VAERS death data related to the COVID-19 emergency use authorization products continue to rise. The death toll is as of 23 April is 3,544. Misinformation about these deaths, and about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System also continue to rise. This in-depth report has fully studied 3,186 of these deaths, shares several dozens of them with analyses, and also investigates the role that many mainstream media play in fostering misinformation, much of which involves incorrect use of language. Multiple links to scholarly reports can be found in the APPENDICES.
As with Syria News first and second reports on VAERS deaths post EUA injections, this fully developed investigational missive investigates ongoing and emerging data, and provides massive documentation — including lengthy PDFs — from original source materials of the FDA, the WHO, the CDC, the NIH, the ACIP, of applicable US Codes, and non-censored mainstream media, too many of which seem to have forgotten the concept of investigative journalism.
Various MSM sound like one source, have utilized incomplete fact checking, have erratically engaged in obviously hostile reporting which target specific health care professionals whose work is saving lives during this nightmare COVID-19 pandemic. Improper reporting from news media we turn to for honesty, added to massive censorship in social media, can only result in the increase of conspiracy-inflated misinformation (kudos to the MSM which have finally begun to aide in a bit of transparency by noting when their dramatic featured images are ”stock photographs.”).
We shall also provide legal, microbiological, and official definitions, and, when necessary, note that some of the massive misinformation on the COVID emergency authorized product, and ensuing ‘conspiracies theories’ may be derived from lack of consistency in proper language, and even “misbranding”
Confucius discussed the chaotic result of this type of erroneous over 2,000 years ago; it should not be permitted to persist, especially as humanity fights the new coronavirus pandemic, as both destructive virus, and derivative destruction of humanity.
During this dark time, when humanity is in dire need of trustworthy sources — i.e., science, not Science™ — a fantastic amount of documentation is disappearing as though through literature’s Orwellian memory hole (which can also add to conspiracies and misinformation). Therefore, we shall also provide several dozens of screenshots from original sources, including from the 408 page transcript of the essential 22 October 2020 meeting of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Center (CBER) 161st Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), addressed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and other leading and recognized experts in healthcare and related sciences.
We note that the 162nd VRBPAC meeting took place 26 February 2021; at this writing more than two months later, the transcript of the eight hour meeting has not yet been made available — though the FDA announced at that time the video of the full meeting would be available on several platforms.
As of 16 April 2021, VAERS data include 3,186 deaths which have occurred within 60 days of receiving the first or second mRNA Pfizer or Moderna EUA’s or the lone EUA injection of Janssen’s viral vector. Janssen had been on a 10 day pause from 13 April – 23 April during which time the CDC, FDA, and ACIP held meetings for a “thorough safety review.”
VAERS death data requires extensive clinical analyses of ages, past medical histories, physical and mental conditions of the deceased prior to their deaths, and time span from injections to mortality. They should also include — but do not — ethnic backgrounds in order to ascertain if there are any patterns involving genetic pre-dispositions. Their write-ups may also give insight into the pre-mortem conditions not found in other parts of the input template.
VAERS was initiated in 1990 as a follow up to the US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The Vaccine Adverse Even Reporting System is run by Health and Human Services (HHS) with the assistance of the CDC and FDA. Reporting on adverse reactions or possible adverse reactions is mandatory for hospitals, physicians, clinics, and all other professionally licensed to order and/or administer vaccines and mRNA gene therapies which have been given Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA — which originally described them as “unapproved product[s]” with potential to achieve actual vaccine status upon proof of safety and efficacy.
VAERS is mandatory for licensed professionals and facilities, despite HHS and its $1.286 trillion budget 2020 stating it is “mandatory” and then chaotically stating it is “strongly encouraged.”
Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Despite VAERS being mandatory — including for EUAs which are do not have approved vaccine status — among health care professionals, previous studies have shown woeful underreporting.
In 2013, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. presented a seven page report to HHS and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) calling for improvements in VAERS submissions, and in which it claimed less than 1% of all injuries were properly reported over a three year period (Harvard University issued an extensive paper on The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and the two are frequently mistaken as one). In 2013, an umbrella group including the CDC, published results of a survey of health workers in which 54.9% responded, of which only 34% acknowledged witnessing an adverse event following immunization but only 17% of whom had reported to VAERS.
Those among the fact checkers who show a bit of paranoia in their concern that hordes of crazies spend their lockdown time filing criminally false reports, have shown no concern over the too many useless VAERS data. Though fulfilling the letter of the law, reports that provide no clinical picture — e.g., SMQ/PMH — including those with write-ups that simply say, “Patient death within 60 days of receiving a COVID vaccine,” do not assist in identifying possible patterns of who may be at risk, or of possible side effects that may result in the deaths of others.
That people are hearing of ADE/pathogenic priming/enhanced respiratory disease involving SARS-CoV vaccine trials through alternative sources, despite the NIH’s publication on the need for people to be aware of it to give truly informed consent, may also be a causative factor in misinformation; to date no MSM reported on it, no MSM interviewed an expert on it.
In 2003, the NIH published a review, Antibody-dependent enhancement of virus infection and disease, in which the author noted that “[t]he presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus.” On 28 October 2020, the NIH issued a publication titled, Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. This one was COVID – 19 explicit: Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
It is essential to note that diagnosing ADE — also called “pathogenic priming” — is based on the clinical picture; like sepsis, there is no simple test that ends in an acute ‘eureka’ moment. Ergo, it is not possible to blatantly claim that there has been not a single case of ADE found in VAERS C-19 deaths.
In the massive support for overnight COVID billionaires, in the massive reporting on various perks to entice people to get the injections, perhaps the previously esteemed of the MSM had good intentions, wanting to uplift the demoralized, pessimistic, and acutely lumpenized prolitariat population; this possibly misguided desire may also have resulted in pushing the unemployed and the shaken toward the camps of misinformation.
There was also an explosion of uber delight throughout western media, when the makers of Krispy Kreme doughnuts offered freebies for people who showed proof of having received EUA injections (followed by outrage against some laypersons not expected to be familiar with HIPPA, who thought the clever marketing stunt was a breach of privacy. As showing the cards was voluntary, there was no breach.).
Nonetheless, while it is unlikely that hordes of people would get experimental injections just to get a free dessert, it is not unlikely that some would, in order to be part of a fleeting moment of celebrity status to bring them good cheer during this time of desolation — in newspapers, social media, and maybe even in the television news interviews — it is unfortunate that these reports may have contributed to the creation of more reactionaries.
The Nuremberg Code (to which the NEJM paid tribute on its 50th anniversary, in 1997) does not apply to news reports which give free advertising to billion dollar corporations. None of the ditzy local news stories mentioned that the Krispy Kreme JAB corporation is engaged in financial penance for it empire having begun with the Nazis.
Some might consider the eroticized doughnut give-away (tax write-off) part of the penance for former Nazi crimes. Others may be disturbed that “informed consent disclosure” is not mentioned by the media, not mentioned by JAB, JAB redeeming itself of the past yet not considering that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” and that it can not exist without the truly informed consent, called for by the NIH in the 28 October 2020 publication.
Others without Nazi backgrounds have also joined in the effort which may result in a massive backfire: The 420 group gave free weed to persons offering proof of EUA shots; the United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism is only letting 200 people with proof of shots attend a music fair.
What may have begun as an authentic gesture of good will, that which might inject some energetic fun into a saddened populace, has unfortunately spun into the realm of the illegal and unethical, with respected news sources neglecting their own ethics of due diligence in reporting. Can such negligence have good results, or will it incite new screams about FEMA camps?
US Federal law protects American citizenry from being forced to take any form of EUA’s. It is illegal for schools prohibit students from their education unless they have proof of having taken the experimentals; it is illegal for employers to force EUA’s on their workers, under threat of job loss. Though this same law does not prevent hospitals from offering financial incentives, it does appear that the offer of $600.00 bonuses to employees by the non-profit, St. John Hospital in Jackson Hole, Wyoming is in breach of the standard of ethics.
Captain Amanda Cohn, M.D. has been the acting Chief Medical Officer of Vaccine, Policy, Preparedness, and Global Health Office of the Director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) and CDC, and is on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) since March 2019. At the August ACIP session, she reminded everyone that Federal Law prohibits EUA’s from being mandated.
Dr. Cohn again reminded everyone that Federal Law prohibits mandating EUA’s at the 22 October 2020 meeting:
“These vaccines are about to be given to a lot of healthy young people who are unlikely to die from the virus…”. — Paul Offit, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics in Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and leading expert in vaccines, addressing the Advisory Committee meeting of 22 October 2020.
“And I looked up the hospitalization rates this morning, from COVID-19 and for children five to 17 years of age, it’s 0.9.” — H. Cody Meissner, M.D., FDA Advisory Committee Member, 22 October 2020.
We must fill in the void created by the media, rightfully concerned over misinformation, yet neglectful in seeking correct definitions, in asking the experts to whom we turn for leadership and true guidance, why so many significant meanings have sloppily be altered. The experts have the ethical and legal duty to educate us with accuracy and consistency — without which we are left with chaos, anarchy, and dis/misinformation.
Let us consider the definitions of vaccine and Emergency Use Authorization of the FDA “unapproved product,” and ask if the wrongful, mass-naming of the EUAs as “vaccines” has contributed to misinformation.
VACCINE: A preparation of killed, inactivated, or attenuated microorganisms or toxoids to induce artificially acquired active immunity.
Long before the invention of vaccines, it was known that people who recovered from certain diseases such as smallpox, were immune to the disease thereafter. — Chapter 18: Practical Applications of Immunology.
— Microbiology, An Introduction, Tortora, Funke, Case
The legal definition of vaccine is “any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases [emphasis added]”
Since Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had survived cowpox were immune to smallpox and developed the first vaccine (“vacca” is Latin for “cow”) based on cross-immunity, epidemiology has been consistent that a vaccine provides immunity and prevents transmission.
Leading expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has consistently noted that the aim of the experimentals is to decrease the severity of the virus, and that the EUA’s do not mean people can return to ordinary daily living. The FDA has noted that there is no approved vaccine to prevent COVID. The CDC has noted that transmission of C-19 is still possible. A lack of immunity belies the meaning of vaccine, and the many VAERS death data of persons dying of COVID after getting their shots, provides the deadly evidence.
It is difficult to fault the MSM for following the experts in use of inaccurate language.
Nonetheless, some reports explaining legal and epidemiological meanings, some interviews of the experts to describe the discrepancy, could be useful in the essential campaign to halt misinformation.
Pfizer CEO Antony Bourla, DVM, PhD., income for 2020 $21.03 million, has stated he knows nothing about his mRNA and transmission, but appears to be delighted in noting Israel has become his lab. Various media sources are normalizing people getting C-19 post experimental injections as mere ‘breakthrough’ — a word that is generally cause for optimism, though there seems to be no upside to catching a virus after experimentally being protected from it — and more recently considered the fault of C-19 mutations, and suggestions of possible need for indefinite numbers of follow-up booster shots of the EUA’s (during the October VRBPAC committee meeting, several experts discussed the ”waning” of the experimentals, in addition to voicing concerns over ADE.).
The CDC has also defied its own definition of vaccine by calling persons who have received both doses of the EUA’s fully vaccinated, though still able to contract and spread COVID-19. It ignores all NIH SARS-CoV studies on pathogenic priming (which the NIH warned about 28 October 2020), and instructs people who have had and survived C-19 to get the shots, despite ADE and the patterns of ADE seen in VAERS death data, and despite the concerns voiced by the Advisory Committee during the meeting prior to the emergency authorization votes in December). Especially noteworthy are the dozens and dozens of nursing home patients who died from COVID after getting the EUA shots, human beings who were not tested for antibodies prior to being made part of the “great experiment” — described during the October meeting.
On 15 April, CNBC Money Report wrote that the CEO — who still has not jumped the line for his mRNA experimental — believes that a third shot will be needed, followed by annual shots. Again, this is not the definition of vaccine, which provides acquired immunity and thus prevents transmission.
Will the experimental pharmacological industry join the military industrial complex in being among the largest places of employment in the world?
Somehow, the MSM did not notice that the FDA consistently said that there are no vaccines approved for COVID-19, nor that the FDA simultaneously and consistently referred to the experimentals, the biologicals in trial, as vaccines. Might this not be perceived as a shell game by some, and used to further misinformation?
The list of possible adverse reactions (many of which have subsequently shown up in VAERS data) are found on page seventeen of Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, These screenshots which include the “DRAFT Working list of possible adverse event outcomes ***Subject to change***” were among those shown at the Committee meeting of 22 October 2020, which will be extensively discussed toward the end of this report.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting of 22 October is not to be confused with the FDA’s 10 December Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting which was sponsored by Pfizer and BioNTech, one day before the FDA granted Pfizer’s mRNA experimental EUA status.
The frequent Patient death within 60 days write-ups did answer a question that the HHS, despite its $1.286 trillion budget, did not, and which is not specifically included in the HHS VAERS Table of Reportable Events.
According to the MoU signed 12 June 2019 by the FDA (2019 budget $5.9 billion) and CDC (c. $13 billion budget per Renfield when he was questioned on Capitol Hill last year), these sisters hold the joint mission “to protect the public health.”
The FDA is the regulatory authority which receives its power from US law. The CDC is responsible for disseminating important information to promote the public health. This includes essential consistency to help upgrade public knowledge, knowledge which can assist in protecting all from misinformation and disinformation during this critical time.
These sister organizations have the legal and ethical responsibility to properly educate us, so that there is no wiggle room for wild speculation that may result from reversals without explanations, that may result from outright contradictions without explanations. Though many of this public — which craves honest guidance — do not have the educational background to grasp medical details, they do not deserve, nor appreciate, being insulted.
In late March, the CDC — along with the WHO and the UN — decided to use this COVID-19 time to voice concern over antibiotic resistance, a major problem since the 1990s. Such earnest concern lacks context, context of the life-saving type. The NIH website includes the book, Polymicrobial Diseases, in which Chapter 11 explains the cooperation of viral and bacterial pathogens in causing human respiratory illnesses. In July 2020, the NIH published the study, Azithromycin and COVID-19: Prompt early use at first signs of this infection in adults and children, an approach worthy of consideration.
Azithromycin is not only an antibiotic that works to destroy the viral and bacterial pathogenic cooperation in the lungs, but it is an antibiotic that also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties (The Lancet, September 04, 2020: “Azithromycin has been shown to be effective in vitro against viruses such as Zika and rhinovirus, in addition to SARS-CoV-2, and to have antiviral effects in bronchial epithelial cells. Azithromycin has also been shown to be immunomodulatory, and can reduce exacerbations in chronic airway diseases.8 Azithromycin is widely available and has an excellent safety profile; thus, if shown to be effective, could be easily scaled up as a first-line treatment for patients with COVID-19.”)
What if the conspiracy crazies get their hands on this really wrong guidance from the CDC? How long before these paranoiacs will claim it is because Pfizer’s patent ran out (Yugoslavian Pliva pharmaceutical company developed azithromycin in 1980, patented it in 1981, signed an agreement in 1986 for Pfizer to market it under the trade name Zithromax, which expired in 2005.)?
Mere weeks after the FDA gave Pfizer emergency use authorization, the CDC appeared to launch a campaign that not only contradicted the pharmaceutical giant’s 137 pages protocol that had been submitted to, and published, by, the FDA, but also included some form of magical thinking in the marketing: “While studies have not yet been done, experts believe…“. This was done despite the extensive APPENDIX 4 (p. 123) which warned against the use of its mRNA during pregnancy, voiced concern about possible congenital defects, and possible problems involving breastfeeding.
Based on this advice, the CDC — co-charged with the responsibility “to protect the public health” — seems to have ignored NIH studies on SARS-CoV pathogenic priming, concern voiced by countless experts at the 22 October 2020 VRBPAC meeting, over this enhanced respiratory disease, and also the subsequent VAERS data which shows the pattern of nursing home seniors dying from violent COVID after receiving the EUA’s.
The media also helped with this campaign in which the Pfizer protocol was ignored; it included an unchallenged, utterly sophist and possibly negligent, statement from a Boston physician, a statement from an interview in local news, which was picked up around the country. If this thoughtless inanity were true, how could Depo-Provera given in the deltoid possibly work as a contraception, considering how very very fair the almost shoulder is, from a woman’s ovaries, which are also inside, though the arm is, well, outside?
How could any medication ever be given orally or subcutaneously, and actually work?
Does not the lack of challenge by the media add to ongoing misinformation campaigns?
Who is responsible for VAERS ID: 1168104? The 38 year old woman died of cardiac arrest and disseminated intravascular coagulation, and full-term 39 weeks gestation baby could not be saved by an emergency c-section.
Why was Pfizer’s own protocol ignored? Why does it continue to be ignored? Or, might this be part of “N” in the FDA 25 February 2021 reissuance of the EUA, hyperlinked below?
This fetal death occurred five days after maternal injection.
As most miscarriages occur in the first trimester of pregnancy, there is no way of knowing if death was the result of inclusion of pregnant women which Pfizer’s protocol had excluded, or an ‘ordinary’ loss.
A more significant question is who authorized the vaporization of the Pfizer protocol, which was presented to the FDA for EUA approval, and which was shared on the FDA website? The paper was pristine, especially regarding surveillance, consent and exclusion. Those excluded from the original studies were people with significant past medical histories, histories that consistently show up on the VAERS death data post shots of both mRNAs, and also the Janssen viral vector. This might be considered especially significant, given #6 of the Exclusion criteria was applicable to “Phase I only.” [UPDATE: The Pfizer protocol abruptly removed from the FDA website appears to have been partially PDF’d by another source, here.]
Is it possible that Pfizer mistook the meaning of footnote 8 in the FDA’s 25 February 2021 reissue of its EUA to remove from the public whose health the regulatory authority is tasked with promoting, replacing it with a 130 pages less EUA fact sheet?
Please note in section “Y”, that the FDA requires that all Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine conspicuously state it “has not been approved or licensed by FDA” and that the emergency use “is only authorized for the duration…” [emphases added].
Perhaps if the FDA — charged with the sacred duty to protect the public health — would explain how the three “unapproved product[s],” the three EUA’s whose documentation clearly states there are no approved vaccines for COVID-19, are permitted to label their unapproved products as vaccines, in what appears to this layperson writer to be a breach of Labeling Requirements: Misbranding, we might put a halt to the nihilistic misinformation and the ever-growing conspiracy theories that various social media, and MSM have been valiantly trying to stop.
Perhaps it would help if politicians on the Hill would ask such questions of Dr. Fauci, instead of attempting to instigate juvenile micturation contests.
Perhaps it would also help if the mainstream media would also get these questions answered — and in their honest zeal to stamp out C-19 misinformation and disinformation — be mindful of their occasional stories which can appear to some as being biased, and also cruel; such things incite the conspiracies, and their so-called theorists.
A noble heart needs no observer to arouse his shame, but is abashed at the sight of his own guilt, though no one but the heavens and earth can see it. — Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
Consider the local news reports of the deaths of Jordan Tassy and Jeanie Evans, both on 26 March. Both left behind grieving families. Neither report was viralized, but both were picked up in scattered fashion by other news outlets. The report on the passing of Mr. Tassy included an essential crowd fund link, one that his mom had set up to help defray the costs of his ICU care. The report on the passing of Ms. Evans appeared as a crass attack on her, and on her family because someone took umbrage at the first sentence in her obituary.
The WKRC report on Ms. Evans’ obituary pointed out that the CDC has not identified a single case where the “vaccine” is the cause of death. According to the CDC website (on its 13 April update) between 14 December 2020 and 12 April 2021, 3,005 VAERS deaths were reported, and that VAERS “has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.”
Such a claim would seem astonishing were the author not already flabbergasted by the CDC telling pregnant women the experimental biologicals are “vaccines,” and that they are “safe” despite the admission that “studies have not yet been done” on pregnant women and the EUA’s. This might be considered disturbing also in the context of past recommendations that pregnant women not dye their hair, not enjoy an occasional glass of wine, not take aspirin or other NSAIDs (recommendations regarding aspirin and other NSAIDS were later changed).
VAERS death data suggest that the “exclusion criteria” in the removed Pfizer protocol should have been kept, instead of the FDA expanding its mRNA trials into populations with significant debilitating medical histories.
Syria News updated patterns and possible patterns in our VAERS report published 23 February. The older patterns continue and expand, and new ones have emerged.
There are now six suicides post injections (VAERS ID 116094 93 year old man with no mental illness history shot himself in the head after second injection. VAERS ID 952704 was among these six. He was 79, and his daughter had brought him to the ER twice, for changes in mental status, anxiety, agitation.), and two deaths of narcotics addicts, both of whom had been treated with naloxone inhalers. Though there have been no further deaths related to gastric volvulus or intestinal perforation, the VAERS data on projectile vomiting, vomiting blood, explosive, intractable, bloody, diarrhea, intestinal dilation and obstruction have been too many to not show a pattern, too many to be a series of statistical anomalies.
Among the digestive system related deaths is a mesentery ischemia without clots but with an intraventricular hemorrhage in a 74 year old woman reportedly with no significant medical history.
VAERS death data also point to a persistence in ignoring the NIH 28 October 2020 publication on ADE/pathogenic priming and informed consent; a rapidly expanding number of post shot deaths involve persons who had COVID and recovered, and persons who were only tested for COVID after showing symptoms after getting the experimental EUA’s, and the inference that one senior facility was methodically testing its geriatric population for C-19, after administration of the EUA’s.
“Please let her life be counted…” — daughter who did a voluntary VAERS for her 67 year old mom.
Here are two full write-ups of voluntary VAERS reporting:
There have been patterns since the first posting of VAERS death data. The massive exclusions of the original Pfizer trials prevented patterns from being seen; had they been, it might have proven problematic for the FDA to legitimize granting the pharmaceutical giant EUA status.
As with all healthcare professional documentation, VAERS input should be as objective as possible; write-ups which scream biases taint themselves. Claims that a patient died “fighting the effects of the vaccine,” that there was “no indication that death was related to the vaccine” or that “Pfizer killed patient” contribute nothing to the process of analysis of correlation, causation, and saftey concerns. Arrogance and ignorance in write-ups are not contributory, and an outrageous claim that the death of an 87 year old who collapsed while mowing his lawn was the “result of working in the sun and getting dehydrated, not likely the COVID vaccine” is unkind and shows preference of bias over science.
A general rule of thumb regarding VAERS deaths post EUA injections: The older the person, and the longer the time between injection and death, the less likely that the death was caused by a EUA. The exception to this rule of thumb is noted when the person gets sick post EUA because s/he was not given the NIH report on fully informed consent regarding pathogenic priming — and spends several days in the hospital, before dying of the worst inflammatory responses of COVID, including cytokine storm which now appears to no longer be of interest to the news media.
We share just a small sampling of fatal clotting and bleeding and DIC and leaking vessels including three types of brain bleeds in one person and a rare hyper-immune bleed:
There is a photograph circulating which alleges a VAERS reaction. Gross lymphatic lumps were on the unidentified person, near to his spleen and his thymus. The photo was suggestive of possible Hairy Cell Leukemia. An attempt to corroborate it resulted in a claim that the photo could not be found among 47 billion searches.
We mention it as patterns in VAERS death data include lymphatic problems, bleeds, spleen injuries, combinations thereof, and even the recurrence of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a woman who had been in remission for several years.
Gregory Michael, M.D., 56, was one of the earliest VAERS deaths. Original reports detailed his many blood transfusions, and that he could not have a spleenectomy to halt hia bleeding as his spleen — in full hyper-immune response fight — obliterated his platelets as they were being transfused into him.
“I had a pt c dx of ‘Vaccine induced thrombocytopenia.’ Wonder if medical records will fix that.”
Those early, detailed reports have been replaced by dozens of media announcements on 8 April that the M.E. ruled ”natural causes,” related to idiopathic thrombocytopenia.
Hyperactive immune response is seen in both COVID’s cytokine storm, and in VAERS death patterns (the latter is why people are monitored for anaphylaxis for 15′ post EUA injection). The reporter for the 44 year old man acknowledged the cardiologist’s suggestion of an ‘inflammatory response’ to the experimental, but wrote that it was “probably unrelated to COVID vaccination” (a cardiologist is a physician who specializes in the heart, and its workings. VAERS reporters are not, unless the reports are written by cardiologists.).
The 74 year old male whose VAERS death was attributed to severe COVID, presented with extreme angioedema, one of the many manifestations of hyper immune response. In at least one VAERS datum, airway edema prohibited intubation, and forced a cricothyroidectomy (procedure described in NIH publication, here.).
VAERS ID: 1057704 involved a 71 year old woman with a remote history of breast cancer with mastectomy. She presented to the ER with shortness of breath. During the course of her stay, she was diagnosed with pancytopenia (loss of all blood parts; red cells, white cells, and those previously known to disappear, platelets), multi-organ failure, including the liver (the largest and most durable organ of the body, it is the only one that can regenerate; “the liver can tolerate more than 70% hepatectomy.”), and Myelodysplatic Syndrome (detailed description by the Mayo Clinic, here). Her temperature was 103F. She also had bilateral pleural effusions (which cause’internal drowning’).
An 82 year old man was hospitalized for COVID in January. He was treated with Remdesivir (which the WHO advised physicians to cease using for C-19 in November 2020) and convalescent plasma, and discharged home. Less than one month later, after being given an EUA shot, he was re-hospitalized with cytokine storm, lung infiltrates, and ischemic stroke before dying five days later.
A 90 year old man also living at home was hospitalized (and treated with Remdesivir) for COVID, after receiving a EUA injection.
In November 2020, the WHO told physicians to stop treating with Gilead’s antiviral; it appears that few are listening.
Early this year, Didier Raoult and his team did a significant study on the Marseilles 4 variant, Remdesivir, and hyperimmune plasma. More recently, Prof. Raoult shared an important paper — also published in the NIH — titled SARS-CoV2 Evolution During Treatment of Chronic Infection.
In two separate states, specific write-ups sounded as though geriatrics in what could only be the same senior living facilities, sounded as though ‘residents’ — all women — were part of of a fatal experiment.
Below the screenshots of two NIH studies on ADE, is an album of six screenshots of VAERS deaths in Arkansas. The first four are written by the same reporter, as the write up is the same except for patient ages: The facility had positive cases of COVID when we were able to being vaccinating residents. Within days, said residents tested positive for COVID. Allegedly because of age and comorbidities, the immune system of these four did not have time to allow the vaccine to begin working after exposure [to COVID]. The reporter for five and six blamed “declining” states and “comorbidities” for the inability of the EUA to “work.”
Ignoring the cold-bloodedness of these specific write-ups, why were experimental injections given to a debilitated population during an outbreak of COVID-19 within the facility? How did all of the experts in the facility miss both the 2003 and October 2020 NIH reports on antibody-dependent enhancement aka pathogenic priming which worsen the effects of the virus — to the point of fatality — among those who have had mild cases of it, or are incubating at the time of the injections? Does this not seem like a pattern of gross negligence?
Perhaps the award-winning Arkansas Democrat-Gazette might bring these VAERS deaths to the attention of Congressman French Hill and Senator Tom Cotton, for an investigation, and interview José R. Romero, MD, MH. Dr. Romero is Arkansas’ State Health Officer who chairs the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
The following Washington state nursing home VAERS data were inputted by the same person. All of these human beings died from COVID after receiving the EUA shots.
There were also two curious write ups from a nursing home in Calfornia. VAERS ID: 976166 was a 93 year old woman who died eleven days after her shot; there was no mention of a COVID test, simply that she was “Asymptomatic.” VAERS ID: 976146 was an 86 year old woman who tested positive post shot, died fourteen days after it. Her write up: “Resident is asymptomatic.”
VAERS ID: 1168970 also had a curious write-up involving a 95 year old woman with a history of Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Anticholingeric Syndrome, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome via a report from a “vaccine facility via a company representative;” do pharmaceutical salesmen now have access to such places and nursing homes?
“We are seeing ADE before our eyes.“
NIH publications on SARS-CoV dating from 2003, have reported on the serious problem of antibody-dependent enhancement. Several members of the VRBPAC acknowledged this problem at their 22 October 2020 meeting.
Why are people who had COVID being given experimental shots? Why are some ‘senior facilities’ with outbreaks seeming to systematically test patients after injections? Since these are experimental, “unapproved products[s]” and since the NIH has been publishing studies on ADE for almost twenty years, should those amenable not first be tested for antibodies? Why are violent COVID deaths that occur post injection without antibody testing listed as COVID instead of as experimentals-related which continue to show the pattern of ADE that the NIH reported on 28 October 2020, before any of them were granted EUA status? Was it not heinous enough when states dumped COVID positive patients into nursing homes to spread among the geriatric population, which was then used as an excuse to isolate seniors from their loved ones, to the extent that countless numbers died of broken hearts, Failure to Thrive, in medical parlance? Has there been a Boys from Brazil reproduction of Karl Brandt, and is he now busy in reproduction of his Aktion T4 killing factories?
The reporter for VAERS ID: 944155 had requested information on a specific lot/batch number, as that ID was the third of four reports she had written for that facility.
Does anyone know what happened to last year’s QT experts of social media, and of MSM? Those who were near frothing over the lengthening of that wave in rare numbers of people who take hydroxy/chloroquine, seem to have gone deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to the many QT/TdP histories and/or new onset among VAERS death data post EUA injections.
We share a few more VAERS screenshots, which seem to contain patterns that some experts claim do not exist. First, we share this as a stand alone because of the curious write-up a contactable professional and non-contactable person somehow related to a Pfizer-Sponsored Corporate Social Media Platform. The patient died of intractable diarrhea, related to pseudomembranous colitis.
We are seeing ADE before our eyes — seeing the deadliest of COVID-19, the intubations, the pronings, the cytokine storms that filled the news last year with non-stop horror stories.
Yet now, they are silent to the suffering, to the grief, and to the mortality.
The suddenly stricken mute media one year ago, was in a near frenzy over contagion via flatulence, let us not forget:
That autopsies post EUA’d experimentals have been mostly limited to the very young among the VAERS death data (which show such marvels as blood in the lungs, clots in the lungs, blood in the digestive tract) that one might wonder if the lack of them borders on the criminal: We are engaged in the attempt to “vaccinate” the entire population with non-vaccines, with mRNAs and viral vectors never before used, and which many seem to believe are vaccines, because of the misbranding, because of mass media support, and also because of name calling against those who ask honest questions, followed by a bludgeoning, bully-led censorship.
Does not experimenting on entire populations minimally require a follow-up for those who have died after their injections?
Pathology has immuno histochemical stains to test for anti-spike antibodies, IgG, antinucleocapsid IGG, and the COVID virus itself. “We could easily tell what reactions are causing deadly diseases in all post vaccine deaths.”
Do we not have owe a minimum of respect to the fallen, many quite literally: Falling dead while mowing the lawn, falling off the toilet having been defecating blood, falling in the shower while being incontinent of stool, falling off the bed, falling while taking out the garbage, falling in the parking lot on the way home from the public injection site, those who fall because they have suddenly lost proprioception and control of their limbs?
For each of the VAERS screengrabs we have shared, there are hundreds more, on pulmonary edema so enormous patients could not be intubated; on people who made it past the 15′ minute observation time, but who dropped in parking lots, those with simultaneous clots and bleeds, with widow maker LAD blockages, intractable nose and mouth bleeds, pericardial effusions and hemorrhages, IPF lungs turned to concrete, brain herniation after cortical vein thrombosis, acute renal failure, acute hepatic failure, countless reports of people foaming at the mouth (an erroneous description used because it gets the point across, but it looks more like spittle produced when the lungs try to rid themselves of leaking fluid, which has overloaded them).
This author has studied each of the 3,186 VAERS death cases available on 16 April; the patterns do exist. Most were listed in the vaporized Pfizer 137 page protocol, previously on the FDA website, including the list of Pfizer’s Systemic Scale.
The reasonable standard of care included in licensed practitioner acts would suggest that persons with histories of anaphylaxis, Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Anticholinergic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and even those with ejection fractions barely compatible with life, be excluded from these trials. Yet there are many among the VAERS dead with these known histories.
— from our first VAERS report, these neurological history or new onset post EUA, persist. The emerging pattern of rhabdomyolysis noted in our second report also persists.
After the President Trump officially announced Operation Warped Speed on 21 May 2020, in every subsequent time he spoke of this unprecedented dash to create vaccines for C-19, he also stated the military was read to roll them out. He never explained details of how the military would do that, and not once did a member of the MSM, not even those who showed their antipathy toward him, ask (such neglect may have added to the massive misinformation).
More recently, US Senator Bob Casey tweeted a thanks to the National Guard in his state for working at “unapproved product[s]” clinics. Despite senatorial salaries of $174k, which do no include the pay for staffers, a good faith question to him about what exactly the Guard was doing went unanswered (except by the semi-crazed witch hunters with their cyber pitchforks — though they also did not answer, except to gleefully state that the Guard has been trained in CPR. ).
On 17 April 2020 — revised 5 February 2021 — the Pennsylvania Department of State issued a summary of waiver of military units which essentially permitted military health care professionals licensed in other states to practice their work in PA without the red tape and expense of applying for PA licensure. During a time of pandemic, this is sane, efficient, and life-saving — though it would have been saner, more efficient, and having a better chance at life-saving if PA simply gave temporary licensure to those licensed in other states, as the mere granting of waivers sets the stage for more chaos.
The drippings of the politicians who know nothing about healthcare are seen when the summary goes squirrely: The full paragraph in red which gives permission non-PA military members “authorized by their National Guard to administer [experimentals] as long as they “have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation satisfied by…(ANCC), …(ACPE), or … (ACCME)” is an over use of words, as US military has made CPR part of basic training since 2007, and that its BLS instruction was taken over by the Red Cross, in 2018; the statement that “any delegation that does occur must be consistent with the standards of accepted medical practice embraced by the medical doctor community” is overkill in incoherence, as the reasonable standard of care is universal in all states — and countries for that matter — is not something that is hugged, but something upon which continuing licensure is based; allowing non-PA licensed MD’s and DO’s to ”delegate” — give them emergency PA licensure, and help avoid logistical problems — is one thing, but allowing them to delegate while not on site, to essentially be able to give verbal orders to non-licensed technicians not only is not in line with protecting public health, but also creates a chaos that borders on promoting negligence in public health care.
The tension between Hippocratic medical ethics and human rights is perhaps nowhere better illustrated than by the Nuremberg Code. The Code was formulated in August, 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of 23 physicians and scientists accused of murder and torture in the conduct of medical experiments in the concentration camps (the Doctors’ Trial). It has rightly been characterised as the most authoritative set of rules for the protection of human subjects in medical research. — 1998, The Lancet, The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic Ethics and Human Rights.
The portions of the PA waiver that are antithetical to the promotion and the protection of public health received implicit authorization from the Public Response Preparedness Act (PREP) signed into law by George W. Bush. It was strong-arm tactic applied by the unified vaccine manufacturers to give them tort liability shielding during an HHS declared health emergency. They had threatened to halt R&D during such emergencies, unless this immunity from potential VAERS problems. PREP was expanded under Trump to include EUA’s. PREP has been updated to include students, including pharmacy students, authorized to administer EUA injections in their states.
The updated PREP site includes a hyperlink to the CDC which states only licensed persons may administer the EUA, and that they must pass online modules for such certification (this is the same CDC that told pregnant women that the EUA’s are safe — according to expert belief structures — while also telling them that no studies have been done.).
Nonetheless, the large numbers of “vaccinators” at public centers, including those run by FEMA appear to grossly outnumber those with schooling and subsequent licensure.
Philadelphia reports that it has 22,232 provider sites — including mobile ones — in its sixteen page report on the logistics of administration of the experimentals which are not FDA approved vaccines. The official site does not report the numbers of licensed professionals running this sites. Regarding VAERS, its final page contains a link on whom to contact in case of a suspected adverse reaction, but does not mention follow-up (a recent mass injection site was at an apartment where 800 persons, mostly seniors, were given shots. This is especially disquieting, as the VAERS data continue a pattern of finding deaths when a provider calls to set up an appointment for a second shot.).
In the following album, we include three anatomical drawings. Though ‘getting a shot in the arm’ may seem simple to laypersons and to news reporters, extensive studies of anatomy and physiology must be undertaken to ensure the needle meant for a specific area of the deltoid muscle, does not mistakenly hit any nerve (which can cause permanent paralysis of the arm), does not hit arteries or veins, does not allow for extravasation or infection (including, but not limited to, necrotizing fasciitis. NIH fascinating case study, here.) Please note the concern of the reporter in the included VAERS, of injections being wrongly administered; also refer to the VAERS report of the card player with general malaise, found dead on his bathroom floor, two days later. That report noted a “pressure ulcer under injection site.”
Mussolini described fascism as the merger of corporativism and state, while Nazi physicians Brandt and Mengele destroyed medical science under Hitler. The concept of a Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex may be kept in mind, when noting the use of media to give massive advertising for “unapproved product[s].”
On 15 April, CNBC’s Bertha Coombs ‘moderated’ a CVS Health Live advertisement event called The race to vaccinate. The CVS speakers were Karen S. Lynch, President and CEO of CVS Health (the closest she previously came to healthcare possibly was doing taxes of a physician when her working life began as a CPA. In 2020, Forbes added her to its list of one of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women. She has been on Fortune‘s 50 Most Powerful Women for the past five years. CVS Health merged with Aetna in a “transformative moment” in 2018; Former CPA Lynch’s most recent salary and compensation is $7.33 million), Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer (DVM with PhD in Biotechnology of Reproduction from the Veterinary School of Aristotle University, who joined Pfizer in 1993, as the Technical Director of Animal Health Division.), and Coombs. Coombs interacted in a completely biased fashion; the use of CNBC in the advertising — though she did not function as a CNBC employee — suggests a bit of a breach in ethics, according to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ . Alas, journalists are under much economic pressure from advertisers and public relations lobbies.).
Some excerpts from the CVS Health Live infommercial:
“We started off with the nursing homes, then we went…” — CNBC’s Coombs (who also pushed for “worksite vaccinations,” “younger children [to be] vaccinated,” and who looked forward to “trial results [emphasis added].”
“…very proud to hand the baton to CVS and companies like CVS…”, “…not vaccines that make the difference, vaccinations make the difference.” — Pfizer’s Bourla
“Forty thousand facilities [long term] selected us to be their company that did vaccinations. We learned a lot from that.” — [former CPA] Lynch, who did not mention the number of practitioners actually licensed to give injections.
Of some convenience to those interested in the nearly thirty-minutes joint CVS Health-Pfizer-CNBC journalist [mis/dis]infomercial, it comes with a transcript. Bourla exuberantly suggested that Pfizer’s mRNA — the one that currently does not afford immunity to, nor prevent contagion from, COVID — will eventually be a cure for all neurological disorders (something for which the handicapped can look forward). He is still awaiting his turn in line for the Pfizer EUA.
Were Coombs functioning on behalf of employer CNBC, instead of cooing over CVS’s claim to have ‘given’ (tax write-off) $600 million to help “eradicate the racial injustice in the country,” might she have mentioned how CVS helped destroy small neighborhood pharmacists? Would she have produced two bags of purchases of the same goods, showing receipt higher in a black-majority neighborhood than in a white-majority one? Would she have mentioned the VAERS death data, already at 2,604 by 8 April? Would she have been so shameless as to claim we started off with the nursing homes…? Could she have dared to utter the word Tuskegee instead of blaming “hesitancy” for a previous futuristic tsunami now termed “surge”? Would there have been a single question on the lack of expertise or even unfinished studies by Lynch and Bourla? Would she have been 100% supportive of forced EUA’ing of children — illegal per Federal Law 21 U.S.C. 360bbb — before allowing schools to reopen?
Might she possibly have mentioned Pfizer’s huge fines for lying, or that Pfizer and CVS were both named in a 2010 watchdog complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTA), In the Matter of Online Health and Pharmaceutical Marketing that Threatens Consumer Privacy and Engages in Unfair and Deceptive Practices — including, but not limited to “African-American, Hispanic, and other multicultural groups…targeted for health products based on information concerning their ethnicity or race” and which requested the FTC protect consumers via enforcement of Section 5 of the FTC Act?
The marketing strategies of various pharmacy store giants appears to be working, if the handful of VAERS death data post injections by such facilities may be any indication. These write-ups were a mixture of rekindling romance in the twilight years and the Stanley Milgram experiments: A new widow apologized for her husband not being able to make his second appointment because he was dead, but right before he was found dead, he had had so much “fun;” other apologies for last minute cancelations (because of deaths); one apologetic relative saying the deceased was probably drunk — she really was a drunk, and a mean one to boot — and probably mixed some benzos with her booze and probably OD’ed from the combination because she really was a drunk.
To be equitable there are also other unexpected write-ups: The 42 year old woman with PE after the first dose, who was so edematous anesthesia had difficulty intubating, whose healthcare provider was in search of a “gene mutation in family;” a 50 year old woman also so edematous intubation was difficult, whose death was considered “likely due to Ramipril.”
Moderna was the second mRNA given EUA. Founded in 2010 by Derrick Rossi, Ph.D (in stem cell studies; he is also a Harvard Associate Professor), Kenneth Chien, M.D. and Ph.D, and chemical engineer Robert Langer, Sc.D. Its name came from a combination of modified and DNA, it received much of its start-up money from the venture capital firm, Flagship Ventures. As with the German BioNTech group, this is another corporation of COVID-related billionaires.
Somewhat notable about Moderna is that it has never produced a single vaccine or any other medication that came near to an FDA emergency use authorization.
Reuters, one of the most enduring and biggest wire services in the world, recently felt a moral duty to publish a Fact Check in an inexplicable quasi-defense of Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer’s Ted Talk of 2017, which the service reported making the rounds on social media. Reuters claims his words were simple “turns of phrase” that have been “misconstrued” (despite its own hyperlink to the Ted Talk showing the title, Rewriting the Genetic Code…).
One might consider this a tad patronizing, given that former professional PICU nurse, Tal Zaks, M.D., Ph.D, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine (one of the most prestigious in the world), was not tripping over his tongue when he said: “And I’m here today to tell you we’re actually hacking the software of life;” “And so we’re thinking of it like an operating system” which might “change a line of code.”
At this pre-COVID mRNA Ted Talk, Zaks is obviously intelligent and articulate while speaking of the hypothetical potential of such gene therapy in curing cancers and congenital disorders (he does peripherally mention a human volunteer trial for an influenza that had “benign side effects”). His lone remark that this author found chilling was found in his honest words (related to potential mRNA cancer vaccines), “I still don’t know if it’s going to work but I know we’re able to run the experiment.”
He did not give details. It is likely his words would have gone unnoticed by this investigative journalist, had she not had her eyes filled with too many VAERS write-ups from nursing homes in which patients are tested for COVID 19 — though not for antibodies — after they have been given the experimental mRNA, were her eyes not filled with the NIH warning about ADE in SARS-CoV studies.
Slightly under nine months later, in August 2018, the website of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center announced the publication of a study that reported “New research suggests that some types of mRNA may carry cancer-causing changes.” Despite the visible words, suggests, some, and may, post advent of the C-19 pandemic, someone edited the summary with the ”IMPORTANT NOTE” that its research “does not relate in any way to the COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA.”
Surely an institution as prestigious as Sloan Kettering knows that among the many FDA Vaccines Licensed for Use in the United States, not one of them is an mRNA. Might not such a disturbing gaffe also incite those engaged in misinformation campaigns?
At the FDA Vaccines and Biological Products Advisory Committee open meeting on 22 October 2020, during which time all speakers announced that safety would be of primary and ongoing concern upon the roll out of the the experimentals, none of which received EUA status until December. Before taking an in-depth look at that meeting, we share a few more VAERS death data. Patterns cannot be missed, nor should they be dismissed.
VAERS ID: 1198162 was a 45 year old woman who, post injection, had a fatal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. When a 65 year old woman with Parkinson Disease ‘got sick,’ it was believed that her DBS device had malfunctioned, and it was removed and replaced without improvement, before she died. The author lost count of the brain herniations among the VAERS death data (though denial does exist in healthcare, it is, by necessity, very short term. An example of short-term denial can be found in assessing a patient two-weeks after a fem-pop revascularization, who is about to be discharged from rehab, but who suddenly goes pulseless from the popliteal down. Denial would be limited to using stethoscope, getting another to check, trying out two dopplers — in case one was malfunctioning — and then getting the on-call doc to do all of the same, after which he then calls surgery to transfer the patient to the operating room. The denial in some of the VAERS write-ups is more akin to Hollywood’s screenwriting rule of suspension of disbelief.). Another post EUA injection middle cerebral artery infarct was blamed on Ramsay-Hunt Syndrome.
VAERS ID: 1199143 was a 59 year old woman who complained of massive headache and vomiting. A craniotomy was performed to try to stop the hemorrhagic stroke. Her platelets also disappeared.
Fatal data also include four deaths among naloxone users, six suicides, two auto accidents (VAERS ID: 1180840, a 68 year old woman, went over the median and caused a head on 3.5 hours after her shot.). There are inexplicable bleeds, disappearing hemoglobin and platelets, one reported case of pancytopenia, and possibly pharmaceutical reps being in places they do not belong. The daughter of an 88 year old woman filled out a voluntary VAERS after being in contact with both nursing home and Pfizer, trying to ascertain why neither inputted to the system. She did not explain who led her to believe that a pharmaceutical representative should have been involved.
The Vaccines and Related Biologicals Products Advisory Committee holds three day-long sessions per year. The most recent was on 26 February 2021, two months after the VAERS data related to the mRNA EUA’s began to accrue, and one week after emergency use authorization was given to the Janssen viral vector. The February meeting was billed as an “open session to discuss EUA of the Janssen Biotech Inc;” though the committee and consultants surely discussed VAERS, safety, and the confidence of the people, as they did in late October.
As it is unfortunate that the FDA’s $5.9 billion budget does not permit a timely issuance of transcription (full video has been made available on several sites), so that a transparent comparison of the meeting before the mass injection campaign was rolled out, and the VAERS data rolled in, could be made.
The October open session included Committee members, consultants, expert virologists, epidemiologists, heads of Infectious Diseases departments, and leaders of non-profit health activist groups.
All of the Committee members stated that safety is of primary concern. Several voiced their cognition of pathogenic priming/antibody-dependent enhancement in the many in vitro SARS-CoV/MERS studies since 2003.
Since early VAERS data, virtually all of the deaths of seniors in nursing homes tested positive for COVID after receiving the EUA injections. One 84 year old is reported to have had — and survived — COVID, only to be later given a EUA, causing a transfer to the hospital for what looks like pathogenic priming. She survived this, too, and then was given her second shot which resulted in another transfer to the hospital for what appeared to be a second round of ADE, from which she did not survive.
Similarly, a 52 year old man who had COVID was given a EUA, survived hospitalization for what appears to have been ADE, was discharged, and then re-hospitalized after his second shot. There are also many other younger people — especially with significant medical histories, some of which are autoimmune disorders — who have made it into VAERS death data.
Several members noted the importance of VAERS in order to continuously assess safety, yet some of the fact-checkers ignored these experts while also contradicting themselves in one single fact-check.
The experts called for safety, for clarity, and for surveillance to ensure safety. This author had hoped that during the day-long meeting, one of the FDA experts would explain why they use incorrect language, why they refer to trials that were later given emergency use authorization as being vaccines, while also noting they have no idea if the EUA’s will halt transmission, or provide immunity (both of which are required for something to be considered a vaccine). All interchangeably called the future EUAs “vaccines” and “EUA,” and many spoke of post licensure (as vaccine), despite this meeting occurring weeks before the FDA gave emergency use authorization to Pfizer and Moderna. How can our terrible misinformation be halted when our experts do not call things by their legal and epidemiological names?
The author asks our readers to excuse her above ponderings, as the attendees did keep to their promise of transparency. Dr. Offit did explain that calling a EUA by its legal name created “a language problem,” inferring such a “language problem” risked losing the sense of urgency that is needed to assist in confidence – building for the ”vaccines” that were not yet authorized, at the time the experimentals had not be authorized for “emergency use.”
Dr. Offit made a very valid point; imagine, if instead of saying “these vaccines,” he had said “These EUA’s are about to be given to a lot of healthy people.” Then imagine if everyone else at the FDA, the CDC, and throughout the media said, “EUA’s.”
Nonetheless, the author was taken aback by the almost unanimous concern of the experts — whose shared mission is to “protect the public health” — regarding hesitancy among health care practitioners to unilaterally accept the experimental injections. To be sure, scattered, scholarly reports on this issue have been published over the years, but our Advisory Committee experts were citing polls taken months earlier by Stanford and Pew, early polls that somehow did not make it into news headlines.
How many people — battered by COVID, by misinformation, were familiar with the word “hesitancy,” prior to the EUA roll-outs? In early March, the AMA –which issued no condemnation over thousands of COVID positives being dumped into high risk nursing homes — trotted out a non-physician to subtly infer that physicians and nurses reluctant to submit to experimental trial biologicals may have been corrupted by omnipresent and omnipotent “career anti-vaxxers” (one hundred eleven years earlier, the AMA lobby had supported another non-physician, ‘medical expert’ and consummate racist Albert Flexner, whose 1910 report was funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller).
Unfortunately, not one of the extremely transparent Committee members explained how they came to fret over polls that seem to have been taken as a type of pre-market research used to decide how best to launch an advertising media blitz — though a couple did suggest mandates be imposed on health care professionals.
Others suggested the need to find better ways than force; Dr. Cohn again reminded her colleagues — for the record — that EUA’s can not be mandated. Why were those holding the noble responsibility of protecting public health, overwhelming concerned that licensed health professionals support trial therapies that had not yet even been given EUA status by the FDA?
The mainstream media have also been unified in a campaign to strongarm and humiliate health professionals and ancillary staff who are not amenable to the possibility of playing Russian roulette with previously unused mRNAs and a viral vector, all of which are EUA’s. Healthcare professionals are required to engage in Continuing Education; they read and they study, pass tests, and work on improving the health of their patients.
How do they not see how all of them being on the same page contributes to misinformation, incites conspiracies?
One after the other, members of the Committee — mere weeks before the FDA authorized the two mRNA’s –spoke of building trust, testing in nursing homes, focusing the trials on seniors, people with comorbidities, minorities hardest hit by COVID (though none seemed to notice VAERS tracking does not include crucial ethnicity), and on those immunocompromised.
In post EUA C-19 VAERS data we have seen that most of the deaths occur among seniors in nursing homes. We have also seen the handicapped die. We have seen those with autoimmune disorders die.
VAERS ID: 1187918 was a 15 year old girl with Trisomy 21 who died of cardiac arrest 3-4 days after receiving her second shot. Her PICU Attending filled out the report. VAERS ID: 1199455 was a 17 year old girl with spina bifida. The death of the 34 year old, non-institutionalized quadriplegic was — per write-up — blamed on his quadriplegia.
For those in need of a small respite from the prescient transparency of the Committee and its many consultants, we provide screenshots from three of a small number of guests concerned that the Phase III trials were incomplete, that the rush toward EUA’ing might result in the loss of the already diminished public trust over which the Committee members repeatedly voiced their concerns.
Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, is Affiliate Associate Professor at the Stritch Medical School in Chicago. He is also the President and CEO of the Emergency Care Research Institute — ECRI — founded in 1968.
Sidney Wolfe, MD, is co-founder and director of the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. It came as a relief to see that Dr. Wolfe has not wavered in his integrity: “Preliminary data are inherently unreliable and should not be used to support action when there’s risk of harm….The gap between Phase 3 trials needed for approval, and the current EUA standard exemplified by allowing half of Phase 3 trial participants to be followed for less than two months after vaccination, does not engender confidence.”
Though none of the Advisory members or their consultants mentioned how the summer polls on ”hesitancy” among licensed health professionals — that did not make immediately make it into the media — were commissioned, the group was 100% transparent about a summer listening campaign.
Susan Winckler is a pharmacist-lawyer, and current CEO of the 501(c) Reagan-Udall Foundation, which was “created by Congress to advance the mission of the FDA” (which is to “protect the public health,” unfortunately not specifically mentioned during the day-long 20 October 2020 meeting of the Advisory Committee and their consultants).
As part of her non-profit’s “purpose to advance the mission of the FDA,” she explained Reagan-Udall’s “COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Project,” launched in August, begun as a “listening” campaign that involved reading social media posts to ascertain how to deal with what is essentially an evolutionary affinity to self-preservation, with the goal of capturing “two key audiences” — the frontline and the underrepresented. At the time of her address, “eight listening sessions to date and have four or five more in the queue to complete in the next few weeks.”
“Pre-testing advertising research is carried out to test the ads before the launch of the advertising campaign. Pre-testing research is an important part of the advertising research, as it decides the key points on which the brand will be built.”
Pages 157 -167 are, indeed, transparent, but Ms. Winckler — and Chris Wilkes, PhD, reader of the ”listening” project — did not say how laying the groundwork to convince people to take a future EUA fulfils the mission to “protect the public health.”
“We need to ensure public trust and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. — Doran Fink, MD, PhD — page 178 VRBPAC 22 October 2020 meeting.
The members of the Advisory Committee and their consultants all kept to their promises of transparency: Ms. Winckler was transparent in telling everyone her group spent the summer assessing the need for a marketing strategy when the overnight billionaire EUA marketing campaign began in earnest; every expert who uttered the word, “hesitancy” was transparent (the group was not obligated to disclose who authorized the early polls by Stanford and Pew) for the same marketing strategy; Doran Fink was transparent in his remarks; everyone who gave a wink and a nod to ADE/pathogenic priming/enhanced was transparent in letting us know that they knew these VAERS data might be coming; Dr. Offit was transparent in his distress over “EUA” (how many will stand in line for an experimental shot that created billionaires overnight, that does not prevent transmission that does not give immunity if it is called by its accurate name?).
He did add a parenthetical remark on hydroxychloroquine, under its short-lived EUA status, though did not mention that there was no reason for this medication to have been given such as status, as the FDA permits off-label use for all FDA approved medicines).
Various pediatric experts were transparent when they said they wanted the ages in the studies to be lowered, despite having already explicitly stated what the hospitalization rates for children with COVID are 0.9%. Those who spoke of data mining — via PedsNet, CMS, nursing homes, children’s hospitals — and overcoming hesitancy discovered in their pre-testing advertising research, months before this meeting and weeks before the objective vote to EUA the experimentals — were completely transparent in the Committee’s collective goal: The creation of a giant experiment.
Doctors Doshi and Essayan called for mining expansion and trials among kids, seniors in nursing homes, pregnant women, and the immunocompromised. Committee member and New Haven lawyer Sheldon Toubman was also transparent in his support of overcoming ‘hesitancy’ against what Dr. Doshi called “unapproved vaccine technologies.”
The expert speakers were not completely transparent when they hinted that the mRNA applications for which they had not yet voted, would be put on the FDA’s fast track for vaccine licensure — found in claims that the EUA process is almost as stringent as that of fully approved vaccine licensure.
Dr. Holmes was fully transparent when he said there is a new saliva assay for COVID antibody testing, and pondered the feasibility of the EUA’d to self-test, on a regular basis. This is especially intriguing as many of the experts on the panel consistently stated that the healthy immune system (that is, one that is not compromised; a healthy immune system is one that is good enough, but that needs the occasional antibiotic, and acquired immunity provided by decades-old, fully licensed, actual vaccines) somehow cannot be counted on to create antibodies against COVID-19.
But that was before the mRNA’s and the viral vector were EUA’d, and before the VAERS data began rolling out, showing a consistent pattern of ADE, so of course, our experts must be excused from this small bit of seeming misinformation.
A vaccine provides immunity against, and therefore prevents transmission of, a pathogen.
Dr. Holmes compensated for that small, negligible, omission — which could be nonetheless misconstrued by the conspiracists in ongoing misinformation campaigns — when he announced, in full and glorious transparency, that “this is a giant experiment.“
The clever pre-market research with the assistance of MSM seems to be paying off. Recently, Philly media put out an APB for people to hurry into the Convention Center to be part of this “giant experiment” before the expiration times of the experimental shots. Updates on television and other forms of communication were almost hourly. In the end, the experimentals were all dispensed.
The “giant experiment” continues to pay off in data mining of VAERS deaths.
A 44 year old man got sick after first EUA shot, received medical attention, got sicker and then hospitalized after second shot. In between, both parents — with whom he lived — tested positive, though his many COVID tests were negative (likely false negatives). A 61 year old man had a hemorrhagic CVA after one shot. A Chief Medical Examiner called a Medical Support Assistant to notify of autopsy in a 64 year old man who died after receiving his second EUA shot. A 67 year old man with an extensive history of anaphylaxis — who took 50 milligrams of diphenhydramine every morning and kept a stash of epipens handy — arrived at neighbor’s the day after his first EUA shot, with swollen lips, tongue, and slurred speech, seeking help with his epipen. EMS found him with PEA pre-mortem. A 68 year old woman with a history of viral meningitis was found on the floor by her husband; PEA, Return of Spontaneous Circulation, multi-organ failure, and death followed.
VAERS ID: 10800425 was a 74 year old man who tested positive for COVID after his first EUA “unapproved product.” Before dying, he went into acute liver failure, supraventricular tachycardia (SVT; he could not be dialyzed because of fast and aberrant heart rate/rhythm), had a decreased ejection fraction, suffered unspecified gastrointestinal symptoms, and disappearing platelets (a.k.a., thrombocytopenia). An 88 year old man with a history of NMS was hospitalized with COVID after his first EUA shot. A 93 year old male who received his first EUA shot in the data mining, giant experiment of his nursing home, was transferred to a hospital where he tested positive for C-19, had failed treatment, and died. Two women with substantial cardiac and renal histories died of myocardial rupture after one, and two, EUA shots. An 18 year old boy — with a 0.9% chance of being hospitalized for COVID — died days after he partook in the “giant experiment.”
Note that among the following eight VAERS death data, that three persons were COVID positive after getting their EUA experimental shots; those who were pronounced at home or in the ER were not reported as having been tested. The 44 year old man who presented to a walk-in one day after his first EUA injection tested negative by both Rapid/PCR, and was given antibiotics for his signs/symptoms. The write up did not say if he was tested again after he returned to the walk-in a few days after his second trial dose in the “great experiment.”
Please also note that the first eight VAERS deaths after EUA injections are all male, that they are in chronological order, and that they are all from the US state of “unknown” (the absence of xxx26 is not a typo. It is not among the consecutively numbered data.).
Our medical history has been filled with too many secretive, deplorable, Nazi-like experiments (though at least one pre-dated medical science under Nazi dictatorship), most inflicted on the poor, the minority, and young wards of the state. The story of the thalidomide babies has been neatly named a “tragedy,” and various media fact checkers have quickly pointed out that it never had FDA approval. They have neglected to mention that approximately 20,000 Americans were given it under trials run by pharmaceutical companies Richardson-Merill — which later merged with Dow Chemical, which marketed several life-saving medications, including Cardizem — and Smith, Kline, and French, which eventually became GlaxoSmithKline, bringing healthcare together. Eventually, some compensatory damages were made to the thalidomide babies who reached adulthood, and a few perfunctory apologies were offered. In July 1998, the FDA approved the proprietary Thalomid for erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) (and was immediately used off-label in treatment of various AIDS-related disorders, and was voluntarily stopped when it was discovered that not infrequently, HIV viral loads increased in those taking the med — almost sounding like a version of ADE), and in May 2006, the FDA approved it for treatment in certain types of multiple myelomas.
In the late forties through the early fifties, another secret experiment was performed on children, kids who were wards of the state of Massachusetts, and made to feel special by being told they were part of the Science Club in the Fernald School in Waltham. Quaker Oats wanted to prove that its nutrients traveled throughout the body, and MIT wanted to test dosages of radioactivity on human beings; who better than to use orphaned children? Again, this Nazi-like testing was somehow kept from the public eye for decades, until 1994 when the news finally broke, followed by a class action suit that was eventually settled in late 1997, for a whopping $1.85 million, and with Quaker Oats’ lawyers saying it was mostly MIT’s fault, evidenced by the prestigious school, known for turning out experts in various fields of science, paying more.
The secretive trials during the 1980’s and 1990’s of AIDS experimentals used on poor, mostly African American children, and also Hispanic children, some of which had been forcefully made wards of the state seems to have broken the news in the UK, first, in 2004. When it broke the following year in the US, there was enough outrage that NYC commissioned the Vera Institute of Justice to — ready? — do a study. Begun in 2005, and published January 2009, the 506 page report, The Experiences of New York City Foster Children in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials noted that its reviewers “found little or no evidence in the information examined for some of the concerns that prompted Children’s Services to initiate this study.” On 27 January 2009, the New York Times succinctly summarized the ream-length study, thus: “city officials had acted in good faith and in the interests of the children, many of whom were seriously ill.”
Though sounding like Nazi medicine — for which few physicians were hung at Nuremberg — the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male was begun in 1932, seven years before Karl Brandt, MD opened his Aktion T4 factory, and about a decade before Josef Mengele, MD, PhD, launched his experiments on human beings, including children. The heinous, American, criminal experiment against “the Negro male” somehow managed to be kept in secrecy, decades after Nazis were hung for their crimes. It was not until forty years after it was started, that AP ran a report exposing it, in 1972, and public outcry put an end to it.
In 1974, some paltry financial compensations were made, followed by a perfunctory apology by President Clinton, in 1997, followed by the 1st Annual Commemoration and the establishment of the President’s Council on Bioethics, in 1999.
The fascist medicine horrors that blight our past make this author even more appreciative by the nearly 100% transparency of the experts and their consultants at the FDA 22 October 2020 VRBPAC meeting during which they intensely discussed the COVID plague, and their plans for it.
The transparency of key members has been completely documented in this extensive report:
- Captain Amanda Cohn, MD, reminded all that EUA’s are prohibited by Federal Law from being forced into those who are reluctant to be given injections in a “great experiment” which has never before been tried, using what Dr. Doshi described as “unapproved vaccine technologies,” one from a corporation that never produced a single medication that was authorized by the FDA (Moderna), one from Johnson & Johnson which has manufactured/marketed a long list of safely used medicines (excluding vaccines) but which also managed to make a cancer-causing baby talcum powder, one from Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant with a long list of profit-making, live-saving medications, which nonetheless desired to lie, cheat, and bribe its way to larger profits, resulting in the largest fine in US history, $2.3 billion, for said lying, cheating, bribing. Subsequent to the meeting, all three were given authorization to trial their experimentals, a type of treatment never utilized before, and one that does not provide immunity, nor prevent transmission, which is both the legal and microbiological definition of vaccine.
- Countless experts mentioned the possibility of the occurrence of pathogenic priming, aka “enhanced disease,” “enhanced respiratory disease,” “antibiotic-dependent enhancement.”
- All were transparent in their quest for data mining for this great experiment, the one that Moderna’s Tal Zvi Zaks, MD, PhD, said in December 2017 that he did not know would work, but that “we’re going to run the experiment.” Though Dr. Holmes was transparent in his statement that the data mining and the impending roll out of experimentals never before used are part of “a giant experiment,” he did not elaborate, and so we do not know if the two were speaking of the same experiment.
- Transparency permeated the meeting with all acknowledging the importance of VAERS in helping to maintain safety in the mined populace.
- There was consistent transparency when Dr. Meissner stated that between the ages of 5-17, there has been a 0.9% hospitalization rate of children with COVID (the experimentals had not yet been EUA’d, ergo the VAERS death data which include the 5-month old breast-feeding infant, the 15 year old girl with Trisomy 21, the 17 year old girl with spina bifida, could not have been considered). Dr. Meissner stated these stats, then he and other pediatricians transparently discussed MIS-C (though they did not specifically discuss curative treatment and recovery, an NIH study, above, has).
- It was not the job of the many pediatricians to explain why they all agreed on the need for trials in children with a 0.9% hospitalization rate; that they were transparent in their unified call for such experiments, is what is significant.
- The Reagan-Udall group, led by Susan C. Winckler, RPh, Esq., was completely transparent in exposing its pre-testing research activities needed to prime the masses for the advertising/marketing campaign of technologies never before used on these human beings was 100% transparent.
- That countless experts were more concerned in the application of the advertising campaign than of curing the COVID-19 pandemic should be of no concern to us; it is their unprecedented transparency that is praiseworthy.
- Pediatric Infectious Diseases expert, Paul Offit, MD, — whose team spent almost 25 years to safely develop a vaccine against rotavirus, which kills more young children every year, than C-19 has during this past year –was not bound by any law to explain his 180 degree turn on rushing a vaccine. He was 100% transparent in his condemnation of the term, EUA, suggesting that its use prevents too many from volunteering to be injected with “unapproved product[s]” never before tried.
- Expert after expert on the Advisory Committee voiced their concerns for gaining “public confidence” for experimentals which have turned many people into overnight COVID billionaires. None was under legal obligation to explain why those entrusted “to protect the public health” appeared to be more concerned with an advertising campaign for Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen.
- Collectively, our experts were transparent in their musings over how long potential immunity in the not yet EUA’d experimentals might last, while also being transparent in discussing saliva tests for C-19 antibodies, while also being transparent in their beliefs that those who have recovered from C-19 either do not have antibodies, or have antibodies that wane (perhaps a new, COVID-specific hypothesis which belies immunology and epidemiology in the non-immunocompromised?).
- It is not the fault of the FDA, nor of any member of the expert Advisory Committee that the transcript of its 26 February 2021 meeting remains unavailable, despite it being an essential tool in analyzing VAERS data, particularly VAERS death data, which requires a full clinical picture that includes past medical histories, the co-morbidities for which all of the experts transparently voiced concern.
- In a unified voice, these experts from across the country were transparent in their concern for African Americans and other minorities at risk for COVID-19, their concern for the immunocompromised, for the handicapped, and for geriatric populations, particularly those in nursing home facilities. None was under legal obligation to explain how safety could be monitored in VAERS data which does not mandate the inclusion of ethnicity.
The author does not fault this advisory team for the odd, possibly nefarious, sense she had — while reading and re-reading the the 408 page transcript — that the fix was in, that the meeting was a mere formality prior to giving EUA status to the mRNA’s. Though Dr. Cohn’s concern for the unblinding of trials not yet finished — for ethical reasons permitting the placebo group to receive an experimental — reverberated or discussed by other experts, the author attributes such a disquieting feeling on the subtle, pre-conscious intricacies of the various conspiracists committed to expanding misinformation.
The author remains, nonetheless, completely and eternally grateful to the VRBPAC for its transparency, possibly unprecedented in US history.
We thank the Advisory Committee for its collective transparency, as we await the transcript of its 26 February meeting, so that no misinformation about it may be disseminated. There should not be cause for a medical battle of Armageddon when human beings are dying.
This was to have been a short update on VAERS death data and how media might truly help in putting an end to misinformation. Along the path to documentation, it has almost taken on a life of its own, in becoming a missive, requiring a dedication.
The author therefore dedicates this study to those who became mining data in this “great experiment,” and who must be remembered and counted; to the physician – teachers who continue to be unwavering in integrity and devotion to their patients; and to the youth who should be at play or enjoying all the life rituals that lead them into healthy adulthood.
Suffer the little children with COVID hospitalization rates of 0.9% to not become future VAERS death data.
A look at eugenics in early 20th century America
NIH: Infants Deploy Selective Attention to the Mouth of a Talking Face when Learning Speech
General Principles of the Development of Vaccines to Protect against Global Infectious Diseases
FDA & Clinical Drug Trials: A Short History
Published by the NIH: “A Still-face Paradigm for Young Children,” co-authored by Dr. Edward Tronick
“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’”
“BNT162 RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are currently being investigated for
prevention of COVID-19 in healthy individuals” — from the now vaporized Pfizer Protocol, p. 24