Concerns regarding the efficacy and safety for BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine through six months


Posted originally on TrialSite News by CCCA on January 14, 2022

Concerns regarding the efficacy and safety for BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine through six months

https://www.facebook.com/v2.0/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df22fa92a7a1a86c%26domain%3Dtrialsitenews.com%26is_canvas%3Dfalse%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftrialsitenews.com%252Ffaef76dc419a38%26relation%3Dparent.parent&color_scheme=light&container_width=300&href=https%3A%2F%2Ftrialsitenews.com%2Fconcerns-regarding-the-efficacy-and-safety-for-bnt162b2-mrna-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-vaccine-through-six-months%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=true&show_faces=true&size=small&width=300

Author List 

Byram W. Bridle, PhD, MSc, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, bbridle@uoguelph.ca

Ilidio Martins, PhD, Senior Researcher, Kaleidoscope Strategic, ilidio@kstrategic.com

Bonnie A. Mallard, PhD, Professor of Immunogenetics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, bmallard@uoguelph.caSubscribe to the Trialsitenews “COVID-19” ChannelNo spam – we promise

Niel A. Karrow, PhD, MSc, Associate Professor, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, nkarrow@uoguelph.ca

David J. Speicher, PhD, MSc, Senior Research Associate, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, research@davidspeicher.com

Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Health Policy and Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada, claudia.chaufan@protonmail.com

Julian G.B. Northey, PhD, MSc, Adjunct Professor, Ontario Tech. University, Oshawa, ON, Canada, julian.northey@utoronto.ca

Steven Pelech, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, spelech@mail.ubc.ca

Christopher A. Shaw, PhD, Professor, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, cashawlab@gmail.com

Ondrej Halgas, PhD, MSc, Biomedical Researcher, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, ondrej.halgas@mail.utoronto.ca

Deanna McLeod, HBSc, Principal and Lead, Kaleidoscope Strategic, deanna@kstrategic.com

Citation: Bridle BW, Martins I, Mallard BA, Karrow NA, Speicher DJ, Chaufan C, Northey, JGB, Pelech S, Shaw CA, Halgas O, McLeod D. Concerns regarding the efficacy and safety for BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine through six months. http://www.CanadianCovidCareAlliance.org (January 10, 2022) 1-10.

Summary of concerns

Efficacy

• Important limitations of the stated efficacy claims were not discussed

• Only the relative risk reductions were stated; absolute risk reduction metrics were not presented

• Integration of adult and adolescent cohorts with differing follow-up periods were presented without explanation

• Large number of discontinued or missing participants comparable to primary end-point event numbers

• Prior SARS-CoV-2 infections screened only in a subset of trial participants, and determined only by an antibody test with severe sensitivity limitations

• Cut-offs of the RT-PCR positivity tests were not reported; no confirmatory functional virology assays were performed

• Absence of systematic testing and unbiased testing framework for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected participants

Safety

• Trial participants were healthier than the average population  

• Monitoring of adverse events were limited in time and scope

• Number of severe adverse events in the vaccine arm were much higher than the numerical reduction in severe COVID-19 cases between vaccine and placebo arms 

• Superficial evaluation of the most clinically relevant end-point – survival; no independent assessment of the causes of death provided

• Cardiovascular adverse vaccine events are now widely recognized, yet no systematic monitoring of cardiovascular health was carried out 

• Substantially higher number of solicited and unsolicited adverse events, most of which presented as COVID-19-like symptoms, in the vaccine arm yet study claims efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19

• Increase in cardiac-related deaths in the vaccine arm compared to placebo arm 

• Inability to assess long term safety within the trial due to unblinding and participant crossover to the vaccine arm

Other concerns

  • Multiple conflicts of interest of a large majority of study authors

  • Multiple trial irregularities reported by Thacker et al. (1) published in the British Medical Journal

Article

We present several concerns regarding the recent article by Thomas et al. (2) on the efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on November 4, 2021. An abbreviated version of this letter was submitted to the NEJM on November 15, 2021 and declined for publication on November 29, 2021 due to limited space. The study assessed the BNT162b2 in individuals that were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions and concluded that, “through 6 month follow up, despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious at preventing COVID-19.” We present numerous concerns regarding the reported safety and efficacy of this injection.

Efficacy

First, Thomas et al. (2) reported BNT162b2 efficacy as a relative risk reduction of contracting symptomatic reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 of 91.3% (77 vs 850 cases) and severe symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of 96.7% (1 vs 30 severe cases). Thomas et al. (2) should have reported efficacy as an absolute risk reduction as per the communicating risks and benefits guidelines issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (3), which would have highlighted the modest absolute risk reductions provided by the vaccine in both symptomatic (3.7%) and severe symptomatic (0.7%) PCR-confirmed COVID-19. 

Second, this analysis is the only published account of the BNT162b2 phase I – III trial efficacy outcomes among adults ≥16 years of age through six-month follow-up after immunization. In a trial amendment, a cohort of adolescents aged 12 to 15 years was added to the phase III study for which there was a shorter follow-up period. In this analysis, Thomas et al. (2) combined the two cohorts in providing efficacy outcomes after a six month follow up and departed from the initial analysis without providing a reasonable explanation for doing so. Given that vaccine efficacy wanes over time, by combining the older and younger cohorts, Thomas et al. (2) obfuscated the efficacy of the older group at six months. The authors should have provided efficacy outcomes for both groups and explicitly state the two reporting time periods in their conclusion.  

Third, when discussing their findings, Thomas et al. (2) did not mention that a larger proportion of participants in the placebo group discontinued the trial compared to the vaccine group; 40% more after the first dose (271 vs 380 participants) and 63% more after the second dose (167 vs 273 participants). Discontinuations consisted mostly of “voluntary withdrawals”, “no longer meeting the eligibility criteria” and “lost to follow-up.” Additionally, there were a high number of participants missing from the CONSORT diagram between 2nd dose and the open-label period with more participants missing in the vaccine arm (1,258 vs 583 missing). These imbalances, which were in the order of the number of primary end-point events (77 and 850, for vaccine and placebo, respectively) call into question the reliability of these findings.  Thomas et al. (2) should have disclosed the details related to the nature of these losses and discussed the impact they may have had on overall findings. 

Fourth, Thomas et al. (2) used inappropriate tests when assessing current or prior infections due to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The authors screened 10,453 serum samples for COVID-19 infections up to 6 weeks prior to enrollment using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, which tests for only the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 and has high sensitivity 14 days after infection when antibodies tend to peak (4). However, as antibody levels wane over time despite persisting immunity, it is unlikely that this test alone could identify prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 or distinguish between prior immunity to other coronaviruses, which express similar proteins. Additionally, testing for the SARS-CoV-2 was done with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR rather than the gold-standard functional virology assay, looking for cytopathic effect in permissive cells. FDA specifications for PCR testing at that time the trial was conducted tended toward cycle thresholds beyond 20-30 cycles (5), which are now widely recognized as being unreliable in detecting an active COVID-19 infection (6-8). Given these limitations, Thomas et al. (2) should have used better screening for natural immunity, used a functional virology assay, and discussed the implications of these testing limitations in their findings.

Fifth, we noted an absence of systematic testing and an objective testing framework for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected participants. In this study, it was left to the discretion of the investigator to send a patient presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms for laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a task which would be particularly difficult given that reactogenicity events consisted principally of COVID-19-like symptoms (Thomas et al. (2), Figure S1). This lack of systematic testing introduced a concerning level of variability and subjectivity associated with the identification of both symptomatic cases and disease severity (9,10). Thomas et al. (2) should have discussed the implications of this lack of objective and systematic virological assessment on their study findings as well as presented data related to asymptomatic testing that was conducted at “selected sites.” Overall, the emphasis on relative risk reductions, the combining efficacy outcomes from the adult and adolescent cohorts, the large number of people who were excluded from the analysis, and the use of inappropriate tests and lack of objective testing framework call into question the authors’ conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy. 

Safety

First, Thomas et al. (2) concluded their article by stating that BNT162b2 showed a “favorable safety profile,” and in their abstract stated that “BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile.” However, Thomas et al. (2) Figure S1 summarized solicited adverse events reported within 7 days of the first dose in the reactogenicity subset, which represented a mere 22% of the randomized population. A considerably higher rate of local and systemic adverse events was reported among vaccine recipients with a marked increase in adverse events with the second dose. The preponderance of systemic effects in both arms were COVID-19-like symptoms and occurred at higher rates than in the vaccine compared to the placebo group, despite the vaccine group having a higher number of identified symptomatic COVID-19 cases (77 vs 850, vaccine vs placebo, respectively). The very need for this trial is predicated on the importance and clinical relevance of eradicating COVID-19 symptoms. How is it then that such consistent increases in COVID-19-like symptoms among vaccine recipients are described as “favorable”? 

Second, Thomas et al. (2) provided a descriptive analysis of vaccine safety. To better compare the benefits and the risks of this vaccine, we calculated absolute and relative risk reductions/increases (ARR/ARI and RRR/RRI, respectively) associated with the vaccine for efficacy events seven days after the second dose (i.e., corresponding to full vaccination for those in the vaccine group) and for safety events during the respective data collection period (starting with the first-dose). These calculations were based on the eligible population for each relevant safety and efficacy events without adjusting for surveillance time as that data was not published for safety events. A simple chi-square calculator was used to assess the significance of the difference in event numbers between groups (Table 1) (11). 

Table 1. Differences in the number of efficacy and safety events in eligible populations¥ reported in the 6-month update of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine
EventBNT162b2(n)Placebo(n)Absolute Difference (p-value)?Absolute Risk Change* (%)Relative Risk Change* (%)
Cases Adults and Adolescents 7 days after 2nd dose$77850-773 (p<0.00001)-3.7-90.9
Any Unsolicited Treatment-Related Adverse Event Adults#5,2411,311+3,930 (p<0.00001)+17.9+299.7
Any Severe Event Adults/390289+101 (p=0.0001)+0.5+34.9
Severe Cases in Adults 7 days after 2nd dose&123-22 (p<0.00001)-0.1-95.7
Unsolicited Severe Adverse Events~ AdultsPrevents daily routine activity or requires intervention or worse262150+112 (p<0.00001)+0.5+74.6
Serious Adverse Event Adults§Requires hospitalization or results in permanent injury or death127116+11(p=0.5)+0.05+9.5
Deaths during placebo-controlled period [additional deaths during open-label period in vaccine recipients or placebo-only]%15 [+5]14 [NR]+1 [+5](p=0.9)+0.005 +7.1
Deaths due to cardiovascular events^95+4

¥ For the purpose of this table and in accordance with the terminology used in the study report, adult and adolescent populations are defined as ≥16 years old and 12-15 years old, respectively. 

? Significance figures (p-values) estimated using chi-square calculator available at https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/chisquare. P-values are without the Yates correction. This procedure was applied following the framework used by Classen (11) in his analysis of “All Cause Severe Morbidity” based on data from the initial reports of the vaccine Phase III trials

* Authors estimated vaccine efficacy using total surveillance time as denominator, however, as this value was unavailable for all the events analyzed, our calculations used the common statistical definition, i.e., number of events relative to total number of eligible patients for each event analysis reported29 similar to previous analyses of this nature (11-30);

$ ≥7 Days after dose 2 among participants without evidence of previous infection

# Adverse events reported outside of the reactogenicity subgroup and assessed by the investigator as related to investigational product

/ In calculations combining efficacy and safety events, the number of patients randomized that received any dose of vaccine or placebo was used as the study population in the statistical calculations, following the framework used by Classen (11) in his analysis of “All Cause Severe Morbidity”. Differences in the total (event-incident) population (randomized vs efficacy vs safety) used as denominator are relatively small and are expected to have minimal impact on the relative differences between groups. Without access to individual patient data, these calculations were performed under the assumption that efficacy and safety events were non-overlapping

& ≥7 Days after dose 2; confirmed severe COVID-19 defined as PCR-positivity and “presence of at least one of the following: • Clinical signs at rest indicative of severe systemic illness (RR ≥30 breaths per minute, HR ≥125 beats per minute, SpO2 ≤93% on room air at sea level, or PaO2/FiO2 <300 mm Hg); • Respiratory failure (defined as needing high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, or ECMO); • Evidence of shock (SBP <90 mm Hg, DBP <60 mm Hg, or requiring vasopressors); • Significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction;• Admission to an ICU; • Death” 

~ Severe (grade ≥3) adverse events were generally defined as those that interfere significantly with participant’s usual function, those that affect daily living or require medical care; grade 4 events were generally defined as those that required emergency room visit or hospitalization

§ Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that, at any dose: a. Results in death; b. Is life-threatening; c. Requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; d. Results in persistent disability/incapacity.

% Deaths during the open-label period were reported only in vaccine recipients, 3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding

^Those with reported cause of death due to: aortic rupture, arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure congestive, cardiorespiratory arrest, hypertensive heart disease, or myocardial infarction

Our findings showed that the increase in unsolicited adverse events in vaccine recipients, which included at least one adverse event up to 1 month post the second dose, was greater (RRI of 299.7% and ARI of 17.9%; p<0.00001) than the reduction in identified symptomatic COVID-19 cases observed in fully-vaccinated individuals for the duration of the trial (RRR of 90.9% and ARR of 3.7%; p<0.00001). 

A similar pattern was observed for severe and serious adverse events. The study concluded that “vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7%.” However, our analysis showed that the vaccine was associated with a significant increase in severe adverse events defined as an adverse event that interferes significantly with daily activity or requires medical care (RRI of 74.6% and ARI of 0.5%; p<0.00001) and a numerical increase in serious adverse events, defined as any untoward medical occurrence that was life-threatening, required hospitalization or resulted in persistent disability up to 6 months (RRI of 9.5% and ARI of 0.05%; p=0.5) compared to placebo. These increases were greater than the reduction in severe COVID-19 cases observed in fully-vaccinated individuals for the duration of the trial (RRR of 95.7% and ARR of 0.1%; p=0.00002). When severe COVID-19 events were pooled with severe or serious adverse events to determine the likelihood of experiencing any severe event (11), there was an overall increase in severe events among vaccine recipients compared with placebo (RRI of 34.9% and ARI of 0.5%, p=0.0001). Given these findings, Thomas et al. (2) should have revised their conclusion to state, “the vaccine was associated with a concerning and clinically meaningful increase in severe events relative to placebo.” 

Third, Thomas et al. (2) conducted minimal monitoring of adverse events (12). Firstly, the solicited reactogenicity data was collected for only a small portion of trial participants (9,839/44,047 or 22.3%), for a limited 7 days after each dose, and for only a short pre-specified list of systemic and injection site reactions with no monitoring of sub-clinical effects. Secondly, unsolicited adverse events were collected for a mere 1 month and serious adverse events for only 6 months following the second dose. This means that severe vaccine related cardiac, neurological or immunological injuries that took more than a month to diagnose and were not considered serious, would not be reflected in the findings. Thirdly, unblinding and subsequent crossover of those on the placebo arm to the vaccine arm, will certainly attenuate any safety signals coming from this trial as well as preclude insights into long-term safety which were to be monitored for 2 years. Thomas et al. (2) should have commented on the implications their abbreviated monitoring schedule may have on safety underreporting as well as the implications of unblinding on short- and long-term safety outcomes.  Given the increase in severe events (RRI of 34.9% and ARI of 0.5%) and cardiovascular deaths associated with the vaccine (n= 9 vs 5, vaccine vs placebo, respectively), The authors should have more closely monitored safety and provided a detailed discussion of the severe and serious adverse events along with a discussion of their potential long-term implications.

Fourth, given the inclusion of adolescents and “healthy participants who had stable chronic medical conditions” in the study population, we noted very little discussion of death, the most clinically relevant end-point of this trial. Thomas et al. (2) Table S3 showed a slightly higher number of deaths in the vaccine group (n=15 vs n=14 in the placebo group during the blinded period). However, the manuscript text (Thomas et al. (2), page 7) stated that five additional deaths occurred in vaccine recipients after unblinding (two of which were initially allocated to the placebo group) for a total of 20 deaths in vaccine recipients. Thomas et al. (2) Table S4 also showed that although only 3 study deaths were attributed to COVID-19 or COVID-19 pneumonia (n=1 vs n=2, vaccine vs placebo, respectively) a total of 14 deaths were cardiovascular in nature (aortic rupture, arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure congestive, cardiorespiratory arrest, hypertensive heart disease) with the almost twice as many occurring in the vaccine arm (n=9 vs n=5, vaccine vs placebo, respectively). There is currently an abundance of real-world evidence to support an association between cardiovascular adverse events and the vaccines (13-17). Thomas et al. (2) reported that “none of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators” without describing the objective framework of testing that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion or whether their findings were independently evaluated. Given the seriousness of these adverse events in an otherwise healthy population, Thomas et al. (2) should have provided a detailed description of how they arrived at their conclusion, these evaluations should have undergone independent assessment, and all ongoing study protocols investigating BNT162b2 should be immediately amended to include systematic short- and long-term clinical and sub-clinical monitoring of cardiovascular health. Overall, the increased rates of COVID-like symptoms, unsolicited adverse events as well as severe and serious adverse events in the vaccine compared to the placebo arm, as well as the net increase in deaths in vaccine recipients compared with those who were unvaccinated present serious concerns regarding the safety of these biological agents.

Conflicts of Interest

The disconnect between author conclusions, our analysis of the data, and the NEJM rejection of our letter to the editor led us to examine author disclosures for potential conflicts of interest (COI) (Table 2). Our analysis revealed multiple direct conflicts of interest. The article was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer, the corresponding author, Judith Absolon, and the senior author, Kathrin Jansen were employees of Pfizer and owned company stock, and the first author Stephen Thomas was a consultant to Pfizer. Of the 32 authors, 21 (66%) were employees of Pfizer or BioNtech and 26 (81%) had Pfizer/BioNtech-related conflict of interests. We also noted that one of NEJM’s senior editors is also a co-principal investigator of the related Moderna-Vaccine COVE-trial (18,19). 

Table 2. Conflicts of interest related to Pfizer/BioNTech
TitleAuthor
Corresponding author Judith Absalon: Pfizer employment and stock holder
First author Stephen Thomas: Pfizer consultancy
Last author Kathrin Jansen: Pfizer employment and stock holder
Other 29 authors (66% employees, 81% had some COI)Pfizer/ BioNTech employment and stockholder, n=15; Pfizer/ BioNTech employment (without stock) n=4; Pfizer grant/contract n=3; Pfizer clinical trial n=1; Other company consultancy n=1; No COI n=5

Conclusion

Our critique of the Thomas et al. (2) publication revealed multiple concerns regarding author claims of BNT162b2 safety and efficacy as well as a high number of direct conflicts of interest in the publication authors. These, coupled with multiple reports indicating that vaccine efficacy wanes within months of administration (20-23), reduced effectiveness of BNT162b2 with respect to emerging variants (24-26), record rates of serious adverse events (122,833) and deaths (17,128) reported in the US passive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS by October 16, 2021, and problems with data integrity in the conduct of this trial reported recently by Thacker (1) in the British Medical Journal, raise further concerns regarding both the efficacy and safety of this agent. We did not find sufficient evidence to support use of these agents in the healthy adults studied or in specific unstudied demographics that are being mandated to comply with vaccination including the naturally immune, the frail elderly, those with multiple co-morbidities, the immunocompromised, and pregnant women. It also calls into question use in adolescents and children given that companion trials conducted in those populations suffered from similar design flaws, including underpowered in participant numbers and that recommendations for use were based on minimal safety follow up (27,28). 

Conflicts of Interest

Byram W. Bridle received funding from the Ontario Government (COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund, Ministry of Colleges and Universities) and Government of Canada (Pandemic Response Challenge Program, National Research Council of Canada) to conduct pre-clinical research with COVID-19 vaccines

Ilidio Martins, none to disclose

Claudia Chaufan, none to disclose

Julian Northey, none to disclose

Niel A. Karrow, none to disclose

Steven Pelech is the majority shareholder and president and Chief Scientific Officer of Kinexus Bioinformatics Corporation, which has been developing serological tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 proteins and testing of drugs to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication

Bonnie Mallard, none to disclose

Christopher A. Shaw has been an expert witness in Vaccine Court twice

David Speicher, none to disclose

Ondrej Halgas, none to disclose

Deanna McLeod, none to disclose

References

1. Thacker PD. COVID-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ 2021;375:n2635.

2. Thomas SJ, Moreira ED, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine through 6 months. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1761-73.

3. Fischhoff B. Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence based user’s guide. Silver Spring, MA, USA: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Department of Health and Human Services. Government Printing Office; 2012.

4. Roche Diagnostics. Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 – Immunoassay for the qualitative detection of antibodies (incl. IgG) against SARS-CoV-2. 2021. (Accessed Nov 25, 2021, at https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/products/params/elecsys-anti-sars-cov-2.html.)

5. Cepheid. Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 – Instructions for use. For use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only. U. S. Food and Drug Administration, 2021. (Accessed June 29, 2021, at https://www.fda.gov/media/136314/download.)

6. Mina MJ, Peto TE, García-Fiñana M, Semple MG, Buchan IE. Clarifying the evidence on SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19. The Lancet 2021;397:1425-7.

7. Al Bayat S, Mundodan J, Hasnain S, et al. Can the cycle threshold (Ct) value of RT-PCR test for SARS CoV2 predict infectivity among close contacts? Journal of Infection and Public Health 2021;14:1201-5.

8. Infectious Disease Society of America and Association for Molecular Pathology. IDSA and AMP joint statement on the use of SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for clinical decision-making – Updated March 12, 2021. 2021. (Accessed October 8, 2021, at https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/idsa-amp-statement.pdf.)

9. Mehrotra DV, Janes HE, Fleming TR, et al. Clinical endpoints for evaluating efficacy in COVID-19 vaccine trials. Ann Intern Med 2021;174:221-8.

10. Doshi P. Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data. 2020. (Accessed October 3, 2021, at https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/.)

11. Classen B. US COVID-19 vaccines proven to cause more harm than good based on pivotal clinical trial data analyzed using the proper scientific endpoint,“All cause severe morbidity”. Trends Int Med 2021;1:1-6.

12. Pfizer Press Release. Pfizer and BioNTech initiate rolling submission of biologics license application for U.S. FDA approval of their COVID-19 vaccine. 2021. (Accessed November 9, 2021, at https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-initiate-rolling-submission-biologics.)

13. Rose J. A Report on the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) biologicals. Sci, Pub Health Pol, & Law 2021;2:59-80.

14. Kaur RJ, Dutta S, Charan J, et al. Cardiovascular adverse events reported from COVID-19 vaccines: A study based on WHO database. Int J Gen Med 2021;14:3909.

15. Aye YN, Mai AS, Zhang A, et al. Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. QJM: monthly journal of the Association of Physicians 2021.

16. Diaz GA, Parsons GT, Gering SK, Meier AR, Hutchinson IV, Robicsek A. Myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination for COVID-19. JAMA 2021;326:1210-2.

17. Barda N, Dagan N, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a nationwide setting. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1078-90.

18. Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2021;384:403-16.

19. Keil U. Re: COVID-19: How independent were the US and British vaccine advisory committees? BMJ 2021;373:n1283. 2021. (Accessed Dec 6, 2021, at Re: COVID-19: How independent were the US and British vaccine advisory committees?)

20. Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, et al. Waning immunity after the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel. N Engl J Med 2021.

21. Puranik A, Lenehan PJ, O’Horo JC, et al. Durability analysis of the highly effective BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19. medRxiv 2021.

22. McDade TW, Demonbreun AR, Sancilio A, Mustanski B, D’Aquila RT, McNally EM. Durability of antibody response to vaccination and surrogate neutralization of emerging variants based on SARS-CoV-2 exposure history. Sci Rep 2021;11:1-6.

23. Andrews N, Tessier E, Stowe J, et al. Vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax against mild and severe COVID-19 in the UK. medRxiv 2021.

24. Collie S, Champion J, Moultrie H, Bekker L-G, Gray G. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine against Omicron variant in South Africa. N Engl J Med 2021.

25. Lefèvre B, Tondeur L, Madec Y, et al. Beta SARS-CoV-2 variant and BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness in long-term care facilities in France. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2021;2:e685-e7.

26. Hansen CH, Schelde AB, Moustsen-Helm IR, et al. Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study. medRxiv 2021:2021.12.20.21267966.

27. Frenck RW, Jr., Klein NP, Kitchin N, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents. N Engl J Med 2021;385:239-50.

28. Walter EB, Talaat KR, Sabharwal C, et al. Evaluation of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in children 5 to 11 years of age. N Engl J Med 2021.

29. BMJ Best Practice. » Evidence based medicine (EBM) toolkit » Learn EBM » How to calculate risk. BMJ, 2021. (Accessed October 1, 2021, at https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/how-to-calculate-risk/.)

30. Larkin A, Waitzkin H. COVID-19 vaccines and evidence-based medicine. medRxiv 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039.

Professor Desmet, Dr Malone & Dr McCullough on Mass Psychosis


First published on JAN 4, 2022

BODIES OF THE VAXXED DEAD – ORGANS PROVE THE AUTO IMMUNE ATTACK RESPONSE !


First published on BITCHUTE at 03:11 UTC on January 3rd, 2022.

Professor: Sucharit Bhakdi
Irrefutable Evidence that can’t be hidden – Real Data Going Viral around the World. . . . .

Why Are Young Athletes Dying?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted Jan 5, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

There is a disturbing YouTube montage mentioning a small fraction of otherwise healthy young athletes who suddenly died last year. This is not a normal occurrence. There is no possible way anyone could look at these deaths occurring throughout the world without noticing the one similarity among the deceased — they were all vaccinated.

Myocarditis is a side effect of the vaccine. Some doctors have suggested cardiac MRIs, echocardiograms, ECGs, and blood tests for athletes to ensure that their hearts are healthy enough to continue beating. This is unnecessary, and the vaccine is unnecessary for healthy individuals. I personally believe that these deaths could have been prevented.

The International Criminal Court


On December 6, 2021 the following case was summited to the International Criminal Court located in Hague, Netherlands

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

(TREATY OF ROME STATUTE, ART. 15.1 AND 53)

Subject of complaint:

Violations of the Nuremberg Code

– Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute

Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.

Perpetrators: Prime Minister for the United Kingdom BORIS JOHNSON, Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER WHITTY, (former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK, (current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID, Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) JUNE RAINE, Director-General of the World Health Organisation TEDROS ADANHOM GHEBREYESUS, Co-chair  of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation WILLIAM GATES III and Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MELINDA GATES, Chairman and Chief executive officer of Pfizer ALBERT BOURLA, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT, Chief Executive of Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY, President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIV SHAH, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR ANTHONY FAUCI, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum KLAUS SCWAB, President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK

Victim(s): THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

A PDF copy of the case is available here

<object class="wp-block-file__embed" data="https://centinel2012.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/icc-complaint-7.pdf&quot; type="application/pdf" style="width:100%;height:600px" aria-label="Embed of <strong>icc-complaint-7icc-complaint-7Download

Those that are participating in these Crimes Against Humanity are following the discredited beliefs of Karl Marx and their goal is the total collapse of Western Civilization so that it can be Build Back Better. What that means is into a political system such as what Joseph Stalin created in Russia. If you don’t understand what that means read Volume One of the three volume set The Gulag Archipelago written by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn between 1958 and 1967 based on his in the camps from 1918 to 1956. It takes a strong stomach to get though the book as its hard to believe that people can be this cruel. What is in this book is exactly what Klaus Schwab is bringing to us right now with his Great Reset. If you actual read volume one you will not want to read volume Two and Three.

This video by Dr. Robert Malone the inventor or the mRNA process used to make the Pfizer COVID-19 (also known as BNT162b2) vaccine is a must watch. Dr. Malone tells us all to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!!!! by not allowing them to be vaccinated with the Pfizer experimental gene therapy vaccine that will have horrible effects on those that have not gone through puberty. But in general no one without a serious preexisting condition or under 50 should be vaccinated without being warned of the dangerous effects. This video is in support of the about case.

Below is an interpretation of the case with comments added by Martin Armstrong.

Part One

A team from the UK has filed a complaint with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on behalf of the people. The report alleges that government officials, pharmaceutical executives, and others profiting from the pandemic have violated the Nuremberg Code, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as aggression against civilians. The 44-page complaint extensively lists the crimes committed by the following individuals:

The complaint states that the aforementioned individuals have committed the following crimes:

– Violations of the Nuremberg Code

– Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute

– Violation of Article 8 of the Rome

– Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute

The document contains a lot of detailed information that I will summarize:

COVID Is a Biological Weapon – Gain of Function Research

COVID was created in a laboratory. Leo Poon. Dr. Li-Meng Yan and her team published a report (Appendix 4) claiming that the novel coronavirus was developed “as a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.” ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered between July 2015 and February 2017 in military research laboratories. Once the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, a non-military laboratory, published a conflicting report and was quickly forced by the government to retract its statement. “The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence – a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2.”

Again, all evidence discredits the notion that the COVID-19 virus developed naturally. “The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA has admitted to funding gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab – despite Dr Anthony Fauci repeatedly denying this.” There is clear evidence that the NIH funded gain of function research between 2014 and 2019. A $3.1 million grant was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance for coronavirus studies on bats. Another grant of $599,000 was provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to also study COVID in bats.

Conclusion: The coronavirus did not develop naturally. Rather, the virus was deliberately created in a laboratory after years of government-funded research.

Experimental Vaccines

The vaccine received temporary authorization under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations Act (2012). The report notes that mRNA vaccines have never been approved for human usage and the effects are completely unknown. “The long-term effects and safety of the treatment in recipients are unknown. It is important to note that the Corona Virus ‘vaccines’ are the world’s first introduction to the synthetic m-RNA technology and all previous immunisations [sic] worked in a totally different manner, by way of introducing a deactivated or weakened virus to the body to trigger a natural arousal of the immune system against it.”

The COVID vaccination should be categorized as a gene therapy as it does not meet the requirements for the term “vaccine.” In February 2021, Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “vaccine” to include the COVID-19 mRNA injection. Dr. Mike Yeadon stated in the report: “It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”

Conclusion: The COVID-19 injection is not a vaccine, but rather a mass experimental form of gene therapy with unknown consequences.

Presence of Graphene Hydroxide in Vaccines

German chemist Dr. Andreas Noack was one of the EU’s top graphene and carbon experts who formulated his doctoral thesis by converting graphene oxide into graphene hydroxide. Dr. Noack examined the vaccines along with other experts and found that the vaccines contain graphene hydroxide. “On November 23, 2021, Dr. Andreas Noack released a video explaining what graphene hydroxide is and how the nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of ‘vaccine’ recipients. Dr. Andreas goes on to explain how due to the nano size of the graphene oxide structures they would not show up on an autopsy as toxicologists can’t imagine that there are structures that can cut up blood vessels causing people to bleed to death on the inside so they would not be looking for them, given their atomic size.”

After speaking out about graphene hydroxide in vaccines on a live stream broadcast, Dr. Noack was arrested on film by German police. On November 26, 2021, Dr. Noack was attacked and murdered. His case remains unsolved.

Conclusion: There is graphene hydroxide in the vaccine, and Dr. Noack was assassinated for speaking the truth.

Part Two

Looking further into the complaint filed with the International Criminal Court, we find additional examples of human rights abuses.

PCR Tests

Oxford University has discovered that PCR tests are so sensitive that they can detect old infections by tracking fragments of dead viral cells. “Originally developed to detect the presence of DNA and RNA in biological samples, even its Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis declared that PCR was never intended to diagnose a disease,” the complaint states. Dr. Kary Mullis said that the PCR test can find “almost anything in anybody.” The PCR tests repeatedly cycle to find traces of viral RNA and are chemically amplified with each attempt. Public Health England stated that the PCR test threshold should be set around 25.6, and anything above means there is not enough evidence of the virus to deem a person ill.

Conclusion: PCR tests are often run 40-45 times to artificially increase the chance of a positive result.

Masks

The World Health Organization (WHO) previously admitted that there is no evidence available to indicate masks as an effective method of protecting healthy individuals. “In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germ components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly breathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.” Furthermore, there is actually evidence that face masks can cause toxic particles to build within the mask. “Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”

Conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are effective against the transmission of COVID-19; however, there is evidence that wearing masks can be toxic.

Alternative Treatments

There are numerous treatments for the coronavirus that are not offered to the population at large.

  • Hydroxychloroquine – 50% reduction in hospitalizations and death
  • Ivermectin – 70% reduction in deaths
  • Favipiravir – Approved only in Japan
  • Corticosteroids – 87% reduction in hospitalizations; 30% reduction in deaths
  • Colchicine – 25% reduction in hospitalization and deaths

Conclusion: Safe and effective treatments for the coronavirus exist but are not readily available.

Part Three

The complaint filed with the International Criminal Court continues to provide a broad-picture view of the various ways governments have used the coronavirus to exploit the people.

INFLATED COVID FIGURES

Nurses and doctors from hospitals across the world have noted that nearly every death recorded is due to the coronavirus. The complaint notes that if an individual died for any reason within 28 days of receiving a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, their death is deemed a coronavirus casualty. The report notes that between March and June 2020, England and Wales recorded 4,476 deaths with no pre-existing condition.

Yet, deaths for the same period suddenly spiked to 49,607:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is englandwales2-300x259.jpg

The complaint alleges that governments have been artificially inflating figures and misbranding common flu, pneumonia, and other respiratory illnesses as COVID-19. To further show that the common flu has been mislabeled as COVID, data from the ONC shows that flu and pneumonia deaths in 2018 and 2019 came to 29,516 and 26,398, respectfully. In 2020, only 394 people died from the common flu and 13,619 passed away from pneumonia.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is englandwales3-300x156.jpg

Conclusion: The number of fatalities from the coronavirus has been drastically overstated. As mentioned in an earlier post, PCR tests were never meant to be used in their current manner, and often produce false-positive results. Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive test result is deemed a casualty of coronavirus, even if the virus was not the cause of death.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Censored-300x196.jpg

CENSORSHIP

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and countless social media platforms have removed any and all information regarding the coronavirus that does not fit the broader agenda. “. Authorities have blocked legitimate websites and ordered the removal of unwanted content. Officials have reinforced these controls by criminalising [sic] more categories of online expression and arresting journalists, activists, and members for public speaking about the government’s performance. To suppress unfavourable [sic] health statistics, critical reporting and other COVID-19 content the UK government has blocked websites or forced users, social media platforms, or online outlets to delete information,” the report states.

Furthermore, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the RNA vaccine, has been removed from all social media platforms for speaking out against the vaccine. “Smear campaigns are being waged against any doctors and scientists who challenge the WHO narrative on Covid-19 and the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. We are in a situation where governments and global NGO’s have seized control of the medical profession,” the complaint continues.

Conclusion: Media companies are directly filtering and altering public information. Even reputable medical professionals have been scrubbed from the internet. Governments around the world are using the pandemic as a reason to crack down on free speech and information.

Part Four

Clade X and Event 201

“In May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic  dubbed ‘Clade X’ (Appendix 12)  to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with a catastrophic pandemic.  A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called ‘Event 201’ in October, 2019 (Appendix 13). Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic. A few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.”

The simulation covered the following scenarios:

  • Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
  • The collapse of many industries
  • Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
  • A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
  • Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
  • The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
  • A global lack of personal protective equipment
  • The breakdown of international supply chains
  • Mass unemployment
  • Rioting in the streets

Conclusion: The accuracy of these “simulations” is more than a coincidence. The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its partners were planning for the release of a pandemic. After all of the above scenarios materialized, WEF founder Klaus Schwab said it was now time for the Great Reset.

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum

Using your Internet Searching for your Credit Score


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Dec 31, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Sir,

I cannot thank you enough for your tireless efforts in keeping us informed.

The insanity just keeps ramping up. An article today about Rebel News being denied a bank loan because they oppose Trudeau. Headline & link to the article:

Royal Bank of Canada rejected our mortgage because we’re conservative

DS

REPLY: There are serious proposals in the United States that they should follow China and make your browser searching part of the credit score. I have had serious off-the-record conversations that this proposal is being promoted behind the curtain and it appears to be coming from the Biden Administration.

I also spoke with a school psychologist who is very upset over what is taking place in identifying students. If they are anti-COVID VAX, they are immediately being associated with anti-all Vaccines and are considered to be White Supremacists. Well I have two black girls working for me and both are anti-COVID Vax so I do not see how this makes them a White Supremacist. Our staff covers ALL races and both Christain and Muslim. They are all anti-COVID Vax, not anti-vaccines, but have the intelligence to QUESTION what governments are pushing.

The New Norm is seeking to characterize everyone and the end goal here is to isolate and ostracize anyone who is anti-government/Republican/Libertarian. Today, they would be canceling Patrick Henry for daring to say “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” or Thomas Jefferson for his obvious terrorist statement in this cancel culture: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

ANYONE who disagrees with the left is now being called far-right extremists. This is all about suppression and altering our free societies into a new Schwab/Marxist Wonderland.

Dr. Robert Malone Discusses The Absence of Informed Consent and The Silencing of Vaccine Query


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 31, 2021 | Sundance | 215 Comments

Dr. Robert Malone was recently removed from the Twitter platform for providing raw scientific information and his interpretation surrounding SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, variants and vaccines.  Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (including both the idea of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) and RNA transfection. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times.

Since January 2020, Dr. Malone has been leading a large team focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Malone is, in essence, one of the most prominent experts in the use of vaccines to advance public health.

After his voice was removed from Twitter, Dr. Malone appeared with Joe Rogan to discuss the issues and events surrounding the silencing of vaccine inquiry, and the lack of informed consent {Direct Rumble Link Segment}.  The full 3-hour interview with Joe Rogan is available on Spotify – LINK HERE.

.

Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack sign-up is: AVAILABLE HERE

Substack is absolutely the best way to see my writings. I appreciate everyone’s support in signing up for my newsletter. It truly matters to me.

Other social media links are:

https://gab.com/RobertMaloneMD
https://gettr.com/user/rwmalonemd
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwmalonemd/

My website is:
http://www.rwmalonemd.com

• Dr. Robert Malone, MD, MS

The Video Message That Resulted in Dr Robert Malone Banned from Twitter, An Alarming Warning About Vaccinating Children


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 30, 2021 | Sundance | 138 Comments

Dr. Malone has always presented himself as an intelligent and thoughtful man of even & stable disposition.

This is being reported as the video {Direct Rumble Link Here} that got Dr. Robert Malone banned from Twitter.  In this video Dr. Malone makes very strong statements about the “irreparable harm” to children caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.  WATCH:

I can see why the powers that be would respond to this video with such ferocity.  What Dr. Malone states in this video is alarming in the extreme.  He is specifically stating that any parent or grandparent who has permitted, facilitated or chosen to vaccinate their child, has permanently and irrevocably harmed them.

According to his statement, the consequences of that harm will surface in the future life and health of the child.  These are remarkable words that stun the viewer when absorbed in their totality.   If what Dr Malone is saying in this video is accurate, the consequences, not only to the children – but also to the larger society of all future generations, could collapse global social structures.

Think about the ramifications to families, communities and the construct of the global relationship of all citizens to their government, if what he is saying is accurate.  Additionally, if these words are true, there’s no way any institution of government could ever admit them.  The consequences are unfathomable.

The transcript of his remarks is available HERE and duplicated below:

My name is Robert Malone, and I am speaking to you as a parent, grandparent, physician and scientist. I don’t usually read from a prepared speech, but this is so important that I wanted to make sure that I get every single word and scientific fact correct.

I stand by this statement with a career dedicated to vaccine research and development. I’m vaccinated for COVID and I’m generally pro-vaccination. I have devoted my entire career to developing safe and effective ways to prevent and treat infectious diseases.

After this, I will be posting the text of this statement so you can share it with your friends and family.

Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:

There are three issues parents need to understand:

The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including

  •     Their brain and nervous system
  •     Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots
  •     Their reproductive system
  •     And this vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system

The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable

  •     You can’t fix the lesions within their brain
  •     You can’t repair heart tissue scarring
  •     You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system, and
  •     This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family

The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.

  •     We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks
  •     Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later

Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history

One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.

  •     Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents
  •     It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease

In summary: there is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives.

The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close.

As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children. (link)

The Sovereign Debt Crisis Arrives


Armstrong Economics Blog/Sovereign Debt Crisis Re-Posted Dec 26, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

While the world is turning, the economic crisis emanating from the SovereignDebt Crisis in Europe is propelling a very serious outlook as we head into 2022. I have been warning for the past 10 years that the situation would become critical. I have attended meetings with many central banks over this period warning that governments cannot continue to borrow perpetually with no intention of repaying what they borrow.

The Day of reckoning is arriving. They have been using this COVID-19 whipping it up into a panic for the shear purpose to bring us to the point where their solution will be to default disguised as a solution for the poeple. I will report on the real state of the world financial system and it may be shocking for most. This is not a question of simple hyperinflation for that even implies that the currency survives, The real outlook is far from the claims of the pundits that keep pitching the same story for decades since the collapse of Bretton Woods. Those in power are already running stories that there will be an armed revolution if Trump does not win in 2024, It would be nice if we even have that long before political chaos upsets the financial system.

There will NEVER be a return to normal. These people have divided the people on race and politics and the key to civilization has always been that people come together when they ALL benefit. Civilization collapses when you divide the people, and turn one group against the other.

The International Criminal Court – Fighting For the People (Part 2)


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Dec 22, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Looking further into the complaint filed with the International Criminal Court, we find additional examples of human rights abuses.

PCR Tests

Oxford University has discovered that PCR tests are so sensitive that they can detect old infections by tracking fragments of dead viral cells. “Originally developed to detect the presence of DNA and RNA in biological samples, even its Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis declared that PCR was never intended to diagnose a disease,” the complaint states. Dr. Kary Mullis said that the PCR test can find “almost anything in anybody.” The PCR tests repeatedly cycle to find traces of viral RNA and are chemically amplified with each attempt. Public Health England stated that the PCR test threshold should be set around 25.6, and anything above means there is not enough evidence of the virus to deem a person ill.

Conclusion: PCR tests are often run 40-45 times to artificially increase the chance of a positive result.

Masks

The World Health Organization (WHO) previously admitted that there is no evidence available to indicate masks as an effective method of protecting healthy individuals. “In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germ components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly breathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.” Furthermore, there is actually evidence that face masks can cause toxic particles to build within the mask. “Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”

Conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are effective against the transmission of COVID-19; however, there is evidence that wearing masks can be toxic.

Alternative Treatments

There are numerous treatments for the coronavirus that are not offered to the population at large.

  • Hydroxychloroquine – 50% reduction in hospitalizations and death
  • Ivermectin – 70% reduction in deaths
  • Favipiravir – Approved only in Japan
  • Corticosteroids – 87% reduction in hospitalizations; 30% reduction in deaths
  • Colchicine – 25% reduction in hospitalization and deaths

Conclusion: Safe and effective treatments for the coronavirus exist but are not readily available.