Market from Volume to Targeted Boosts


TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response. TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism

May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Recall


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted May 9, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The FDA has finally admitted what we knew all along – the vaccine is not safe. The FDA said it is limiting the availability of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine as it does indeed cause blood clots. The agency also noted that the vaccine presents a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.

The health agencies are still pushing the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. How are they any different? The US government has a long history of punishing Johnson & Johnson for their illegal activities, from asbestos-laced baby powder to cancerogenic sunscreen. Yet, all pharmaceutical manufacturers are exempt from penalty for the COVID-19 vaccine, citing a national emergency.

FDA’s vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said that the risk of death is still better than not getting the jab and said Johnson & Johnson’s version may be used as a last resort. Johnson & Johnson was hoping to rake in $3.5 billion this year from the vaccine alone. All of this comes down to money and control. The government and businesses forced mandates with complete disregard for public health. The talking heads gaslit the world for years into believing anyone who questioned the vaccine was a conspiracy theory lunatic, unfit for society.

They have known the truth all along. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine came into question in April 2021. Here is Fauci maintaining that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was “safe and effective” despite knowing it could be deadly:

CDC Announces 15 Day Extension to Federal Transportation Mask Mandate


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 13, 2022 | Sundance

The CDC announced today {SEE HERE} they are extending the federal emergency order requiring masks on planes, trains and public transportation for a period of 15 days, ending May 3rd.

The mask mandate was set to expire April 18. However, the Biden administration will keep the requirement in place for another 15 days under the justification of a rise in COVID-19 cases driven by the new BA.2 sublineage of the Omicron variant.

(Press Release) – […] The CDC Mask Order remains in effect while CDC assesses the potential impact of the rise of cases on severe disease, including hospitalizations and deaths, and healthcare system capacity. TSA will extend the security directive and emergency amendment for 15 days, through May 3, 2022. (link)

There are contradicting claims on the benefits and/or futility of wearing masks to avoid spreading the COVID-19 virus.  Several scientific studies have found no significant benefit; however, the theatrics of mask wearing is now a litmus test for global virtue.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has recently announced a new indoor mask mandate for their extended metropolitan area.  Fauci soundbite below.

Dr. Jackie Stone Put it All on the Line to Treat the Ill During the Pandemic: Zimbabwe Throws Criminal Charges at Her


Posted originally on TrialSite New by StaffApril 12, 2022

TrialSite chronicled the efforts of Dr. Jackie Stone in Zimbabwe during the worst stages of the pandemic. Born in Zimbabwe, Dr. Stone has been fascinated by research since a young age, and her commitment to caring for people during the pandemic has been legendary. While her off-label ivermectin-based combination regimen was identified with the saving of many lives in this southern African country, the medical establishment isn’t too keen on thinking outside of the box, even during the worst pandemic in a century. Dr. Stone now faces a court trial with criminal charges for merely treating COVID-19 patients with an early outpatient treatment protocol based on a combination of off-label treatments that includes ivermectin. This, even though Dr. Stone treated many in the Zimbabwe government and military successfully. In fact, for a while, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) authorized access on an emergency basis for research—which amounted to care in this low-and middle-income country. The regulatory agency did a turnaround with ivermectin due to the results in the clinic of Dr. Jackie Stone.

Articles about Dr. Stone and Zimbabwe can be found at TrialSite. A fighter to the end originally of English and Norwegian descent, curious, and tough, yet elegant and empathetic, she grew up in the bush in this part of Africa, as her father was involved with geology and mining. Dr. Stone’s ethos, integrity, and commitment to doing good should have led her to awards from groups such as the World Health Organization.

Together Trial Mainstream Media Interpretations Could Put Low-Cost Regimen at Risk in MICs

Stone recently got together remotely with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss her concern with the Together Trial. While mainstream media have pounced on the findings, at least a dozen physicians and scientists are findings various issues with the data. 

Ed Mills, the principal investigator, did the right thing investing his time as well as raising money to study repurposed drugs. While the Together trial’s primary endpoint failed to show efficacy for ivermectin, even Mills went on the record in a private email declaring ivermectin proponents should be upbeat about some of the data generated in the study. But Mills’ data was taken by mainstream media and used as a weapon to attack the use of the drug worldwide. This isn’t Dr. Mills’ fault–again he took the time to investigate the drug as well as other important repurposed drugs.

But Stone’s concern centers on the needs of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for low-cost, available regimens for early care. Stone told TrialSite, “in poor and up-and-coming countries we don’t always have the luxury of waiting around for gold standard evidence. Rather, in the case of the pandemic, we need to move fast, and we did, leading to the saving of many thousands of lives.”

She continued, “My concern now is that papers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pounce on data, often misinterpreting quotes from the PI can lead to a cutting off of life-saving approaches in LMICs such as my country.”

“Dr. Stone’s commitment to LMICs cannot be denied based on a clear track record of success. With COVID-19 came politics around the use of off-label drugs such as ivermectin, and unfortunately, Dr. Stone is caught in the middle of a political battle, but she is one of the most resilient individuals I have ever come across,” reports TrialSite’s O’Connor.

What about Together?

Dozens of scientists and doctors now pour through data of the Together Trial. Recently, Dr. David Wiseman, affiliated with TrialSite, shared a dozen bullet points of concern associated with Together, including inputs from Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and others that TrialSite poses as questions.

Together Trial Questions: Ivermectin

#Question/Concern Issues for Discussion with Together Trial
1.Did the ivermectin arm of Together run later than the placebo arm, a time when a more virulent strain was present in that part of Brazil?
2.Why wouldn’t the protocol call for screening for ivermectin use—after all the drug was used in many parts of Brazil.  Were those participating already using the drug? It would be hard to prove now.
3.The critics fret about the lack of reported boosts in gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm leading to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the study—either A) placebo group was on ivermectin or B) those taking ivermectin were not administered real study drug
4.Were these placebo pills produced to look identical to the study drug?  As the drug is commonly used, this would have unblinded the study.
5.Together used ivermectin alone yet the early care community uses the drug in combination with other economical safe drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, as well as nutraceuticals such as vitamin D, C, and zinc. The study of ivermectin alone doesn’t mean much to frontline doctors.
6.Together started up to 8 days post symptom onset, but frontline ivermectin proponents declare the drug should be given immediately upon symptomatic infection. The P.1 variant also saw a faster progression to severe illness only compounding the problem.
7.In the Together study, they used a dose of (0.4 mg per kilo per day) which many critics called inadequate for ill patents–was the study underdosed?
8.Given ivermectin proponents suggest using the drug till symptoms are resolved, why did the Together protocol only call for use for 3 days?
9.Why did the protocol call for administration of the drug on an empty stomach when proponents declare the drug works best when associated with consumption of fatty food?
10.Why is so much basic data missing from the study results such as Recruitment Period, Recruitment Locations, Recruitment and allocation order per sit, Description of how the molecules and placebo were produced or compounded to look identical (otherwise loss of blinding); why is there missing age data for 98 patients?  Other gaps in data or anomalies are present for those interested
11.Some basic math shows that the numbers listed in the trial paper for the different arms and outcomes in the trial do not add up to the totals and percentages that they give – either a gross mathematical error or fraud. To see many of the strange mathematical discrepancies which invalidate the trial conclusions, go to investigative journalist Phil Harper’s article: Moreover Wiseman declares And the alteration of the death count in the trial data raises serious questions:

Seeking more information about Dr. Stone?

For all of those interested in Dr. Stone’s story check out the many articles published in TrialSite along with this important letter authored by Dr. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics Undergraduate Program Coordinator at The University of Texas — Rio Grande Valley School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences in Edinburg, Texas.

Call to ActionTrialSite suggests a fund to support Dr. Stone in her legal battle if needed.

The No Patient Left Alone Act


Armstrong Economics Blog/Tyranny Re-Posted Apr 12, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proven time and time again that he is a man of the people. DeSantis signed SB 988, the No Patient Left Alone Act, which guarantees that no one in the state of Florida will be left to die alone in hospitals, hospices, and long-term care facilities. Under the tyrannical COVID laws, countless people were unable to see their loved ones during their final days. This is a malicious and deliberate attempt to force the population to cave to Big Pharma as the medical community can no longer deny that the vaccination does not prevent transmission.

Numerous states still require proof of vaccination or a PCR test to enter medical facilities. A friend of mine recently lost her grandfather, and her 90-year-old grandmother was prohibited from entering the New York-based facility as she was not vaccinated. The PCR results take time to process and are only valid for a few days. There were no final words or hugs goodbye. These laws have deeply punished everyone in our society.

DeSantis is finally putting an end to this unfounded oppression. “Throughout the pandemic, the federal government has waived protections for families to visit their loved ones in hospitals and long-term care facilities. That is unacceptable,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Here in Florida, we recognize that family and human connection is one of the most important aspects of physical, mental, and emotional well-being and we are ensuring Floridians are never again denied the right to see their relatives and friends while in hospitals or nursing homes.”

The new law will protect families and loved ones facing the most painful of circumstances:

  • End-of-life situations.
  • A resident, client, or patient who was living with family before being admitted to the provider’s care is struggling with the change in environment and lack of in-person family support.
  • A resident, client, or patient is making one or more major medical decisions.
  • A resident, client, or patient is experiencing emotional distress or grieving the loss of a friend or family member who recently died.
  • A resident, client, or patient needs cueing or encouragement to eat or drink which was previously provided by a family member or caregiver.
  • A resident, client, or patient who used to talk and interact with others is seldom speaking.
  • For hospitals, childbirth, including labor and delivery.
  • Pediatric patients.

Indeed, the system has also deserted “pediatric patients” due to these unfathomable restrictions. “The No Patient Left Alone Act is about protecting human dignity and compassion,” said Senator Ileana Garcia. This should be protected as a fundamental human right. I do not see this becoming a Federal-level ruling as the Biden Administration wants dissenters to suffer.

Tucker Carlson Recaps the Ongoing Horrors in Shanghai, China


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 11, 2022 | Sundance 

During his opening segment tonight, Fox News host Tucker Carlson gave a summary explanation of the horrors in Shanghai, China.  The city of 25 million residents has been locked down by the Chinese Communist Party as an outcome of their zero COVID policy. {Direct Rumble Link}

Desperate people are running out of food and have been locked in their homes from the outside by regional authorities.  The pets, including cats and dogs of residents who tested positive to the COVID-19 virus, have been confiscated and killed by the government.  The scenes and sounds from the area are very troubling as thousands of people scream into the night begging for help and mercy. WATCH:

A few more aspects to this outlined below.

.

.

Exclusive Klaus Schwab Tell All interview!


By Awaken With JP  Published originally on Rumble on April 9, 2022 41

Join me for an exclusive sit down interview with Klaus Schwab himself! The leader of the World Economic Forum opens up and speaks very candidly about his plans for you, and the future of our planet! Featuring The Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution, and More!

Living in the Past – Stalin v Lenin


Armstrong Economics Blog/Russia Re-Posted Apr 7, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Hi,
I live in Finland/Helsinki. The Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939, Stalin was one who arranged a false flag in Manila. A lot of Finnish soldiers and civilians died. But we survived. We Finnish people know Russians extremely well. It is a historical fact that Russians always arrange false flags and try to slave other nations and people. And that is happening just now in Ukraine. Putin attacked Ukraine and he is trying to slave Ukraine.
Best Regards from Finland

JT

REPLY: It is important to not judge a country by its leaders. There are always left and right in every country and no country enjoys 100% approval of its people. Just look at the United States. There are ONLY three presidents who won with 60% or more, FDR 1st term, Johnson following Kennedy’s assassination, and Richard Nixon who promised to end Vietnam. All others won with just a few points over 50%. In the 2008 Election of Obama v McCain score his victory with just 52.9%. Even Lenin warned not to put Stalin in charge.

It is wrong to judge Russia by Stalin and today the powers that be just hate the Russian people and attribute everything to Putin. It is essential to also understand that there is a left and a right in Russia that still prevails today and Putin is a moderate that if ignored by the West, will drive Russia into the hands of the extreme right.

We MUST understand history for there has always been a question of where Russia begins and ends and who constitutes the Russian people. These questions have been debated by Russian thinkers themselves for centuries post-Russian Revolution which ended more than 300 years of tsarist rule. Believe it or not, Putin is NOT trying to resurrect the Soviet Union for that was not even the vision of Lenin – but Stalin.


At first, Lenin was revered as the architect of the new Russia. He was the elder statesman of the Bolshevik revolution. Stalin, on the other hand, was what we would call a Neocon. He was the ambitious party leader with visions of absolute authoritarian control. The two clashed not only over their political vision for Russia but also on a very personal level hurling insults steeped in grudges. It was this battle that actually proved to be too much for Lenin resulting in his premature death.

The conflict between these two Russian leaders reached a climax in the last days of December 1922. This is when 2,000 delegates from all over the former Russian empire gathered together in Moscow to create a new state which would become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The vision of this new state was starkly different between the two men. There were republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and Transcaucasia, which were formally independent of Russia. When Georgy Chicherin, the Soviet Russian commissar for foreign relations, signed the treaty with Germany where each surrendered their claims against the other for war reparations in July 1918, there was a problem of unity. Ukraine and Belarus were independent before 1919 but were then overrun by the Bolsheviks in 1919. They had objected to forgiving Germany.

Ukraine and Belarus took the position that the Russian authorities had no right to speak on behalf of Ukrainian and Belarus. In Georgia, there too they objected insisting that their rights as the members of an independent republic were violated. This is was ultimately set in motion the birth of the final version of the Soviet Union.

It was in August of 1922 when Joseph Stalin created a special commission to recommend a new political model of relations between the communist Party’s Central Committee, Russia and the republics. Stalin’s proposal was called the “autonomization of the republics” whereby the formally independent republics would be incorporated into the Russian Soviet Federation with rights of autonomy. However, the Russian Federation would become the central authority subordinating the formally independent republics. This resulted in a rebellion with the Georgians led the revolt against Stalin’s model. They were joined by the Ukrainians and Belarusians.

This conflict between Lenin’s vision of a union more akin to the United States model and Lenin’s vision of absolute central power resulted in the heated conversation with Feliks Dzerzhinsky, who was the head of the secret police and a supporter of Stalin. Stalin and many of his supporters, such as Ordzhonikidze and Dzerzhinsky, were actually non-Russians. Stalin was Georgian and Dzerzhinsky was actiually Polish. Interestingly, Felix Dzerzhinsky was remembered in St Petersburg on a Commemorative plaque dedicated him.

But the stroke prevented him from taking any decisive steps against them. Two days later, a commission of party officials, led by Stalin, placed strict limitations on Lenin’s activities, effectively isolating him. They said the restrictions were designed to prevent the worsening of Lenin’s health. But they also served a political purpose.

Lenin could not attend the congress and he certainly did not trust Stalin. Consequently, the paralyzed Lenin dictated his famous thoughts on the nationality question in a document he sent to the party leadership. It was a letter titled “On the Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomization.’” On December 31st, 1922, he attacked Stalin’s policies criticizing the rights provided to the republics by the Union treaty, deeming them inadequate to stop the rise of Great Russian nationalism. Lenin called this threat as “great-power chauvinism.” To Lenin saw these people as non-Russians who he did not trust and feared for the future of the Russian people.

In Lenin believed that Stalin, who was not Russia, posed a major threat to Russia. He viewed Stalin’s dream of the USSR as a threat to the unity of state which he was correct. Lenin’s idea of a union of independent states would be sustained by local autonomy taking into account their local customes. Lenin was prepared to replace the Union he had originally proposed with a looser association of states with the centralized powers to be confined to matters of defense and international relations exclusively. Lenin also maintained that the republics should retain the right of secession to prevent Stalin’s central dominance of authority.

I highly recommend watching the movie Mr. Jones. While this will NOT show the battle between Lenin and Stalin, it will show the ruthlessness of Stalin that Lenin feared. But Stalin was NOT a Russian, but he has tarnish the reputation of all Russians ever since. It is ironic that Stalin was a Georgian, which is in the Caucuses bordering Turkey where they hate Russians for the very oppression of Stalin.

So, as you can see, this is a very complex subject. Putin is not a follower of Stalin wheras other behind him are. So we should be very care what we wish for when it comes to Regime Change. Just maybe they know this as well and want Regime Change to ensure war. Very interesting indeed. We should NOT judge Putin by Stalin or all Russians for that matter. That is the propaganda of the Neocons who are still fighting against Stalin.

Die Vaccinated


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Apr 6, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A reader shared this story from last year, highlighting the stupidity of vaccinations. Germany permits legal euthanasia for those suffering from terminal illnesses who meet specific qualifications. One of those qualifications is that they must be vaccinated against COVID-19. The German Euthanasia Association announced in November 2021 that they would only assist patients who have received the vaccination or recovered from the illness. So although you may be ready to depart from this world and cannot handle any additional side effects, Big Pharma still needs to be paid.

The group demanded that suffering patients follow Germany’s 2G rule that permitted them to deny access to the unvaccinated (geimpft) or those who have recovered (genesen). The mental gymnastics needed to create this rule stated that since patients will come in close contact with caregivers, “human closeness” could be a “breeding ground for coronavirus transmission.” The associated declared, “[T]he 2G rule applies in our association, supplemented by situation-related measures, such as quick tests before encounters in closed rooms.” The phrase “encounters in closed rooms” is a delicate way to word suicide. I suppose St. Peter is checking for vaccination passports at the pearly gates in line with the pope’s guidelines.

The German Constitution protects personal freedom and the right to choose how to die, but you may not choose how to live.

WHO: COVID Vaccine Can Cause Hearing Loss


Armstrong Economics Blog/Tyranny Re-Posted Apr 4, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The skeptics were concerned about the long-term effects of the mRNA vaccines. “Safe and effective” was the slogan promoted to the masses as the major pharmaceutical companies refused to reveal their initial studies. We know that the vaccine can cause heart inflammation (myocarditis), menstrual changes, anaphylaxis, thrombosis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and even death.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is reporting on a new side effect: hearing loss. The WHO has recorded 367 cases of tinnitus and 164 cases of hearing loss. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine specifically was responsible for around 80% of reported cases, according to the WHO. Hearing loss is not currently listed as a side effect of the vaccine, and only the Janssen product has been flagged for causing tinnitus (primarily in women).

Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still asks people as young as five to take the “safe and effective” vaccine. I fear that additional ailments will present themselves as time goes on. Bottom line: these vaccines are not safe. Governments can no longer ignore this fact, and yet, they are continually forcing the masses to take countless doses of this poison.

“Trust the science!” Oh, sorry, what was that? I did not hear you.