Phillip Buckhaults, a cancer genomics expert, and professor at the University of South Carolina has testified before a South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee saying that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is contaminated with billions of tiny DNA fragments.
Researchers Alarmed to Find DNA Contamination in Pfizer Vaccine Read More
There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies on vaccine hesitancy and how the government can overcome it. In sum, there are over 6000 such studies on Pubmed. A more narrowly focused search on endnote pulled up about 1250 studies. These studies have a wide range of topics, but most focus on which groups of people are vaccine hesitant, statistics on these populations, as well as how to overcome vaccine hesitancy through propaganda, censorship, the law and behavioral control.
As a journalist, I cannot say much more than the best available facts suggest, but as has been clear for far too long, the mRNA vaccines were not beneficial and safe on a population-level for young, healthy men — yet the CDC and FDA didn’t care. Hopefully, “pro-vaccine publication[s]” may recognize the harm they helped perpetuate.
Taking a new Covid shot every winter has no empirical basis. The burden of proving effectiveness against death squarely rests on public health officials and anything short of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial is unacceptable. And that applies to the flu shot as well.
Get a New Covid Shot? The Evidence Suggests Otherwise Read More
Pfizer is now claiming that the Moderna patents, which Moderna sought to weaponize against Pfizer/BioNTech, are invalid because the technology and invention of using mRNA for vaccination purposes was first disclosed and reduced to practice in 1990.
In January 2021, in the absence of any human data in pregnancy, the CDC stated on its website that mRNA vaccines were “unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant.” Behind the scenes however, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women. By February 2022, Pfizer revealed it still did “not yet have a complete data set.”
Rutgers is one of a small minority of universities steadfastly holding onto COVID vaccine mandates. The pandemic is nowhere near over at Rutgers, not by a long shot.
Healthier people, in the initial examination, chose to get boosted. Therefore, they were less likely to die. But if you’re attempting to show a benefit against COVID-related outcomes, you have to adjust for such vast health disparities. The initial authors didn’t.
The Covid epoch was injection normativity on anabolic steroids. Injection makers and mandators asserted hegemony by popularizing their preferences as “normal.” They created power dynamics and hierarchy, social structures pressuring everyone toward compulsory protein production. They thereby stigmatized the “other” – the injection questioning and injection nonconforming.
With reducing interest in vaccine boosters, it appears the public may solve the vaccine access issue themselves. A free flow of information and genuine informed consent will probably accelerate this. So would a responsible attitude from medical journals and regulatory agencies, if they can emerge from the yoke of their sponsors.
Given the tremendous economic significance of BioNTech’s success for the German economy, one can wonder in general about the wisdom of having the German regulator serve as the regulator responsible for releasing batches to all EU member states. The potential conflict of interest is obvious. BioNTech’s mercurial rise was, for instance, the very motor of Germany’s return to growth in 2021, to say nothing of the roughly 30 percent of its profits that the company pays in corporate tax.
Regulator or Enabler? Germany’s Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Read More
A open, public discussion and debate should be undertaken on the appropriate role of vaccines in public health, including, among other issues, a) a critical review of the current medical dogma on vaccines, b) an accounting of the mistakes, abuses, and potential lessons of the COVID-19 era, and c) a thorough discussion of the undeniable conflicts between public health as it is now practiced and the fundamental civil rights of citizens.
