Secret report fm criminal CDC: poison covid shots killed a half million kids and young adults, suckers--ur loving gov. in hands of globalist-satanists

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

Secret CDC Report: Covid Shots Killed Half Million Children & Young Adults​

8cba3174a095e11a787c2b1268dc9916
Frank BergmanFebruary 25, 2024 - 12:57 pm

Link: https://slaynews.com/news/secret-cd...n-children-young-adults/?utm_source=mailpoet/

covid-vaccine-child-cdc-report-800x500.jpg



A secret report from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been unearthed that shows a staggering half a million American children and young adults have been killed by Covid shots.
The CDC report has revealed that almost 500,000 Americans aged between 0 and 44 years old died from the dangerous side effects of the Covid mRNA injections between the start of the public rollout of the shots in early 2021 and October 9, 2022.
However, the shocking revelations from the report have been completely ignored by the corporate media – the same outlets that told the public the vaccines were “safe and effective.”
Compared to other countries, the U.S. Government has been slow to publish relevant and up-to-date data to allow the public to analyze the consequences of rolling out the Covid injections.
However, the data has finally been made public by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEC).

The OEC is an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade.
The organization hosts a wealth of U.S. government data on excess deaths.
The data is available for review here.
Figures provided to the OEC by the CDC show excess deaths among children and young adults aged 0-44 across the USA by week in 2020 and 2021.

The official figures reveal that there was a slight increase in excess deaths among children and young adults when the Covid pandemic hit the US in early 2020.
However, with the introduction of Covid mRNA injections, one would have expected deaths to have fallen significantly among the age group in 2021.
Instead, however, the opposite happened.
Excess deaths among children and young adults skyrocketed every single week in 2021.

Throughout 2021, excess deaths were far higher than they were in 2020 except for weeks 29 and 30.
Unfortunately, official figures provided by the CDC show that the trend continued through 2022.
The most recent data released by the CDC covers up to week 40, the week ending October 9.
The CDC has confirmed that there have been 7,680 more excess deaths among children and young adults in 2022 so far than there were during the same time frame in 2020 at the height of the Covid pandemic, according to a report from the Exposé.

The year 2021, was by and far the worst, however, with 27,227 more excess deaths by week 40 following the roll-out of the Covid-19 injection than what occurred in 2020 at the height of the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.
The official CDC figures show all deaths and excess deaths among children and young adults across the United States prior to the rollout of the Covid vaccines and after.
The figures reveal that the first 9 months of 2022 saw only 1,352 fewer excess deaths among 0-44-year-olds than the whole of 2020 – the supposed peak of the pandemic.
But the most concerning figures revealed are the overall number of deaths and excess deaths among children and young adults since the rollout of the Covid injections.

Nearly half a million Americans aged 0 to 44 have died after receiving the Covid shots, which were supposed to “protect” them from the virus.
This report from the CDC comes after recent reporting from Slay News regarding the shocking leaked documents from the UK government’s efforts to promote the vaccines through fear tactics.
The explosive leaked docs show medical staff were ordered to euthanize patients who had been admitted to hospital and tested positive for COVID-19.
The official documents were leaked from the UK’s state-funded National Health Service (NHS).
The docs further confirm the previous reporting from Slay News that revealed patients were euthanized in order to boost the numbers for “Covid deaths.”

As Slay News reported, smoking gun evidence revealed that tens of thousands of elderly people were murdered to boost the mortality rates.
The data produced for the report indicated that people were being euthanized using a fatal injection of Midazolam.
The cause of their deaths was then listed as “Covid,” indicating that the virus was killing far more elderly people than it was.
The explosive data from the report was made public by Australian politician Craig Kelly, the national director of the United Australia Party.
The report obtained official UK government data on death rates and causes.
According to Kelly, the patients were euthanized in order to boost “Covid deaths” and ramp up public fear to garner support for lockdowns and vaccines.
While alerting the public about the data, Kelly declared that it exposes “the crime of the century.”
“These deaths were then falsely blamed on Covid, which was the basis of the public fear campaigns used to justify the lockdowns and mass-mandated injections of the public (including children) with an experimental medical intervention that had zero long-term safety data,” Kelly said in a post on X alongside copies of the data.
“Along the way, a small group pushing the need for mass-mandated injections made billions.
“This paper shows that the UK spike in deaths, wrongly attributed to COVID-19 in April 2020, was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was largely absent, but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections which were statistically very highly correlated (coefficient over 90 percent) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020.
“The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in UK suggests a possible policy of systemic euthanasia.”

READ MORE – Medical Staff Ordered to Euthanize ‘Covid’ Patients: Leaked Docs [ck site link, above, top]
 

9 New ‘Independent’ Advisers to CDC Publicly Promoted Vaccines or Took Money From Pharma — or Both​

Link: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...flict-of-interest-pharma/?utm_source=luminate

After struggling for months to fill seats on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced nine new appointees. All have financial ties to vaccine makers or have publicly promoted COVID-19, RSV and HPV vaccines — or both.

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.


cdc logo with table and 9 chairs; vaccine bottle with money on top of table


Nine new members named to the committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies or have worked with public health agencies to promote the COVID-19, RSV or HPV vaccines.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in mid-February appointed the new members to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which shapes U.S. vaccine policy.
Commenting on the new appointments, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:
“ACIP has long been a rubber stamp for any and all vaccines Big Pharma wants to push. But the brazenness of the HHS-Big Pharma fusion has never been so much on display.
“The only silver lining in this grotesque display is that more and more people are waking up to the reality that ACIP has nothing to do with health and everything to do with profit.”
The ACIP is described as an independent, nonfederal expert body made up of professionals with clinical, scientific and public health expertise. The committee decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the CDC typically rubber stamps.
This external advisory committee includes a chair, an executive secretary, and 15 voting members — 14 medical experts and a lay member representing consumers.
It also includes a non-voting body that offers input composed of eight ex officio members from other federal health departments and liaison representatives from health-related professional organizations like the American Association of Pediatrics.
However, when the committee convened last week to make its spring recommendations, it was missing so many voting members that it lacked a quorum. Vacant committee spaces on the “independent” committee had to be temporarily filled by government employees — ex officio members can be sworn in as temporary voting members.
Over the last year, HHS struggled to fill eight vacancies. An additional four members will be needed when existing members’ four-year terms are up at the end of June.
As seats on the committee sat unfilled, industry news sites like StatNews suggested the committee “appears to be atrophying” and Medriva said there is an “unprecedented lack of expertise in the committee.”
When HHS finally announced the new members to fill the vacancies, it was also reported the new members would be filling spots at last week’s meeting. However, they had not yet taken their positions at the time the meeting occurred on Feb. 28-29.
A CDC spokesperson confirmed to The Defender that nine members have been appointed to the committee, including Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, an infectious diseases researcher at Vanderbilt University who previously served on the committee from 2018 through 2022 and will rejoin the committee to serve as chair.
Members typically are not eligible for reappointment, but in Talbot’s case, the HHS provided a waiver to that existing policy.
In addition to Talbot, four members will begin their tenure immediately upon submission of paperwork. These include Dr. Denise Jamieson, dean of the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine; Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University; Dr. Robert Schechter, a medical officer with the California Department of Public Health; and Dr. Albert Shaw, an infectious diseases professor at the Yale School of Medicine.
The other appointees will begin on July 1. They include Dr. Edwin Asturias, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the Colorado School of Public Health; Noel Brewer, Ph.D., a professor of health behavior at the University of North Carolina; Dr. Helen Chu, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Washington; and Dr. George Kuchel, a professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Connecticut.
All nine appointees will serve four-year terms.
“Stringent measures and rigorous screening” are reportedly used to avoid the committee members having “real or apparent” conflicts of interest.
However, all of the new appointees except for the public member have received grant funding or consulting fees from major pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine makers like Pfizer, Moderna and Merck, or have worked for HHS or on recent HHS grants developing or testing vaccines or investigating how to improve vaccine uptake.
Many of them have been key public advocates for the COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, crafting and promoting the CDC’s message in the media and in the clinic.
Several have sat, sometimes together, on other vaccine advisory committees for the World Health Organization (WHO), the state of California, and The Lancet, among others.
RFK Jr.Wuhan Cover Up Cover
“The Wuhan Cover-Up” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
ORDER NOW
Syring into Vials

What constitutes a conflict of interest?
The committee’s policies and procedures document, updated in 2022, defines a “conflict of interest” for committee members.
According to the ACIP policies, while members are actively on the committee, neither they nor their immediate families can be employed by or hold stock in a vaccine manufacturer. They cannot receive royalties from a vaccine that is being evaluated by the committee. They cannot act as advisers, consultants or a paid litigation expert to a vaccine manufacturer, or otherwise receive money from a vaccine maker — with exceptions — while they serve on the committee.
The committee’s definition of a conflict of interest doesn’t prohibit members from benefiting financially from HHS grants while on the committee.
It also doesn’t apply to their activities before or after their time on the committee, which is when most potential members have taken money from industry or engaged in vaccine promotion that raises questions about their impartiality.
This narrowly defined conflict of interest differs markedly from how HHS defines conflict of interest in its ethics training for HHS employees. In that training, HHS warns employers that criminal law prohibits them “from participating personally or substantially in an official capacity that would have a direct and predictable defect on your financial interests,” according to a source at the CDC who asked not to be named.
HHS also notes in its training that “appearances matter” and a conflict of interest arises if a reasonable person with knowledge of relevant facts would question someone’s impartiality.
Impartiality is not a requirement for membership on the CDC advisory committee. Members are required only to declare their financial conflicts at each meeting and to recuse themselves where appropriate.
Members may be granted waivers if the committee’s need for their services outweighs the conflict of interest, according to the CDC.
Below are the new appointees, with a summary of their research and their links to Pharma or public health agencies and research that could raise questions about their impartiality.
RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”
ORDER NOW


Jamieson promoted COVID vaccines for pregnant women
Dr. Denise Jamieson spent most of her career working for the CDC before becoming a faculty member at Emory University and then a dean at the University of Iowa.
Jamieson is a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a member of its Practice Advisory on COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy.
She publicly promoted the COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” for pregnant women as early as Spring 2021 — even though in January 2021, regulatory agencies were aware from Pfizer’s own data that the vaccines pose serious risks for pregnant women.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended pregnant women get vaccinated despite a lack of clinical trials showing safety and even before the CDC began advising pregnant women to take the vaccine.
The association was among the many women’s health organizations that had urged Pfizer and Moderna to speed up vaccine tests in pregnant women, The New York Times reported.
Last year, Freedom of Information Act requests revealed the CDC bankrolled the association to the tune of $11 million to promote COVID-19 vaccination as “safe and effective” for pregnant women.
As part of her public outreach promoting the COVID-19 vaccines, Jamieson said in public interviews that fertility concerns about the vaccines were “myths” with “no biological plausibility.
Jamieson also said there was no evidence that the vaccines caused menstrual irregularities, despite early reports that vaccines were causing menstrual irregularities. She also began advocating vaccination for adolescent girls even before the vaccines were approved for adolescents.
scales of justice
Your support helps fund this work, and CHD’s related advocacy, education and scientific research.
DONATE NOW


Maldonado studied COVID vaccines in children for Pfizer
Stanford’s Dr. Yvonne Maldonado took tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and nearly $4 million in research funding from Pfizer since 2016, according to OpenPaymentsData.CMS.gov, the government website that tracks pharmaceutical industry funding to medical professionals.
She also received consulting fees for Trumenba, a meningococcal vaccine for meningitis B.
Among the projects she has headed up are studies of nasal swab techniques that led to home testing and the development of an antibody test to detect the virus, which received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.
Maldonado was a strong public advocate for testing the vaccines in children. She promoted testing the vaccines on kids in outlets like NBC News as early as October 2020, despite acknowledging children were at very low risk for serious illness.
She led clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children at Stanford, promoted them as 90% effective for children and was an early advocate for including the vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule.
In this video from November 2021, Maldonado celebrates the short amount of time it took to make the vaccines and promotes them for children:

Maldonado also advocated to expand the use of Paxlovid for children.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently funded the Maldonado Group to do a 2.5-year study on the oral poliovirus vaccine in Veracruz, Mexico.
Experts have widely criticized the Gates Foundation for over a decade for its self-interested work promoting polio vaccines in the developing world at the expense of other, more important public health measures.

Shaw, a strong COVID vaccine advocates
Albert Shaw, M.D., Ph.D., studies the immunology of aging at the Yale School of Medicine. He recently was the principal investigator on a major observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19, funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Shaw also publicly advocated for COVID-19 vaccination, particularly for the elderly and for pregnant mothers. He appears frequently on local news sounding the alarm on the dangers of COVID-19, even for strains like XBB 1.5, promoting the vaccines as “safe and effective” and encouraging people to get vaccinated and boosted.
OpenPaymentsData reports that Shaw was paid $2,590.00 in consulting fees by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 2022 and $1,425.71 from GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) in 2019.

Schechter, a ‘public advocate’ on multiple HHS committees
Dr. Robert Schechter appears to hold the position of the public member, meant to represent consumers on the committee. Schechter also serves as the public member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, another HHS vaccine advisory committee.
However, he was a medical officer with the California Department of Public Health for decades working primarily on the California Vaccines for Children Program.
He has functioned as a spokesperson, informing the public about vaccines in California, frequently quoted in local media. He also is a member of the American Association of Pediatrics.
Schechter also served on the California Department of Public Health Western States Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, along with other existing and incoming members of the CDC advisory committee Maldonado and former chair Dr. Grace Lee. That group set COVID-19 vaccine and booster recommendations.

Asturias, a global vaccine researcher with consulting fees from 5 Pharma companies
Dr. Edwin Asturias is a professor of pediatrics with a focus on Latin America. He has served on several different vaccine advisory boards globally, including in Guatemala and for the WHO.
Asturias is a member of the Strep A Vaccine Global Consortium whose mission is to make sure Strep A vaccines are available and administered. He also receives grant funding from Pfizer and is a paid consultant for Curevac, Inovio and Moderna.
Much of his research focuses on the epidemiology of disease, largely in rural Guatemala. However, over the last several years Asturias has published several articles on “vaccine hesitancy” among rural Latin American people and how to overcome it.
He has worked on several studies of community perceptions of vaccines in his native Guatemala, including studies of attitudes among trusted leaders and parents who are key to building vaccine confidence.
According to OpenPaymentsData, Asturias received approximately $4,000 in consulting fees and over $1 million in research funding from Merck in 2022.
Since 2016, Asturias has received over $60,000 in consulting fees and travel costs from Merck, Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi Pasteur and Astellas Pharma, and almost $3 million in research funding from Pfizer, over $750,000 in research funding from GSK and a small amount of funding from Takeda Vaccines.
That is in addition to tens of thousands of dollars in payments from those same companies in 2014.

Brewer, a Merck consultant who developed the ‘Announcement Approach’ to HPV vaccination
Asturias will be joined on the committee by another Merck consultant and “vaccine hesitancy” expert, Noel Brewer, Ph.D.
Brewer is a behavioral psychologist at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Public Health, a paid consultant for Merck and the recipient of commercial research grants from Merck, Pfizer and GSK.
Over the past several years, Brewer received millions of dollars in funding from HHS for research on how to increase teen uptake of the HPV vaccine, documents obtained by CHD via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed.
Merck, for which Brewer consults, makes Gardasil, the only HPV vaccine commercially available in the U.S.
Brewer is best known for developing and testing the “Announcement Approach” to vaccinating the vaccine-hesitant. The approach involves having providers skip the step of discussing with families in “open-ended conversation” whether or not they want their child vaccinated for HPV and instead “presume” the family wants the vaccine and announce the child will receive it as if it were a routine part of the office visit.
Brewer and others’ previous research shows this method reduces the time a provider needs to spend talking with their patients and increases vaccine uptake.
HHS also has dedicated millions of dollars in funding to other researchers to test ways to expand Brewer’s approach.
In what was perhaps a Freudian slip, Brewer announced his new appointment on X, formerly Twitter, saying the committee would be setting the “vaccine police”:

Dr. Peter Hotez responded with his congratulations. The two worked together on the Lancet Commission of Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance and Demand in the USA, which was “formed to address the persistent and important threat to public health in the USA posed by suboptimal uptake of some vaccines.”

Chu has ties to Pharma, Gates ventures and is an advocate for the RSV vaccine
Dr. Helen Chu is an infectious disease specialist and co-author of the JAMA study that concluded the COVID-19 bivalent boosters were effective in children and adolescents ages 5-17.
Chu has consulted for pharmaceutical companies AbbVie, Vindico, Ellume, Medscape, Merck, Clinical Care Options, Catalyst Medical Education, Vir, Pfizer, Prime Education and the Gates Foundation.
She also served on advisory boards for Vir, Merck and AbbVie and conducted continuing medical education teaching with Medscape, Vindico, Catalyst CME and Clinical Care Options.
Gates Ventures has published her research and she also obtained support from Cepheid, a PCR testing company.
As an RSV researcher, Chu early on, on X (formerly Twitter), raised the alarm about a “triple-demic” dangerous for children and the elderly.
Later, she promoted the RSV vaccine, particularly for pregnant women. She is a co-author of a systematic review in The Lancet, out this month, finding that infants, particularly pre-term babies, have a higher risk for RSV-related severe acute lower respiratory infection.
Chu and her co-authors conclude: “Preventive products for RSV can have a substantial public health impact by preventing RSV-associated … severe outcomes from infection in preterm infants,“ a finding that implies vaccination during pregnancy or of infants would be appropriate, as these are the measures currently available or being considered.
GSK halted its Phase 3 clinical trial of RSV in pregnant women in 2022 after the company identified a safety signal for preterm birth. Pfizer was criticized for not informing women of the risk, the BMJ reported. Pfizer’s version of the RSV vaccine received FDA approval after Chu presented her research to the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee in May.
After the FDA approved it, the CDC advisory committee that Chu will sit on recommended it.
In less than a year since its approval, CDC data and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) already show reports of 34 deaths, 302 serious adverse events and according to news reports this week, a safety signal for Guillain-Barré syndrome, The Defender reported.
As an example of her Pharma-funded educational work, in March, Chu presented a Pfizer-funded webinar to educate providers on “the burden of RSV in older adults” and the “importance of RSV awareness.”

Kuchel strongly advocates the RSV vaccine for pregnant women and the elderly
Dr. George Kuchel, professor of geriatric medicine is a strong advocate for the RSV vaccine in pregnant women and older people. He promoted the vaccine as potentially “transformational” for older people — just like the COVID-19 and flu vaccines, he said.
In 2023, Kuchel told the media there was no evidence the vaccine posed a risk to pregnant women, despite the safety signals in GSK’s trials.
Kuchel is currently working on a five-year, $9 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to study flu vaccines in older adults.
According to OpenPaymentsData, he has taken consulting fees — approximately $13,000 from Janssen Global Service in 2019 and approximately $1,300 from Novo Nordisk in 2020.

Former member Talbot replaces Lee as chair
The final new appointee, former committee member Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, will rejoin the committee as chair. Her research focuses on adult vaccination, influenza vaccination, human coronaviruses and vaccine trials for respiratory illnesses such as RSV.
According to Talbot’s curriculum vitae — last updated in 2018 before she joined the committee — her most recent research funding comes from both the federal government (CDC, National Institutes of Health) and Sanofi Pasteur, primarily for the study of pandemic preparedness in 2015 and influenza vaccination.
Sanofi and MedImmune have been recurrent funders since 2009, along with AstraZeneca, Gilead, Protein Sciences, VaxInnate and Wyeth (since acquired by Pfizer).
According to the OpenPaymentsData, Talbot received roughly $1.4 million in research payments and associated research funding since 2014 (417 total payments) from these companies, along with 29 general payments totaling $17,000, The Defender reported.
Talbot sat on the committee through the pandemic that voted to recommend the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for adults and children.
Talbot will replace former chair, Dr. Grace Lee, who was associate chief medical officer for practice innovation at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health and a pediatrics professor at Stanford School of Medicine since 2017.
While committee appointments are typically four years long, Lee served only two, and the chair position currently sits vacant. Her office did not respond to The Defender’s inquiry as to why she resigned from the committee.
While she was on the committee, her husband, Joshua Salomon, Ph.D., health policy professor at Stanford was heading up a major, multi-million dollar five-year CDC-funded project to model local and national policies for responding to infectious diseases. That work is also funded by the Gates Foundation.
 

MUST WATCH: Previously Unpublished Recording – Pfizer Scientist Confirming Risk & “Very Sneaky” Side Effects of mRNA COVID Jabs.​

BY PATRICIA HARRITY ON MARCH 17, 2024

Link: https://expose-news.com/2024/03/17/...-very-sneaky-side-effects-of-mrna-covid-jabs/

[see vid at site link, above]

Veritas.png

Justin Leslie, a former operative with Project Veritas and O’Keefe Media Group, and a scientist previously involved in vaccine formulation at Pfizer, has brought to light unreleased recordings that raise serious questions about the pharmaceutical giant’s development and promotion of its COVID-19 vaccines. These recordings captured internal discussions among Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers expressing grave concerns over the vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and the rush to market due to the pandemic emergency.
justin-leslie.jpeg
Pfizer whistleblower Justin Leslie
According to Zero Hedge, the leaked footage includes an October 6, 2021 conversation with Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer, discussing the ethical implications of rolling out experimental booster injections.
kanwal-gill.jpg

“Do we know that, just thinking ethically, is it okay to give people another experimental injection? Are we sure it’s going to be safe and effective? Are we just rolling these out because we want to roll them out for money?” asked Leslie.
Gill responds by acknowledging the real-time nature of the data being collected and the historical challenges faced by mRNA vaccines, which had never previously reached clinical trials due to side effects.
“This is real-time data that we are generating. We don’t even know when we started vaccinating people. We had no idea how it’s going to look like,” said Gill.
“MRNA vaccines have been there for 50 years, but nothing made to clinical. Why? Because mRNA vaccines have been known to have side effects,” she added.
“Moderna has been working on it for ten years. This is not a new thing. But why it did not reach trial was because of all these side effects. Pfizer and Moderna used the emergency and the pandemic to kind of get through it now. But even the CDC model never gets FDA,” Gill admitted.

BELOW IS THE VIDEO POSTED BY LIAM COSGROVE OF ZERO HEDGE: [ck site link, above, top]​

Gill also candidly admits that unlike the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, whose side effects were promptly identified, the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in Pfizer’s vaccine are “very sneaky,” implying that significant complications may not yet have surfaced.
“Only Johnson Johnson’s side effect came out quickly, that there was a clot, that clot that was happening with Johnson Johnson’s. But other than that, mRNA and LNP are very sneaky. I think we are not still seeing a lot of like huge complications,” Kanwal said.
Gill further highlights the unconventional trajectory of Pfizer’s vaccine development, noting that the process skipped the traditional phases of clinical trials, jumping directly to phase three. This accelerated approach, while expediting the vaccine’s availability, bypasses years of observation and data collection typical of vaccine development.

Another colleague, Ramin Darvari, a pharmaceutical formulation scientist at Pfizer, was recorded expressing concerns that have since been validated about the possibility that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system.
ramin-darvari.jpeg

WATCH​

:HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/I/STATUS/1767379490999579085


While none of these revelations are particularly shocking in 2024, they cast a somber light on the internal discussions at Pfizer during the early vaccine rollouts.
At a time when the company was publicly assuring there were “no serious safety concerns,” the candid conversations captured in Leslie’s footage suggest a more complex picture was emerging behind closed doors.
Leslie’s revealing narrative unfolds through his documentary, “Project Whistleblower,” a two-part film designed to shed light on the severe misconduct in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution.
Leslie’s journey began amidst the turbulent peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by intense debates over vaccine mandates and the approval of vaccines for children.
Seeking to expose the grievous risks associated with these vaccines, risks he suggests were downplayed or ignored by those in power, Leslie approached James O’Keefe and Project Veritas.
“I have whistleblown against Pfizer and the media for crimes against humanity. I am a Pfizer scientist and investigative journalist whistleblower of Project Veritas and O’Keefe Media Group. I have produced this documentary PROJECT WHISTLEBLOWER to get my story out there and so that my words are not twisted or tangled. It is in two parts, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. It is has been a long and unprecedented road that I have been on, resulting in the release of my documentary film called Project Whistleblower. The film can be found if you follow the links to my website https://justintegrity.net,” according to Leslie’s GiveSendGo campaign.

You can watch the first and second part of the expose below: [ck site link, above, top]
Project Whistleblower- Volume 1

PArt II:

Sources:
The Gateway Pundit
Zero Hedge,
 

Pfizer Lied to Us Again​

by Ian Miller | Brownstone Institute
April 18th 2024, 1:30 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/pfizer-lied-to-us-again/

[see vid at site link, above]

Much of the blame for the vaccines’ underperformance could be placed on Pfizer itself; the company relentlessly promoted hopelessly inaccurate efficacy estimates and supported efforts to unnecessarily mandate mRNA shots.

There used to be a time where claims from pharmaceutical companies may have been treated with some degree of skepticism from major institutions and media outlets.
Yet in late 2020 and into 2021, suddenly skepticism turned to complete blind faith. But what changed? Why, political incentives, of course!

Initially, Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer were seen as dangerous and untested; they were considered a Trump vaccine that only idiots who were willing to risk their own health would take. However when the 2020 election had been officially decided, and Biden and his political allies represented the Covid vaccines as the pathway out of the pandemic, a moral choice that would help yourself and others, narratives and incentives changed dramatically.
Pfizer became a heroic symbol of virtue, and all questioning of Covid vaccines was grounds for immediate expulsion from polite society, regardless of the actual efficacy of Pfizer’s products.
Much of the blame for the vaccines’ underperformance could be placed on Pfizer itself; the company relentlessly promoted hopelessly inaccurate efficacy estimates and supported efforts to unnecessarily mandate mRNA shots.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/catal...utm_medium=banner&utm_content=wintersunbanned
Sure enough, on the back of progressive orthodoxy, corporate and institutional incompetence and media activism, they proudly reported record revenues.
We all know how that turned out in 2022 and 2023.
Skepticism towards Pfizer’s vaccine was obviously quite well warranted. And it turns out that now we, and of course, Pfizer’s chief promoters in the media and public health class should have been even more skeptical.

They weren’t.

Pfizer’s Claims On Covid Treatments Were Wildly Inaccurate​

As the Covid vaccines failed spectacularly to stop the spread of infections and did nothing to lessen all-cause mortality or even decrease population level Covid-associated deaths in highly vaccinated countries, Pfizer saw another opportunity.
Sure, their signature product failed to perform as expected. So why not create another one as an antidote?
Enter Paxlovid.
Paxlovid, an antiviral drug, was supposed to help individuals with symptomatic Covid, who’d already been infected, recover more quickly and lessen the risk of severe illness. Sounds great right?
It would appear that it sure did to Anthony Fauci and the cadre of media-promoted “experts.”
Fauci praised Paxlovid in 2022, after the mRNA vaccines and booster doses failed to prevent him from contracting Covid. Bizarrely, Fauci implied that the same Pfizer products that he demanded everyone take would not have been enough to keep him healthy, saying that he believed Paxlovid had kept him out of the hospital.
image-20-800x373.png

Never mind, of course, that Fauci had a “rebound” case of Covid-19 after taking Paxlovid and getting vaccinated and boosted. Acknowledging imperfections would undercut his desire to get everyone to take more of his preferred products.
Paxlovid made headlines again later in 2022 as Rochelle Walensky also praised Pfizer’s efforts, despite once again testing positive for “rebound” Covid after Paxlovid treatments.
image-21-800x227.png

Even today, the CDC’s own website says Paxlovid is an “effective” treatment for those who’ve contracted the virus and want to avoid severe illness.
There’s just one problem; it’s not true.
A newly released study on Paxlovid on randomized adults with symptomatic Covid; one subset was given Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) or a placebo every 12 hours for five days, with the intent of determining how effective it was at “sustained alleviation” of Covid-19 symptoms.
In this phase 2–3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir–ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19–related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28.
Spoiler alert: it wasn’t effective at all.
Their measured results revealed that there was effectively no difference whatsoever in the “sustained alleviation” of symptoms between Paxlovid and a placebo. Those taking Pfizer’s miracle antiviral treatment saw their “signs and symptoms” resolve after 12 days, while the placebo recipients took 13 days.
The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P=0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, −0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −2.0 to 0.4).
This is the product that to this day is relentlessly promoted by the CDC, the media, and politicians as an effective tool to reduce the severity of symptoms and the length of illness. And it was virtually meaningless.
Even with regards to the most severe outcomes, hospitalization, and death, the difference was negligible. Confidence intervals for the difference in outcome even stretched to a positive relationship, meaning that it’s within the bounds of possibility that more people died or were hospitalized after taking Paxlovid than a placebo.
Succinctly, the researchers confirmed in their summary that there was no difference between the two treatments.
The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and those who received placebo.
But who are these researchers, you might ask…surely they’re fringe scientists, desperate to undercut a big, bad pharmaceutical company, right? How else could their conclusions so thoroughly undermine Pfizer?
Let’s take a look at the disclosure to see who funded this study, designed the trial, conducted it, collected the data, and analyzed the results. Surely, that will reveal the nefarious intentions behind this dastardly attempt to cut at the heart of Pfizer’s miracle drug.
Pfizer was responsible for the trial design and conduct and for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The first draft of the manuscript was written by medical writers (funded by Pfizer) under direction from the authors.
Oh. Oh no.
Pfizer created the trial, conducted it, collected the data, and analyzed it. And it found that Paxlovid made no difference to the resolution of symptoms or with keeping people alive or out of the hospital. That has to sting.
Even worse, Covid vaccination was once again proven to be almost entirely irrelevant where results were concerned. Results were the same between “high-risk subgroups,” meaning those who had been vaccinated but had an elevated risk for more serious symptoms, and those who had never been vaccinated or had received the last dose more than a year ago.
Similar results were observed in the high-risk subgroup (i.e., participants who had been vaccinated and had at least one risk factor for severe illness) and in the standard-risk subgroup (i.e., those who had no risk factors for severe illness and had never been vaccinated or had not been vaccinated within the previous 12 months).
So not only did Paxlovid not make a difference, but vaccination status AND Paxlovid wasn’t enough to create a sizable gap in outcomes between healthy, unvaccinated individuals.
But wait, there’s more.
Viral load rebounds were also more common in the Paxlovid group, and symptom and viral load rebounds combined were more common among those taking Pfizer’s treatment. While percentages were generally low, other studies have pegged Paxlovid-associated rebound as occurring nearly one quarter of the time.
So it’s not particularly effective at reducing symptoms or resolving them more quickly, doesn’t lead to statistically significant improvements in the most severe outcomes, and is more likely to result in a rebound case of the illness it’s supposed to be protecting you from.
Sounds exactly like the type of product that Fauci, Walensky, and the CDC would praise, doesn’t it?
Paxlovid is the entire Covid-pharmaceutical complex summarized perfectly. Created to solve a problem that was supposed to be fixed by another product…understudied, overhyped by the “experts,” and prematurely authorized by a desperate FDA…and ultimately shown to be mostly ineffective.
Once again, the actual science disproves The Science™. And once again, we’ll get no acknowledgment of it or apologies for the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted. Can’t wait to see what Pfizer does for an encore.


Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System
 
Back
Top