Further, do your own research into these technologies and you will discover they aren’t “green” at all and are not only unsustainable, but dangerous to the environment
The following article is yet another example of an attack not only on individual freedom and choice, but on the health of the public.
Tell Your Federal and State Legislators to Introduce/Support Utility Meter Choice!
Smart and digital utility meters are actively being deployed and mandated across the U.S. without adequately informing consumers of the health, safety and privacy risks.
Smart and digital utility meters are actively being deployed and mandated across the U.S. without adequately informing consumers of the health, safety and privacy risks. In some cases, this is happening without notification or consent.
Unlike electromechanical analog meters that have been safely used for decades, smart meters and (some) digital meters emit toxic levels of pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation, are afire hazard and enable companies to sell near real-time private usage data to third parties.
To mandate these utility meters is unacceptable – where there is risk, there must be choice!
Use the form below to ask your federal and state representatives to introduce and/or support legislation with the following protections:
Utility Meter Choice. In states where smart and digital meters have been deployed, allow consumers to opt out.
Consumer Consent. In states where smart and digital meters have not yet been deployed, require utility companies to obtain consumer consent before installations (i.e., require an opt in).
Protective Privacy Laws. Require utility companies to be transparent about how utility meter data is collected, managed, stored, used and sold.
Please consider making a donation to support the work of CHD by April 30 during our $2 million match.
_______________
**Comment**
Please know that many Lyme/MSIDS patients can not tolerate WiFi, smart meters, 5G, and other technologies. These things immediately worsen their condition or makes them sick. I’ve talked with many first-hand.
Go here for an interview with Professor Francis A. Boyle, a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia – Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.
He appears to be about the only one telling the truth on biowarfare as mainstream media has been bought-out long ago and has reneged on their purpose of seriously inquiring into inconvenient matters without bias.
In December 2013, Zaire Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in Guinea and over the next three years spread across West Africa, ultimately killing 11,323 people. It was the largest and deadliest Ebola outbreak in history
According to a paper published at the end of December 2014, the Ebola epidemic was traced back to a 2-year-old boy in Meliandou, Guinea. Supposedly, the boy had come in contact with an infected fruit bat in a hollowed-out tree. However, no Ebolavirus was ever detected in any of the bat samples collected from the area
The senior author on that 2014 paper was Fabian Leendertz, a renowned virus hunter with the Robert Koch Institute in Germany. Leendertz was also a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origin of COVID-19, concluding without evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was of zoonotic origin
In late October 2022, Sam Husseini and Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., published a new analysis, in which they highlighted the holes in the zoonotic origin narrative and laid out the evidence pointing to a lab leak
Curiously, many of the same individuals, companies and organizations involved in the Ebola epidemic have also been linked to the alleged creation of SARS-CoV-2
In December 2013, Zaire Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in Guinea and over the next three years spread across West Africa, ultimately killing 11,323 people.1 While Ebola epidemics occur on a near-annual basis, this was the largest and deadliest in history.2
Of the five Ebola viruses known to cause disease in humans, Zaire Ebolavirus, first identified in Zaire in 1976, is the most dangerous, with a fatality rate ranging between 53% and 88%,3 depending on the variant.
The virus leads to severe immunosuppression, but most deaths are attributed to dehydration caused by gastric problems. Early signs of infection include nonspecific flu-like symptoms and sudden onset of fever, diarrhea, headache, muscle pain, vomiting and abdominal pains. Other less common symptoms include sore throat, rashes and internal/external bleeding.
As the infection sets in, shock, cerebral edema (fluid on the brain), coagulation disorders and secondary bacterial infections may occur. Hemorrhaging tends to begin four to five days after onset of the initial symptoms, which includes bleeding in the throat, gums, lips and vagina. Vomiting blood, excreting tar-like feces indicative of gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver- and/or multi-organ failure can also occur.
The Virus Hunter That Assigned Zoonotic Origin
According to a paper4 published at the end of December 2014, the Ebola epidemic was traced back to a 2-year-old boy in Meliandou, Guinea, named Emile Ouamouno. Supposedly, the boy had come in contact with an infected fruit bat in a hollowed-out tree.
This, even though no Ebolavirus RNA was ever detected in any of the bat samples collected from the area. Interestingly enough, the senior author on that paper was Fabian Leendertz, a renowned virus hunter with the Robert Koch Institute in Germany.
Leendertz was also a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origin of COVID-19.5 As you may recall, they also concluded, without evidence, that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely of zoonotic origin and dismissed the lab leak theory as not worthy of further consideration.
Lab Leak Suspected From the Start
However, just as with SARS-CoV-2, suspicions and rumors that the Ebola outbreak was the result of a lab leak were present from the start.Some scientists even suspected the virus might be a weaponized form of Ebola. As noted in a 2014 paper in the Journal of Molecular Biochemistry:6
“Another subject that may cause a plethora of arguments is that this virus may be a laboratory generated virus … There is a conjecture that the virus is transmitted to people from wild animals. However, by reason of the high mortality among them, it is impossible that these animals are the reservoir host of EVD.”
In late October 2022, Sam Husseini and Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., published a new analysis7,8,9 in Independent Science News, in which they laid out the evidence pointing to a lab leak. They also dissect Leendertz December 2014 report, highlighting the holes in the zoonotic origin narrative. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest the outbreak in in Meliandou wasn’t Ebola at all. Husseini and Latham write:10
“Chernoh Bah, an independent journalist from Sierra Leone, wrote a book on the 2014 Ebola outbreak and visited Meliandou. Bah found that: ‘Local health workers still think malariamay have been the actual cause of his [Emile’s] death.’
While in Meliandou, Chernoh Bah also interviewed Emile’s father. According to Bah, the Leendertz team (who never claimed to have interviewed the father) made a crucial error: ‘The child was actually 18 months old when he died’ … The age question, it should be noted, is crucial to the entire outbreak narrative. As Emile’s father told Reuters:
‘Emile was too young to eat bats, and he was too small to be playing in the bush all on his own. He was always with his mother.’ Bah also identified another apparent error: that Emile had four siblings who never became sick. These siblings are not mentioned anywhere in the scientific literature …
Further, although some bats appear to carry antibodies against Ebola viruses, only intact Bombali Ebola (a different virus species in the Ebola genus) has ever been isolated from a bat, despite intensive searches … Bombali is a species of Ebola that does not infect humans.
Taken together, this suggests that bats rarely carry Ebola viruses and when they do it is in small quantities. This context makes it somewhat surprising that Saéz et al. ascribed the 2014 outbreak (without supporting evidence) to contact with bats.
Indeed, Fabian Leendertz now doubts that bats are true reservoirs of Ebola viruses.11 Given the general want of evidence, one wonders by what exact process such poorly supported claims were transmuted into international headlines.”
Was Ebola Experimented On Before the Outbreak?
As detailed by Husseini and Latham,12 “persistent rumors in the region linked the outbreak to a US-run research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone.13 This facility studies viral hemorrhagic diseases, of which Ebola is one.”
The Kenema lab, which has been run by the U.S.-based Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium (VHFC) since 2010, is located about 50 miles from the village in Guinea where the Ebola outbreak first emerged.14
The founder and president of the VHFC is Robert (Bob) Garry, who was also part of the group of virologists who in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic concocted “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper15 in which they dismissed the lab leak theory and insisted zoonotic origin was the most plausible, despite the lack of evidence.16
As recently as November 2022, Garry still insisted SARS-CoV-2 “emerged via the wildlife trade.”17 In that same article, Garry drew parallels to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, claiming that conspiracy pundits were wrong about Ebola being leaked from the Kenema lab, because “we did not have EBOV [ebolavirus] in our laboratory and therefore could not have released or engineered it.”
According to Garry, the Ebola and SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks are both victims of “guilt-by-proximity.” However, in a March 11, 2023, interview on the Decoding the Gurus podcast, Kristian Andersen, vice president of the VHFC’s Kenema lab18 and another “Proximal Origin” author, clearly refuted Garry’s claim:19
“The problem is that people see these coincidences. One of the new ones is the Ebola lab leak, which also is being blamed on us, because we had been studying Ebola in Kenema in Sierra Leone, and lo and behold Ebola emerged just a few miles from there in 2014,” Andersen said.
So, what do we make of this? Garry claims the Kenema lab didn’t have any Ebola virus and Andersen says they did. Both are top executives at the lab and ought to know what was studied and what wasn’t. So, who’s telling the truth?
Was Kenema Lab Involved in Biowarfare Work?
According to Husseini and Latham,20 there’s good reason to believe the Kenema lab was working with Ebola before the outbreak in Guinea, some 50 miles from the lab. For starters, the Guinea outbreak was the first time Zaire Ebola emerged in West Africa. All previous outbreaks of this most-lethal strain of Ebola occurred in the Congo basin, in the central African equatorial zone, some 3,000 kilometers (approximately 1,864 miles) from Guinea.
“Hence Zaire Ebola’s appearance in West Africa was a striking and very unexpected development,” they write. How did it get there? Ebola is not highly contagious as transmission typically requires direct contact.
There were no outbreaks between the Congo basin and Guinea, which you’d expect if it was spreading naturally from person to person. Equally mysterious is the fact that genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis showed only a single jump from animal to human. Husseini and Latham explain:21
“Zoonotic outbreaks, including most past Ebola outbreaks, typically feature multiple jumps to humans from an animal source. Single jumps, however, are consistent with lab origins and are often considered a red flag for that possibility.
The reason is that researchers often work with a single isolate, perhaps one that they have found is particularly easy to replicate in the laboratory, whereas natural populations are typically diverse. This difference provides a genetic signal for distinguishing natural origins from laboratory ones.”
Zaire Ebola is also the preferred species used by research labs studying Ebola-type viruses, as it’s the most lethal and therefore has the greatest biowarfare potential. Husseini and Latham continue:
“Noting the gap between the weakness of the Leendertz account of the outbreak origin … and the forcefulness with which the Emile narrative was asserted by western scientists and western media, [journalist Chernoh Bah] wrote:
‘it is difficult not to interpret the ‘zoonotic origin of the West African Ebola epidemic’ narrative advanced by Fabian Leendertz and his team as part of a cover-up or obfuscation of the actual chain of events that laid the foundation for the West African Ebola outbreak’ …
In 2011, three years before the West African Ebola outbreak, Reuters profiled the research in Kenema at length.22 Readers were told that a ‘laboratory in southeastern Sierra Leone is an outpost of the U.S. government’s ‘war on terror,’ funded by a surge in bio-defense spending … [By] the fiscal year 2007 the NIH was requesting more than $1.9 billion.’ Reuters concluded that the Kenema labs’ share of that allocation was $40 million.
On August 25, 2013, just months before the Ebola outbreak, the VHFC posted on its website an article titled: ‘Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute make major advances in the fight against Ebola virus.’ This article was later removed but its existence is verifiable using the WayBackMachine.
Nevertheless, the title alone raises some key questions: Why did the VHFC post about Ebola if it wasn’t working on it at the time? In particular, what Ebola variant was being studied? What was the nature of the experiments? Why remove the post? …
We do know that Ebola was important to the VHFC and its partners and a primary interest for at least some of its members.
Indeed, all the leading US-based researchers of the VHFC, Robert Garry, Kristian Andersen, Erica Ollmann Saphire and Pardis Sabeti have published multiple original research papers on Ebola virus.23,24,25,26,27,28 An Ebola focus also accords with US biosecurity research priorities under whose auspices the Kenema lab is largely funded …
In 2013 Robert Garry co-authored a paper29 on a novel treatment for Zaire Ebola. All eleven other authors were from USAMRIID, aka Fort Detrick. This site is the largest ‘biodefense’ facility in the world and Garry’s company, Zalgen, is located close-by.”
More Biowarfare Connections and Ebola Trials
Husseini and Latham point out that in 2014, when the Ebola outbreak occurred, Metabiota was a VHFC partner. As detailed in “Evidence of Pandemic and Bioweapon Cover-Ups,” Metabiota was hired by the WHO and the local government of Sierra Leone to monitor the spread of the Ebola epidemic, but clearly were not up to the task. A 2016 CBS News report detailed Metabiota’s bungled response.30
2014 was also the year when Metabiota was entrusted with the operations of U.S. biological research labs in Ukraine, with funding from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and:31,32
Pilot Growth Management, cofounded by Neil Callahan. Callahan is also a cofounder of Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, and he sits on Metabiota’s board of advisers
In-Q-Tel, a CIA venture capital firm that specializes in high-tech investments that support or benefit the intelligence capacity of U.S. intelligence agencies
Rosemont Seneca,33 an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden34
Metabiota’s founder, Nathan Wolfe, is also tied to EcoHealth president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., a prime suspect in the COVID pandemic who worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, where SARS-CoV-2 is suspected of having originated. Wolfe has also received more than $20 million in research grants from Google, the NIH and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, just to name a few.
Aside from the Kenema lab’s obvious biowarfare connections, and the possibility of Ebola being experimented on there, several Ebola treatment trials were also taking place in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, about 190 km (118 miles) from Kenema, right around the same time that Ebola broke out in Guinea.
“From the limited descriptions available, one of these trials fits the timing required for it to have triggered the 2014 Ebola outbreak but none of them fits the location,” Latham and Husseini write.35
“However, the data is incomplete; for his book, Constantine Nana corresponded with the lead investigator in the Port Loko Phase II trial, Dr. Peter Horby of the University of Oxford. Horby told Nana ‘he had no information as regards the results of the Phase I trial.’ To lead a Phase II trial and know nothing about that product’s Phase I trial is indeed mysterious and rather strange.”
Biosafety Is Lax at Kenema Lab
Latham and Husseini also review the lackadaisical approach to biosafety at the Kenema lab, despite working with extremely dangerous pathogens:36
“In the U.S., using live filoviruses requires biosafety level four (BSL-4) facilities, where researchers wear positive pressure ‘space suits.’ But in Kenema … according to Reuters, biosafety ‘measures include goggles, gloves and masks.’ The article quoted VHFC member Matt Boisen, a U.S. scientist from Tulane, now with Zalgen: ‘Certainly we have less safety, less containment, but we do have the ability to do a lot more in the same amount of time’ …
Others have corroborated this laxity. In the 2014 outbreak, the earliest emergency responder was the medical non-profit Doctors Without Borders (MSF) who were called in for their extensive Ebola experience. MSF’s emergency response coordinator was Anja Wolz. She was highly critical of the biosafety measures used by Metabiota at Kenema.
Having seen how they visited suspected Ebola cases, she told AP: ‘I didn’t go inside the Metabiota lab … I refused because I had already seen enough.’ A CDC official, Austin Demby, later sent to investigate, reached similar conclusions.
In an email about the Kenema lab he wrote: ‘The cross contamination potential is huge and quite frankly unacceptable.’ Thus, there seems to have been a pattern at Kenema of lax biosafety procedures both before and during the outbreak.”
Another oddity that doesn’t fit the nature of a natural outbreak was the fact that hotspots were broadly spread out. There was no epicenter. Moreover, according to WHO Ebola coordinator Philippe Barboza, Metabiota staffers were “systematically obstructing any attempt to improve the existing surveillance system.” MSF also complained they got no cooperation from Kenema.
“Given the intentionality imputed by many of these witnesses to the failings in Sierra Leone, were they deliberate? If so, were they intended to divert attention away from the Kenema lab?” Latham and Husseini ask.
Genomic Testing
Latham and Husseini then delve into the genomic testing results, which suggest there was a “hidden” or unreported outbreak in Sierra Leone, which only later spread into Guinea. That doesn’t prove it came out of a lab in Sierra Leone, however. But unique features in the Makona strain of Ebola that caused the Guinea outbreak suggest the virus may have undergone some form of manipulation. Latham and Husseini explain:
“The Makona strain of Ebola is not a standard or known strain, nor is it similar to any published strain. It is novel, having approximately 400 mutations that are not found in any previously known Ebola strain. Hence, for the 2014 Ebola outbreak to have begun in a lab, the Makona strain must either represent the escape of an unpublished strain, perhaps one collected during fieldwork in central Africa.
Alternatively, Makona could be a radically manipulated derivative of a known strain–either through genetic engineering or passaging. A combination of these two possibilities should also be considered.
Of these two alternatives, we know that Ebola and other viruses were being sought from wild animals in the Congo basin at the time as part of USAID’s PREDICT project. The chief actors in this were the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Metabiota, which, at the time, was at the time a partner of the VHFC …
[One] possibility is that Metabiota, or other collectors, used the VHFC lab at Kenema as part of a cold chain for the preservation of samples brought from the Congo basin …
The Kenema lab may also have been used for initial screening or testing of such samples. A third possibility is the formal or informal sharing of samples or strains with VHFC contacts or colleagues at Kenema, perhaps to help in the development of commercial treatments or diagnostic tools …
Given these potentialities it is remarkable to discover that, in July 2014, during the epidemic, the VHFC wrote a brief report in which they accused Metabiota of an activity that would be riskier still.
The VHFC accused Metabiota staff at Kenema of culturing cells from Ebola patients, which they insisted was dangerous and should ‘be stopped immediately.’
Metabiota issued a qualified denial, but the allegation is highly credible since the two organisations shared the same site; moreover its implications are very great. It suggests, first, that Metabiota had an interest in culturing novel strains of Ebola, second, that they had the technical capability and the personnel competent to do so at Kenema, and third, that they were willing to take exceptional risks …
The allegation therefore raises, in a very concrete way, the question of what Metabiota might have been doing in Kenema prior to the outbreak … given the research interests and the capacities of the VHFC lab in Kenema and its collaborators, it is a relatively simple matter to theorise how a novel strain of Ebola, like Makona, might have reached Kenema and then spilled over there during routine research activities.
Interesting too is the dual role of Metabiota. Besides collecting samples from the wild, Metabiota was also the company that, at least according to MSF and the WHO, obstructed or mishandled testing and diagnosis at Kenema and that Sylvia Blyden alleged ‘messed up the whole region.’
If a research error on the part of Metabiota was the source of the strain (and Metabiota’s incompetence has been widely alleged37), or even suspected to be, they would have had a strong incentive to also ‘bungle’ the identification of early cases and so obfuscate the origin.”
Pathogenic Research Must Be Reined In
While the case for the worst Ebola outbreak in history being the result of a lab leak is still based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence is compelling, and made even more so by the absence of evidence for a zoonotic origin. The same can be said for SARS-CoV-2.
Additionally, of all the scientists, companies and organizations involved in this kind of research across the world, how is it that the same short list of names pop up both in the Guinea Ebola case and COVID-19?
The take-home message here is that there is no possible way to guarantee containment of viruses in any of these laboratories, not even biosafety level 4 labs. And a pathogen doesn’t have to be developed as a bioweapon in order to act like one.
If gain-of-function research on lethal viruses is allowed to continue, the whole world will remain at risk, and I don’t think its hyperbolic to say gain of function research poses an existential threat to mankind. So far, we’ve been lucky in that escaped pathogens (suspected or confirmed) have not decimated the global population, but our luck may someday run out.
Regarding an interview with James H. Oliver, Lorraine Johnson of Lymedisease.org has the following to say:
“James H. Oliver is a well-known expert in ticks and their pathogens. He is a Professor of Biology Emeritus at Georgia Southern University and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In the 1950s, he served in the army at Ft. Dietrich, Maryland, a top-secret biological warfare facility, where he studied ticks and the diseases they carry.”
“The interview suggests to me that the reason we have such a large problem with our tick population today may be related to military experiments in the 50s. They were part of a biological warfare effort against the Russians. One goal was to figure out how to get ticks to reproduce quickly and abundantly, as well as how to distribute ticks to targeted areas.”
. . .I am a biologist, so that’s where I started working on ticks and mosquitoes—how to produce a lot of them. Drop them out of airplanes. Everything was very hush-hush, very secret. I’m still leery talking about it, because I think they might put me in jail because I’m delivering secrets. [Laughs.] It was a crazy time.
Bad Pfizer Vaccine Batches Account for 4.2% of doses but 71% of Serious Adverse Events
Explains Why Some Have Severe Side Effects and Others Do Not
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
April 13, 2023
I am routinely asked: why are so many people who took the COVID-19 vaccines apparently fine while others are suffering heart damage, strokes, blood clots and are ending up disabled or dead? It has been suspected for many months that there may be variations in vaccine lots or batches that could partially explain these observations. In other words, not everyone is getting the same dose of mRNA.
Under Emergency Use Authorization, the vaccine companies and their subcontractors do not have any inspections of the final filled and finished vials.This is unprecedented for a widely used product of any type. It is possible that lipid nanoparticles aggregate in suspension and so some batches may contain more mRNA than others. Likewise, since lot size has varied over time, it is possible that contaminants from the manufacturing process may be concentrated in some smaller lots compared to larger ones. Finally, there may be product transport, storage, and use factors that denature mRNA including heating, air injected into vials, and multiple needles dipped into the suspension. (See link for article)
Metallic beads are used by biodefense contractors which may explain the bizarre magnetism at the injection site
A report from Schmeling and coworkers inspecting the Pfizer shot found:
71% of serious adverse events came from 4.2% of doses (high risk batches)
conversely <1% of these events came from 32.1% of doses (low risk batches)
The variation explained for the high and moderate risk batches was 78 and 89%, respectively
Thus as more doses were given out of those vials, the greater the number of side effects were reported. This means that the majority of risk is in the shot and not the person who received it
This proves the COVID shot debacle is a product problem and not a patient problem
This also proves that lack of product inspection has led to untold suffering
CDC confirms 100% of reported Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of batches produced & the majority were sent to red Republican States across the USA
Last year this substack reported on “vaccine” lot batch allocations, and how conservative states were being targeted by the eugenics “pandemic” program.
Now we have a more robust and far more damning view of this carefully distributed depopulation scheme.
On October 31st we exclusively revealed how an investigation of the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines numerous times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.
That investigation also led to the discovery that 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people than the 4,289 different lt number of Pfizer vaccine distributed to 12 states or less.
However, the most shocking finding of the investigation was that 100% of Covid-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS with identified lot numbers had been caused by just 5% of the batches produced. But the deeply troubling findings don’t end there, because we decided to conduct further analysis of the VAERS data on the Covid-19 vaccines, and we’ve discovered that the majority of the deadliest batches were clearly sent to Republican controlled red states across the USA.
The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact or Wishful Myth?
Yaakov Ophir, Ph.D. Yaffa Shir-Raz, Ph.D. Shay Zakov, Ph.D. Peter A. McCullough, M.D., M.P.H.
ABSTRACT
The medical narrative justifying the global vaccination campaign has changed throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. While the primary narrative focused on the proclaimed excellent ability of the novel mRNA vaccines to prevent infections and (therefore) to attenuate the spread of the pandemic, policymakers today (March 2023) acknowledge the poor vaccine efficacy (VE) of contemporary booster doses against infections but insist that the boosters are still capable of providing long-term protection against severe illness and deaths (as if the two types of protection do not depend on each other). We examine the evidence behind this modified narrative through an in-depth evaluation of representative and high-profile data from: (1) the formal, phase 3 clinical trials by Pfizer and Moderna, which preceded the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA); (2) the observational studies from Israel (“the world’s lab,” as termed by Pfizer officials), which examined the efficacy of the fourth dose at about the time the FDA authorized this second booster; and (3) the publicly available, real-life dashboards of pandemic statistics.
This investigation encountered multiple methodological and representational constraints, including short, and sometimes arbitrary or uneven follow-up periods; uneven exclusion criteria and COVID-19 testing levels; selection biases; and selective report of results. But most importantly, the documented, conditional probability of death and severe illness (i.e., the percentage ofsevere illness and death cases among those infected with the virus) did not differ between the treatment and the control groups of the various clinical and observational efficacy studies. Altogether, the representative data examined in this article do not lend convincing support to the notion that the current booster doses offer protection against severe illness and deaths that extends significantly beyond their temporary and fragile protection against infections. Considering the already known poor efficacy against infections and transmission and the ever-growing concerns over serious, vaccine-associated adverse outcomes, the findings of this meticulous scientific investigation challenge the current (modified) narrative and serve as an urgent call for the medical community to reconsider the balance between the benefits and the risksof the newly developed COVID-19 vaccines. (See link for entire study)
_________________
**Comment**
Efficacy has been dealt with by experts many, many times over; however, the bought out media is simply not reporting on the way ‘the powers that be’ have manipulated, skewed, hidden, and outright lied about data. It’s also important to remember that similarly to Lyme/MSIDS, the entire house of cards is built on false premises including:
they have never, to this day, created a successful”vaccine” for an upper respiratory disease
a “vaccine” isn’t needed for an illness which has a 99.991% recovery rate by doing nothing
this article points out that these injections lack a viable mechanism of action against COVID in the airways and that antibodies cannot prevent injection due to the fact COVID invades through the respiratory tract and that none of the “vaccine” trials gave any evidence that they prevent transmission. Urging people to get these fast-tracked gene therapy injections to “protect others” has NO basis in fact
Despite forcing countries to put up sovereign assets including their bank reserves, military bases, and embassy buildings as collateral, these “vaccine” manufacturers ADMIT efficacy and risks are UNKNOWN
when absolute risk is taken into account, these injections are less than 1% effective
COVID “vaccine” manufacturers have unblinded their trials giving control groups the actual “vaccine,” making long-term efficacy and safety impossible to assess
Every clinical study and non-peer reviewed press release regarding efficacy needs to be revisited due to the sleight-of-statistical hand and the faulty PCR used in these studies. Please remember that the CDC did not consider people “vaccinated” until up to five weeks after the initial dose – demonstrating brazen statistical manipulation to bury perception of adverse events and deaths
CDC data has shown that mass “vaccination” has had NO measurable impact on COVID mortality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbTwoTMBB6Q&t=246sThe efficacy devil hides in the little scientific details, so I urge you to read the entire article and judge the evidence for yourself. However, this video by one of the study authors discusses the findings in this video.
London, Mar 29 (PTI) Leading UK-based Indian-origin consultant cardiologist Aseem Malhotra is among a group of international experts backing an approach to the High Court of South Africa, calling for an urgent judicial review of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine products which he fears may be “harmful”.
Lawyers representing the human rights group Freedom Alliance of South Africa (FASA) say the show cause notice was filed on Monday at the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, along with real-world data analysis, which is claimed to show an association with increasing death from both COVID and non-COVID causes in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
FASA has approached the court to review and set aside the authorization of Pfizer’s vaccine products on the basis that the authorization was “unlawful”.
If successful, this could result in the removal of COVID mRNA vaccines from the South African market and also have global implications.
Malhotra states that the literature and the trial data shows unequivocally that for the majority of people, the Pfizer shot is more harmful than beneficial and should never have even been approved.
Malhotra states the injections should be halted pending a full investigation.
Dr Herman Edeling, neurosurgeon with over 40 years of experience, notes that the mRNA “vaccine” administered as Comirnaty in South Africa should “never have been branded as ‘safe’ and ‘effective’”.
The application calls on Pfizer to explain their conduct and calls on regulators and government to hold Pfizer accountable.
I have served on or chaired two dozen data safety monitoring boards for randomized trials of novel experimental drugs or devices. I can tell you first hand that for COVID-19 vaccines, a 30 day regulatory window after injection is fair game for attribution of health events to the product when the adverse events of interest are known to be caused by the mRNA induced Wuhan Spike protein.
Jabagi et al, NEJM, reported from the French National Health Data System linked to the national COVID-19 vaccination database disclosing cardiovascular events after mRNA BA4/BA5 bivalent boosters. All persons who were 50 years of age or older and who had received a booster dose between October 6 and November 9, 2022, were included in the study. The composite of ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary occurred in 335 unfortunate individuals. The authors make the mistake of dividing by the cases by the entire number vaccinated and comparing rates to monovalent boosters. Neither of these operations are valid since there is incomplete capture of events and comparison was not made to a placebo or control group.
(See link for article)
Both Malhotra and McCullough are cardiologists. It would behoove us to listen closely.
Despite these frightening developments (among many others) the Biden Admin just announced a $5 Billion public-private partnership on Next Gen COVID “vaccines,” even though Biden just signed a bill formally ending the COVID emergency.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 