Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Nos últimos meses, o Brasil vem sendo agitado por uma questão que é pertinente para todo o mundo: a possibilidade de os paralíticos com lesão medular total (e só eles) recuperarem totalmente os movimentos, caso recebam uma certa injeção na medula até 3 dias após o acidente e façam fisioterapia.

O Brasil começou a prestar atenção ao assunto quando, em setembro de 2025, a imprensa publicou a incrível história de Bruno Drummond: em 2018 ele quebrou o pescoço num acidente de trânsito, ficou tetraplégico e aceitou ser cobaia de uma pesquisa piloto. Em menos de 24 horas, ele recebeu a injeção na medula e hoje consegue caminhar. Ele saiu direto da classificação A (sem movimentos) para a D (força e sensibilidade para quase todos os movimentos), fato sem precedentes na literatura médica. Esse teste piloto tinha seis pacientes. Os cinco pacientes restantes pularam do A para o C (com parte da força e mobilidade). A pesquisa era desenvolvida por pesquisadores da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro liderados pela Prof. Tatiana Sampaio em parceria com o laboratório brasileiro Cristália.

O Brasil ficou empolgadíssimo, e os internautas repetiam que ela merece o Nobel. Diante da novidade, as famílias dos pacientes, desesperadas, começaram a entrar na justiça para pedir o uso compassivo do medicamento em teste. E aí apareceu mais uma história muito importante: um certo Diogo Brollo trabalhava instalando janelas num prédio quando caiu, sofreu uma lesão total da medula e sua irmã conseguiu uma ordem judicial para que ele recebesse o tratamento por uso compassivo. Em apenas quinze dias, ele conseguiu mexer o pé e a perna. Até 22 de fevereiro, havia 55 pedidos judiciais, dos quais 30 foram aceitos.

Os pacientes que tomam o medicamento por uso compassivo não contam como caso clínico. Assim, fica a questão: se porventura a corrida judicial continuar, e o tratamento continuar tendo resultados favoráveis, como seguir os trâmites da pesquisa?

E aí temos a polêmica que incendiou o Twitter brasileiro. Um economista neoliberal que escreve para o mais tradicional jornal liberal de direita do país tuitou um corte de 28 segundos da entrevista da Prof. Tatiana Sampaio ao Roda Viva no qual ela dizia: “Vamos supor uma hipótese: que essas 30 pessoas que receberam por uso compassivo, todos voltem a andar. Você teria coragem de fazer um estudo clínico controlado?”, ao que uma entrevistadora responde, impassível, que é preciso seguir todos os trâmites e passar por todas as fases. Junto com o vídeo, o economista postou o comentário irônico “Agora o Nobel vem”. Ato contínuo, os mesmos atores que defendiam as maravilhas da “vacina” da Pfizer passaram a tratar a Prof. Tatiana Sampaio como uma charlatã ou uma simplória que não conhece a ciência.

Na mesma entrevista, porém, Tatiana Sampaio explicava os problemas de se fazer teste clínico nesse caso em particular, bem como em geral. Comecemos com o particular: cada vez que um paciente ganha na justiça o direito de fazer o teste, é preciso que o laboratório Cristália envie um neurocirurgião até o local para fazer o procedimento invasivo de injetar polilaminina na medula espinhal. No teste duplo-cego, cuja finalidade é eliminar o efeito placebo, dá-se o medicamento para uma parte de cobaias e placebo para outra, a fim de comparar os resultados. Ora, é antiético submeter um paciente a um procedimento invasivo para enfiar um líquido na melhor das hipóteses inócuo em sua medula. Além disso, mesmo que fosse um procedimento simples e fácil de substituir por um placebo, o tempo é importante para a eficácia do tratamento, logo, aquele que recebesse o placebo estaria fadado à cadeira de rodas. (A isto acrescentemos: se o paralítico pode conseguir o medicamento por via judicial, por que aceitaria ser cobaia num duplo-cego?)

Diante do fato de que é difícil seguir os trâmites existentes de maneira ética, a Prof. Tatiana Sampaio diz que é preciso pensar em novos modelos. E essa não é a única questão burocrática que clama por reflexão.

A questão das patentes e do custo dos testes clínicos

Outra notícia que chamou a atenção é que a cientista teve que pagar do próprio bolso pela patente. Há muito tempo a UFRJ tem sérios problemas administrativos que nenhuma autoridade quer resolver. Vou me limitar a observar que ela tem um orçamento bilionário mas, ainda assim, deixou o Museu Nacional pegar fogo devido à precariedade da rede elétrica – e o reitor ainda culpou os bombeiros. As múmias egípcias do imperador viraram pó; coleções de fósseis se perderam. Ao menos o Meteorito do Bendegó não pôde ser destruído. Assim, a UFRJ não iria pagar pela renovação das patentes brasileira, estadunidense e europeia, e perguntou à professora se ela mesma não queria pagar para não perder. Ela pagou somente a brasileira e as demais se perderam. Depois ela encontrou o Cristália.

Na entrevista ao Roda Viva, ela explicou que isso foi um mal que veio para bem, pois se a patente dos Estados Unidos ainda valesse, provavelmente teria sido comprada por um laboratório do primeiro mundo, o qual dispensaria os pesquisadores brasileiros, faria uma bateria de testes com toda rapidez e venderia o produto por uma fortuna. De posse da patente brasileira, ela e o laboratório esperam que no futuro o medicamento seja vendido para o SUS (o NHS brasileiro). Somos convidados a pensar, então, quantos países mundo afora não financiam cientistas nacionais para que uma grande empresa compre a patente de suas pesquisas em estágio inicial, termine de desenvolvê-las e ponha um preço absurdo a ser pago por esses mesmos países quando vão comprar o medicamento. O estrago que Reagan fez ao permitir que a verba pública de pesquisa virasse patente privada foi globalizado.

De resto, vale destacar o custo e a razoabilidade dos testes clínicos, que foi justamente o que levou os pets da Pfizer a atacarem a cientista após a entrevista no programa Roda Viva. Encerro citando a Prof.ª Tatiana Sampaio: “A patente é muito importante quando você vai vender alguma coisa. Imagina que você tem uma proposta de um novo medicamento e aí você quer fazer um estudo clínico para poder testar se ele funciona mesmo. Para fazer esse estudo clínico, você precisa de um orçamento muito grande, porque os estudos clínicos são muito caros. E aí você precisa que alguém se interesse por fazer aquele estudo clínico. E esse alguém, via de regra, vai se interessar por fazer esse estudo se ele tiver a perspectiva de um lucro muito grande com a exploração comercial daquilo. Por isso ele precisa da patente para garantir que só ele possa ganhar dinheiro com aquilo. Toda essa dinâmica é como a roda gira. Mas eu tenho que te dizer que não acho que seja uma situação ideal, na minha opinião. Eu acho que isso acaba fazendo uma grande reserva de mercado para grandes corporações.”

O entrevistador pergunta se então o ideal seria o Estado bancar, ao que ela responde: “Não sei, o ideal é uma coisa nova que a gente tem que fazer. A gente não precisa ter medo disso. Tem que construir uma coisa nova, porque esse paradigma de: você faz a patente, e aí você vende a patente para alguém que tem muito dinheiro e que vai botar muito dinheiro, e que vai… A gente tem que se perguntar isso: no afã de proteger as pessoas de serem usadas como cobaia, será que a gente não tá também fazendo uma reserva de mercado para um ente que tem uma expectativa muito grande de lucro?”

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent months, Brazil has been abuzz with an issue that is relevant to the whole world: the possibility of paralytics with complete spinal cord injury (and only them) fully recovering their movements if they receive a certain injection into the spinal cord within 3 days of the accident and undergo physiotherapy.

Brazil began paying attention to the issue when, in September 2025, the press published the incredible story of Bruno Drummond: in 2018 he broke his neck in a car accident, became quadriplegic, and agreed to be a guinea pig in a pilot study. In less than 24 hours, he received the spinal cord injection and today he can walk. He went directly from classification A (no movement) to D (strength and sensitivity for almost all movements), an unprecedented fact in medical literature. This pilot test had six patients. The remaining five patients jumped from A to C (with some strength and mobility). The research was being developed by researchers at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), led by Prof. Tatiana Sampaio, in partnership with the Brazilian laboratory Cristália.

Brazil was thrilled, and internet users repeatedly said she deserved the Nobel Prize. Faced with the news, the patients’ families, desperate, began to go to court to request the compassionate use of the drug being tested. And then another very important story emerged: a certain Diogo Brollo was working installing windows in a building when he fell, suffered a total spinal cord injury, and his sister obtained a court order for him to receive treatment under compassionate use. In just fifteen days, he was able to move his foot and leg. By February 22, there were 55 court requests, of which 30 were accepted.

Patients who take the drug under compassionate use do not count as clinical cases. Thus, the question remains: if the legal battle continues, and the treatment continues to have favorable results, how will the research procedures proceed?

And then we have the controversy that set Brazilian Twitter ablaze. A neoliberal economist who writes for the country’s most traditional right-wing liberal newspaper tweeted a 28-second clip from Professor Tatiana Sampaio’s interview on Roda Viva in which she said: “Let’s suppose a hypothesis: that these 30 people who received it for compassionate use, all walk again. Would you have the courage to conduct a controlled clinical trial?”, to which an interviewer replies, impassively, that it is necessary to follow all the procedures and go through all the phases. Along with the video, the economist posted the ironic comment “Now the Nobel Prize is coming”. Immediately afterwards, the same actors who defended the wonders of Pfizer’s “vaccine” began to treat Professor Tatiana Sampaio as a charlatan or a simpleton who does not know science.

In the same interview, however, Tatiana Sampaio explained the problems of conducting clinical trials in this particular case, as well as in general. Let’s start with the specifics: every time a patient wins the right in court to undergo the test, the Cristália laboratory has to send a neurosurgeon to the location to perform the invasive procedure of injecting polylaminin into the spinal cord. In the double-blind test, whose purpose is to eliminate the placebo effect, the medication is given to one group of test subjects and a placebo to another, in order to compare the results. Now, it is unethical to subject a patient to an invasive procedure to inject a liquid that is, at best, innocuous into their spinal cord. Furthermore, even if it were a simple procedure and easy to replace with a placebo, time is important for the effectiveness of the treatment, so the one who received the placebo would be doomed to a wheelchair. (To this we add: if the paralytic can obtain the medication through legal means, why would they agree to be a test subject in a double-blind trial?)

Given the fact that it is difficult to follow existing procedures ethically, Professor Tatiana Sampaio says that it is necessary to think about new models. And this is not the only bureaucratic issue that calls for reflection.

The issue of patents and the cost of clinical trials

Another piece of news that caught attention is that the scientist had to pay for the patent out of her own pocket. UFRJ has had serious administrative problems for a long time that no authority wants to solve. I will limit myself to observing that it has one billion dollar’s budget but, even so, allowed the National Museum to catch fire due to the precariousness of the electrical grid – and the rector even blamed the firefighters. The Egyptian mummies of the emperor turned to dust; fossil collections were lost. At least the Bendegó Meteorite could not be destroyed. Thus, UFRJ was not going to pay for the renewal of the Brazilian, American and European patents, and asked the professor if she herself did not want to pay so as not to lose them. She only paid for the Brazilian one and the others were lost. Then she found Cristália.

In the interview on Roda Viva, she explained that this was a blessing in disguise, because if the United States patent were still valid, it would probably have been bought by a first-world laboratory, which would have dismissed the Brazilian researchers, conducted a battery of tests very quickly, and sold the product for a fortune. With the Brazilian patent in hand, she and the laboratory Cristália hope that in the future the drug will be sold to the SUS (the Brazilian NHS). We are invited to consider, then, how many countries around the world do not fund national scientists so that a large company can buy the patent for their research in its initial stages, finish developing it, and set an absurd price to be paid by these same countries when they go to buy the drug. The damage that Reagan did by allowing public research funds to become private patents has been globalized.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the cost and reasonableness of clinical trials, which is precisely what led the Pfizer puppets to attack the scientist after her interview on the Roda Viva program. I conclude by quoting Professor Tatiana Sampaio: “A patent is very important when you are going to sell something. Imagine that you have a proposal for a new drug and then you want to do a clinical study to test if it really works. To do this clinical study, you need a very large budget, because clinical studies are very expensive. And then you need someone to be interested in doing that clinical study. And that someone, as a rule, will be interested in doing this study if they have the prospect of a very large profit from the commercial exploitation of it. That is why they need the patent to ensure that only they can make money from it. All this dynamic is how the wheel turns. But I have to tell you that I don’t think it’s an ideal situation, in my opinion. I think this ends up creating a large market reserve for large corporations.”

The interviewer asks if the ideal solution would be for the state to fund it, to which she replies: “I don’t know, the ideal is something new that we have to do. We don’t need to be afraid of that. We have to build something new, because this paradigm of: you get the patent, and then you sell the patent to someone who has a lot of money and who will invest a lot of money, and who will… We have to ask ourselves this: in the eagerness to protect people from being used as guinea pigs, aren’t we also creating a market reserve for an entity that has a very high expectation of profit?”

Von der Leyen should be “pushed out by the Parliament,” conservative MEPs commented while calling on the mainstream parties to support a full inquiry.

Tamás ORBAN

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After two and a half years of fighting both the EU and Belgian courts tooth and nail so that she won’t have to disclose her text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla about vaccine negotiations—presumably to hide evidence in “the biggest corruption scandal in human history”—EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was delivered a painful blow by the EU Court of Justice on Wednesday, when it ruled that she did break transparency laws and annulled her decision to withhold the documents.

As a reminder, the texts were used to negotiate the procurement of 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer vaccines for around €35 billion, in addition to the purchase of another 2.8 billion doses from other manufacturers. That’s over 10 shots for every single European, worth over €70 billion in total. Barely more than one-fifth of those were ever administered, meaning the vast majority will inevitably end up in landfills.

Yet, despite the fact that it could be key to understanding this unimaginable waste of taxpayer funds, the ECJ ruling holds no immediate consequence with regard to the disclosure of the Pfizer texts. The Commission already stated that it won’t release them. Von der Leyen has two months to appeal the decision, and the process for a final ruling typically takes another 15 to 24 months. In other words, the public is not likely to see any of the texts for at least another one or two years—if ever.

Similarly, as even mainstream media were quick to point out, this “serious scratch” on von der Leyen’s image will have “no real-world political fallout” either, simply because there’s no mechanism to hold von der Leyen accountable, nor is there any real desire among the establishment parties of the Parliament’s ‘Ursula coalition’ to do so.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that those outside her political camp will stop fighting for transparency and accountability, and to finally put an end to the endless abuse of power at the heart of the EU.

 | The EU Court confirmed it: Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission broke transparency laws over secret Pfizer vaccine deals. #Patriots demand a full inquiry. Brussels corruption must have consequences. pic.twitter.com/bgQAwXtiuF

— Patriots for Europe (@PatriotsEP) May 14, 2025

If von der Leyen “has nothing to hide, then she has nothing to be afraid of,” Danish MEP Anders Vistisen, chief whip of the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group, told europeanconservative.com. “But, it is clear by her refusal to make public her text messages exchanged with the Pfizer CEO that she indeed has a reason to conceal her actions.”

Vistisen noted that von der Leyen has a history of deleting phone messages to hide evidence of large-scale corruption, as something very similar happened when she was facing serious allegations involving public procurement fraud while serving as German defense minister. She escaped accountability in that case by being appointed as the EU Commission president for the first time in 2019.

According to Vistisen, the “public humiliation” of the ECJ ruling should be followed by immediate political consequences, and it’s up to each group in the European Parliament to pick a side.

“If she is unwilling to fully disclose these text messages, she must be pushed out by the European Parliament. That would put the whole Commission on the line,” he said. “Let’s see how the different political groups divide on this issue.”

Others, like Dutch MEP Marieke Ehlers (PfE) and former French MEP Patricia Chagnon (RN), conveyed similar views, saying Europeans deserve to know the truth, and that letting von der Leyen off without any consequence would be a violation of basic democratic principles.

“The only guarantee of democracy is transparency. When you start hiding stuff, that’s no longer a democracy,” Chagnon told europeanconservative.com. “Politicians get their mandate from their electorate, and therefore must remain accountable to them. I despise any politician who doesn’t want to be accountable for what they’ve done.”

Rob Roos, another former MEP from ECR, wrote about how absurd it is that a separate lawsuit that was lodged against von der Leyen over her refusal to release the texts was declared “inadmissible” by a Belgian court earlier this year due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate “personal harm” or “sufficient interest”—despite over 1,000 co-complainants joining the case, including MEPs, transparency watchdogs, and even member states—while the ECJ ruled in favor of The New York Times.

“This decision raises a fundamental question: why should a foreign newspaper possess stronger transparency rights than a MEP, than European citizens and Member States themselves?” Roos wrote on X.

The same argument was made by German MEP Christine Anderson (ESN), who commented that it’s unacceptable in a democracy that the NYT “has achieved what parliamentarians and citizens have been denied.”

That’s why Anderson, along with Vistisen, Ehlers, and most MEPs on the national conservative side—the PfE, ECR, and ESN groups—once again called for the establishment of an inquiry committee to properly investigate corruption allegations in the EU, such as Pfizergate.

The Patriots finished collecting the required signatures for the proposed Transparency and Accountability Committee (TRAC) earlier this month, and now it’s up to the chairmen of the mainstream parties to allow the initiative to move for a plenary vote. They will probably try to block it, like in other similar cases, and instead offer a working group in the budgetary control committee—knowing full well that it won’t have the power to make any meaningful difference.

“We need a committee of inquiry. Not just any committee, but one with real powers. Powers to summon Ursula von der Leyen, to access Commission documents, and to establish political accountability,” Anderson stated. “Only a real inquiry with subpoena powers can bring truth to light.”

 | #PfizerGate verdict – a resounding slap in the face for EU corruption-president #UrsulavonderLeyen .

 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” with a contract volume of 35 billion euros. Negotiated between Ursula von der Leyen and #Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Not through… pic.twitter.com/stwu6Kn5Ow

— Christine Anderson (@AndersonAfDMdEP) May 14, 2025

Original article: The European Conservative

The ECJ’s landmark ruling isn’t about vaccines or corruption; it’s a battle for democracy against an elite determined to hide the truth and protect its power.

By Tamás ORBÁN

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The day is finally here: the European Court of Justice is set to deliver a landmark ruling on Wednesday, May 14th, in what’s been described as the “biggest corruption scandal in human history,” also known as ‘Pfizergate.’

❗️Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK .

During the pandemic, the challenge for each of us was to maintain critical distance: spurning both the tribalism of those insisting Covid was a hoax and the counter-tribalism of those who demanded complete acquiesence to a corporate-political agenda dictated by Big Pharma under the mantle of “Follow the science”.

Fear of living under Big Brother or of dying from plague drove many people not only into the arms of one of these two oppositional camps but fuelled a pandemic mania in which reason and compassion were replaced with either extreme cynicism or extreme compliance. We are still living with the consequences.

There has been a spate of “excess deaths” over the past two years across the West – well above what would normally be expected – and yet this sustained trend is being universally ignored by governments, establishment media and medical bodies. No one is protesting. The cult of compliance is still in the ascendant.

More on that in a moment.

But it is worth first revisiting briefly the climate of intolerance and willed ignorance that predominated at the height of the pandemic, as I documented in real time in a series of essays that upset more of my readers than any I had written before.

It was always unwarranted to press for vaccine mandates, if only because they violated the critically important principle of bodily autonomy. But the demand became completely unhinged once it was clear – as it was much earlier than publicly let on by Big Pharma, the World Health Organisation and national regulators – that the vaccines were doing little to halt virus transmission.

Similarly, it was always unethical to insist that children should be routinely given the vaccine and boosters when it was evident that the virus posed no threat to the overwhelming majority of them – and all the more so given that the mRNA vaccines were based on a new technology whose development had been rushed through on an emergency licence.

By definition, no one could know the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines on humans because there had been no long-term studies. The science was built on a wing and a prayer, which is part of the reason the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation, the British government’s official advisory body on vaccinations, demurred for so long, and despite huge political pressure, on recommending vaccination for children.

And it was always deeply irresponsible to refuse to consider, or even study, other treatments that might have had an impact on the virus. Medical authorities ignored or warned the public off potential prophylactics and immunity-boosting treatments and behaviours – even when those interventions could have complemented the role of the vaccines, rather than serving as an alternative to them.

Nothing could be allowed to dilute the public’s exclusive reliance on vaccinations.

One prize example was Vitamin D, the sunshine hormone that, uniquely, every cell in the human body has a receptor for. Most people in the West are deficient in Vitamin D, many of them severely so, and doctors still have little understanding of what the consequences of that deficiency – beyond osteoporosis – might be.

Even before Covid, there were many studies suggesting that Vitamin D was critical to improving the health of our immune systems, including by warding off and aiding recovery from coronaviruses. That evidence has only grown stronger subsequently.

But definitive proof has been lacking because full-scale controlled studies are extraordinarily expensive and only Big Pharma has deep enough pockets to fund such studies (given that our captured governments refuse to dig deep themselves), but Big Pharma has no interest in proving a cheap hormone like Vitamin D – one it cannot patent or profit from – might offer the public health benefits not only in relation to Covid but for a wide range of chronic health conditions.

The fact that most medical regulators and media commentators continue to prefer to shut down debate about the potential benefits of Vitamin D rather than demand that governments fund research to confirm or refute the growing body of evidence for such benefits should be a scandal. But, predictably, it isn’t.

Blanket silence

I set this out as a preface to this latest scandal on excess deaths, one that – like so much else related to the pandemic and its aftermath – continues to elicit a blanket silence from the establishment media, politicians and, of course, our medical authorities.

The consistent and markedly elevated death rates each month across most of the Western world are not due to Covid and are far above the seasonal five-year average before the pandemic.

Such deaths have been significantly raised since late 2020 or mid-2021. That is all the more surprising because, after early waves of Covid killed off those who were already sick and vulnerable, the expectation was that excess deaths would fall, not rise. That anomaly needs explaining – scientifically.

The video below sets out the latest figures for excess deaths, using Office for National Statistics and European Statistical data. (Links to the graphs presented by Dr John Campbell are in the notes immediately below the video.)

Despite the backlash inevitably provoked by asking critical questions, I want to examine this development because it highlights something important about the way of our supposedly democratic governments, and the regulatory and adversarial institutions meant to hold them in check, have been hollowed out. We imagine we live in societies where scientific reason and compassion guide our response to a medical crisis. The reality is different. In our societies, one thing rules: money.

The issue of excess deaths is only one of many problems – though probably the most serious – that have emerged in the aftermath of the pandemic. Unless you have made an extraordinary effort to do your own research and managed to evade the internet censors and their algorithms, you will most likely not know about these developments. Neither politicians nor establishment media have publicised them.

Instead troubling data is buried away in obscure, peer-reviewed scientific journals, or has to be squeezed out of government authorities through freedom of information requests – and even then the information is often heavily redacted.

Such data would remain largely unnoticed but for the efforts of a few brave souls daring to draw attention to it – only to be smeared as cranks and crackpots, whatever their formal qualifications.

Dr Campbell, whose Youtube channel became an invaluable internet resource during the pandemic and since (at least for those trying to sift the wheat from the chaff), has done sterling work shedding light on many of those problems.

Some notable videos have covered:

• the mishandling and lack of oversight of Pfizer’s research into its vaccine;
• the astounding admission that Pfizer never actually tested whether its vaccine stopped transmission;
• continuing efforts to obscure evidence demonstrating that natural infection confers superior immunity to the vaccine;
• the troubling discovery that mRNA can remain in the blood for at least a month after vaccination, with no understanding of what it might be doing in that time to our immune systems;
• high variation in adverse reactions caused by different batches of mRNA vaccine, with some off the scale;
• the involvement of US researchers and Pfizer in engineering Frankenstein’s monster-type coronaviruses of the very kind that, it increasingly seems, led to the Covid pandemic in the first place;
• new research demonstrating the lack of evidence for reduction in virus transmission from masking;
• the failure of policymakers to weigh the serious financial, social and possibly medical costs of lockdowns;
• and a causal connection, confirmed by the WHO, between vaccination and the development of autoimmune disease like multiple sclerosis.

There is doubtless much worse, but we cannot learn of it – at least from qualified sources – because any effort to discuss it publicly will almost certainly result in banning by the corporations that run social media, our modern town squares.

For his efforts shining a light into the darkest recesses of the West’s pandemic response, Dr Campbell has been pilloried by the tribe that still identifies with Big Pharma. Arrogantly, they dismiss him as a glorified “nurse”, even though he has written widely read and authoritative medical textbooks.

More to the point, the smears are designed to distract from the fact that, more often than not, Dr Campbell is not speaking for himself but relaying in intelligible language the findings of peer-reviewed studies or interviewing respected experts in their field to draw attention to their work.

Complete mystery

Nonetheless, the issue of unexplained excess deaths is an order of magnitude more serious than even these other matters, which is why Dr Campbell has dedicated so many of his videos to discussing it.

Many, many thousands more people, including young people, are now dying each month across the Western world (where such data is reliably collected) than should be, compared to previous years. And they are dying for entirely mysterious reasons.

Yet:

This deeply troubling phenomenon barely merits a mention from politicians, the media or medical authorities.

Governments are failing to fund research to determine the causes of these extra deaths, even though the rates have been elevated for two years or more.

This reckless, self-imposed climate of ignorance is being sustained even as expert medical bodies warn that we face future pandemics.

It is almost as if Western governments prefer to let large numbers of people die unnecessarily, and potentially at great cost to health care services, rather than learn the truth. It seems these governments are quite happy, if they believe another pandemic is on the way, to risk repeating any mistakes they made during Covid that may have caused those excess deaths.

In a world where we are supposed to “follow the science”, how can that possibly be the case? What is going on?

If we try to understand why a blind eye is being turned to the shocking data showing a sustained and unexplained rise in deaths, it is hard not to arrive at one, and only one, conclusion.

Governments, establishment media and the medical regulators are frightened. They are scared of what they may discover if the research is carried out.

And that suggests something further. That these are not groups with their own discrete or competing interests and agendas.

The media, whatever it claims, is not a watchdog on government or the medical establishment. It colludes with them against the public. In fact, the corporate interests of all three are closely aligned.

Why? Because the government is captured by Big Business. Because the medical authorities are funded by Big Pharma, which can make or break careers. And because the media is owned by billionaires, and serves as little more than the public relations arm of concentrated wealth and as cheerleader for a neoliberalism that normalises the criminal profiteering of drug manufacturers like Pfizer.

Cultivated ignorance

Before I continue further, let me state unequivocally – because sadly, these things need emphasising in our ever-more tribal, polarised societies – that I have no idea what is causing this wave of excess deaths.

The point of this piece is not to pre-judge the matter or adopt a tribal position.

Rather, I’m trying de-tribalise your and my own thinking so that we can better understand why our governments and medical agencies prefer that no research is conducted, and why our establishment media chooses not to expose this glaring failure.

Dr Vibeke Manniche, a member of the Danish medical team whose peer-reviewed research showed that some batches of the mRNA vaccine caused off-the-scale adverse reactions, believes there are likely to be an array of contributory factors. That sounds right to me.

Her team are now undertaking as their next project an investigation into the mysterious rise in deaths. It is their private initiative, rather than research funded, organised or assisted by the Danish government. In fact, according to Dr Manniche, Danish authorities have been throwing obstacles in their way.

But why are these authorities so afraid?

The answer is simple. They suspect that any research will implicate them in those excess deaths. They are frightened – rightly or wrongly – that the narrative they constructed around the pandemic, and the powers they accrued to themselves, will unravel.

The reason they are in no hurry to find out why so many extra people are dying is because they fear that significant contributory factors are either the lockdown policies they imposed or the side-effects of the vaccines they championed – or both.

Again, I’m not saying that is what I think. I have no expertise to evaluate all the possible causes, including the ongoing erosion of socialised health care in much of the Western world and its transfer to yet more corporate profiteers – for which our governments are undoubtedly responsible.

But governments and medical regulators have access to the same data and graphs as Dr Manniche, showing a relentless and near-identical rise in excess deaths beginning in spring 2021 in Denmark, Norway and Finland, in the immediate wake of the mass vaccine rollout. Similar graphs are available for other Western states.

The inference that there is a connection between the vaccines and excess deaths may be wrong. But it is not a hypothesis they wish to test. The consequences are far too serious for them. They would rather enforce general ignorance, or perpetrate a deception on the public, than risk undermining their own authority – and the crucial levers they control both to sustain their privileges and to further concentrate their wealth.

There are some uncomfortable lessons here for us all.

The truth is Western governments – all of them – dare not test the evidentiary basis for their insistence on lockdowns and experimental vaccines as the only way out of the pandemic. They dare not do so in the full glare of public scrutiny for fear that the truth will not serve them, and more likely will damage them. So they cultivate public ignorance.

The truth is that the medical regulatory authorities were long ago captured by Big Pharma, and the revolving door it offers, leading to prestigious jobs and lucrative salaries in the industry. So they favour public ignorance too.

The truth is that the media will not hold the feet of governments or the medical establishment to the fire because, whatever the media claim, they are not in the business of enforcing real, systemic accountability. The billionaire-owned media corporations are embedded in the same model of corporate profit as Big Pharma. Indeed, the media’s own corporate profits depend on the advertising and sponsorship of drugs companies – fellow corporations – like Pfizer. So they benefit from public ignorance as well.

World of illusion

We live in a world not, as we are told and tell ourselves, of democratic accountability and transparency. Beyond formal, surface appearances, the system of political, economic and social control is designed to lack all but the most minimal checks and balances, institutional safeguards and oversight.

We live in a world of illusion, of elites that look out for their own, that develop ever more sophisticated technological tools to manipulate and deceive us, and that have progressively rigged the system to accrue to themselves ever more wealth and power.

We are not, as we like to imagine, informed citizens. The system cannot afford to provide us with the information we need to be informed – information that might reveal to us that we have been duped, that the rich steal from the poor to give to themselves, that our rulers have no clue how to fix the biggest problems facing us, aside from lining their pockets with more gold as the ship goes down.

As the last year has demonstrated, our elites had no more idea how to deal with the pandemic than they currently do with the climate crisis, or with the Ukraine war (without risking nuclear conflagration), or with rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence. Faced with the biggest challenges, they are like children – shouting “Follow the Science” or “Green New Deal” to distract the rest of us as they grab as many sweets as they can thrust into their pockets.

For these elites, Covid was a party – quite literally in the case of the British government – in which the biggest corporations not only profiteered but drove small businesses into the ground. Excess deaths are but a hangover, one that must be studiously ignored if the fiction of responsible, accountable, democratic government is to be maintained.

Our world has been carefully constructed to ensure we do not get to peek behind the curtain, to see the con-men at work. Unless we dispel this central illusion – that science, reason and compassion are the forces driving the West – the charlatans will take us with them over the edge of the cliff in their pursuit of suicidal “economic growth” and chimerical “progress”.

Update:

Shortly after I published this essay, Dr Campbell issued a video discussing new data from Western Australia showing that excess deaths increased dramatically from May 2021, well before Covid arrived on Australia’s shores. The vaccine programme, however, had been rolled out a short time before the excess deaths trend began.

Again, I am neither a medical expert nor a statistician, so I will not pass judgment on these findings – apart from to say they further bolster my conclusion that governments need these deaths to remain a mystery and undiscussed.

Anyone who cares not just about truth but about the safety of themselves and their loved ones ought to be demanding that this deeply troubling development – of many tens of thousands of people dying each month across the West above historic trends – be investigated.

What is not needed is more tribal point-scoring. This article has provoked a lot of debate, much of it deflecting from my central concern – that the cause of these deaths must be scrutinised, and the refusal by governments to do so should be understood in a political context – to medical debates few of us are qualified to resolve.

jonathan-cook.net

An apocryphal quote attributed to Henry Kissinger has him asking in jest, “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” The great diplomat may have struggled to find the Continent’s locus of ultimate power, but Pfizer apparently had no such trouble. The pharma giant knew exactly whom in Brussels to call—or text message, to be more precise—to get a Covid vaccine deal going. That person was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Last week, E.U. Ombudswoman Emily O’Reilly slammed von der Leyen for continuing to stonewall her nine months since it first came to light that the commission president had exchanged text messages with Pfizer chief Albert Bourla at the height of the pandemic, “forging a relationship that unlocked lucrative deals for life-saving coronavirus vaccines,” as the Guardian put it.

“I think the Commission has a responsibility to come clean, even if this is difficult politically,” O’Reilly told France 24. “Because you’re talking about the trust of citizens in relation to a very important issue. Otherwise people who are anti-vax or hostile to the EU can paint an unfair narrative of what happens in the EU.”

As a committed Brussels mandarin, O’Reilly of course has to frame the scandal as a matter of fending off favorite E.U. bogeys: anti-vaxxers, Euroskeptics, etc. But her underlying point is sound. At its best, the European Union was supposed to pool the power of many nations that individually would have been too weak and easy to divide when facing large corporate actors. The union, moreover, routinely lectures the rest of the world, including its own members in Eastern Europe, about transparency and accountability.

Yet here von der Leyen appears to have circumvented the normal negotiating process to strike a personal deal with Pfizer. And when pressed to clear the air and release the communications, her commission has declared, in effect: Bullocks to transparency.

The New York Times first reported on the exchanges between von der Leyen and Bourla last April. Since then, the commission’s behavior in response to journalists and even E.U. investigative bodies has been downright thuggish. When the outlet netzpolitik.org requested access to the texts, the commission flatly refused. That prompted an inquiry by O’Reilly, the E.U. ombudswoman, who was told by the commission that it couldn’t find the texts—and wasn’t required to archive them in the first place.

Pfizer denies the texts involved vaccine negotiations (yeah, OK). Other E.U. actors are alarmed. This month, the European Parliament’s Covid committee voted to ban Bourla and other Pfizer executives from the E.U. legislative body, with all ideological blocs—save, shamefully, for the center-right European People’s Party and the liberal Renew Europe delegation—backing the measure. European lawmakers have also summoned von der Leyen to testify about her role in the Pfizer negotiations, though the parliament sadly lacks the formal subpoena and investigative powers of, say, the U.S. Congress, and so far the commission president has openly defied it. E.U. prosecutors are also getting involved, though no one knows if von der Leyen is a target of their probe.

All this jars with the permanent hum of liberal moral sanctimony that serves as the soundtrack of E.U. operations. The bloc, for example, continues to withhold Covid support funds from Hungary, and slow-walked similar financial aid to Poland, both on “rule-of-law” grounds. But the same standards apparently don’t apply to politically connected U.S. corporations, nor to the high E.U. officials whom they can text as they please when they want to get things done.

theamericanconservative.com

Is it possible that the President of the European commission, Ursula von der Leyen is not quite as squeaky clean as some might assume? Do such lightweights, who define themselves by how much they fail to achieve, who come from the bowels of political obscurity in Germany rise to such prominence without a little help from powerful elites, masonic links and corrupt corporations?

The answer is of course. In fact, within the scope of the European Union and its institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg, this is largely the tradition: to either install puppets who serve powerful governments and their corrupt interests, or giant industry itself. Corruption rules.

And so it should come as little surprise that Ursula has been implicated in playing a murky role in a 35bn euro vaccine deal which stinks so much that it has the very dark powers in Brussels are working over time on a damage limitation plan to save the collective neck of the EU as it heads towards the abyss: its own elections in 2024, which are expected to have all time low voter turn out with far-right groups making a killing in the European parliament.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an “investigation” into the EU’s coronavirus vaccine purchases, an announcement that will throw a spotlight on Ursula von der Leyen’s odd behaviour at that time, according to probably the most pro establishment media outlet in Brussels, Politico.

The media outlet is so supportive and compliant to the EU that the fact that its journalists are breaking the story is important as it indicates that it is the EU hidden powers, the cabal in Brussels and Luxembourg which are never in the media sphere, which are worried about von der Leyen and her murky deals.

It’s unclear why The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which claims to be an independent EU body responsible for investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, including fraud, money laundering and corruption, is handling the case when traditionally it would be OLAF – the EU’s own internal anti fraud unit. In the past OLAF has always been accused of not being objective enough in its investigations, often protecting high level EU officials. Are the powers that be trying to actually do the unthinkable and genuinely investigate von der Leyen for corruption?

Until this point, the whole story is opaque, without even the outline of a case.

The EPPO did not specify who was being investigated, or which contracts were the subject of inquiry. But that said, two other watchdog agencies have brought attention to the von der Leyen – Pfizer deal, probably one of these being OLAF.

Yet OLAF or the EPPO, like any EU institutions, are not exempt from being manipulated by national member states’ interests and in this case it appears that the Belgians have an axe to grind, with, at this stage, only intercepted text messages to go on.

Belgian Socialist member of European Parliament (MEP) Kathleen van Brempt said that “several aspects” of the Pfizer contract need to be looked into, including “the text messages between the Commission President and the fact that there is no paper trail of the preliminary negotiations in first instance.” Van Brempt is referring to text messages to the Pfizer CEO.

In April 2021, the New York Times first reported on these messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in the run-up to the EU’s biggest vaccine procurement contract — for up to 1.8 billion doses of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, potentially being up to 35 billion euros when all was finalised.

In January this year, bizarrely, the EU’s ombudsman charged the Commission with maladministration for failing to look for the text messages in response to a freedom of information request. The commission played cat and mouse and pretended that such messages no longer existed.

All the old guard of the EU is circling around von der Leyen, which would indicate she has broken the house rules on putting her hand in the till.

Last month, the European Court of Auditors published the aforementioned report in which it said the Commission refused transparency regarding details of von der Leyen’s personal role in the Pfizer contract.

In it, the budget watchdog found that the EU chief went rogue in order to personally hammer out a preliminary deal with Pfizer, instead of relying on joint negotiating teams.

All of this points to the establishment wanting to make sure that the image of the EU is preserved. It may well be that the hapless Commission boss will be made a scapegoat but allowed to remain in office until 2024.

Corruption, even high level, within the EU is of course nothing new. In 1999, an entire European Commission cabinet of 20 members were forced to resign under a cloud of corruption allegations, which featured one French commissioner giving her dentist huge EU contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros, other commissioners employing friends and family members and one commissioner presiding over out of control embezzlement from the EU’s humanitarian fund.

High-level corruption within the corridors of EU institutions is a tradition largely protected by EU institutions supposedly created to prevent such graft. In the case of Ursula, she seems to have gone rogue and not respected house rules so will have to be made an example of. The EU can’t have its own puppets swashbuckling the high life and doing their own thing, can they?

Dr. David GORTLER

Back in November 2021, the White House paid drugmaker Pfizer nearly $5.3 billion for 10 million treatment courses of its experimental Covid-19 treatment, Paxlovid, an antiviral combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir.

Ritonavir was developed in 1989 and nirmatrelvir was developed in 2020. In other words, Paxlovid wasn’t developed from scratch to treat Covid-19; the compounds already existed.

In December 2021, Pfizer claimed initial study findings showed that Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization and death by nearly 90 percent in people with mild to moderate coronavirus infections.  Without context this statement is grossly misleading. Just about everyone who gets the existing Covid-19 mutation will have mild or moderate disease, yet the drugmaker limited its study to people who were unvaccinated and faced the greatest risk from the virus due to age or health problems, such as obesity. An updated, more recent analysis from 1,153 patients (out of a possible 2,246 patients) showed a lackluster, non-significant 51 percent relative risk reduction.  A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe Covid-19 showed a non-significant relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360).

According to Pfizer’s official June 14 press release, results from the Phase 2/3 of the amended Paxlovid EPIC-SR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in Standard-Risk Patients) study showed, with my emphasis:

• The novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days was not met.
• Pfizer will cease enrollment into the EPIC-SR trial due to low rate of hospitalization or death in the standard-risk population.

Tucked within Pfizer’s press release was the following financial nugget for investors: “The results from these additional analyses are not expected to impact Pfizer’s full-year 2022 revenue guidance.” The reason for that is: Pfizer already has $5.3 billion in hand from taxpayers, and has locked in “blockbuster status” (defined as one billion dollars in sales of a single drug).

In addition to the $5.3 billion already committed, in January the U.S. announced a confidential additional “commitment” to order an additional 10 million doses (at the price of 5.3 billion dollars more, for a total of $10.6 billion), giving Pfizer highly sought-after “super blockbuster status” (defined as 10 billion dollars in sales of a single drug). The administration remained “firmly committed to proceeding with the [additional] purchase,” according to an April 2022 Bloomberg report.

According to Bloomberg, the White House initially sought $22.5 billion in new pandemic funding. Democrats were prepared to include just over $15 billion in a broad government-spending bill earlier this year, but it was removed amid disputes with Republicans about whether it should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the government.

The $10 billion Senate bill included a requirement that at least half the money must be spent on therapeutics, but why did Biden gamble every dollar on one single drug from one single drugmaker? Why was Pfizer chosen to satisfy the therapeutics clause by itself?

As we have seen, FDA Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) don’t always work out as they should, but in this case, it was because of some manipulative action by Pfizer and a risky bet by the Biden White House.

That’s because with no public mention, Pfizer had secretly lowered its own bar following its EUA after the White House had committed to purchasing $5.3 billion dollars of product. Pfizer stated:

Following the Emergency Use Authorization of Paxlovid for individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19, the protocol was amended to exclude high-risk individuals and allow enrollment of patients without risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 who were either unvaccinated, or whose last COVID-19 vaccination occurred more than 12 months from enrollment. (emphasis added)

This way, Pfizer was able to administer its drug to a less severely ill and healthier population in hopes of having a superior efficacy signal and a decreased safety signal, but it still failed to show an adequate clinical effect on any of its prospective protocol-established endpoints.

In order to amend the protocol following FDA submission, Pfizer would have had to communicate with the FDA formally and in writing.  A former Pfizer non-scientist executive, Patrizia Cavazzoni, now the head of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, would have had to approve the change. Interestingly, Pfizer’s protocol amendment was kept under such tight wraps that it was not public knowledge until the Pfizer June 2022 press release. About a week prior, Yale University’s YaleMedicinehad even published a lengthy article on the benefits of Paxlovid, quoting the outdated original protocol endpoints.  On June 7, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had announced plans to spend over $100 million to increase Paxlovid production and committed to hiring hundreds of new employees to maintain appearances with the White House and Pfizer investors.

Paxlovid is not the first example of “secret” and scientifically questionable decisions made outside of standard channels at the FDA under Patrizia Cavazzoni’s watch. About a year ago, secret meetings surrounded Biogen’s multi-billion-dollar monoclonal-antibody drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease, which had failed to meet both safety and efficacy standards in every study it had attempted.  Following contentious and potentially illegal and unethical back-channel meeting with Biogen executives, however, Biogen’s drug was approved by Cavazzoni against advice from FDA advisory-committee members and FDA employees.  Cavazzoni affirmed her decision by writing a comically inadequate 1.5 page justification, which mostly quoted others’ opinions and did nothing to address their debatable hypotheses. Nearly every medical commentator scolded Cavazzoni’s approval of aducanumab, calling it things like “false hope,” “bad medicine,” “disgraceful,” “dangerous” “a disaster” or “a new low.” The circumstances surrounding Pfizer’s Paxlovid clinical outcomes are similarly awful.

But unlike Biogen, I couldn’t even find any online record of a meeting by Cavazzoni justifying the protocol amendment for Paxlovid, let alone an adequate one. Pfizer would have had to provide detailed reasoning in its protocol amendment and the FDA kept those requests and changes a secret. It’s just another example of the FDA’s total lack of transparency.

I opined in an op-ed a year ago that Cavazzoni would continue to make questionable decisions due to her close ties and extended history of employment in Big Pharma. Most of Cavazzoni’s career shows her working as a non-scientist Big Pharma executive. She also has a conspicuous lack of basic scientific or research experience for holding such a critical public health position. Unfortunately, I was correct, but it’s the taxpayers who will bear the costs of the failed Paxlovid gamble.

Why did the White House cut a blank check of taxpayer dollars before obtaining conclusive findings?

It’s not as if Pfizer is hurting for money or that Americans don’t already have multiple inexpensive, generic alternatives with voluminous peer-reviewed evidence behind them, covering decades and hundreds of thousands of patients. Still, the Biden White House ignored the historic wisdom of the Proverbs of Ahiqar, choosing to “throw away two in the hand (i.e., hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) for one in the bush (Paxlovid).”

We have known for some time that the dominant mutated variants of Delta and Omicron (which comprise >99 percent of current cases, per the CDC) have mostly produced mild infections. Deaths and hospitalizations from Covid are down, because most people only get minimal to moderate cold-like symptoms these days. Even Johns Hopkins shows all-time record lows in Covid-19-related hospital ICU admissions.

Pfizer may have exaggerated its experimental product and been deceptive about changing its protocol without informing the public. By trusting Pfizer and making a considerable gamble with taxpayer funds, the White House flushed $5.3 billion taxpayer dollars largely down the drain. The White House is now on the hook for an additional $5.3 billion—for a total of $10.6 billion—for an ineffective Covid-19 treatment that Pfizer had already developed, when they could have spent almost nothing and promoted the established safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin with a superior outcome. More practically, since Delta and Omicron are mild, we could have just let Covid-19 mutations run their course and treat infections symptomatically with available generic pharmacology so that individuals can obtain natural immunity.

The Biden administration opted instead for this preposterous and outrageous waste of taxpayer money.  Will the president, or anyone else, be held responsible?

theamericanconservative.com

If it were possible to say with absolute scientific authority that vaccinations are the best way for the planet to escape from the Covid-19 death grip, then it might seem plausible – albeit still highly arguable – for governments to demand proof of ‘the mark’ for participating in the global economy. As things stand, however, nothing to date indicates that there are not more effective and reliable means of moving forward.

The relentless push for vaccine passports by opportunistic authoritarians around the globe took a broadside this week as Israeli researchers discovered what had been suspected by many all along: natural immunity acquired via infection, as opposed to vaccinations, provides the best defense against Covid-19 and its seemingly endless array of Greek-coded variants.

The study, which examined up to 32,000 individuals, found that the risk of developing Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated (with the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine), and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher, as compared to those individuals who had acquired natural immunity.

Equally shocking, individuals who were administered two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were almost six-times more likely to contract the Delta variation and seven-times more likely to have symptomatic disease than those who recovered from the disease naturally, according to the study, which is up for peer review.

“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant,” the researchers said.

So what grounds are left for forcing vaccine passports on people? The simple answer would seem ‘none.’ As a thought experiment, let’s imagine that a radical new mode of transportation still in the early test stages – perhaps some brainchild from the quirky mind of Elon Musk, for example – had proven to have a better than average chance of exploding for no apparent reason.

Under such grim conditions it is doubtful that governments would coerce their subjects into driving such a flawed vehicle since the product itself would be deemed too dangerous to enter the mainstream. So why isn’t the same sort of logic being employed when it comes to being forced to carry a vaccine passport for a vaccine, which has also demonstrated itself to be dodgy at best, disastrous at worst?

The efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in treating the Delta strain has been measured at just 42 percent, and in some cases even as low as 17 percent. At the same time, thousands of otherwise healthy people have suffered horrible side effects after taking these jabs, up to and including death.

Australian journalist Denham Hitchcock is one of thousands of people who got much more than he bargained for when he got the shot.

“The first week was like any vaccine. Feeling off,” Hitchcock wrote on his Instagram page.

“But nearing the end of the second week my heart started to race, I was getting pins and needles in the arms, extreme fatigue and a very strange sensation of dizziness…By the end of the third week i was getting steadily worse – sharp chest pain – cold shivers and chills – and the dizziness was intense.

“25 days after the shot and probably a little late to hospital – but here I am – diagnosed with pericarditis – or inflammation of the heart due to the Pfizer vaccine.”

Since being in the hospital, Hitchcock says he’s contacted health professionals in Sydney who told him that while his reaction to the vaccine is rare – it’s certainly not isolated.

“One hospital has had well over a dozen cases like me,” he revealed.

 

Посмотреть эту публикацию в Instagram

 

Публикация от Denham Hitchcock (@denhamhitchcock)

Meanwhile, a coroner this week has determined that the death of Lisa Shaw, who worked for BBC Radio Newcastle and passed away in May, was “due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccination.”

And lest anyone think the Moderna vaccine is without its own problems, Japan this week removed around 1.6 million vials of the vaccine from use after contamination was reported by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. While such things do occasionally happen, the ministry revealed that the substance found in the vials “reacted to magnets and…could be metal.”

Moderna suggested the problem may have come from a “manufacturing issue” from a plant in Spain.

“The company is investigating the reports and remains committed to working transparently and expeditiously with its partner, Takeda, and regulators to address any potential concerns,” a Moderna spokesperson told Nikkei, saying the drugmaker believed a “manufacturing issue” at a plant in Spain was to blame.

Incidentally, the very inventor of the mRNA vaccines, Dr. Robert Malone, who could be providing governments much-needed guidance during the pandemic, has largely been shunned from polite society from the Western hemisphere’s very own medical Taliban as a conspiracy theorist who peddles in “misinformation.”

When we finally get past all of this, the legitimacy of both the federal public health infrastructure and the legacy media will have been destroyed. And what happens then? Force your mind to think 9-12 months ahead. What do things look like then, based on current trends?

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 27, 2021

Getting back to Pfizer, its own lackluster performance apparently means little to regulators as the drug maker just won approval by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to administer its vaccine, which will be distributed under the brand name Comirnaty. Now pressure will certainly ratchet up against those who have second thoughts about the magic juice as many public and private institutions – from schools and workplaces to government agencies – push for a mandatory vaccine regime. This would include society’s youngest and most vulnerable demographic, the children.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, is pressuring the National Health Service to begin vaccinating children as young as 12, and despite the fact that the youth have shown amazing imperviousness to the virus. The UK looks set to join the United States, Spain, France and Germany as countries where inoculating the young is quickly becoming standard operating procedure – and with zero democratic debate.

Nobody, however, should be led to believe that things will return to normal once everyone has rolled up their sleeves for the shot. After all, these ‘vaccines’ do not prevent people from getting infected by Covid, and, as studies have shown, may actually precipitate infection. This shocking shortcoming of the jabs, far from sidelining their use in favor of other preventive measures, has allowed the vaccine makers to roll out an endless supply of booster shots, as gleefully discussed at a recent Pfizer stockholder meeting.

Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman of the Board & CEO, remarked that “the dynamics in the COVID more and more indicate a potential that we will have a clearly repeated business…Now we still don’t have data about the immunity of our vaccine because it is early. But we do see that the people that have the disease, more and more publications indicate that after several months, the immune response goes down. So there is a need to boost.” Those giddy remarks were made back in February, before the Pfizer vaccine has acquired FDA approval.

In other words, the sky is the limit for Big Pharma as far as profits from vaccinations go. And despite the inherent risks of getting the jab, the Western world’s assembly of petty tyrants, short-sighted leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden are pushing ahead with plans for vaccine passports.

Such an initiative, which flies in the face of freedom and liberty, denies individuals the right to refuse medical treatment – and treatment that is loaded with unacceptable risk. And just because one of the drug makers has secured FDA approval for their product, this will not help individuals who are injured, or worse, from the vaccines. The drug makers are indemnified from any lawsuits that may arise from the victims of their product.

This dire situation has placed the citizens of so-called democracies into the unenviable situation where they must choose between signing up to a lifetime of imperfect shots and boosters to participate in a large swath of the economy, or remain something of a social pariah for the rest of their lives. It is a choice that no citizen of a democratic system should ever be forced to make.

By Joe LAURIA

The United States has rejected a plea from Australia for Pfizer vaccines as Sydney remains in lockdown with an expanding Delta variant outbreak, desperate for vaccine doses after a disastrous domestic rollout.

The Australian newspaper reported on Friday, “Australia has ‘made representations’ over the course of several weeks for access to America’s excess Pfizer ­vaccines. All of Australia’s requests have so far been unsuccessful.” Meanwhile, The New York Timesreported this week that a million vaccine doses have gone to waste in the U.S.

Australia’s largest city has been locked down since June 26 after a major outbreak of the Delta variant that caught Australia unprepared. The country had been relatively virus free for more than a year before the sudden outbreak. That contributed to a lack of urgency by the federal government in Canberra to garner necessary vaccine supplies for a country of just 25 million people.

From the Second World War, when the U.S. defended the northern coastal city of Darwin under Japanese attack, Australia has been an extremely loyal U.S. ally to the point where critics say it hurts its own self-interests in following Washington’s dictates.  When Prime Minister Gough Whitlam stood up to the U.S. in the Vietnam War era he was removed from office in 1975 in what has been called a coup engineered by the CIA in conjunction with Buckingham Palace.

Since then no Australian prime minister has dared stray too far outside the lines laid down by Washington, even if detrimental to Australia’s interests. The most recent example has been the conservative government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison damaging relations with its leading trade partner, China, by ramping up U.S.-directed tensions with Beijing.

A ‘Five Eyes’ Ally

Pine Gap, a key U.S.-run listening post in Australia’s Northern Territory. (Mark Marathon/Wikimedia)

The Murdoch-owned Australian quoted Republican members of Congress who acknowledge Australia’s loyalty and back sending U.S. supplies of Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in the midst of Sydney’s Covid-19 crisis.

“Australia is not only an ally but a Five Eyes ally,” the paper quoted Rep. Michael McCaul as saying. “I’ve been pressuring this ­administration through the Covax program to give more of these ­vaccines that are just sitting in warehouses in the U.S. They will expire if we don’t get them out the door.” The Five Eyes is an alliance of the U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand that shares electronic intelligence.

The co-chairman of the Friends of Australia congressional caucus, Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, said: “The United States has vaccine doses set to expire at the same time our Australian mates need extra doses. The Biden administration should be doing everything in its power to get these doses to ­Australia.”

The newspaper said the Biden administration is sensitive to criticism that it would be helping a rich country while it has made commitments to send vaccines to developing nations. The U.S. might also be holding on to excess supplies as the Delta variant makes its way through the U.S. population, the paper said.

Australia’s mess was of its own making, with Morrison early on betting alone on the Astra Zeneca shots, which have become unpopular in Australia after reports of it causing rare blood clots.  Several Australians have died of such clots after taking the AZ vaccine.

Amidst Pfizer shortages, only 21 percent of Australians have been fully vaccinated, second lowest among OECD countries. That number stood at nine percent before the current outbreak.  Drive-thru vaccination centers, common for months in the U.S., were only announced this week in Sydney.

While for months Australia stood at around 30,000 cases during the entire duration of the pandemic — the U.S. had more than 300,000 cases in a single day — there have been more than 5,000 infections in New South Wales in just the past six weeks. Three hundred Australian Defense Force soldiers are in Sydney to help with enforcing the lockdown.

consortiumnews.com