleish and Sørensen discovered ‘unique fingerprints’ in the virus that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory.
They said they tried to publish their findings but were rejected by major scientific journals which were at the time resolute that the virus jumped naturally from bats or other animals to humans.
Even when former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove spoke out publicly saying the scientists’ theory should be investigated, the idea was dismissed as ‘fake news.’
Over a year later, leading academics, politicians and the media finally flipped, and have begun to contemplate the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China – a lab where experiments included manipulating viruses to increase their infectiousness in order to study their potential effects on humans.
This week, President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to re-examine how the virus originated, including the lab accident theory.
The announcement followed the revelation that a previously undisclosed intelligence report had been made to the White House, claiming that several researchers at the Wuhan institute were hospitalized with illness in November 2019. The document was uncovered this week by the Wall Street Journal.
US health officials have also come under fire for allegedly funding researchers’ controversial and risky experiments at the Wuhan lab.
Care to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.? Then this article is for you and it includes an abundance of links and other resources to verify positions and provide you with all of the evidence you need for a deeper and clearer understanding of what is being done to us. That’s right – done to us.
On a date conveniently saddled between Christmas and New Year’s Eve 2019, when the majority of the Western world was occupied and distracted with both holiday recovery and preparation, the world fundamentally changed on 27 Dec 19 when the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (not yet a “pandemic”) was first announced in the mainstream media news. They eased it in and perhaps many missed it.
Summary: Secret Societies always have two types of truths, one for the masses and one reserved for the initiates.Is COVID meant to be read in Hebrew? Does it mean possession by an evil spirit?
Solve et coagula
American authors Michael Hoffman and his mentor James Shelby Downard were the first to speak about “The Alchemical Processing of Humanity through Public Psychodrama”. According to the two researchers of the occult, the primary objective of medieval alchemists and of secret societies’ initiates that continue in their tradition was not the transmutation of metal, but the transformation of mankind. The pursuit of gold was just a cover for a vast social program which included the abolition of monarchy, the annihilation of the church and the re-construction of the world according not to natural law but to the will of man.
Homology between human and viral proteins is an established factor in viral- or vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein.
Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes. Immunogenic peptides in viruses or bacteria that match human proteins are good candidates for pathogenic priming peptides (similar to the more diffuse idea of “immune enhancement”). Here I provide an assessment of potential for human pathogenesis via autoimmunity via exposure, via infection or injection. SAR-CoV-2 spike proteins, and all other SARS-CoV-2 proteins, immunogenic epitopes in each SARS-CoV-2 protein were compared to human proteins in search of high local homologous matching.
Only one immunogenic epitope in a SARS-CoV-2 had no homology to human proteins. If all of the parts of the epitopes that are homologous to human proteins are excluded from consideration due to risk of pathogenic priming, the remaining immunogenic parts of the epitopes may be still immunogenic and remain as potentially viable candidates for vaccine development.
Mapping of the genes encoding human protein matches to pathways point to targets that could explain the observed presentation of symptoms in COVID-19 disease. It also strongly points to a large number of opportunities for expected disturbances in the immune system itself, targeting elements of MHC Class I and Class II antigen presentation, PD-1 signaling, cross-presentation of soluble exogenous antigens and the ER-Phagosome pathway. Translational consequences of these findings are explored.
Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases
1Department of Immunology, Immunosciences Laboratory, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, United States
2Department of Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA, United States
3Regenera Medical, Los Angeles, CA, United States
4Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
5Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States
We sought to determine whether immune reactivity occurs between anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein antibodies and human tissue antigens, and whether molecular mimicry between COVID-19 viral proteins and human tissues could be the cause. We applied both human monoclonal anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibodies (spike protein, nucleoprotein) and rabbit polyclonal anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibodies (envelope protein, membrane protein) to 55 different tissue antigens. We found that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies had reactions with 28 out of 55 tissue antigens, representing a diversity of tissue groups that included barrier proteins, gastrointestinal, thyroid and neural tissues, and more.
We also did selective epitope mapping using BLAST and showed similarities and homology between spike, nucleoprotein, and many other SARS-CoV-2 proteins with the human tissue antigens mitochondria M2, F-actin and TPO. This extensive immune cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and different antigen groups may play a role in the multi-system disease process of COVID-19, influence the severity of the disease, precipitate the onset of autoimmunity in susceptible subgroups, and potentially exacerbate autoimmunity in subjects that have pre-existing autoimmune diseases.
Very recently, human monoclonal antibodies were approved for use on patients with COVID-19. The human monoclonal antibodies used in this study are almost identical with these approved antibodies. Thus, our results can establish the potential risk for autoimmunity and multi-system disorders with COVID-19 that may come from cross-reactivity between our own human tissues and this dreaded virus, and thus ensure that the badly-needed vaccines and treatments being developed for it are truly safe to use against this disease.
Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons
Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy.
From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, we used data from the “v-safe after vaccination health checker” surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to characterize the initial safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant persons.
A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic. Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.
Do you remember the scenes broadcast on the mainstream news channels, and plastered across the front pages at the start of 2020?
Infamous images of Chinese medical officials in hazmat suits collecting bodies off the pavements of Wuhan, where we were told they had collapsed and died in the street because of a new strain of coronavirus, now knows as COVID-19.
The scenes have not been replicated anywhere else, confirming that it was all a lie and propaganda, used to whip up the hysteria and justify the introduction of medical tyranny across the world, in the name of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
That is of course until now. Because now they are playing the same game, but this time with India.
According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.
April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.
The team led by Dr. Catherine Frade, a pharmacist, worked on public data released by the EMA with relation to the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) shots, and its first caveat was that all these products only have temporary marketing authorizations. They are all subject to further studies that reach as far as 2024 and even beyond, and these will be almost impossible to be completed because of the way the vaccines are now being distributed, said the CTIAP report.
These studies even include the stability and comparability of the vaccine batches put on the market and the quality and safety of excipients — substances formulated alongside the active ingredient of a medication to facilitate or enhance their absorption.
According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” was produced: all the manufacturing labs obtained future deadlines to submit their studies in this regard.
The authors of the report consider that the “variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted” in the coming months and years.
They go so far as to state: “Prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus ‘released’ should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even canceled, as a matter of urgency until further notice.”
Can we imagine launching a car manufacturing line and putting vehicles on the road, despite the uncertainties noted in the official documents published? These uncertainties are related to the quality of the parts making up the engine and the various other parts, including those related to safety, the manufacturing process, the reproducibility of the batches that are being marketed, etc.
In the field of medicines (including vaccines), the pharmaceutical act of “release” of the finished product (an authorized product intended for sale) constitutes the final stage of control that precedes the release of these products to the population. This key step of “release” is under the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers.
Following its previous analyses, the CTIAP of the Cholet Hospital Center has once again revealed to the public, and probably in an unprecedented and exclusive way, new vital information concerning the following four vaccines against COVID-19: the one from the BioNTech/Pfizer laboratory; the one from the Moderna laboratory; the one from the Astra Zeneca laboratory; the one from the Janssen laboratory.
This work was made possible thanks to the valuable contribution of Dr. Catherine Frade, pharmacist and former director of international regulatory affairs in the pharmaceutical industry. She graciously provided us with a documented, written alert. In this document, she sheds light on data extracted, on March 22, 2021, from the MA (marketing authorization) itself; an MA qualified as “conditional.” She has extracted “source data that is difficult to identify by someone who does not work in the field.” This data is therefore public and verifiable. First of all, it should be noted that the author of this document no longer works in the pharmaceutical industry; she states: “First of all, I would like to make it clear that I have no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.” It is therefore with her agreement that CTIAP intends to make available to the public, health professionals, decision-makers … an analysis of some of these data that all should read carefully.
This reflection first presents what a “conditional” MA is (I). Then, it recalls that the studies for these vaccines are not complete, as they run from “2021 to at least 2024” (II). Then, it reveals, in an unprecedented and exclusive way, that the official documents, published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), underline the insufficiency of the evidence concerning also the “quality” of the “active substance” and of the “excipients,” of the “manufacturing process,” of the “reproducibility of the batches” that are being commercialized, etc. (III). Finally, this analysis proposes a conclusion.
I — First of all, it is important to understand what a “conditional” MA is
An MA is to a drug what a car registration document is to a car. MA is granted when a drug has proven its quality, efficacy, and safety; with a positive benefit/risk ratio: that is, it presents more benefits than risks. Obtaining this MA is the essential condition for a pharmaceutical laboratory to sell any drug, including vaccines.
Here, in the case of these vaccines against COVID-19, the four MAs issued are so-called “conditional” MAs. They are temporary. They are valid for no more than one year, because they were obtained on the basis of “incomplete data.” To obtain a standard 5-year MA, the laboratories concerned must provide dossiers completed with “studies in progress and studies planned for the coming years.” Throughout “this development,” close and coordinated monitoring between the manufacturing laboratories and the health authorities is organized through regular discussions. The “conditional” MA is “re-evaluated each year” according to the contribution and critical analysis of additional data provided and collected during a full year.
This “conditional” MA is a European MA. It was obtained through the centralized accelerated procedure. It allows simultaneous marketing in the following 30 countries (European Union and European Free Trade Association): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
The studies concerning these four vaccines are therefore still in progress.
II — Secondly, the planned studies are still in progress and are spread over a period ranging from “2021 to at least 2024”
All of the studies submitted during the MA application are summarized in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report). This report is published on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The planned studies, not yet completed, are also included.
This schedule, which “extends from 2021 to at least 2024,” depending on which COVID-19 vaccine is involved, is defined in the “annexes” of the conditional marketing authorization and in the published EPARs.
As an example, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine received this European conditional MA on December 21, 2020. And the deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this vaccine is “December 2023.”
The Moderna vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 6, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “December 2022” at the earliest.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 29, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “March 2024.”
The Janssen vaccine was granted conditional European marketing authorization on March 11, 2021. The deadline for submitting “confirmation” of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and tolerance is “December 2023.”
However, to date — and this is undoubtedly where the unprecedented and exclusive revelation of this study lies — another deadline has been set for these four vaccines. This deadline no longer concerns only the ongoing clinical trials, but also the “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” itself: that is, the intrinsic quality (the heart) of the product sold and administered to millions of people.
III — Thirdly, and this seems to be unprecedented, the published official documents also underline the incompleteness of the evidence concerning the “quality” of the “active substance” and “excipients,” the “manufacturing process,” the ”reproducibility of the batches” marketed, etc.
The deadline for submitting additional evidence on the “quality” of the “active substance” and the “finished product” (i.e., the vaccine that is authorized and sold) is set for:
“July 2021” for BioNTech/Pfizer;
“June 2021” for Moderna;
“June 2022” for Astra Zeneca;
“August 2021” for Janssen.
Indeed, for these 4 vaccines, paragraph E, “Specific obligation regarding post-authorization measures for the conditional marketing authorization,” taken from Annex II of the MA, clearly states the following:
For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine (pages 18-19)
By “March 2021,” the laboratory must provide “additional validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the finished product manufacturing process.”
By “July 2021,” the laboratory must provide missing information to:
“complete the characterization of the active substance and the finished product;”
“strengthen the control strategy, including the specifications of the active substance and the finished product” in order to “ensure the constant quality of the product;”
“provide additional information regarding its synthesis process and control strategy” in order to “confirm the purity profile of the excipient ALC-0315” and “to ensure quality control and batch-to-batch reproducibility throughout the life cycle of the finished product;”
and by “December 2023,” and “in order to confirm the efficacy and safety” of this vaccine, the company “shall submit the final clinical study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blind observer study (Study C4591001).
For the Moderna vaccine (page 15)
The laboratory should provide the missing information to:
“complete the characterization of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (deadline “January 2021”);
confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the active substance and the finished product (initial and final batch sizes) (deadline “April 2021”);
“provide additional information on the stability of the active substance and the finished product and review the specifications of the active substance and the finished product after longer industrial practice” with the aim of “ensuring consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2021”);
“submit the final study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded clinical trial for the mRNA-1273-P301 observer” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine Moderna” (by December 2022).
For the Astra Zeneca vaccine (pages 14-15)
The laboratory must submit the missing information in order to:
“provide additional validation and comparability data, and initiate further testing” with the aim of “confirming the reproducibility of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (by “December 2021”);
“Provide the main analysis (based on the December 7 data cut-off (post database lock) and the final analysis of the combined pivotal studies” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (deadline “March 5, 2021” (for the main analysis) and “May 31, 2022” (for the combined analysis);
“submit final reports of the randomized controlled clinical studies COV001, COV002, COV003 and COV005” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (due “May 31, 2022”);
“provide additional data regarding the stability of the active substance and the finished product and revise the specifications of the finished product after extensive industrial practice” in order to “ensure consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2022”);
“submit the synthesis and summaries of the primary analysis and the final clinical study report for study D8110C00001” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca in the elderly and in subjects with underlying disease” — due “April 30, 2021” (for the primary analysis) and “March 31, 2024” (for the final study report).
For the Janssen vaccine (page 18)
The laboratory should submit the missing information to:
“provide additional comparability and validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the finished product” (deadline “August 15, 2021”);
submit the final report of the VAC31518COV3001 randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind clinical study to “confirm the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine” by December 31, 2023.
These facts allow us to offer a conclusion.
For these reasons, which are not exhaustive, it has proved useful to look for and read the content of the paragraph E: “Specific obligation relating to post-authorization measures concerning the conditional marketing authorization,” extracted from Annex II of the MA, corresponding to each of these 4 vaccines against COVID-19.
The inadequacy of the evaluation does not only concern the clinical trials (studies conducted in humans (women and men)), but also the quality of the active substance, the excipients, some of which are new, the manufacturing process, and the batches released and administered to humans in several countries around the world.
Moreover, these new excipients must be considered as new active ingredients, and thus be the subject of a complete evaluation file similar to that required for a new active ingredient.
Changing the commercial name of one of these vaccines, as was recently announced for the AstraZeneca vaccine in particular, can only be considered as a cosmetic arrangement of the product’s image for marketing purposes (winning new public confidence, boosting sales). It would not answer the questions raised concerning the quality, efficacy and safety of the product. This is one of the usual techniques used to put make-up on (dissimulate) certain undesirable characteristics of the product concerned. It is a technique that has been used to present other drugs in the best possible light.
As already mentioned, in the field of medicines (including vaccines), the “release” of the finished product (intended for sale) is the final stage of control (of quality and therefore of safety) before making these products available to the population.
This key stage of “release” of batches is the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the responsibility of the users (institutions and health professionals in particular) may also be involved.
In our opinion, these clinical studies should never have begun before the intrinsic quality of the finished product and its manufacturing process had been fully mastered; before the formulas of these vaccines had been stabilized.
How can the results of these clinical trials, conducted on a global scale, be compared if the vaccine administered can vary from one manufacture to another, from one batch to another, from one region to another?
These variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted.
Even in the case of a health emergency, it is therefore difficult for us to understand the basis for the MA (marketing authorization) that has been granted to these COVID-19 vaccines.
In addition to the uncertainties related to COVID-19, there are also the approximations related to the use, and the intrinsic quality, of these vaccines. Now two problems will have to be managed instead of one.
The maneuver seems subtle. The useful information is available in the official documents published in the framework of the MA; but this data is not made visible by the official discourse. It seems the latter has only tried to present these products as being effective and safe, without reservations; even though the formulas and manufacturing processes of these vaccines do not even seem to have been fully stabilized yet.
These new revelations, which are undoubtedly unprecedented and exclusive, further cast doubt on the validity of consent (a fundamental freedom) that is supposed to be free and informed, and which is said to have been given by the people who are now already vaccinated.
Every person has the right to clear, fair and appropriate information. This information is also perennial: if new data is revealed, those already vaccinated must be informed a posteriori (after the administration of this or that vaccine).
The “obligation” to vaccinate cannot therefore be sustained, even in a disguised form, notably through a “vaccine passport.”
Vulnerability does not only arise from the age and state of health of individuals. Not being able to access independent information on medicines (including vaccines) is the first form of poverty and inequality.
Moreover, concerning the uncertainties on the effectiveness of these vaccines, the Council of State noted, on March 3, 2021, in particular the admission of the Ministry of Solidarity and Health itself, and the contradictions of the French “administration.” In this decision, and against the opinion of this Ministry, the Council of State had produced a decision that seemed to tend towards the recognition of this effectiveness. But, a few days later, in a new decision (n° 450413) issued on March 11, 2021, the Council of State changed its position and admitted “the uncertainty that remains regarding the real effectiveness of the vaccine in terms of the spread of the virus.” It should also be recalled that, on February 18, 2021, the Minister of Solidarity and Health also recognized, and that publicly, that no European country has been able to provide proof that these vaccines can prevent “severe” forms of COVID-19 (see press conference, starting at 34min 44s).
In its latest “Update on the surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines — Period from 12/03/2021 to 18/03/2021” published on March 26, 2021, and updated on March 29, 2021, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (ANSM) reports, in particular, the number of deaths that have occurred in France after the administration of these vaccines. Deaths that are notified (reported) in pharmacovigilance (regardless of the certainty of the “causal link” between these vaccines and these deaths): “311 deaths” after administration of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine; “4 deaths” after administration of the Moderna vaccine; “20 deaths” after administration of the Astra Zeneca vaccine; (no data is available at this time regarding the latest vaccine (Janssen) to be licensed). In general, for all drugs, there is a high level of under-reporting in pharmacovigilance despite the mandatory nature of these reports.
Consequently, prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus “released” should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even cancelled, as a matter of urgency until further notice. In any case, this is the sense of the recommendations that we could suggest to the ad hoc authorities, and in particular to the French authorities. And, at the very least, this information must be made known to everyone in a clear, fair, and appropriate manner.
All the more so since, in the case of serious adverse effects, including deaths, and in order to establish the said “causal link” with certainty, the victims and their families are often powerless when faced with the requirement of “probatio diabolica” [a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof].
History tells us that the 1918 Spanish Flu killed between 50 – 100 million people. At the time, medical and pharmaceutical sources described it as THE MOST horrific disease process since the Black Plague of 1347, which killed an estimated 25-30 million people.
Vaccination: “The Elephant in the Room”
In the book,Vaccination Condemned, by Eleanor McBean, PhD, N.D., the author describes, in detail, personal and family experiences during the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
McBean’s coverage of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”, as a reporter and an unvaccinated survivor, requires that the historical basis of the event needs to be revisited, not as a “conspiracy theory” but with evidence that will “set your hair on fire”.
A few years ago, I came across another book by Eleanor McBean: “Vaccination…The Silent Killer”. McBean provides evidence that not only were the historical events of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” compromised, but also those of the Polio and Swine Flu epidemics.
Let’s Talk “Spanish Flu” Facts:
The Spanish Scapegoat
Spain was neutral during WW1 and did NOT censor its press, unlike the combatting countries. As a result, Spain was the first to report the 1918 Flu epidemic and the world “scapegoated” Spain as the source. Thus, the “Spanish Flu” is born.
The First Case: Military Vaccination Experiments in Fort Riley, Kansas
In preparation for WW1, a massive military vaccination experiment involving numerous prior developed vaccines took place in Fort Riley, Kansas- where the first “Spanish Flu” case was reported.
WW1 Draft = Human Test Subjects
The fledgling pharmaceutical industry, sponsored by the ‘Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research’, had something they never had before – a large supply of human test subjects. Supplied by the U.S. military’s first draft, the test pool of subjects ballooned to over 6 million men. CLICK HERE for more details.
Bacterial Meningitis Vaccine: The Killing Field
Autopsies after the war proved that the 1918 flu was NOT a “FLU” at all. It was caused by random dosages of an experimental ‘bacterial meningitis vaccine’, which to this day, mimics flu-like symptoms. The massive, multiple assaults with additional vaccines on the unprepared immune systems of soldiers and civilians created a “killing field”. Those that were not vaccinated were not affected.
So… How did Civilians Die?
WW1 ended sooner than expected, leaving HUGE quantities of unused experimental vaccines.
Fearing that soldiers coming home would spread diseases to their families, The U.S. government pushed the largest vaccine ‘fear’ campaign in history. They used the human population as a research and development lab to field test experimental vaccines.
Tens of millions of civilians died in the same manner as did the soldiers.
Instead of stopping the vaccines, doctors intensified them, calling it the great “Spanish Flu of 1918”. As a result, ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED.
“Seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. Letters were sent to their families that they had been killed in action.”
Back to COVID-19: The Ferguson Models are False and Misleading
British scientist and Professor Neil Ferguson of The Imperial College, London (the same Imperial College of London funded by the Bill Gates Foundation) was responsible for developing the mathematical pandemic computer models for the COVID-19 pandemic.
NewsGuard recently classified Mercola.com as fake news for reporting that the COVID virus potentially leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China.
The Pharmaceutical Industry Owns and Controls the Medical Profession
“Fact Checking” is often provided by paid writers from the pharmaceutical companies and not from verified, independent sources.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Infectious Disease Levels were Dropping BEFORE Vaccines Entered the Picture
Vaccine promoters claim that vaccines wiped out most infectious diseases. History tells us a different story. The beginning of the 20th century introduced improved sanitation (sewers), water treatment plants, and vastly improved nutrition.
The sample graphs above show that infectious diseases like Measles, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria, Typhoid Fever and Polio, were all at their lowest levels and dropping, BEFORE the vaccines were introduced.
The 1918 “Spanish Flu” held sinister secrets for 100 years. Based on my previous blog: “COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”,will we learn that the world-changing protocols from COVID-19 may also contain hidden secrets?
The White Hats in the Military took control of the Mainstream Media, DUMBS were bombed by the Alliance, Vatican arrests update, Celebrities that have been arrested under the guise of being positive for Covid-19 and the latest info on GESARA being implemented worldwide.