https://rumble.com/v1nx71o-a-day-of-reckoning-is-coming.html Video Here (Approx. 6 Min)
GBN News (Britain) interviews Laura Dodsworth, author of A State of Fear and she states people have had their “fingers in their ears” as the seemingly “new” news that the COVID shots do not protect against transmission was in the actual trial data and Peter Doshi wrote about it in the BMJ. The shots weren’t tested for reduction in hospitalization, death, or transmission, rather they were tested for reduction in severe symptoms – which is not the proper endpoint for “vaccine” efficacy.
Dosworth points out the extremely polarizing message: on one hand Disney & Marvel are pushing the jabs while on the other side of the country a highly respected medic states “we don’t recommend them.”
An important detail was mentioned: “vaccination” decisions are personal and should be respected.
Another important takeaway:
“there should be zero [COVID] measures ever again.”
We have up to two years’ worth of data on most of the measures, and NONE has proven fruitful.
Instead, they’ve all been shown to be harmful — to economic stability, mental health, physical health, education, life expectancy, quality of life and more. Many masks are carcinogenic, as they and plastic barriers are worthless against viruses, impede oxygen and air-flow, and harbor bacteria the wearer continues to breathe. Lockdowns did irreparable harm that will continue to be felt and did nothing to help.
The global response has been nothing short of disastrous, and following the same playbook is insanity.
Kim Iversen poked holes in the arguments given by many to vilify the unvaccinated. She points out the COVID shots waning immunity as well as breakthrough infections (infections in those who were were “vaccinated”)
Pro-Mandate Covidians Try to Rewrite History and Pretend Their Views Changed With “The Science”
Oct. 12, 2022
This article is a good read regarding the new phenomenon of those waking up to the mRNA shots causing adverse reactions. The author states there are three types of people and they should be handled differently:
- Average citizens who complied but are now starting to realize getting the shots was a mistake. They are interested in learning about long-term ramifications. These people deserve compassion and patience.
- Those who were incentivized to be pro-“vaccine,” such as health care professionals, pharmaceutical professionals, and politicians. These people made very poor and dangerous decisions and were selfish and opportunistic. While not necessarily evil, they should not be given a free pass. History proves many will do anything to keep their job, power, or money. Our government and professional groups are guilty of forcing people to choose an injection over bodily autonomy. Shame on them.
- Celebrities, journalists, and influencers who had no incentive to push the jabs but did so anyway. This group should never be trusted again. Some in this group were incentivized as well. The dangling carrot is very persuasive.
Welcome, to the real world
Welcome, to the real world. So you just heard it from the horse’s mouth, Pfizer never tested the vaccines for reducing transmission. Now that you’re here, there are a few other things you should know.
Firstly, it’s true. Pfizer didn’t test the vaccines for reducing transmission, and the regulators knew this. If this was your understanding of the vaccine, it’s because official public messaging, even from the World Health Organization, conflated vaccination with reducing transmission. It would reduce transmission they suggested, “if we all get involved.” No such tests had been done, but I’m sorry to tell you it’s much worse than that…
Pfizer did test the vaccine’s ability to reduce rates of “Covid-19”. To be specific, “Covid-19” means testing positive and being symptomatic. The data looked great by the way, Pfizer had a wonderful graph to show the effect. The blue line is infections in the unvaccinated, and the red line is infections in the vaccinated.
But there is a fatal problem with this data, and lots of policy was based on it. That data you can see up there, the main argument for the vaccine passports, the vaccine mandates and all the terrifying media campaigns comes from a fraudulent study.
What does that mean exactly? The investigators were forging documents, forging signatures, changing diagnoses, and unblinding the patients. A whistleblower saw it all, took pictures, took notes, and took the story to the British Medical Journal. They published it. Read that all again. The investigators on that absolutely critical Pfizer trial were forging documents. (See link for article)
Anyone reading the information on this website has known this information a long, long time ago.
The author clearly points out that the evidence (graph) Pfizer is using is worthless until we get to the bottom of the fraud case, which is ongoing and which the BBC and mainstream media didn’t report on at all proving that Big Media is complicit in all of this.
He also points out that when credible people attempted to inform the public they were silenced. Go to the top link to hear the author interview the whistleblower.
While the debate over what the “vaccine” was tested for is important, even more important is the massive ongoing legal case over the claims of fraud.
The author states it only gets “weirder” as the allegedly fraudulent trial continues……
http:// Approx. 2 Min
The Lies About Effectiveness
Knowledge About Lack of Protection Against Transmission is Old, Not New
The admission by a Pfizer exec has set social media ablaze with shock. That’s what you get when you suppress inconvenient truths. Now the flawed policies must be reversed or rescinded.
Please read this all the way through. It’s infuriating, I know. BUT – this is why I’m asking you to (1) upgrade to Paid and (2) share EVERY ARTICLE in real time.
Popular Rationalism applies reason and logic to real-world events. In this dystopian time of messaging, you’ll be a year ahead on the misinformation. This proves it.
Just when public trust in Public Health could not get lower, it fell of the crapper and into the fire.
With the EPOCH Times’ headline, “Pfizer Exec Concedes COVID-19 Vaccine Was Not Tested on Preventing Transmission Before Release”
comes the Orwellian tale of “we never did the studies because we had to move at the speed of science”. Seriously, you can’t make this up…
When asked by Rob Roos, a member of the European Parliament, “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? Did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market?”
Pfizer’s Janine Small, president of international developed markets, said in response: “No … You know, we had to … really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market.”
Epoch Times wrote:
“A Pfizer executive said Monday that neither she nor other Pfizer officials knew whether its COVID-19 vaccine would stop transmission before entering the market last year…
“…Roos, of the Netherlands, argued in a Twitter video Monday that following Small’s comments to him, millions of people around the world were duped by pharmaceutical companies and governments.
‘Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others,’‘ Roos said. ‘Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie’ and ‘should be exposed,’ he added.”
But wait, there’s more.
“The Food and Drug Administration wrote in late 2020 that there was no data available to determine whether the vaccine would prevent transmission and for how long it would protect against transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.”
‘At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person,’ the agency specifically noted.
Hold the phone there, because my ally from the UK, John Stone, and the internet, remembers things a bit differently (the links provided are from John, the descriptions and quotes are pulled by me):
By Sept, 2020, the goalposts had already been moved to hospitalization, per the NY Times, which nudged:
“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications? The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
The WashPo got serious about this, warning that actually studying transmission rates (which track rates of mild or asymptomatic disease) should not be done:
“A close reading suggests the clinical trials have been designed to ensure the greatest possible success for these candidates — and that could overstate their effectiveness. In both the Moderna and Pfizer trials, for example, the primary objective is to prevent any occurrence of covid-19, not necessarily a severe case. Preventing serious illness is a secondary objective.”
Even vaccine risk, death and injury denialist Peter Hotez was telling Medpage today in early November:
“Even as the first vaccines become more widely available they may be only partially protective to reduce severity of illness and won’t stop transmission anyway so we won’t need to pay people for that purpose,” he told MedPage Today. “So I don’t foresee a reason to pay anyone to get vaccinated against COVID-19.”
Similarly, vaccine injury denialist Fiona Godlee warned, explicitly in BMJ:
“So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection, provide only short lived immunity, and will at best have been trialled by the manufacturer against placebo. As well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment. This would be good for business but bad for global public health.”
John Stone also reminded BMJ about the lack of effectiveness that was being reported.
Now back to Epoch Times storyline:
“Meanwhile, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, around the same time, said his firm was ‘not certain’ if those who receive its mRNA vaccine will be able to transmit COVID-19 to other people.
‘I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now,’ Bourla told NBC News in December 2020 in response to a question about transmissibility.
Former White House medical adviser Dr. Deborah Birx in June revealed that there was evidence in December 2020 that individuals who received COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer’s, could still transmit the virus.
“We knew early on in January of 2021, in late December of 2020, that reinfection was occurring after natural infection,” Birx, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator during the Trump administration, told members of Congress this year.
Enter the Faucists (My Subheading, Not ET’s)
A number of officials in the United States and around the world had claimed COVID-19 vaccines could prevent transmission. Among them, President Joe Biden in July 2021 remarked that “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”