The "Corona Virus" Pandemic

Medical care & lifestyle choices align with natural processes, including birth and death.

Integration Principle: Joining Eastern, Western and other philosophies of medicine.
golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

Re: The "Corona Virus" Pandemic

Post by golly »

Cool response!
I appreciate that they don't state religious faith in the virus but rather place the onus on politics abusing science to actually learn science.
The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:
  • the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;
  • the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;
  • “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;
  • it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.
- https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

Adding to the mystery, let me take this from the recently censored reddit sub "r/noNewNormal" and just post it anonymously:
Covid is a cold with an IFR of 0.15% and a survival rate of 99.85%. Smart people aren't afraid of it. The common flu has an IFR of 0.1%. Most of the links below are either from Cambridge, MIT, the CDC or the WHO. Most of rest of peer reviewed medical journals and white papers by epidemiologists/ scientists so people cant use the fringe source cop out.

Tom Woods actually was talking about the masks causing an increase in cases early on...as highlighted by the Fauci emails. That video: https://vimeo.com/483358807

Social distancing doesn't work by MTI, literally says 6ft or 60ft doesn't matter.

https://www.businessinsider.com/6-ft-so ... ors-2021-4

Mask mandates dont work:

These are just some articles about masks: not .gov links or peer reviewed studies so take them with a grain of salt:

https://www.massnurses.org/health-and-s ... nItem/3201

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-03- ... xperts.amp

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... dence.html

Now for the more medical journal type stuff on masks (most of these are referenced in the white paper in the next section, some say they work and some say they don't...what they all show is the mandates are worthless)

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... CCC9D8BC05

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... 11.00307.x

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

These are white papers from Denis Rancourt, PhD.

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/sti ... tory-masks

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-

In the US if your below 70 your survival rate is 99.68%. The risk is minimal at best and way overblown. Did you know 95% of covid deaths are 80+ years old and half those died in nursing homes? For being such a super deadly virus it sure has no teeth.

Comorbidities data: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... orbidities

Us survival rate data: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html

Btw that translates to survival rates by age (if you get infected):

0-17 99.998%

18-49 99.95%

50-64 99.4%

65+ 91%

Global IFR according to the WHO (pdf)

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

Global IFR according to John P. A. Ioannidis, epidemiology professor at the Stanford School of Medicine.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

Previous failed attempts at coronavirus vaccines

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNewNormal/co ... urce=share

Examples of people that are vaccinated and die from covid:

https://theconversation.com/most-covid- ... 87076.html

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver ... vaccinated

People dying from the vaccine itself:

https://covid-101.org/science/how-many- ... n-the-u-s/

Your entire argument is but 600k died and believe the experts! Yeah they did...4 million world wide. Out of a population of 7.674 billion. That a raw mortality rate of less than 0.05%...the experts have been lying and have flip flipped so many times it's ridiculous.

Already posted the survival rate by age group for the US. It'd 99.68% for anyone under 70. 95% of covid deaths are people above 70 and half of those were from nursing homes. Nursing homes I might add that leftist governors like those of NY, NJ, MI, etc...put active covid patients in nursing homes. Ramping the numbers sky high. So can we blame democrats for that?

Also why aren't they separating died with covid from died from covid? They do this with every respiratory illness known to man. Also why have we been keeping the clock ticking for 20 months now? Most colds go by a yearly cycle. Imagine if I did that to other diseases. Tb for example kills an average of 1.5 million people globally a year...if I kept the clock running for TB for 20 months that's 2.5 million dead.

We should have never shut down. UN estimates that 22-138 million are going to starve this year because of the lockdowns and interruptions in the global economy. That's over 5-35x the number that has died from covid.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... nto-hunger

https://unglobalcompact.org/take-action ... -the-virus

Don't see you virtue signaling about that...

We flattened the curve. Actually cases and deaths have been on the downtrend...especially as states have opened up. Florida and Texas are doing great. Florida never locked down and they have the most elderly per capita and still faired better than most of the heavy lockdown states.

This whole your gonna kill grandma thing is a joke. If covid was sooooo deadly than why have we caught democrat politicians ignoring thier own lockdown orders?

https://www.businessinsider.com/democra ... st-2020-12

Also if the virus was such a big deal than why were the BLM "protests" permitted to happen for over a year? Media and the medical establishment tried to gaslight us and tell us those "protests" didn't spread covid.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... id19-surge

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ ... rus-cases/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... s-n1232045

But lockdown protests did?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... phone-data

https://www.politico.eu/article/anti-co ... udy-shows/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 20561.html

If the vaccine worked than 1) how are vaccinated people getting and spreading covid? 2) why is Pfizer now talking about you have to take antivirals for covid after you take thier vaccine? 3) why is the cdc recommending masks for vaccinated people?
I might summarize an answer to this concerned redditor's question this way: the COVID-19 story has primarily been abused for spreading subjugation and authoritarianism, and has not been used by self-styled authorities to promote health. Meanwhile, we are free to learn many good lessons from this situation and I hope we do. :)

golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

More treatments for COVID-19 continued

Post by golly »

NAC and Cysteine

According to this recent video by Dr. Sam Bailey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFM-EeczeaE) another treatment that is said to be effective for healing and protecting lungs and vessels (among many other body functions) is to get natural or supplemental forms of cysteine.

If you're not eating lots of avocados, shiitake mushrooms, carrots and/or pineapples (or perhaps whole animal foods like eggs, meat, etc. if you want animal sources) you may wish to look into supplementing your diet with 600-1200 mg of NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine).

Interestingly, it should be noted that regulators in the USA are presently trying to limit access to life-saving over-the-counter drugs like NAC, Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

"Poison the body to heal the body" makes no sense – it is a failed narrative

Post by golly »

WARNING: Graphic content related to the ingredients in the COVID-19 injections
To avoid triggering imagery, microscope images will be excluded from this post.

This post will be about a story going around about the supposed presence of graphene oxide (and other weird or toxic stuff) in all the COVID-19 injections including the possible presence of a metal tentacle creature that looks like some kind of weird pseudo-robot version of a water dwelling microbe.

Let's start with a summary of undisclosed ingredients extracted from Dr. Young’s published scientific paper (from the article below)
Daily-Expose-August-29g.png
Daily-Expose-August-29g.png (99.07 KiB) Viewed 3122 times
American Scientists Confirm Toxic Graphene Oxide, and More, in Covid Injections
BY RHODA WILSON ON AUGUST 30, 2021

It is a human right, and global law governed under the Nuremberg Code, that vaccine specific ingredient information is disclosed. It is critical, required and necessary information so anyone, from any country in the world, can make an informed decision whether or not to consent to medical intervention. Because the full list of ingredients of the Covid “vaccines” have not been made available, Dr. Robert Young and his team conducted research to identify the specific ingredients in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson Covid injections. On 20 August, they published their findings.

Dr. Young is a biochemist, microbiologist, and clinical nutritionist. He and his team of scientists have confirmed what the La Quinta Columna researchers found – toxic nanometallic content which are magneticotoxic, cytotoxic and genotoxic to plants, insects, birds, animals and humans – all life on the planet. One of the “vaccines” even contained life-threatening parasites. Taken together, the “vaccine” components – which include graphene oxide among many others and which may be influenced by radiation sources external to us – create a toxic chemical and radiative soup inside our bodies. Anyone who has a Covid injection is seriously putting their lives at risk.

We previously covered some of La Quinta Columna’s research in two articles: Spanish Researchers Find Covid-19 Vaccines Contain TOXIC Levels of Graphene Oxide; and, The real pandemic – Covid-19 or Graphene Oxide? Poisonous Nano-Material found in Covid Vaccines and Face Masks. For additional resources visit Orwell City, a website that translates, transcribes and adds English subtitles to a good portion of La Quinta Columna’s materials.

“Vaccines” from the four major pharmaceutical companies were analysed by Dr. Young: Pfizer/BioNTech (“Pfizer”); Moderna/Lonza mRNA-1273 (“Moderna”); Vaxzevria by AstraZeneca (“AstraZeneca”); and, Janssen by Johnson & Johnson (“Janssen”).

Liposome capsids are fatty lipid capsules. We are told their purpose is to envelope the mRNA to protect the genetic material from breaking down before it has reached its target – our body’s cells. All four Covid “vaccines” contain relatively high levels of graphene oxide but both the Pfizer and Moderna liposome capsids are 100% graphene oxide (after extracting the mRNA).

Graphene oxide is cytotoxic, genotoxic, and magneticotoxic. The image below shows the liposome capsid containing graphene oxide in the Pfizer “vaccine.” The liposome delivers the graphene oxide to specific organs, glands and tissues, namely: the ovaries and testes; bone marrow; heart; and, brain.

...

Also found in the Pfizer injection was Trypanosoma cruzi – a parasite of which several variants are lethal and is one of many causes of acquired immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS. It’s not known if this was just a random ingredient or was purposefully placed and will be found in all Pfizer “vaccines.”


Trypanosoma parasite found in the so-called Pfizer “vaccine”
In the AstraZeneca “vaccines,” Dr. Young and his team identified histidine, sucrose, poly-ethylene glycol (“PEG”) and ethylene alcohol, which were also contained in the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen Covid injections. PEG was the only adjuvant declared on the data sheet listing the ingredients of the AstraZeneca injection.

The injection of PEG and ethylene alcohol are both known to be carcinogenic and genotoxic.

Janssen also contains particles which are composed of stainless steel which are glued together with a “Carbon-based glue” of reduced graphene oxide.

...

The Moderna “vaccine” also contains many spherical foreign bodies with some bubble-shaped cavities. These highly toxic nano particulate composition are quantum dots of cadmium selenide which are cytotoxic and genotoxic. Quantum dots are semiconductor nanoparticles that glow a particular colour after being illuminated by light. The colour they glow depends on the size of the nanoparticle.


Nano dots and graphene oxide found in the Moderna so-called “vaccine”
Dr. Young’s paper concludes, these Covid injections “are NOT vaccines but nanotechnological drugs working as a genetic therapy … All these so-called “vaccines” are patented and therefore their actual content is kept secret even to the buyers, who, of course, are using taxpayers’ money. So, consumers (taxpayers) have no information about what they are receiving in their bodies by inoculation.”


Summary of undisclosed ingredients extracted from Dr. Young’s published scientific paper
According to Dr. Young an estimated 500 million people worldwide have already been injured, with potentially 35 million deaths, due to Covid injections. This is likely to increase in the coming months with people who have had two injections being 13 times more likely to be injured, hospitalized or killed by the “Delta variant” compared to those with natural immunity. But what is actually causing the Covid “variants” and future “waves”?

The genetic code for the Spike Protein in the “vaccines” is computer generated, it is “man-made”, and can be easily altered. And, the graphene oxide in the body’s tissues – brain, connective tissue, potentially in the muscles – will interact with pulsating frequencies within the 5G range, said Dr. Young, this will be what causes the next “wave” predicted in October.

Stop putting poison into your body, Dr. Young said, “these [Covid] inoculates are dangerous because the nano particulates can pass right through the blood-brain barrier, they can pass right through the air-blood barrier. That’s why these inoculations are so dangerous. It’s because the particulates break through: the blood-brain barrier, which is protected; the air-blood barrier; and, the testicular or ovarian-blood barrier. The particulates go right in.”
To poison the body in order to heal the body makes no sense – it is a failed narrative.
[Dr. Young’s published scientific paper, Scanning & Transmission Electron Microscopy Reveals Graphene Oxide in CoV-19 Vaccines] is technical and those of us who have not made a career in science or medicine may struggle to understand its full implications.
On 26 August, Japan announced it was suspending the use of the Moderna “vaccines” due to reports of contamination with “a substance that reacts to magnets … it could be metal.”

Previously all Covid injections had emergency use authorisation only but on 23 August, for America, the FDA approved the Pfizer “vaccine”. Last Wednesday in a second interview Kingston discussed the impact this approval had on disclosure of ALL ingredients, including those not previously disclosed:

https://rumble.com/embed/vj26z2/?pub=4# ... puKEYSNBOa
-https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/20 ... njections/

Here is another article on the topic of Dr. Young's alleged research, posted the next day:
COVID Vax Ingredients Exposed: Graphene, Nanometals, PEG and Parasites
Posted on September 1, 2021 by State of the Nation
By Makia Freeman

COVID vax ingredients have been revealed
by a science team led by Dr. Robert O. Young. Young has done great work since the start of the scamdemic by pointing out that COVID is a collection of symptomscaused by pathological blood coagulation or blood clotting, and not caused by a virus, since SARS-CoV-2 (like HIV) is a virus that has never been purified, isolated and proven to exist. Now, in a bombshell revelation, Young and his team have used advanced microscopy and other analytical techniques to inspect the contents of the 4 major COVID non-vaccines going around – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson – and documented truly shocking discoveries. They found graphene oxide, nanometals, PEG (polyethylene glycol) and even (in the case of the Pfizer fake-vaccine) parasites! Young writes that he utilized “instrumentation includ[ing] Optical Microscopy, Bright–Field Microscopy, pHase Contrast Microscopy, Dark–Field Microscopy, UV absorbance and Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Transmission Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, X–ray Diffractometer, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance instruments” to verify the contents of the fake-vaccines. Young is very open about his work and methods so the scientific world can easily set up experiments to test reproducibility.

COVID Vax Ingredients Exposed: Graphene Oxide
In confirmation of the wonderful research done by La Quinta Columna (The 5th Column) who broke the news that the non-vaccines contained graphene oxide, Young verified that is indeed the case. As a reminder, graphene oxide is highly toxic to the human body. Graphene oxide nanoparticles have many applications such as being used as batteries, super capacitors and for drug delivery – and as biosensors, which is the whole reason that are being placed into the vial to be injected in the first place. Numerous studies have affirmed that graphene is toxic to the immune system and the body in general. Young writes the following (rGO stands for reduced graphene oxide):

“The observations under optical microscopy revealed and abundance of transparent 2D laminar objects that show great similarity with images from literature (Xu et al, 2019), and with images obtained from rGO standard (SIGMA)(Figures 1, 2 and 3). Images of big transparent sheets of variable size and shapes were obtained, showing corrugated and flat, irregular. Smaller sheets of polygonal shapes, also similar to flakes described in literature (Xu et al, 2019) can be revealed with pHase Contrast and Dark-Field microscopy.”

...

Young also used Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and observed “an intricate matrix or mesh of folded translucent flexible rGO sheets with a mixture of darker multilayer agglomerations.” See his work for all the evidence.

COVID Vax Ingredients Exposed: Nanometals
Throughout Young’s report, he repeatedly shows images of aggregates that he discovered in the non-vaccines. These aggregates are often a combination of both light and heavy metals, including such things as aluminum, titanium, vanadium, chromium, iron, nickel and copper, or even a combination of other elements entirely, such as bismuth, carbon, sodium and nitrogen. Why are these nanometals and nanoparticulates part of the fake-vaccine formulation? Is it to induce vaccine recipients to become more magnetic, to work with Smart Grid/5G systems, to become more machine-like or all of the above?

COVID Vax Ingredients Exposed: PEG
Young writes that he used XRF (X-ray fluorescence) to detect polyethylene glycol and ethylene alcohol in the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca “vaccines”. PEG and ethylene alcohol are both known as carcinogenic and genotoxic.

COVID Vax Ingredients Exposed: Parasites
Young’s analysis also exposed an inconvenient fact: the Pfizer fake-vaccine contained a parasite (see image below). What possible reason could there be for Big Pharma companies to manufacture parasite-containing vaccines? Why on Earth are so many people so quick to inject this toxic stuff straight into their bloodstream without investigation and research?

On a similar note, interestingly enough, Japan just halted 2 separate shipments of the Moderna fake-vaccine in Okinawa, after black substances were found in the vials (those wanting to go deep down the rabbit hole may want to investigate the black goo-connection here). This RT article states that “black substances were discovered in syringes and a vial, while unidentified pink substances were spotted in a different syringe with a Moderna vaccine dose, according to Japan’s public broadcaster, NHK.” In another RT article it states that “the decision to suspend a total of 2.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccines comes after 1.63 million shots were halted last week following the discovery of contaminants in some vials in a batch that was shipped to more than 860 vaccination centers across the country.”

...

The COVID Fake-Vaccines are Nanotech Drugs Functioning as Gene Therapy
Young spells out clearly what we must always remember about the COVID fake-vaccines:

“[The 4 COVID vaccines] … are NOT vaccines but nanotechnological drugs working as a genetic therapy. The name 'vaccine' is likely to be an escamotage (trickery) used for bureaucratic and technocratic reasons in order to receive an urgent approval, ignoring all the normal rules necessary for new drugs, especially for those involving novel nanotechnological mechanisms which have never been developed nor experienced by humans any where, at any time in the history of World.

All these so–called 'vaccines' are patented and therefore their actual content is kept secret even to the buyers, who, of course, are using taxpayers’ money. So, consumers (taxpayers) have no information about what they are receiving in their bodies by inoculation. Humanity is kept in the dark as far as the nanoparticulate technological processes involved are concerning, on the negative effects on the cells of the body, but mostly on the possible magneticotoxic, cytotoxic and genotoxic nano–bio-interaction effect on the blood and body cells.”

...

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and LBRY.

Sources:

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/doctor-r ... agulation/
*https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/tran ... 9-vaccines
*https://www.orwell.city/2021/07/graphen ... s.html?m=1
*https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29495255/
*https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27869683/
*https://particleandfibretoxicology.biom ... 016-0168-y
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-va ... tion-site/
*https://www.rt.com/news/533369-okinawa- ... nts-japan/
*https://www.rt.com/news/533431-japan-su ... taminated/
*https://www.brighteon.com/d7ac64b5-7948 ... 5c1601e401
*https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z2sAH0Woz38r/
___
https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-va ... parasites/
-https://stateofthenation.co/?p=81986

"Fact Checkers" mention the possibility of graphene and say it isn't present

However, despite all these alarmist articles, according to Reuters (admittedly a "news" corporation heavily funded and led by privileged parties similar to those of the World Economic Forum and so on) ...
“Yes, there are a million different types of PEG. No doubt there are some you can purchase that are attached to graphene,” she said. “However, those are totally not the PEG-lipids used in the nanoparticles [in mRNA vaccines].”

Ghazvini told Reuters that “none of our lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine are manufactured in China” and said that Sinopeg is not a manufacturer of the LNPs used in their Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

...

Pfizer and Moderna have said that no graphene oxide is present in their vaccines.
-https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2PI2XH

One way I am tempted to summarize this is to say: according to the companies selling their products to governments for billions of dollars, the specific ingredient "graphene oxide" isn't present. Ethical economists would probably be shocked to consider that it's a truth to cover up the rest of the toxic soup. Unethical economists would probably be delighted to report that such a cover-up is part of capitalism's "self-regulation" and if the companies can get away with it, they deserve every dollar (and each consumer who had health issues or died from the jab also deserved their problems). While Wall-street conomists might call it a "great gamble" nonetheless, and simply be excited at the thrill of companies "finding morality" through the court system (which pharmaceutical companies have been given some special immunities against anyway). Meanwhile, according to a scientist familiar with the tools used to detect their presence, the alleged vaccines do indeed contain graphene as well as a great deal of problematic substances.


What is the purpose of the substances?

How problematic are they? Is it just residue from the insanely complex task of making tiny nano-engineered doses of experimental fluid to be somehow distributed unharmed to the entire known human population of Earth? Is it just accepted scrapings and flakings of sanitized tools inevitably deteriorating into the fluids, and inevitably getting cheaper and crappier as they are increasingly made under low wages?

Is it true that PEG can include graphene, and is it true the heavy metals present (such as graphene) can serve in a corporate strategy to bridge biology and human-made computing?
ACS_material.JPG
ACS_material.JPG (123.86 KiB) Viewed 3122 times
According to this site, where PEG with graphene can be purchased, its applications are listed as follows (my bolds) :
3. APPLICATION FIELDS
Supercapacitors; Catalyst; Solar energy; Graphene semiconductor chips; Conductive graphene film; Graphene computer memory; Biomaterials; Transparent conductive coatings.
- https://www.acsmaterial.com/aminated-gr ... inked.html

golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

Re: The "Corona Virus" Pandemic

Post by golly »

This article claims the UK leader has resigned as a "distraction".

Whether true or not, the information that they claim is being distracted from is truly interesting.

Whilst you were distracted by Boris resigning, the UK Gov. quietly published a report confirming the Vaccinated account for 94% of all COVID-19 Deaths since April, 90% of which were Triple/Quadruple Jabbed
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON JULY 11, 2022
A report that was quietly published by the UK Government, just hours before Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his resignation, reveals that Covid-19 deaths have risen dramatically among the triple vaccinated population in England over the past couple of months whilst declining drastically among the unvaccinated population.

With the most recent figures showing the vaccinated population in England accounted for a shocking 94% of all Covid-19 Deaths in April and May, and 90% of those deaths were among the triple/quadruple vaccinated population.
image-58.png
image-58.png (67.99 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
On the 7th July, Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, announced he was resigning. Since then the Mainstream Media in the UK have distracted the public with 24/7 news on that announcement and speculation on who could replace him.

It’s times like these that you ought to watch what bad news is being quietly published in the background in the hope that it won’t receive much attention, and it just so happens that hours before Boris announced his resignation, his Government published new data that proves things have been terrible for the vaccinated population in England over the past couple of months.

Back in March 2022, the UK Health Security Agency announced that from April 1st 2022, they would no longer publish the vaccination status of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths in England.

At the time, the UKHSA claimed this was because the UK Government had ended free universal Covid-19 testing and this therefore affected their “ability to robustly monitor Covid-19 cases by vaccination status”.

However, this was a lie.

The UK Health Security Agency had been looking for an excuse for months to stop publishing the data because it clearly showed the vaccinated population were suffering immense immune system damage, with case, hospitalisation, and death rates per 100,000 highest among the fully vaccinated population.

The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated population in England in the Week 3 [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 3-2022.pdf], Week 7 [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... week_7.pdf] and Week 13 [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-13.pdf]UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance reports of 2022 –
image-59.png
image-59.png (200.61 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
Source: https://expose-news.com/2022/04/17/gov- ... ai-ds-ade/
This was nowhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness by Pfizer was it?

But now we have more evidence to both prove the UKHSA was lying, and that the current mainstream media storm surrounding the resignation of Boris Johnson is just a distraction.

This is because another UK Government agency, known as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has just published data on deaths by vaccination status.

The latest dataset from the ONS is titled ‘Deaths by Vaccination Status, England, 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022‘, and it can be accessed on the ONS site here [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... tusengland], and downloaded here [https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/people ... sible.xlsx].
image-60.png
image-60.png (133.44 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
Source:https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/people ... sible.xlsx
Table 1 of the latest dataet contains figures on the mortality rates by vaccination status for all cause deaths, deaths involving Covid-19, and deaths not involving Covid-19. And it is here that we are able to ascertain the vaccination status of everyone who has died of Covid-19 since the beginning of April 2022, when the UKHSA claimed they could no longer reliably report the figures.

Here’s how the ONS presents the figures for the month of April 2022 –

image-61.png
image-61.png (205.89 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/people ... sible.xlsx
We’ve taken the figures provided by the ONS for both April and May 2022, and produced the following chart showing Covid-19 deaths by vaccination status in England between 1st April and 31st May 2022
image-56.png
image-56.png (75.64 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
In all, according to the ONS, there were 4,935 Covid-19 deaths over these two months, and the vaccinated population accounted for a shocking 4,647 of those deaths. But what’s even more shocking is that the triple vaccinated accounted for 4,216 of those deaths, with just 288 deaths recorded among the unvaccinated population.

In March 2022, there were 321 Covid-19 deaths within 60 days of a positive test among the unvaccinated population according to the UKHSA Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Report, as detailed in the following chart using data extracted from table 13b of the report –
image-55.png
image-55.png (100.2 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-13.pdf
This means there were 33 less deaths among the unvaccinated over two months (April and May) than there were in the whole of March.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true for the vaccinated population, especially the triple vaccinated. There were 911 more deaths among the vaccinated over two months, and 1,161 more death among the triple vaccinated.

This means deaths have fallen drastically among the unvaccinated but increased significantly among the vaccinated population since the UKHSA claimed they could no longer reliably publish the data.

The following chart shows the percentage of Covid-19 deaths by vaccination status in England between 1st April and 31st May 2022, according to the latest ONS dataset published just hours before Boris Johnson’s resignation

[...]

The quietly published figures reveal that the vaccinated population as a whole accounted for a shocking 94% of all Covid-19 deaths in April and May 2022, with the unvaccinated accounting for just 6% of all Covid-19 deaths. But the most horrific statistic here is that 90% of the deaths among the vaccinated were among people who had been given at least three doses of a Covid-19 injection.

However, many in the UK have been given a fourth dose of a Covid-19 injection since the spring, and judging by the latest data from the Government of Cananda, it’s likely many of those deaths could actually be among the quadruple vaccinated.
image-54.png
image-54.png (100.55 KiB) Viewed 2684 times
Source: https://expose-news.com/2022/07/09/cana ... accinated/
The most recent Government of Canada figures show that there were 521 Covid-19 deaths between 6th and 12th June, and the vaccinated population accounted for 485 of them, with a shocking 242 deaths among the quadruple vaccinated population, meaning they accounted for 50% of Covid-19 deaths among the vaccinated in the second week of June 2022.

These aren’t the kind of figures you would expect to see if the Covid-19 injections really are up to 95% effective at preventing death, are they?

So there you have it, whilst you’ve been distracted by Boris Johnson’s resignation as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the UK Government quietly published a report just hours before his announcement containing data they previously claimed they didn’t have, which confirmed the vaccinated now account for 94% of Covid-19 deaths in England, and 90% of those deaths are among the triple vaccinated.

With news like this being swept under the rug by the mainstream media, it makes you wonder what else they will attempt to hide in the coming weeks?

golly
Site Admin
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 am
Location: Hohokam / Piipaash / Apache / O'odham / Pueblo / Mexico / Arizona

Gender

Skin

Sexuality

Belief

Political

Moderna cuts corners

Post by golly »

This article is also interesting because it indicates a highly qualified scientist finding that Moderna basically didn't do normal research expected of a mass inoculation experiment, let alone an approved product. She alleges collusion with the U.S.'s FDA, but even if that's not true it's bad enough, it would seem, that Moderna tried to take short cuts with something that could apparently make the declared pandemic more deadly than it naturally would have played out.

I'm no pharmaceutical specialist but I appreciate those pointing out the professional differences that occurred during the events of '20-'22, that made certain companies very "profitable", seemingly despite being at the expense of many people's lives and livelihoods they were supposed to be protecting.

FDA Colluded With Moderna to Bypass COVID Vaccine Safety Standards, Documents Reveal
07/12/22 by Megan Redshaw

According to an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.

Alexandra Latypova has spent 25 years in pharmaceutical research and development working with more than 60 companies worldwide to submit data to the FDA on hundreds of clinical trials.

After analyzing 699 pages of studies and test results “supposedly used by the FDA to clear Moderna’s mRNA platform-based mRNA-1273, or Spikevax,” Latypova told The Defender she believes U.S. health agencies are lying to the public on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.

“It is evident that the FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] colluded with Moderna to subvert the regulatory and scientific standards of drug safety testing,” Latypova said.

“They accepted fraudulent test designs, substitutions of test articles, glaring omissions and whitewashing of serious signs of health damage by the product, then lied to the public on behalf of the manufacturers.”

In an op-ed on Trial Site News, Latypova disclosed the following findings:

  1. Moderna’s nonclinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.
  2. Moderna claims the active substance — mRNA in Spikevax — does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.
  3. Moderna’s nonclinical program consisted of irrelevant studies of unapproved mRNAs and only one non-GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] toxicology study of mRNA-1273 — the active substance in Spikevax.
  4. There are two separate investigational new drug numbers for mRNA-1273. One is held by Moderna, the other by the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, representing a “serious conflict of interest.” [1][2]
  5. The FDA failed to question Moderna’s “scientifically dishonest studies” dismissing an “extremely significant risk” of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease. [3]
  6. The FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

“Moderna’s documents are poorly and often incompetently written — with numerous hypothetical statements unsupported by any data, proposed theories, and admission of using unvalidated assays and repetitive paragraphs throughout,” Latypova wrote.

“Quite shockingly, this represents the entire safety toxicology assessment for an extremely novel product that has gotten injected into millions of arms worldwide.”
1. [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... #_ftnref12] 2. [https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/dmid#:~ ... cept%20HIV.]
3. [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... #_ftnref12]
Latypova then apparently goes on to describe, in detail, how each of these problems are specifically proven.
Finding 1: Moderna’s non-clinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.

According to Latypova, about 80% of the materials [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref3] disclosed by HHS that FDA considered in approving Moderna’s Spikevax pertain to other mRNA products unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

“Approximately 400 pages of the materials belong to a single biodistribution study in rats conducted at the Charles River facility in Canada for an irrelevant test article, mRNA-1674,” Latypova said. “This product is a construct of 6 different mRNAs studied for cytomegalovirus [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20355358] in 2017 and never approved for market.”

Latypova said the study showed [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref3] lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) distribute throughout the entire body to all major organ systems.

Latypova found it odd the study protocol, report and amendments related to the study were copied numerous times throughout the HHS documents, suggesting Moderna may have been trying to meet a minimum word count.

In between the repetitive copies of the “same irrelevant study,” Latypova found “ModernaTX, Inc. 2.4 Nonclinical Overview” for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine with the investigational new drug application reference IND #19745.

Module 2.4, she said, is a standard part of the new drug application and is supposed to contain summaries of nonclinical studies.

Latypova wrote:

“There are three separate versions of Module 2.4 included and many sections appear to be missing. It is not clear why multiple versions are included and there is no explanation provided as to which version specifically was used for the approval of Spikevax by the FDA.”

Latypova noted all three copies of Module 2.4 appear to have the same overview but reference a different set of statements and studies.

Latypova said the description of the finished supplied product differs between the two versions:

“Version 1 (p. 0001466) [says] mRNA-1273 is provided as a sterile liquid for injection at a concentration of 5 mg/mL in 20 mM trometamol (Tris) buffer containing 87 mg/mL sucrose and 10.7 mM sodium acetate, at pH 7.5.

“Version 2 (p. 0001499) [says] the mRNA-1273 Drug Product is provided as a sterile suspension for injection at a concentration of 20 mg/mL in 20 mM Tris buffer containing 87 g/L sucrose and 4.3 mM acetate, at pH 7.5.”

“It appears from reading section 2.4.1.2 Test Material (p.0001499) that Version 2 of the drug product had been used for manufacturing the Lot AMPDP-200005 which was used for nonclinical studies,” Latypova said. But “there is no explanation given for why the drug product in version 1 is different, and no comparability testing studies between the two product specifications are provided.”

Latypova pointed out that the package insert for FDA-approved Spikevax [https://assets.ctfassets.net/qjie68e5s6 ... .31.22.pdf] does not contain any information regarding the concentration of the product supplied in its vials.

Finding 2: Moderna said Spikevax mRNA does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.

Latypova alleges Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen — manufacturer of the Johnson & Johnson shot — along with the FDA, have been deceptive in their assertions claiming the risks of COVID-19 vaccines are associated with the LNP delivery platform, and therefore, the mRNA “payload” does not need to undergo standard safety toxicological tests.

The documents state:

“The distribution, toxicity, and genotoxicity associated with mRNA vaccines formulated in LNPs are driven primarily by the composition of the LNPs and, to a lesser extent, by the biologic activity of the antigen(s) encoded by the mRNA. Therefore, the distribution study, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant toxicology studies, and in vivo GLP-compliant genotoxicity study conducted with mRNA vaccines that encode various antigens developed with the Sponsor’s mRNA-based platform using SM 102-containing LNPs are considered supportive and BLA-enabling for mRNA-1273.”

Moderna is “claiming that the active drug substance of a novel medicine does not need to be tested for toxicity,” Latypova said. “This is analogous to claiming that a truck carrying food and a truck carrying explosives are the same thing. Ignore the cargo, focus on the vehicle.”

Latypova called the claim “preposterous,” as mRNAs and LNPs separately and together are “entirely novel chemical entities” that each require their own IND application and data dossier filed with regulators.

“Studies with one mRNA are no substitute for all others,” she added.

According to the European Medicines Agency [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref6], this chemical entity is entirely novel:

“The modified mRNA in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is a chemical active substance that has not been previously authorized in medicinal products in the European Union. From a chemical structure point of view, the modified mRNA is not related to any other authorized substances. It is not structurally related as a salt, ester, ether, isomer, mixture of isomers, complex or derivative of an already approved active substance in the European Union.

“The modified mRNA is not an active metabolite of any active substance(s) approved in the European Union. The modified mRNA is not a pro-drug for any existing agent. The administration of the applied active substance does not expose patients to the same therapeutic moiety as already authorized active substance(s) in the European Union.

“A justification for these claims is provided in accordance with the ‘Reflection paper on the chemical structure and properties criteria to be considered for the evaluation of new active substance (NAS) status of chemical substances’ (EMA/CHMP/QWP/104223/2015), COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is therefore classified as a New Active Substance and considered to be new in itself.”

“The reviewers specifically stated ‘modified RNA’ and not just the lipid envelope constitute the new chemical entity,” Latypova said. “All new chemical entities must undergo rigorous safety testing before they are approved as medicinal products in the United States, European Union and the rest of the world.”

Latypova said Moderna failed to cite any studies showing “all toxicity of the product resides with the lipid envelope and none with the payload” of the type and sequence of mRNA delivered to various tissues and organs.

“It is also not a matter of a mistake or rushing new technology to market under crisis conditions,” she added. “This scientifically fraudulent strategy was not only premeditated, it was also never really concealed.”

Latypova gave the example [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref3] of a 2018 PowerPoint presentation by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel at a JP Morgan conference where he stated: “If mRNA works once, it will work many times.”

“This describes the deception practiced by the manufacturers, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH and every government health authority or mainstream media talking head who participated in it,” Latypova said.

She continued:

“Imagine Ford Motor Company claiming that its crash testing program should be contained to the vehicle’s tires and that one test is sufficient for all vehicle models.

“After all both F150 and Taurus have tires, what’s in between the tires ‘worked once and will work again,’ and therefore it is inconsequential to safety, does not need to be separately tested and can be replaced at the manufacturer’s will with any new variation.

“This is the claim that Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen and other manufacturers of the gene therapy ‘platforms’ have utilized. Unlike Ford’s products, theirs have never worked as none of their mRNA-based gene therapy products have ever been approved for any indication. The fact that the regulators did not object to this argument raises an even greater alarm.”

“There is no question of incompetence or mistake,” Latypova said. “If this represents the current ‘gold standard’ of regulatory pharmaceutical science, I have very bad news regarding the safety of the entire supply or new medicines in the U.S. and the world.”

Finding 3: Moderna’s nonclinical program included only one non-GLP toxicology study of the active substance in Spikevax.

According to Latypova, a non-clinical program for a novel product usually includes information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety pharmacology, toxicology and other studies to determine the carcinogenicity or genotoxicity of a drug and its effects on reproduction.

The more novel the product, the more extensive the safety and toxicity evaluations need to be, she said.

In Module 2.4 described above, Latypova was able to identify 29 unique studies but only 10 were done with the correct mRNA-1273 test particle. The other studies were conducted using a “variety of unapproved experimental mRNAs unrelated to Spikevax or COVID illness.”

For example, the in-vivo genotoxicity studies included an irrelevant mRNA-1706 and a luciferase mRNA that is not in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Of the 10 studies using mRNA-1273, nine were pharmacology (‘efficacy’) studies and only one was a toxicology (‘safety’) study,” Latypova said. “All of these were non-GLP studies, i.e., research experiments conducted without validation standards acceptable for regulatory approval.”

There was only one toxicology study included in Moderna’s package related to the correct test particle mRNA-1273, but the study was non-GLP compliant, was conducted in rats and was not completed at the time the documents were submitted to the FDA for approval.

The results of the study were indicative of possible tissue damage, systemic inflammation and potential severe safety issues — and they are also dose-dependent, Latypova said. Moderna noted its findings but “simply moved on, deciding to forgo any further evaluation of these effects.”

Regarding reproductive toxicology, the only assessment was conducted on rats.

Pharmacokinetics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/me ... cokinetics] — or the biodistribution, absorption, metabolism and excretion of a compound — were not studied with Moderna’s Spikevax mRNA-1273.

“Instead, Moderna included a set of studies with another, unrelated mRNA-1647 — a construct of six different mRNAs which was in development for cytomegalovirus [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20355358] in 2017 in a non-GLP compliant study,” Latypova said. “This product has not been approved for market and its current development status is unknown.”

Moderna claimed the LNP formulation of mRNA-1647 was the same as in Spikevax, so the study using this particle was “supportive of” the development of Spikevax.

“This claim is dishonest,” Latypova said. “While the kinetics of the product may be studied this way, the toxicities may not!”

She explained:

“We do not know what happens with the organs and tissues when the delivered mRNA starts expressing spike proteins in those cells. This is a crucial safety-related issue, and both the manufacturer and the regulator were aware of it, yet chose to ignore it.

“The study demonstrated that the LNPs did not remain in the vaccination site exclusively, but were distributed in all organs analyzed [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... an-damage/], except the kidney. High concentrations were observed in lymph nodes and spleen and persisted in those organs at three days after the injection.

“The study was stopped before full clearance could be observed, therefore no knowledge exists on the full time-course of the biodistribution. Other organs where vaccine product was detected included bone marrow, brain, eye, heart, small intestine, liver, lung, stomach and testes.”

Given that LNPs of the mRNA-1647 were detected in these tissues [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref3], it’s reasonable to assume the same occurs with mRNA-1273 and “likewise would distribute in the same way,” Latypova said. “Therefore the spike protein would be expressed by the cells in those critical organ systems with unpredictable and possibly catastrophic effects.”

“Neither Moderna nor FDA wanted to evaluate this matter any further,” she added. “No metabolism, excretion, pharmacokinetic drug interactions or any other pharmacokinetic studies for mRNA-1273 were conducted,” nor were safety pharmacology assessments for any organ classes.

Finding 4: ‘Serious conflict of interest’ exists between Moderna and NIH.

According to Latypova, Moderna’s documents contain a letter from the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases authorizing the FDA to refer to IND #19635 to support the review of Moderna’s own IND #19745 provided in “Module 1.4.”

Although Module 1.4 was not included in the documents provided by HHS, the FDA on Jan. 30 [https://www.fda.gov/media/155931/download] revealed the following timeline for Moderna’s Spikevax.

According to the FDA, Spikevax has two sponsors of its IND application package [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/c ... D/part-312], including the NIH division that reports to Dr. Anthony Fauci [https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fau ... 114&sr=8-2], director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [https://www.niaid.nih.gov/] and chief medical advisor to President Biden.

The date of the pre-IND meeting [https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna ... 7#_ftnref3] for Spikevax was on Feb. 19, 2020. The IND submission for the NIH’s IND was on Feb. 20, 2020, while Moderna’s own IND was submitted on April 27, 2020.

According to the CDC, as of Jan. 11, 2020, Chinese health authorities had identified more than 40 human infections as part of the COVID-19 outbreak first reported on Dec. 31, 2020.

The World Health Organization on Jan. 9, 2020, announced the preliminary identification of the novel coronavirus. The record of Wuhan-Hu-1 includes sequence data, annotation and metadata from the virus isolated from a patient approximately two weeks prior.

Latypova said this raises several questions warranting further investigation:

Preparation for a pre-IND meeting is a process that typically takes several months, and is expensive and labor-consuming. How was it possible for the NIH and Moderna to have a pre-IND meeting for a Phase 1 human clinical trial scheduled with the FDA for a vaccine product a month before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared?
  • “How was it possible to have all materials prepared and the entire non-clinical testing process completed for this specific product related to a very specific virus which was only isolated and sequenced (so we were told) by Jan. 9, 2020?”
  • Ownership of the IND is both a legal and commercial matter, which in the case of a public-private partnership, must be transparently disclosed.
  • “What is the precise commercial and legal arrangement between Moderna and NIH regarding Spikevax?”
  • “Does NIH financially benefit from sales of Moderna’s product? Who at NIH specifically?”
  • “Does forcing vaccination with the Moderna product via mandates, government-funded media campaigns and perverse government financial incentives to schools, healthcare system and employers represent a significant conflict of interest for the NIH as a financial beneficiary of these actions?”
  • “Does concealing important safety information by a financially interested party (NIH and Moderna) represent a conspiracy by the pharma-government cartel to defraud the public?”
Latypova further noted that immediately after the pre-IND meeting with the FDA, an “extremely heavy volume of orders for Moderna stock” began to be placed in the public markets.

This warrants an “additional investigation into the investors that were able to predict the spectacular future of the previously poorly performing stock with such timely precision,” she said.

Finding 5: FDA failed to question Moderna’s ‘scientifically dishonest studies’ dismissing an ‘extremely significant risk’ of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.

Moderna, prior to 2020, had never brought an approved drug to market. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-mod ... 1593615205]

“Its entire product development history was marked by numerous failures [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... d-vaccine/] despite millions of dollars and lengthy time spent in development,” Latypova said. “Notably, its mRNA-based vaccines were associated with the antibody-dependent-enhancement phenomenon.” [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... time-bomb/]

For example, Moderna’s preclinical study [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... figure/F3/] of its mRNA-based Zika vaccine in mice showed all mice “uniformly [suffered from] lethal infection and severe disease due to antibody enhancement.”

The scientists were able to develop a type of vaccine that generated protection against Zika that “resulted in significantly less morbidity and mortality,” but all versions of the vaccine unequivocally led to some level of antibody-dependent-enhancement.

The Primary Pharmacology section for Spikevax includes nine studies evaluating immunogenicity, protection from viral replication and potential for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease.

“These studies included the correct test article (mRNA-1273), however, all were non-GLP compliant,” Latypova said. The results of these studies are briefly summarized in the text of the document package, yet the study reports are not provided.

In the disclosed documents, Moderna claims “there were no established animal models” for SARS-CoV-2 virus due to its extreme novelty.

Yet, in the next sentence, “despite the extreme novelty of the virus,” Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina possessed an already mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 virus strain and provided it for some of Moderna’s studies, Latypova said. [https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... periments/]

According to Latypova’s assessment, there were other numerous contradictions in Moderna’s documents, and when enhanced disease risk was revealed in assays, the company waived off its own results with a statement regarding the invalidity of the assays and methods they used.

“As SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are, to this point, still highly variable and in the process of being further developed, optimized and validated, study measurements should not be considered a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, especially in the absence of results from a positive control that has demonstrated disease enhancement,” Moderna said.

“Clearly, both Moderna and FDA knew about disease enhancement and were aware of numerous examples of this dangerous phenomenon, including Moderna’s own Zika vaccine product of the same type,” Latypova said. “Yet, the FDA did not question Moderna’s scientifically dishonest ‘studies’ that dismissed this extremely significant risk without a proper study design.”

Finding 6: FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

Although the FDA recommends Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant and lactating women, Moderna conducted only one reproductive toxicology study in pregnant and lactating rats using a human dose of 100 mcg of mRNA-1273. [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... 20eligible.]

Although the full study was excluded, a narrative summary of Moderna’s findings state, “high IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S-2P were also observed in GD 21 F1 fetuses and LD 21 F1 pups, indicating strong transfer of antibodies from dam to fetus and from dam to pup.”

Latypova said safety assessments in the study are very limited, but the following findings are described by Moderna:

“The mothers lost fur after vaccine administration, and it persisted for several days. No information on when it was fully resolved since the study was terminated before this could be assessed.”

In the rat pups, the following skeletal malformations were observed:

“In the F1 generation [rat pups], there were no mRNA-1273-related effects or changes in the following parameters: mortality, body weight, clinical observations, macroscopic observations, gross pathology, external or visceral malformations or variations, skeletal malformations, and mean number of ossification sites per fetus per litter.

“mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules.

“Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses.”

Moderna related the skeletal malformations to days when toxicity was observed in the mothers but waived away the finding as “unrelated to the vaccine,” Latypova said.

The FDA then “lied on Moderna’s behalf” in its Basis for Regulatory Action Summary document (p.14) [https://www.fda.gov/media/155931/download] stating “no skeletal malformations” occurred in the non-clinical study in rat pups despite the opposite reported by Moderna.

“No vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effect on postnatal development were observed in the study. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to the pre-fusion stabilized spike protein antigen following immunization were observed in maternal samples and F1 generation rats indicating transfer of antibodies from mother to fetus and from mother to nursing pups.”

“In summary, the vaccine-derived antibodies transfer from mother to child,” Latypova said. “It was never assessed by Moderna whether the LNPs, mRNA and spike proteins transfer as well, but it is reasonable to assume that they do due to the mechanism of action of these products.”

Latypova said studies should have been done to assess the risks to the child by vaccinating pregnant or lactating women before recommending these groups receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We should ask the question why are they concealing the critical safety-related information from public, and making the product look better than the manufacturer has admitted,” Latypova said.

“The FDA did not have any objective scientific evidence excluding the skeletal malformations being related to the vaccine,” she added. “Thus, the information should have been disclosed fully in the label of this experimental and poorly tested product — not hidden from the public for over a year and then disclosed only under a court order.”

Latypova said FDA reviewers should have “easily seen through the blatant fraud, omissions, use of inadequate study designs and general lack of scientific rigor.”

The fact that more than half of the document package contains non-GLP studies for irrelevant, unapproved and previously failed chemical entities alone should have been sufficient reason to not approve this product, she added.

It would appear the FDA based its decision that the product is safe to administer to thousands of otherwise healthy humans on two studies in rats, Latypova said. The rest of the 700-page package was deemed to consist of “other supportive studies.”

The FDA noted studies were conducted in “five vaccines formulated in SM-102 lipid particles containing mRNAs encoding various viral glycoprotein antigens” but “failed to mention that these were five unapproved and previously failed products,” she said.

The regulators then concluded that using novel unapproved mRNAs in support of another unapproved novel mRNA was acceptable.

“The circular logic is astonishing,” Latypova said. Regulators allowed and personally promoted the use of failed experiments in support of a different and new experiment directly on the unsuspecting public.

Latypova called for the FDA, pharmaceutical manufacturers and “all other perpetrators of this fraud to be urgently stopped and investigated.”

Post Reply