Pfizer is one of the largest television advertisers in the United States. That’s why I don’t expect this strong rebuke of its CEO to get much publicity here.
You might think that an official rebuke of Pfizer’s CEO for misleading the public on the benefits of its COVID vaccine would be big news, especially given the fill court press by vaccine absolutists to compel people to receive the shots.
6 months ago, Dr. Bourla appeared with Klaus Schwab at the Wiorld Economic Forum (YouTube screengrab)
But even with a Google search, I have not yet seen any US media coverage of a starling rebuke delivered to Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla by a panel convened by the UK Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The criticism followed remarks he made in a December 2021 interview with the BBC. The following account is derived from an article in the Melbourne, Australia Herald-Sun by Frank Chung.
In early December 2021, Dr Bourla used an interview with BBC Breakfast to claim that the virus was “thriving” in schools and “there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of” giving five-year-olds the vaccine.
“This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms,” he said. (snip)
By March 2022, some data were showing the effectiveness of the children’s vaccine plummeted to just 12 per cent within weeks of inoculation.
Dr Bourla said in the BBC interview that the main benefit of immunising children was “the indirect protection of adults”.“The extent to which we can do that and protect adults by avoiding them being infected by children with the current vaccines is still quite uncertain,” he said.
“So, that’s the balance — we clearly want to protect children as much as possible and we’ve got good evidence now that this vaccine, even at a low dose, produces a really good protective immune response in children and produces many fewer side effects because of the lower dose.
The CEO’s touting of “good evidence” and his promotion of a jab that turned out to have but 12% effectiveness, drew an almost immediate complaint:
“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.”
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.
“If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re anti-social. This is what the Dutch Prime Minister and Health Minister told us,” Roos said.
“You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others—you do it for all of society. That’s what they said.”
But that argument no longer holds, Roos explained.
“Today, this turns out to be complete nonsense. In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me—at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.”
Between July 2021 and July 23, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made a series of changes to its “Facts about COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines,” including adding — and then removing — a statement assuring readers the mRNA and spike protein “do not last long in the body.”
And our cells break down the mRNA, the programming instructions for our cellular machinery to synthesize the spike protein, “soon” after they are finished using the instructions.
Seven months after the shots were granted Emergency Use Authorization, I am sure the public was comfortably sleeping knowing that the “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines WILL Be Rigorously Evaluated for Safety.”
Will. As in the future. As in someday soon, presumably.
Nonetheless, Americans should not be concerned about the vaccines’ safety because the CDC apparently already knew that “mRNA vaccines ARE safe and effective.”
A year later (July 22, 2022), the story had changed a wee bit:
Phew! So, good to know:
The vaccines STILL cannot give you COVID-19. That’s good.
They STILL do not Interact with our DNA. That’s good, too.
The mRNA and the spike protein itself “do not last long in the body” (a few days for the mRNA and up to a few weeks for the spike protein).
I hope we can all agree that “up to a few weeks” = “not long.”
And now we know that “soon” had always meant “a few days.”
And now, “mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines HAVE BEEN Rigorously Evaluated for Safety.” Just like they promised in July 2021.
Then, as of July 23, 2022, one day later, the list of “facts” gets a bit shorter:
Taylor Lee, FDA Economist: “Go to the unvaccinated and blow it [COVID vaccine] into them. Blow dart it into them.”
Lee: “Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do it [forced COVID vaccinations]. I mean, it’ll cost a ton of money. But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very [much like Nazi] Germany.”
Lee: “Nazi Germany…I mean, think about it like the Jewish Star [for unvaccinated Americans].”
Lee: “I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone [with the COVID vaccine], ‘Oh, it’s just your booster shot! There you go!’”
Lee: “So, if you put every anti-vaxxer, like sheep, into like Texas and you closed off Texas from the rest of the world, and you go, ‘Okay, you be you in Texas until we deal with this [pandemic].’”
Lee: “All of the wealthy white people are getting vaccinated because they’re educated.”
Lee: “There are political appointees [at the FDA] that are generally scientific advisors or are appointed by the president or the commission…They’re being paid based on if the other people are staying in power.”
Lee: “Unfortunately, everyone ends up playing politics, but I don’t think that the career scientists are — I think that it’s the people that they’re unfortunately having to report to because these political appointees are being put in place and that’s part of like — the Senate confirms the people to then just pick their people.”
[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sept. 22, 2021] Project Veritas released the second video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today exposing U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] economist, Taylor Lee, who was recorded calling for forced COVID vaccinations and a registry for all unvaccinated Americans.
Lee said that U.S. Government policy could emulate Nazi Germany when it comes to the COVID vaccine.
“Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do it [forced COVID vaccinations]. I mean, it’ll cost a ton of money. But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very [much like Nazi] Germany,” Lee said.
“Nazi Germany…I mean, think about it like the Jewish Star [for unvaccinated Americans],” he said.
“So, if you put every anti-vaxxer, like sheep, into like Texas and you closed off Texas from the rest of the world, and you go, ‘Okay, you be you in Texas until we deal with this [pandemic].’”
Lee said that due to a large portion of the African American community being hesitant to take the COVID vaccine, the solution would be to “blow dart” on them:
Taylor Lee, FDA Economist: “I think that a lot of the time — so there’s also this issue of — I remember reading about how with COVID [vaccine] trials, they were having an issue recruiting African American people. It was because of a different medication the government tried to do that was specifically designed to kill African Americans.”
Veritas Journalist: “Oh, so like a mistrust thing.”
Lee: “Yeah.”
Veritas Journalist: “But this thing [COVID vaccine] is safe, though.”
Lee: “We know that now, but like again, I think there is still this big mistrust and like it’s deep-rooted.”
Veritas Journalist: “Yeah. Can’t blame them [African Americans].”
Lee: “I can’t. But at the same time, like, blow dart. That’s where we’re going.”
Lee affirmed that “wealthy white people” are more likely to get the COVID vaccine because they are “educated,” and added that he would be willing to force COVID vaccines upon Americans himself if needed.
“I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone [with the COVID vaccine], ‘Oh, it’s just your booster shot! There you go!’”
Lee also said that FDA officials can often be political appointees rather than actual scientific experts.
“There are political appointees [at the FDA] that are generally scientific advisors or are appointed by the president or the commission…They’re being paid based on if the other people are staying in power,” he said.
“Unfortunately, everyone ends up playing politics, but I don’t think that the career scientists are — I think that it’s the people that they’re unfortunately having to report to because these political appointees are being put in place and that’s part of like — the Senate confirms the people to then just pick their people.”
James O’Keefe established Project Veritas in 2010 as a non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work. Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society and to engage in litigation to: protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law, specifically First Amendment rights including promoting the free exchange of ideas in a digital world; combat and defeat censorship of any ideology; promote truthful reporting; and defend freedom of speech and association issues including the right to anonymity. O’Keefe serves as the CEO and Chairman of the Board so that he can continue to lead and teach his fellow journalists, as well as protect and nurture the Project Veritas culture.
The first is that this commercial, just like every COVID vaccine pitch ever created, treats us, the skeptical-yet-potential consumer, like a child being persuaded by a desperate parent to believe that Santa really showed up on Christmas Eve. “I saw him on the Santa Tracker app. Honest!”
The second is the absence of all that fine-print disclosure that commonly appears at the bottom of most American drug commercials, accompanied by a swift recitation of those horrifying potential side effects in a pleasant voice. And curiously, after not being reminded that there are potential side effects to the COVID vaccines or what those side effects are, we’re also not reminded that we should talk to our doctor before “deciding” to take this new drug.
There must be a lot of money to be made in peddling medical treatments and prescription drugs to Americans, or else there’d be no way the advertisements pitching these treatments and drugs to the public could be so plentiful. But you may have noticed a feature of those ads that is conspicuously absent in the public pitch for COVID-19 vaccines.
Let’s consider that commercial (or any of the hundreds exactly like it) entreating you to get vaxxed as a means to “get back to life,” showing happy images of travel passports, college, family meals, and visiting grandparents. But, we’re assured, “it’s okay to have questions,” like “how were the vaccines tested?” and “why should I get vaccinated?”
How were they tested? “In rigorous clinical trials among adults of diverse backgrounds,” we’re assured. Oh, well that’s a relief.
Why should I get vaccinated? Because “protecting yourself also helps protect the people around you.” You don’t say? Hadn’t heard that.
“Back to life?” the commercial ends. “It’s up to you.”
There are two things that the average American might notice here.
The first is that this commercial, just like every COVID vaccine pitch ever created, treats us, the skeptical-yet-potential consumer, like a child being persuaded by a desperate parent to believe that Santa really showed up on Christmas Eve. “I saw him on the Santa Tracker app. Honest!”
The second is the absence of all that fine-print disclosure that commonly appears at the bottom of most American drug commercials, accompanied by a swift recitation of those horrifying potential side effects in a pleasant voice. And curiously, after not being reminded that there are potential side effects to the COVID vaccines or what those side effects are, we’re also not reminded that we should talk to our doctor before “deciding” to take this new drug.
As it turns out, there’s a reason that all those American drug manufacturers and their pitchmen have always put all those uncomfortable disclosures in their commercials, and it’s not because they’re really bad salespeople or because they love being the subject of countless parodies for presenting side effects that are often worse than the cure they promise.
Nope. It’s thanks, in part, to this little nuisance of a concept called “informed consent.”
“Informed consent to medical treatment,” according to the American Medical Association, “is fundamental to both ethics and law. Patients have a right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.”
Pharmaceutical companies peddling their wares in America, almost uniquely in the global context, are able to market prescription drugs directly to potential patients. Because of this, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeks to keep the drug peddlers honest, believing this to be part of the process by which potential patients are informed, and therefore requiring them to present the negative effects of any medical treatment alongside potential benefits.
The other reason is personal injury lawyers, who will scour every advertisement a drug company puts out to find a client that experiences some negative impact as a result of an undisclosed side effect, but that’s another story.
In sum, that appears to be why COVID vaccine commercials don’t include side effects to inform the public about any potentially negative side effects. It’s a loophole. They don’t disclose the details because they’re not marketing a specific brand of the product to the public. It’s just a public service announcement that (coincidentally, I’m sure) does what the pitchmen of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, or Moderna couldn’t legally do as a matter of consumer protection — and that is pitch their products by promising all of that vague upside without presenting any of the potentially negative side effects.
So, the advertisements for the COVID vaccine are neither informative nor balanced, despite being presented as such. And even more sinister than that, they seem to offer the false proposition of our being given a choice in taking the jab.
It’s not a very convincing pretense, to be fair. Even the language in the commercials amounts to a thinly-veiled threat that noncompliance will be punished. You can’t get “back to life” unless you get the shot, it unapologetically presumes.
But it’s presented as if any of this might be a matter of personal choice. “It’s okay to have questions,” we’re told. It’s just not okay to reach any conclusion that involves a decision to not take the jab for any reason. You’re free to have reservations about it, of course, so long as those reservations eventually (and hopefully soon, the rest of society is counting on you!) become assuaged by the soothing, vague bromides that have been provided by the product manufacturers and their pitchmen.
This, like the masks, and like stupid the distancing rituals we became accustomed to last year, is just theater.
When you sit for the jab, the nurse will likely give you seven pages of warnings and disclosures. Maybe, if she’s really honest, as one happened to be while giving my brother-in-law the shot, she’ll tell you that this list of disclosures is about six pages longer than the typical set of disclosures that accompanies a “normal” vaccine.
Sure, you could put on your readers and glance at all those warnings and disclosures for a few minutes as if the information therein might affect your decision to let that nurse plunge the contents of that syringe in your arm, but that’s just theater, too. There’s nothing in there that’s changing your mind. The nurse knows you’re going to let her do it, just as you likely know, as he did, that you may not have a job next month if you don’t.
Over the threat of COVID, and in spite of this virus being miraculously undeadly to children and most healthy individuals while only threatening a fairly specific demographic in society at any significant level, the government took away our right to go to church, our right to conduct commerce in our communities, our children’s right to the education for which we overpay, and even our ability to smile at one another when we pass each other in the grocery store.
If you work for the government, do you think, even for a moment, that the same government that did all of that to you would not now do everything within, and even beyond, its newfound power to force you to take these vaccines as a condition of employment?
If you work in the private sector, are you so naïve as to think that this coercion may not be imminently coming for you, in the form of corporate leviathans doing the bidding of the government with whom it now openly shares a bed in order to force you, at all costs, to unwillingly plunge into your arm the drugs that our government has already bought from these drug companies?
They’re not interested in our consent and are deeply interested in limiting our access to information. There is no “informed consent” involved here.
Don’t end up clinging to a rock on Point Fear screaming about the virus or the variants or the super-duper breakthrough killer bugs. That’s where they want you. Terrified, ineffectual and a slave to anything that mitigates your fear.
As this struggle for truth and freedom heats up we need to be careful of muddled messages and graded language that concedes important ground.
We need to focus on a few crucial points in everything we put out there, whether to friends, family or the world at large.
1. The pandemic is FAKE.Not exaggerated or opportunistically exploited – FAKE. Whether there is a new virus called SARSCOV2 or not (we remain neutral on that), the ‘pandemic’ associated with it never happened. The all cause mortality figures show this, as we have pointed out many times. Excess deaths in 2020 were unremarkable and can be accounted for by the real ‘pandemic’ of care home deaths, forced DNRs and lockdown-related mortalities.
2. The PCRs DON’T WORK to diagnose infection so your endless ‘tests’ are largely just moneymaking scams and ‘cases’ are meaningless.
3. Most diagnoses of ‘Covid’ are just the normal array of respiratory infections, caused by many different bugs, plus meaningless PCR , and 99.9% of people who ‘get it’, whatever it is, or are told they have it will be fine, and those who die with it will almost all be very old and very sick and already dying of something else. Just like before 2020 when ‘Covid’ was just flu or pneumonia.
4.The vax is totally unnecessary, doesn’t work and might harm or kill you.
5.Your compliance will never make this go away. Only resistance can do that.
As I said in a recent article we can all tend to forget these basic facts and begin buying in parts of the narrative without realizing.
Especially true as the ones selling this scam are very good at providing new stories that superficially appear to help our side but on closer analysis just promote virus fear porn by a back door.
Be wary of any mainstream, or even ‘alternative’, news story that ends up promoting a deadly virus – by any route.
I include in that all stories about the Wuhan “lab leak”, any alleged “gain of function” research, ‘spike protein’ shedding, ‘breakthrough infections’, vax-created super-virus, and even the claims that Ivermectin and HCQ can ‘cure Covid’.
All these stories, whether containing grains of truth or wholly imaginary, and however honestly promoted, all work to the same end – to convince you there is a new and deadly virus, either naturally occurring, made in a lab or mutated in the bodies of the vaxxed.
Even when promoted in good faith they all serve the ultimate agenda of fear and estrangement and control.
The makers of this narrative don’t care how you become afraid. They don’t care what flavour of infection got you there. They just want you scared of a vaguely terrifying virus and the people potentially carrying it.
So if a particular narrative is pointing you toward the rocky and wave-beaten outcrop of Point Fear, stop and think before you get there.
Remember the pandemic is a lie and the PCRs can’t diagnose active infection and 96% of people who died ‘with covid’ were already very old and/or dying of something else when they were given a scientifically meaningless PCR test and became a largely meaningless statistic.
The rest – anything that starts looping around a circuitous route back to the ‘deadly bug’ story is just clever diversion.
Don’t end up clinging to a rock on Point Fear screaming about the virus or the variants or the super-duper breakthrough killer bugs. That’s where they want you. Terrified, ineffectual and a slave to anything that mitigates your fear.
Stay on firm ground. Stay sane. Stay on the only message that matters.
There’s nothing to fear except the fear-mongers, their “great reset” social reforms and their snake oil, ‘experimental’, totally unnecessary ‘cure’.
In Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a note stating that physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations, and there are many of them, will be subjected to an investigation, especially if they are communicating “anti-vaccine, anti-masking and anti-lockdown statements.”
The Facts:In March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.
Reflect On:Why are so many opinions, evidence and research receiving no mainstream media attention at all? Why are some of them ridiculed and censored? Why do we always get one narrative from government health authorities?
Before you begin…
Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.
Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s preeminent and most cited infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard University’s School of Medicine has experienced what many others in the field have experienced during this pandemic, censorship and ridicule. Kulldorff has been quite critical of the response to COVID by multiple governments, including the measures put in place to combat the spread of the virus. Sometimes it seems as if scientists and doctors who question these measures are actually in the majority, while the minority seem to get all of the attention and praise within the mainstream media. Who knows what these numbers actually look like.
–> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
Lockdown measures are a great example. A wealth of data has been published in peer-reviewed science and medical journals suggesting that not only have lockdowns been inadequate for stopping the spread of the virus, but they’ve also caused a great deal of damage in both the health and economic sector. Two renowned Swedish scientists, Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID at the time of the estimate. These are a few of many examples.
“Lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 yrs. We will be counting the catastrophic health & psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation” —Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Professor of Medicine.
That being said, an argument can, and has also been been made for lockdowns halting or slowing the spread of the virus, and there are examples of that as well. You can read about that more here.
The point is that one side of the argument is censored, ridiculed, and ignored most of the time, while the other gets front and centre stage. Why?
In Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a note stating that physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations, and there are many of them, will be subjected to an investigation, especially if they are communicating “anti-vaccine, anti-masking and anti-lockdown statements.”
How is science and data that calls into question government public health recommendations “anti” anything? Why are these labels always used? Why are physicians and scientists being bullied into silence and subjected to extreme amounts of censorship on their social media platforms? Kulldorff has been one many victims of this treatment, while scientists who agree with and promote the “accepted narrative” seem to receive interview requests from mainstream media outlets all the time. This isn’t normal, and it’s served as a catalyst for more people to ask, what’s really going on here?
What Happened: Kulldorff’s tweet in March suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who have previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with his tweet and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Twitter did not provide any explanation, links, or reasoning as to why his tweet was “misleading.”
(This op-ed is written by a politically correct analyst, who will remain anonymous, but brought to you by Walter E. Block.)
I cannot in good conscience take the COVID vaccine. Why not? Because its producers are mainly toxic white males.
We wokesters want a COVID vaccine created in a more inclusive manner. Yes, yes, we will include a few token toxic white male supremacists, evil though they be, but we want laboratories that “Look Like America.” That means proportional representation by blacks, Hispanics, women, the transgendered, the queer, the bisexuals, the handicapped (both mentally and physically), young people, old people, people of color, Indigenous Americans, Asian Americans, and the vertically challenged.
But the COVID vaccines have not been created in anything approaching an inclusive manner. Unless and until this occurs, we pledge not to avail ourselves of these vaccines.
Why is this important? We the downtrodden will not feel safe until and unless the laboratories of the nation are emptied of most (not all—we are moderates, not radicals) cisgender white males. They are exploitive wherever they go; they have colonized; they have enslaved; they have exploited workers. These capitalists have ruined the economy and the environment.
The reason minorities are not proportionately represented among chemists, biologists, epidemiologists, and medical scientists is that they have all too few role models to emulate. Given our boycott, this will soon change. On that happy day, future consumers will not have to be bitterly disappointed that these occupations are non-inclusive.
Here are the details. After a pause in the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, there are two COVID vaccines currently making the rounds. They are produced by Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. Who are the people associated with the creation of these COVID vaccines?
Pfizer lists the following individuals as being involved with vaccines: Nanette Cocero, William C. Gruber, Kathrin U. Jansen, Luis Jodar, and Nicholas Kitchin. Pfizer’s immunologists are Jean Beebe, Jeremy D. Gale, and Thomas A. Wynn. Those who study and cure rare diseases include Seng H. Cheng, Katherine L. Beaverson, Michael Binks, Christian Czech, Sarah Grimwood, Greg Larosa, John Murphy, and Clark Pan. Pfizer’s medical experts are Aida Habtezion and Mace L. Rothenberg. The team studying cardiovascular and metabolic diseases is comprised of Kendra K. Bence, Morris J. Birnbaum, Albert Kim, and Bei B. Zhang.
Of these people, only Habtezion, who is from Eritrea, is African-American.
Over at Moderna the executive committee consists of Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Hoge, Juan Andres, Marcello Damiani, Tracey Franklin, Lori Henderson, Ray Jordan, Corinne Le Goff, David Meline, and Tal Zaks. Moderna’s board members are listed as follows: Noubar Afeyan, Stéphane Bancel, Stephen Berenson, Sandra Horning, Robert Langer, Elizabeth Nabel, François Nader, Paul Sagan, Elizabeth Tallett, and Henri A. Termeer. Those on the scientific advisory board include Jack Szostak, Ulrich H. von Andrian, Michael Diamond, Ron Eydelloth, Rachel Green, Paula T. Hammond, Robert Langer, Sander G. Mills, Melissa Moore, and Ralph Weissleder.
An examination of their pictures reveals that only one of them, Hammond, is black. If this is not clear evidence of racism, then nothing is.
Blacks and African Americans comprise roughly 13 percent of the population of the United States. If their representation were even 10 percent of the people involved in creating COVID-19 vaccines, I would be satisfied. Exact representation is not required. After all, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association could never be considered racist, and their black representation greatly exceeds 13 percent. But this atrocious level of underrepresentation for black Americans in the COVID vaccine initiative cries out to the heavens for social justice.
“Equity” has not been even approximately achieved.
So, our conscience dictates that we boycott Moderna and Pfizer’s products until and unless they engage in sufficient amount of skin color diversity and inclusiveness.
While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.
These “vaccines” are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as “unethical,” despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we’re watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare.
Vaccine Makers to Ditch Control Groups
Consider this report in JAMA by Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, for example.2 According to Rubin, the launch of “two highly efficacious” COVID-19 vaccines has “spurred debate about the ethics, let alone the feasibility, of continuing or launching blinded, placebo-controlled trials …”
Rubin recounts how Moderna representatives told a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that rather than letting thousands of vaccine doses to go to waste, they planned to offer them to trial participants who had received placebo.
Pfizer representatives made a similar announcement to the advisory panel. According to a news analysis published in The BMJ,3 the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are both onboard with this plan, as is the World Health Organization.4
In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.
All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.
None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.
At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6
So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ:7
“Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”
Hypocrisy Abounds
It’s ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it’s OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.
Yet here they’re saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.
If we are to accept the “greater good” justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health “for the greater good.” Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.
MCViewPoint 
.jpg){kind=link}