In the video above, Del Bigtree with The
Highwire reviews how the precautionary principle and long-standing
safety guidelines in medicine have been eliminated with the COVID shots,
and how data showing harms are being ignored, suppressed and
manipulated to hide the truth.
In recent months, no less than two Pfizer officials have bragged
about moving vaccine science forward at a speed that virtually
guarantees that proper scientific protocols will be abandoned.
In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European
Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of
international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had
in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent
transmission prior to its rollout.1
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would
prevent transmission because they had to "move at the speed of science
to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do
everything at risk."
"We flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We got
creative — we couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much ‘at risk." ~ Kathrin Jansen, Pfizer vaccine R&D
Then, in November 2022, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at
Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, told an interviewer that "we flew the aeroplane
while we were still building it."2
As noted in that interview, Pfizer compressed its vaccine development
timeline from 10 years to a mere nine months. Well, you cannot do that
unless you cut certain corners and develop and test the product more or
less simultaneously. In this case, human trials began even though the
preliminary testing was extremely minimal. That’s what she’s talking
about when she says they built the plane in midair.
They Did Everything at Your Risk
"We got creative — we couldn’t wait
for data, we had to do so much ‘at risk,’" Jansen said. There are those
words again — doing everything "at risk." In other words, the risks were
not part of the equation, and let’s be clear, the risk they’re
referring to is the risk a person takes when they take the shot.
Pfizer’s primary focus was to create a shot that minimized the
symptoms of infection, but aside from that, there was no time to assess
side effects or long-term drawbacks of the technology, such as antibody-dependent enhancement, myocarditis, or spontaneous abortions.
This is probably why Pfizer and the other COVID jab makers all
decided to eliminate the control groups long before the studies were
even over. This way, side effects could be hidden, and we see the
effects of that decision now.
Myocarditis, blood clots, lethal heart attacks, strokes, cancer and
sudden death are all skyrocketing, but since there’s no official control
group to compare with, those trends are written off as either normal or
coincidental. You’ve probably seen that heart attacks are now blamed on
everything from hot weather and cold showers to soil microbes in your
garden, climate change and loud noises.
So, a more accurate statement would be that Pfizer did everything "at
your risk." They risk nothing. They get paid whether the shots work or
not, and they have zero liability for injuries and deaths, financial or
otherwise. The person who takes on all the risk is the one who takes the
shot. They could lose their health, their career, everything they own
and their very life.
Jansen admits "the mRNA platform wasn’t ready for prime time" when
they decided to use it, and that there were stability and formulation
issues, all of which were literally decided on the fly, often based on
little or no data.
To her credit, Jansen stresses that this is "not a model for the
future," because "it’s not sustainable" to be working at warp speed all
the time. Unfortunately, those who are continuing this work apparently
disagree, because warp speed rollout with minimal or no testing is, in
fact, the new norm already.
Warp Speed Is the New Norm
We know warp speed is the new norm because of a decision made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this past summer.
During its June 28, 2022, Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, they approved a bivalent COVID shot
for fall 2022.3
With that vote, they sneaked in a whole new policy, a new framework,
under which reformulated COVID shots will be treated as biologically
similar to existing shots and therefore be allowed to skip clinical
trials.
During that meeting, they were originally scheduled to vote on the
Future Framework policy question of whether reformulated shots should be
treated as new molecular entities subject to formal review. They never
addressed that policy question and instead skipped right to the vote on a
bivalent COVID shot for the fall.
By approving it, knowing there would be no time for testing and data
gathering, they replaced the old evidence-based system through a sleight
of hand. The bivalent shots received emergency use authorization (EUA)
at the end of August 2022, based on the antibody levels in eight mice.
Moderna, which received EUA for its bivalent booster at the same time
as Pfizer, also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but has not
disclosed the number of mice used.
So, clearly, we are still moving at warp speed, without regard for
risk. And already, vaccine makers are readying to release other mRNA
shots, many of which are being fast-tracked and predicted to receive
authorization in months rather than years.
Other mRNA Approvals Expected With Little or No Data
For example, Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu
and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to fully expect
releasing it before clinical trials are finished. As reported by CBC
News:4
"Moderna is actively promoting a combined COVID-19, flu and RSV
vaccine … But while a safe and effective vaccine would be welcome as
Canada faces a surge in pediatric RSV cases, stubbornly high COVID
hospitalizations and deaths and steeply rising flu cases, the pharmaceutical company hasn't released data to support the vaccine's safety or efficacy …
Moderna's decision to promote its vaccine before completing Phase
3 clinical trials — in which the vaccine would be tested on a larger
group as part of a randomized, double-blind study — is controversial.
It's also raised concerns from vaccine researchers and infectious
diseases experts about the motivations behind prematurely marketing the
shot.
‘There's still more questions than answers, obviously, with
releases like this that come from companies without accompanying data,’
said Matthew Miller, a vaccine researcher and associate professor of
infectious diseases and immunology at McMaster University.
‘I think we need to be really cautious. We have no data on
safety, no data on effectiveness or efficacy or age groups. How would
you handle updating various components of that vaccine? Lots and lots of
questions’ …
Developing a vaccine for RSV, let alone combining one with COVID
and flu, is no small feat — and the complications around dosing, timing
and age considerations could pose major challenges for the vaccine maker
down the road.
‘Having a single formulation increases the complexity of updating
that formulation annually,’ said Miller … ‘So now, instead of dealing
with four flu strains, you're adding in RSV and COVID and having a
combined shot might actually be more complex in some ways than having
separate formulations that are co-administered at the same time.’"
In addition to fast-tracking mRNA injections for a variety of
respiratory viruses, vaccine makers are also loading their pipelines
with mRNA shots for diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS),
birth defects and rarer diseases.
Curiously, while mRNA shots are being hailed as the new and improved
answer for every ill, Moderna president Stephen Hoge and chief technical
officer Juan Andres cashed out hundreds of millions of their stock
options earlier this year,5 which seems odd if everything is going well and no future trouble is expected.
Government and Corporate Interests Have Become One
Aiding and abetting the circumvention of the precautionary principle
are contract research firms that run medical research trials for drug
companies and federal agencies alike, thereby giving the drug companies
the inside track on drug approvals.6,7
As noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the COVID pandemic
has erased the boundaries between corporate interests and those of our
government, and with that, there are few left to trust.
"Talk about foxes guarding the henhouse," Thacker writes.8 "Or,
maybe, one fox raising and caring for the hens, another alerting the
farmer when it’s time for dinner — and a third setting the farmhouse
table for a feast.
That is the highly murky and incredibly profitable world of
contract research organizations (CROs), private companies that
specialize in recruiting patients and running medical research trials.
In the last handful of years, the [FDA] contracted a CRO to work
with the National Institutes of Health to determine how companies run
some drug trials; Pfizer hired a CRO to run their COVID-19 vaccine
trial; a CRO calmed fears about the safety of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19
vaccine after the FDA and NIH raised safety data concerns.
And just a few weeks back the federal government awarded a CRO a
contract to run an anthrax vaccine trial to prepare for a biological
attack. And here’s the funny thing. All this overlapping and
interconnected corporate and government work involves the exact same
CRO: ICON."
Thacker contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
asking them to explain "how ICON can run clinical trials for federal
agencies while also helping private companies gain federal approval,"
and "what HHS does to ensure ICON’s federal work benefits taxpayers and
not their private clients."
After initially getting the runaround he was eventually told to ask
ICON to explain their "internal firewalls." The HHS spokesperson did
promise to send Thacker "language HHS puts in contracts to ensure
research organizations like ICON protect against conflicts of interest,"
but he never did. Make of that what you will.
FDA Authorized Pfizer Jab Based on Questionable Data
Making an already dangerous situation worse, vaccine companies and
governments are working overtime to hide and suppress data showing the
COVID jabs are a medical disaster, and have hidden unfavorable data from
the very beginning. The basic data gathering has also been shockingly
lax across the world, considering the stakes.
As noted by MIT professor Retsef Levi in The Epoch Times interview above,9,10
Pfizer quoted and relied on data from Israel when it sought approval
from the FDA, and as it turns out, the Israeli government hid
information about side effects.
Even more surprising, Levi claims the Israeli government lied when it
said it had a robust system for monitoring and tracking side effects
from the start. That surveillance system wasn’t launched until a year
after the rollout of the shots, Levi says. A research team was
eventually hired to analyze the data, and their findings were
disconcerting.
Unlike what was told to the public, many of the side effects were
both common and long-lasting. The Ministry of Health was advised to
think in terms of "medical-legal" when communicating this to the public,
as the Ministry might be held liable for telling the public side
effects were rare and of short duration.
In other words, they were informed they’d grossly misinformed the
public and could be held accountable for injuries. The Ministry’s
solution? Fire the research team and alter the report’s data and
conclusions.
In the interview, Levi explains how some of the data manipulation was
done. For example, they massively lowered the number of post-jab
menstrual irregularities by counting both women and men. You don’t need
to be a scientist to realize that by counting men, who cannot
menstruate, you end up with a wild misrepresentation of the incidence of
menstrual irregularities.
Most egregious of all, the Ministry hid the fact that the research
team found clear evidence of causality, as patients, when rechallenged
with another dose, would experience a resurgence of symptoms and/or a
worsening of symptoms. Adding insult to injury, even though the Ministry
knows exactly who these patients are, they have not reached out to help
them medically or compensate them for injuries that have been clearly
linked to the shots.
Excess Death Rates Continue to Climb
Mortality statistics also reveal we’ve been sold a sack of lies. In
the video above, nurse instructor John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews some of
the latest excess death statistics from the U.K., which show that, in
October 2022, the average weekly excess death rate was 1,564.
In 2020, the average weekly excess death rate was a mere 315, and in
2021 it was 1,322. For the week ending October 21, 2022, the excess
mortality was 1,822, which is 15.7% above the five-year average.
So, there are now far more non-COVID deaths than there were COVID
deaths during the height of the pandemic, before there were any COVID
jabs. In particular, data from the King’s Fund show excess deaths from
cardiovascular disease and diabetes are mounting.11
Yet, while the number of people dying were a media obsession during
2020 and 2021, now that the death toll is far greater than what we saw
at any point during the pandemic, mainstream media remain quiet, and
seem completely uninterested in finding out why people are dying at
historically unprecedented rates.
Autumn Booster Campaigns Leave Death in Its Wake
The Daily Sceptic also reported striking parallels between the autumn
booster campaign, specifically, and excess deaths in the U.K.:12
"Potential new support for the role of the vaccines [in excess
non-COVID deaths] can be seen in the chart below. I have plotted the
autumn vaccine doses in the over-75s (the age group which makes up the
large majority of deaths) and excess non-COVID death occurrences (in
red), revealing a striking correlation … COVID death occurrences (in
blue), on the other hand, rise and peak several weeks later.
… [The] Scottish Unity Edinburgh Group sent me this chart showing
a similar correlation in Scotland between deaths and the autumn booster
rollout."
New Zealand Booster Campaign Linked to Excess Deaths
Similarly, an earlier study13,14,15
published June 28, 2022, found that, in New Zealand, the age groups
that were most likely to have received a COVID booster in the winter of
2021 had 7% to 10% more excess deaths than age groups that were
ineligible for boosters. The graph below illustrates how the rise in
excess mortality coincided with booster uptake. According to the study’s
author, economics professor John Gibson:16
"The results suggest 16 … excess deaths per 100,000 booster
doses, amounting to over 400 excess deaths in New Zealand given the
booster doses administered to date. If this rate of excess deaths is
extrapolated to other countries, it amounts to over 300,000 excess
deaths worldwide …
The ratio of vaccine risk to benefits likely has swung more
towards risk than during the original randomized trials, due to
dose-dependent adverse events and to fixation of immune responses on a
variant no longer circulating."
I, for one, am not surprised by these kinds of statistics, and I
don’t think vaccine makers are either. When you take off in an
unfinished plane, crashing is to be expected because, in the real world,
you cannot build planes in midair. Likewise, in the real world, you
have to do extensive, long-term testing, starting in animals, to be sure
a drug is safe. The concept of fast-tracking has been proven a
dangerous failure. How long will it take before government and industry
admit it?