Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 172

[ecosophia]

We are now in the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary more than three years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; public health authorities government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its wholly owned politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

The entire vaccine industry is an uncontrolled racket

[(Anonymous)]

The entire vaccine industry is an uncontrolled racket. I have seen people on here try to justify the measles vaccine for example but no vaccine should get a Holy Mary pass in my estimation. There is no data to show that ANY of them are safe and effective, not just the Covid ones. However they are being sued and hopefully RFK Jr will demolish these racketeers.

"Shocking...
Video is long but very informative. Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree about hepatitis B vaccine [which is injected in infants on their first day of life]:

"Let's say you have a 1 in 200 issue, right? Let's say a 1 in 200, which would be very high. If we talk about like vaccine injury, they'll say, oh, it's 1 in a million. Well, let's just say it's like 1 in 200. If you only have 150 children in a study, you may not even see that issue, right?"

"Isn't that sort of like? Yeah, that's ridiculous. No clinical trial would ever have 150 children. Right, I mean. That's, you know what that sounds like, Del? That sounds like an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory. You're right, you're right. That's what it sounds like. We don't wanna do that. Yep. So how many people were in this study? Oh, it was 147. Yeah."

"Let's go through it. It's one of my favorite things to do in depositions when I depose pediatricians, I'll ask. So tell me some of the false things you've heard about vaccines. What are those folks, got issued vaccines, saying? I just let them go and it's amazing how many times, many things they say are true. Right. And, you know, and that's... So they'll say that we haven't done proper safety studies."

"Really, they've said that, huh? Like, how long would be a proper safety study, right? I could tell you some very interesting ones, but I don't want to digress. In three clinical studies, and here it is, here's the sentence summarizing by the FDA, you know, it's written by the company, approved by the FDA, summarized in clinical trial, relied upon to license for Comvax HB before it was injected into millions of babies. Here it is."

"In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RecomVax HP5 micrograms were administered to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for five days after each dose. If I would have told anybody that, they would have said I'm crazy. There's no way. They tell us that they properly study these vaccines before they go on the market. They are robustly, the most thoroughly and robust study products ever."

"But there it was, black and white, on the FDA website. So let's go through the three variables. First, what was the control? None listed. Meaning, what was the group that didn't get it that you compared them to track them for the same four days five days five days and said well look you had more fevers or more headaches or how much you'd see in five days you know but did the group that didn't get it got the placebo did they have the same amount of any those things obviously five days."

"I don't know what you see in five days except for an immediate anaphylactic reaction I suppose that's the only thing you might catch. And it's a baby remember it's a newborn so in five days their immune system's not developed yet, their neurological systems are just, I mean, every system is just totally different than what you'd see in an adult, or even what you would see in a one-year-old."

"And so if there's gonna be a manifestation of an autoimmune issue, for example, for the vaccine to quote unquote, as they say, work, develop enough antibodies to fight the disease they're trying to protect against, that takes weeks. So if you're gonna have self-attacking antibodies, that will take weeks, right? And so five days is not gonna be long enough to detect that issue. Obviously. You know, Dr. Plotkin, if you recall, we talked exactly about this thing, any event. So there's not enough children that's underpowered to detect virtually anything."

"Even if there were, you didn't have safety long enough for five days. And even if you did, you weren't comparing it to anything. So this study is completely useless. Horse crap. It is. Total. Well, horse crap at least you can use as fertilizer. And you can grow. This is valueless. You can use some, you know. This, and you cannot determine safety in any way. And there's nobody who can argue differently. Dr. Plotkin didn't try to do it. Nobody at the post has tried to do it. I've brought this up many, many times."

"And as we've talked about before, we foiled the FDA because, you know, the first time I saw this, frankly, and we've talked about this, I said, come on, can it really be? That's incredible. But we got the clinical trial reports from the FDA. But yet, the fire should work the way you just described, Al, which is you request it, they give it, but of course, as you know, they don't necessarily do that."

"We've got over 2,000 FOIA requests on behalf of ICAN, I believe, right now. We've got dozens and dozens of lawsuits ongoing right now. Because they're not handing it over. Right, now the good news is that they know we're gonna sue them. So, you know, they're a lot more compliant with us. But nonetheless, we still have to see them pretty regularly. So we submitted a FOIA request with regards to this clinical trial, asking for the underlying reports that were submitted and everything that they've given us back has shown, it's five days."

"That's it. And as you know, we even had a long exchange with HHS, the Department of Health Human Services, that includes the FDA, CDC, NIH. specifically about this product, we sent them a letter saying, how could you do this? Yeah. And their response, and everybody can read it. If you go to http://ICANNdecide.org, you go to Get Informed, and you go to the Vaccine Safety Debate right here. You can read, going down, you could read the letter that was sent right here, short 37 pages, but it's a great read. Okay?"

"To... saying hey, here are a lot of safety issues, can you explain what you're doing, how can it be? And one of the questions was the hepatitis B vaccine, I believe that was section two, it says please list and provide the safety data or allot upon when recommending babies receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life. We asked that because we pointed out it was only five days for Recombivax HB, and for the other one, Engerix-B, in case anybody's wondering, it was four days of safety monitoring."

"And that's on the FDA website, you could see. Anyways, the next letter. is their response, and then the next letter after that is ICAN's response to that letter. And I think if you go to section two here, it's extraordinarily telling when they have their response here. So in the opening letter, I'm gonna read the operative sentence, right?"

"We said, I read the question, which was, how could you license it based on such limited data? And in the opening letter, we pointed out of the two hepatitis B vaccines licensed by the FDA for injection into one day old babies. Merck's was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination. And that's for Comvax HB. And GlaxoSmithKline's was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination. That's NDRXB. So we wrote that. And we cited to their package inserts in the opening letter. And we said, how could you do this?"

"So let's go read their response. Yeah, what was the response? Let's go. Here we go. So it's right here in the letter. It says, data relied upon. So this is the federal government's response. And just to put this into context, this is HHS's response. And we know from subsequent FOIA requests, they had the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, all the agencies vet and approve this response. Right, this is it. This was a multi agency. Every governmental health agency in America all said, bam, that's it. Nailed it. This is the response. Let's hear it."

"Here it is. data relied upon in licensing infant use of hepatitis B vaccines is summarized in the respective package inserts. So they open by saying the proof that they're safe is the very package inserts we pointed out show it's utterly deficient. Right. OK. OK, there's a few more sentences, Del. Maybe. Maybe I'm going to say this though. We're laughing. Bad start. We're off to a bad start, but let's see how they recover."

"I mean, we're laughing, but man, it's, you know, it's, we're laughing, but, you know, we're talking about a product they unleashed on billions of babies with this data. So they continue. Next sentence, they say, Furthermore, pediatric data from other countries and in the literature support the safety of these vaccines in infants. What literature? What data? They don't tell you. Useless sentence. Keep going. The recommendation for all children to receive these vaccines was made by the advisory committee for immunization practices."

"Their reasoning is summarized in, and they have a link to a report in the MMWR. They also claim there's some follow-up studies, but they don't link to any of them. And our whole letter is give us the data, give us the studies. So the only thing they gave us was they said, look at the two package inserts, which we did, four days and five days, useless. And then they gave us this one other link. And again, as I often say, Maybe they think we can't read, I don't know."

"But we pulled it up and we read it. And then we responded to them. And when you read, and this frankly makes it far, far worse for them, because this report by ACIP, the Advisory Committee on Organizational Practices regarding this product, was years later. So they had years to get more data, to have more. So you think, okay. When they summarize the safety of this product in this report by the CDC, there'd be something else. But there isn't."

"When you read, and this is the response right here, this is our response to them. Okay, where we say, first of all, we say, hey folks, we say, two A, safety data for hepatitis B legislature is plainly deficient, meaning, we said, you cited back to us if you said it to you. So that's nonsense. And then in section B, We drill down on the CDC report, and when you look through what it cites, it cites a number of clinical trials, all of which are even worse than the four to five days. I think the longest one was three days."

"Oh my God. And most of them are for adults, and some of them are observational, meaning they're retrospective epidemiological. So there is nothing in there that provides any comfort, and I could read through it. But frankly, it's devastating when you read it. And I encourage everybody to do it. So here we are. We have now a full back and forth with our federal health agencies about this issue. We're saying, come on, how could you do this?"

"And they have nothing to give in response. So separately, we said, okay, maybe we should just look directly at the clinical trial reports submitted to license these products. Maybe they're just lazy. maybe the CDC and FDA, they don't even want to bother reading the initial reports, maybe they missed something. So we did their work for them. We FOIAd Freedom of Information Act, the tool we use to get documents from the government."

"We FOIAd them for the clinical trial reports submitted by the manufacturers to license products. And we have never gotten anything from them that shows anything other than the four or five days from everything that they have provided to us. And that took many years of fighting with them and more legal work. And so, you know, and then I guess to cap it all off, we finally decided, you know what, when the federal government said, when Congress said to the FDA, you only license things that are safe, they didn't define what those standards are. Right."

"So, it's, you know, it's unclear. Could it be? Does the FDA need five years of data? So from birth to five years to developmental issues? Does it need four, three, two, one year maybe even? There's no standard at all. There's no particular standard. The FDA sets a standard. Now you could argue about a year, maybe even six months, but five days, four days? No one could argue that. Nobody can argue that. No way."

"Yeah. We use the same, and FDA really did not like it when we do this, we use the same exact docket that the Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi all use to license their products. or to seek changes to request that the FDA withdraw the licensure for this product or require proper placebo-controlled trial. Because this was, after all, the very first ever recombinant DNA vaccine in history. Never existed."

"Wow. Right? And it had no proper trial. They had six months to respond to that petition. It's been three and a half years. And they keep asking for more, you know, we're gonna get back to you, we're gonna get back to you. It's been three and a half years. We're asking for a very basic rest. I think part of the reason they don't wanna respond is they know once they respond, we can sue them in federal court."

"And at this point, I think we're going to make a novel argument in court that despite the fact that they haven't responded, you should still adjudicate the underlying issue because they can't delay this way, they can't sit on this for years and years.""

https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1860690325758484598