Omitted From Statistical Analysis,
I posted about the smoke, mirrors and hand-waving that went into the Pfizer trial for Pediatric approval of their vaccine, which should have had something like 60,000 subjects to find anything but the most common adverse events. It vaccinated 1,131 children 12-15, so it was unlikely to pick up even one case of myocarditis, which appears to be 1/5000 in this cohort. It was likely to sail through with no adverse events. There was at least one very adverse event, and they have to pretend it did not happen. So far, that is working. Wall-of-silence... The mother of the child had her public notification (ad) disallowed, censored. When Stephanie and Patrick de Garay enrolled their 12-year-old child Maddie and her two brothers in Pfizer’s Covid-19 clinical trial, they believed they were doing the right thing.
That decision has turned into a nightmare. Maddie, a previously healthy, energetic, full of life child, was within 24 hours of her second dose reduced to crippling, scream-inducing pain that landed her in the emergency room where she described feeling like someone was “ripping [her] heart out through [her] neck.”
Over the next several months the nightmare continued, during which Maddie was hospitalized several times and suffered numerous systemic injuries, requires a tube through her nose that carries her food and medicine, and a wheelchair for assistance.
Ms. de Garay documented every detail of Maddie’s injury and reported it to the principal investigator for the Pfizer trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital where the vaccine clinical trial was occurring and where Maddie was treated and admitted. They first tried to treat Maddie as “a mental patient,” telling the family it was psychological and in Maddie’s imagination. Then they claimed it was unrelated to the vaccine (copy of recording with hospital below), and when that argument failed, Pfizer listed this traumatic adverse event as “functional abdominal pain” when reporting to the FDA.
Ms. de Garay reported what occurred to the CDC and FDA through VAERS in June 2021 but nobody from these agencies sought additional information or followed-up with the de Garays. Ms. de Garay also reached out to Dr. Nath, a Chief in the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, responded by stating he was “Sorry to hear of your daughter’s illness” and that “We have certainly heard of a lot of cases of neurological complications form [sic] the vaccine and will be glad to share our experience with them.” (Copy of this email is below.) Unfortunately, other than a call arranged by Maddie’s neurologist, there was no follow-up or response from NIH or any other federal health agency. Even after Ms. de Garay did a press event on June 28, 2021 with Senator Ron Johnson, neither Pfizer nor any health agency reached out in any manner to address Maddie’s injury or obtain any additional information.
Ten red flags in the FDA's risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer's EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product
1) COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750). So any claims you see in the press about the Pfizer vaccine being “90% effective” in children are meaningless...
2) Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms. This is a well known trick of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA even called them out on it earlier this summer and asked Pfizer to expand the trial and Pfizer just ignored them because they can...
3) Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government? Pfizer has no idea because children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded...
4) Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants? The FDA risk-benefit document states: “Among Cohort 1 participants, 95.1% had safety follow-up ≥2 months after Dose 2 at the time of the September 6, 2021 data cutoff.” So what happened with those 4.9% who did not have safety follow-up 2 months after Dose 2? Were they in the treatment or control group? (Note: Throwing out just a few data points you don't like can work WONDERS for a small study.)
5) The follow up period was intentionally too short. This is another well-know trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days. Many harms from vaccines including cancer and autoimmune disorders take much longer to show up...
6) The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis. But we know that the real world harms from the Pfizer mRNA shot go well beyond myocarditis and include anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, heart attack, thrombocytopenia/ low platelet, permanent disability, shingles, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, and autoimmune disorders may show up later...
7) Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo. They claim that they are doing this for “ethical reasons”. But everyone knows that Pfizer’s true aim is to wipe out any comparison group so that there can be no long term safety studies.
8) Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:
Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay).
Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity. And the antibodies in the blood of these 5 to 11 year old children tell us nothing because again, there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in this study (none in the treatment group, none in the control group).
9) The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated.
First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome...
Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years.
10) The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis...
So (if the Biden administration has its way) 106 excess myocarditis cases per 1 million x 28.38 million people would be 3,009 excess myocarditis cases post-vaccination if the Pfizer vaccine is approved.So the FDA has it exactly backwards — they want to prevent mild COVID in children which reduces herd immunity and they just flat out lie about the harms from myocarditis. (So why would the FDA want to do something exactly wrong with so many children? Just business?)
And over the course of several years many of those children will die. Dr. Anthony Hinton (“Consultant Surgeon with 30 years experience in the NHS”) points out that myocarditis has a 20% fatality rate after 2 years and a 50% fatality rate after 5 years.
Urgent: Send This Letter Today to Congress Outlining Threat COVID Vaccines Pose to the Health of Our Nation’s Young Children
In a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Children’s Health Defense highlighted peer-reviewed research showing children have virtually zero risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, and outlined the vaccine’s risks. Please send the letter to your members of Congress.Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
(antibody dependent enhancement of viral pathogenicity) should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval
(nobody has gotten an approved vaccine dose yet), in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
There are a lot of pieces of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 immunization weakens existing protection against COVID , in those already recovered, and also reduces immune (antibody) response to infection, in those who get infected after prior vaccination.
In March, researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid posted a preprint study indicating that at least the second Pfizer shot might weaken T cell immunity. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found "in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response." They also note that other research has shown "the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals."
Why won’t the CDC or FDA reveal the VAERS URF?
The vaccine adverse event reporting system has always been under-reported for adverse events, often over 100:1. The worse the event, the more likely it is to be reported, but we know that deaths from heart attack or stroke within 2 days of a vaccination dose are often not reported, and the connection denied.
What is the under-reporting-factor (URF) being used for death, for severe adverse events and for milder adverse events? Why won't this be made public for review?
The Age of Extermination (I) : Who Are The Typical Victims? Professor Ugo Bardi
If you think of the story of the witch hunts of the 16th-17th century in Europe, you may be under the impression that the typical witch was an old hag living in a hut at the margins of the village, alone with a black cat.
But no, that wasn't the case. Maybe this kind of marginal people were occasionally killed for being witches, but they were not the usual victims. In reality, witch hunting had a strong monetary component and it was often carried out with a view on making a profit on the confiscation of the assets of the victims. They were not poor and destitute women but, rather, members of the growing mercantile class in Europe.
The profit-making facet of witch hunting has been often ignored by historians, but it is being reappraised and highlighted in recent times, for instance by Johannes Dillinger (2021) and by Shmakov and Petrov (2018). Both articles are highly suggested and provide a remarkable wealth of data about the financial mechanism that led to witch hunts: in short, there was no (or very little) witch hunting where the government didn't allow the assets of the victims to be confiscated. Killing witches, then, was just one of the many forms of legalized robbery in history,..
Without going into the details, we can say that all these exterminations have several points in common. It has happened so many times that it is unthinkable that it won't happen again. There is no doubt that we are in a difficult moment, both economically and militarily. So, the temptation is strong for the elites to identify one or more subgroups to exterminate and rob of their assets.
1. A relatively wealthy subgroup of society that can be identified by physical, linguistic, or cultural traits, sufficiently large to give a good revenue if defeated and spoiled of its assets.
2. A strained economic, social, or military situation that leads the dominant groups to look for new resources.
3. The lack of effective military defense capabilities on the part of the subgroup...
Who could be the next victims?
In this case, Western Society seems to perceive the problem created by an excess of elderly people, and it is moving to solve it. It is brutal, yes, but only individuals have moral restraints, society as a whole has none. Every decision taken individually affects all the other decisions, and we are seeing the results. It is nothing new in history where, typically, everything that happens, happens because it had to happen.
"Now I think I can propose the answer":In practice, the weak spot of the middle-class retirees is that they need medical assistance and that they cannot normally pay the skyrocketing costs on their personal saving. So, they could be gently removed from the state budget by degrading the public health care system while saying that it is being modified in order to protect them...
The most likely target for the next extermination round are middle-class retirees.
Retirees satisfy all the requirements: They are identifiable, of course, they are old! They are often relatively wealthy and, more than that, they cost a lot of money in terms of health care. Finally, they can hardly put up serious military resistance. Exterminating the middle-class elders would be both easy and profitable...
....society as a whole is a complex network with a certain ability to process information. It does that without being "conscious" of what is being done: there is no plan, no specific objectives to reach. But often society moves as a whole in a specific direction.
(pictured with flourishing Namwah and Orinoco banana plants and blackeyed peas)
Dear John, very interesting thoughts, thank you.ReplyDelete
The libertarian german economist Roland Baader, who sadly passed away, predicted the following in his last book, "Geldsozialismus" (Money Socialism).
"If the nets of the worldwide division of labor tear in just a few places, if globalization collapses because it is carried by paper counterfeit money called dollars, then the consequences will be chaos and panic, starvation and revolts - and an iron ring of totalitarian rules and prohibitions that will wrap itself around the world and make the peoples inmates of nationwide prisons and slum camps."
How should the aging of the western states in connection with the exhausted Ponzi scheme "Fiat" be defused? I pray for a peaceful solution.
Best regards from Germany.
Vielle Gruss auser Texas, meine Deutsches freund! (spelling? grammar?)Delete
I am a "left libertarian", myself , on the political compass test: