They also discuss the lack of proper animal studies for the new mRNA vaccines, and the theory, espoused by virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., that mass vaccination with the mRNA vaccines could produce ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.
As The Defender reported June 3, Bridle received a copy of a Japanese biodistribution study — which had been kept from the public — as a result of a freedom of information request made to the Japanese government for Pfizer data.
Prior to the study’s disclosure, the public was led to believe by regulators and vaccine developers that the spike protein produced by mRNA COVID vaccines stayed in the shoulder where it was injected and was not biologically active — even though regulators around the world had a copy of the study which showed otherwise.
The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle showed lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected as the vaccine’s developers claimed would happen, but circulated throughout the body and accumulated in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and — in “quite high concentrations” — in the ovaries.
The mRNA — or messenger RNA — is what tells the body to manufacture the spike protein. The lipid nanoparticles are like the “boxes” the mRNA is shipped in, according to Malone. “If you find lipid nanoparticles in an organ or tissue, that tells you the drug got to that location,” Malone explained.
According to the data in the Japanese study, lipid nanoparticles were found in the whole blood circulating throughout the body within four hours, and then settled in large concentrations in the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes.
Malone said there needed to be monitoring of vaccine recipients for leukemia and lymphomas as there were concentrations of lipid nanoparticles in the bone marrow and lymph nodes. But those signals often don’t show up for six months to three or nine years down the road, he said.
Usually, signals like this are picked up in animal studies and long-term clinical trials, but this didn’t happen with mRNA vaccines, Malone said.
Malone said there are two adverse event signals that are becoming apparent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). One of them is thrombocytopenia — not having enough platelets, which are manufactured in the bone marrow. The other is reactivation of latent viruses.
Malone found the ovarian signal perplexing because there is no accumulation in the testes.
Malone said the original data packages contained this biodistribution information. “This data has been out there a long time” within the protected, non-disclosed, purview of the regulators across the world, he said.
According to Malone, the FDA knew the COVID spike protein was biologically active and could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events, and that the spike protein, if biologically active, is very dangerous.
In fact, Malone was one of many scientists to warn the FDA about the dangers of the free spike protein.
Malone also made this comment on Twitter referencing the effectiveness of Ivermectin:
What happens to confidence in public health and USG if ivermectin turns out to be safe and effective for COVID, and the genetic vaccines turn out to have signficant safety issues? This looks like a very plausible scenario from where I sit.
SPI-M-O: Summary of further modelling of easing restrictions – Roadmap Step 2, 31 March 2021
Research and analysis Statement from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Operational sub-group (SPI-M-O). Paper from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Operational sub-group (SPI-M-O) summarising further modelling on easing restrictions for England (Roadmap Step 2). It was considered at SAGE 85 on 31 March 2021.
This paper should be read alongside the accompanying modelling papers from SAGE 85:
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].
People who are ignorant enough to be injected with an experimental vaccine that accelerates the generation of highly contagious super strains in their own bodies are walking biological time bombs and a threat to society.
The globalists know this, and consistent with their goals of global mass extermination, they are giving the most dangerous and most contagious people “vaccine passports” so they can freely roam across society, spreading their super strain viruses far and wide. Again, this is all by design.
The safest people are those who have strong innate immune systems and have already built antibodies against the coronavirus, without needing any medical intervention. This is easily accomplished in most people with the help of vitamin D, zinc, nutrition, restful sleep and avoidance of toxic foods and medications.
Yet the entire “science” industry refuses to recognize any role whatsoever for innate immunity, and antibodies that individuals create on their own are not recognized as serving any function whatsoever. For example, you can’t get an “antibody passport” from showing your own innate immunity, even though you have already defeated the pathogen thanks to your God-given immune system.
Modern “science” — if we dare even call it that — wants you to believe you have no immune system at all and that your body must be hijacked by mRNA vaccines in order to function. This is a gigantic, dangerous lie, and it is repeated by nearly every media outlet, medical journal and medical “authority” around the world (most of whom are working for the CCP to destroy Western nations, of course).
If lockdowns, quarantines and masks were to be required for anyone, it should be the vaccinated!
It’s the vaccinated people that are the most dangerous to society and the most likely to infect others with super strains which are already demonstrating complete immunity to existing vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, have already been rendered largely obsolete.
It’s only the innate human immune system that can handle the rapid mutations and defeat them in a few hours rather than waiting for 10+ months for the vaccine industry to roll out another “covid booster shot.”
The vaccine industry will be chasing these variants and mutant strains forever, in exactly the same way antibiotics are forever chasing superbugs in hospital settings. Yet today, the entire world is the super strain factory for the vaccine / bioweapons industry, and in truth, there’s something far more sinister at play here.
“Fauci, the NIH and the CCP needed billions of humans to serve as bioweapons factories in order to accelerate their ultimate genocidal bioweapon“
It turns out that Fauci, the NIH and the CCP didn’t actually succeed in building a deadly bioweapon that would wipe out humanity. The weapon they built — SARS-COV-2 — was intended merely to convince billions of people to take vaccines that would transform their own bodies into bioweapons factories so that the mutation development could then proceed globally.
In this way, the centralized bioweapons vaccine military complex was able to “decentralize” its bioweapons development program by releasing a relatively mild strain into the wild and following it up with a vaccine to accelerate the super strain adaptations. In effect, every human being who has taken the vaccine is now a walking bioweapons factory, churning out super strains and “shedding” them all over society with the help of their vaccine passports.
As cruise lines, sports arenas, airlines, universities and other organizations are now announcing “vaccinated only” policies for who they will allow to resume normal activities, they are creating “perfect storm” conditions for spreading the next global killer viral strain which will be the result of random mutations in a vaccinated person, not deliberate engineering in a genetic lab.
The real medical purpose of the vaccine is to wipe out the less lethal strains and provide viral adaptation pressures that accelerate the creation of more lethal strains.
This was all by design. They knew they couldn’t design the perfect weapon in the lab… they needed to put human beings to work as walking lab experiments. And that’s exactly what the vaccine accomplished.
Vaccinated people are dangerous to be around
Now, anyone who wants to survive the killer “super strain” wave that’s mutating right now in the bodies of the vaccinated must realize that staying away from vaccinated people may be a matter of life and death. It is the vaccinated who are the most dangerous and are therefore given the most access to society. In their own selfishness and scientific ignorance, these willing bioweapons volunteers are helping to carry out the greatest crime against humanity that could ever be imagined: A global plague, powered through decentralized, accelerated, adaptive genetic shaping that relies on billions of willing volunteers to serve as mutation labs.
The scale of this global medical experiment on live human subjects puts the entire Nazi regime to shame.
When the next death wave comes, of course, the media will blame the unvaccinated, even though the unvaccinated aren’t being allowed to go anywhere, increasingly. It is the vaccinated who will be killing themselves and others, which is why I say they are part of a “vaccine suicide cult.”
CONPLAN 8888 DISCLAIMER: This plan was not actually designed as a joke. During the summers of 2009 and 2010, while training auginentees from a local training squadron about the JOPP, members of a USSTRATCOM component found out (by accident) that the hyperbole involved in writing a “zombie survival plan” actually provided a very useful and effective training tool.
Planners who attended JPME II at the Joint Combined Warfighting School also realized that training examples for plans must accommodate the political fallout that occurs if the general public mistakenly believes that a fictional training scenario is actually a real plan. Rather than risk such an outcome by teaching our augmentees using the fictional “Tunisia- or “Nigeria” scenarios used at JCWS, we elected to use a completely-impossible scenario that could never be mistaken as a real plan…
Dr. Alexandra Henrion-Claude is one the top experts of RNA in France
– she advises that the doctors that are speaking on the different media are only the “iceberg tip” while the rest of the ice berg is composed by a very lively medical community, not in line with what media are reporting: 30,000 doctors and 100,000 citizens are associated to counter the official narrative.
– the idea that the covid virus could have been produced in a lab was first totally rejected but now is being considered as possible in the mainstream – due to the fact that many doctors have expressed this position
– PFIZER had started the vaccination first in South Africa, where people are complaining that they are being treated as guinea pigs – the clinic tests for PFIZER vaccine are still on going and will end in 2022 – their vaccine was supposed to treat mainly the severe cases of covid, which in fact it’s not the case
– based on figures from the French National Institute of Statistics, there has been only a small increase of the mortality in France in 2020, compared to previous years (from 1945 on) – see minute 17:30 – she and other colleagues of her have studied the increase of covid cases in France and elsewhere and they have found 3 different scenarios (minute 24) 1) spike and then decrease 2) nothing and then spike + decrease 3) “U” curve
It results that the lockdown does not stop the virus spread, which naturally occurs and cannot be stopped. Once the virus has circulated, there is practically NO residual risk.
– the tests RTPCRare not reliable, since further analysis via genomic sequencing would be required, which is not done
– isolation of SARS-COV2 virus is not considered to be achieved by several medical experts since the standard “KOCH” protocol has not been followed : it should have been required to perform testing on such animals like pangolin which has not been done
– the narrative that asymptomatic people could be a risk for others has been contradicted by a study published on “Nature” conducted on 10 million people in Wuhan
– Dr. Didier Raoult has put in place a very effective diagnosis technique based on analysis of waste water, able to detect the presence of virus at early stage – before that the infected people has adverse effects
– PFIZER treatment is not a vaccine as such since based on RNA
– it’s a madness to let people get PFIZER “vaccine” since injected RNA can combine, under certain circumstances, with human DNA. For example for people affected by HIV or by “spumavirus” which is not detected since it does not gives any symptoms.
– there is a risk to transmit diseases to descendants
– PFIZER reports that 2.7% of treated people have had severe adverse effects resulting in impossibility to return to work. This is a huge percentage, much higher than the risks from covid !
– in France the authorities have set a treatment watchdog to monitor adverse effects from the vaccine, however only NEW forms of reactions are screened, not the ones already identified by PFIZER.
– those over 75 are not being tested, so the effect of the vaccine on them is unknown. They are the guinea pigs… – PFIZER already was fined 2.3 billions of euros since they had provided false information on different treatments in the past (minute 50)
– people who are vaccinated emits 6 times more covid viruses than non vaccinated people, so they become a danger for others. Moreover, the possibility to induce virus variations sensibly increases.
– there are different treatments that are very effective against covid, already tested.
Vaccine Injury Claims Expected to Increase in 2016: Federal Advisory Committee Update
It came as no surprise to me that during the meeting of the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) on December 4, 2015 that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Division of Injury Compensation Programs (DICP) reported that the number of vaccine injury claims for this fiscal year will exceed previous years.
I have monitored this committee for the past six years and have seen the number of claims rise every year. Sadly they are likely to represent only a fraction of the vaccine injured, due to the lack of public awareness1 of the existence of the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which has a record of dismissing two-thirds of claims received.2
Adults, Not Children, Get Most Vaccine Injury Compensation Awards
The estimated 1,000 claims that the VICP anticipates being filed in 2016 are projected to cost $224 million. Although the VICP was originally created by Congress to shield drug companies producing government licensed, recommended and mandated vaccines for children, today it is not children but adults injured by influenza vaccine who are receiving most of the compensation.
The majority of compensated flu shot injury claims are for nerve inflammation diagnosed as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nervous system and can result in life-long paralysis.3
Also on the rise are government conceded claims for shoulder injuries (SIRVA) caused by vaccine providers failing to properly administer vaccinations.
GBS and SIRVA are in the process of being added to the federal Vaccine Injury Table 4 to expedite the administrative vaccine injury claims process for those two injuries…