27 October 2022 - 12:39 am
Accepting the new COVID-19 injections, be that the AstraZeneca “adenovirus vector” version, or any of the mRNA versions that are being pushed by various outlets, was an act of faith. People were repeatedly exhorted in quasi-religious sermons by politicians acting as modern-day priests standing at lecterns to “Trust the Science”. The religious symbolism and motifs were all there for those that could recognise them. Even figures from the Bible were invoked as actual religious leaders and spokespersons were recruited as “trusted community leaders”, just as was described in the training exercise Event 201 recommendations.
Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.Point 7 – https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/recommendations.html
An example of that, would be this totally scientific piece of journalism…
Obviously this hasn’t aged well, as anyone paying attention knew it wouldn’t. We’re now at the absurd point in history where the public is expected to believe that they never heard anyone say these injections prevented or even slowed transmission. We’re now watching Fact Checkers “debunk” claims that this WAS said, by stating that it wasn’t ever part of the clinical trials, and there wasn’t any obligation for it to be. The accusation now is that anyone pointing this out is an antivaxxer or a grifter, AND, this is not even news.
While this hardly needs pointing out, the one aspect of all this the Fact Checkers and “debunkers” will not properly address, because they can’t, is claims like “people who refuse to get jabbed are immoral” because “Jesus told people to love one another” are and were complete garbage, and propaganda of the most unethical kind, and were used as a club to bludgeon the public into accepting mandatory injections and “vaccine passports”, neither of which make any logical sense if these injections don’t and were never intended to stop transmission. Politician after politician, media talking heads and Public Health officials all parroted the same message. Here are a few examples…
You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinationsUS President Joe Biden – 21/07/2021 – CNN
When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe they will not be infectedNIAID Director Anthony Fauci – 17/05/2021 – MSNBC
Then there was this classic…
A couple of choice quotes from this article that you can obviously check for yourself…
“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real-world data,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told Rachel Maddow on Monday, March 29. Walensky was describing the results of a new CDC study of vaccinated Americans, which found that they not only did not suffer from COVID-19, but also did not carry the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes it – and, by extension, are very unlikely to spread it to other people.
The words “very unlikely to spread it” seem like the usual weasel words, almost as if they knew this could possibly come back to bite them. The quote from Walensky contains “suggests”, another weasel word but otherwise appears quite definite that they had data from “clinical trials” and “real-world data” that allowed her to make the statement that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick”.
It is simply dishonest grifting on the part of Fact Checkers who are all bankrolled by Governments and massive multi-billion dollar corporations to even attempt to say that no-one claimed it would stop transmission, and no surprise they call anyone, including doctors who are now asking questions about these claims now that they are seeing zero benefits at all from these injections, grifters and antivaxxers.
In the UK things were no better. The NHS was busy plastering images like these all over their walls and on social media…
That was after the initial fearmongering and apocalyptic messaging like this…
Anyone attempting to now claim that after messages like that, and subsequently messaging about the “vaccines” protecting others was not a claim about preventing transmission is just a liar, and in all likelihood being paid to say so, or is mentally ill.
Others though are playing the ignorance card. “We just didn’t know”, “We went with what we knew at the time” etc. Except people DID know, and were silenced with accusations of wanting everyone to die, in particular grannies. The absolute 100% trust in what we were told was “science” we were all supposed to demonstrate by presenting our arms on demand to be injected IS turning out to be ill-founded. All-cause mortality on the increase everywhere these injections have been taken in large proportions, alongside many other indicators that they have not just failed, but are causing the kinds of harms that was predicted by honest doctors, scientists and researchers is now irrefutable, but heavily censored.
For the people that just trusted what their doctors told them, their televisions told them, politicians told them and Pubic Health officials told them, was this the first time that this trust was misplaced? Has there been any times in the past where pharmaceutical corporations teaming up with Governments and regulatory bodies have pushed a product that turned out to be harmful? I’m glad you asked…
We have looked at this before, but we’ll just quickly review the Wikipedia page titled “List of largest pharmaceutical settlements”. Looking at the list of 22 separate fines levied between 2004 and 2012 where the smallest fine was $345 million and the largest was $3 billion, totalling almost $20 billion, including companies (some on the list more than once) like GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Merck and others, mostly for breaching the “False Claims Act”, it seems foolhardy to have ever trusted these companies. It is actually worse that that though. Most of these companies enjoy a high degree of protection from liability in one form or another, especially for “vaccines”, so there are going to be all kinds of other profiteering, based on pushing drugs known to be harmful that will never be prosecuted. How do we know this? We can look at just two examples that are well documented and a matter of public record to see just how this stuff happens, and just how long it takes before anything remotely resembling accountability ever happens.
Example #1: Thalidomide
There will be plenty of information out there on the internet about this, although if you’ve never heard about it, that’s because the medical profession, regulatory agencies and Governments don’t like to talk about it. I’ll just cite our old friends at Wikipedia for the purposes of this article, just because it’s pretty mainstream and therefore hard for Establishment worshippers to dismiss. There is a Wiki page on Thalidomide the drug, and also a page on the “Thalidomide scandal”.
Wikipedia describes the initial development of Thalidomide as being by a Swiss pharmaceutical company called Ciba in 1953 as a tranquilizer. Ciba abandoned the product (I wonder why) and it was acquired by German company Chemie Grünenthal. It is said that this company had been established and was staffed with ex-Nazis.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s Thalidomide was prescribed and used by pregnant women in 46 countries. It was prescribed as a sedative and for morning sickness, but had never been tested on pregnant women. Wikipedia casually remarks…
While initially deemed to be safe in pregnancy, concerns regarding birth defects were noted in 1961, and the medication was removed from the market in Europe that year.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
A good question is how was it “deemed to be safe in pregnancy” when it was never tested on pregnant women? It turned out to be anything but safe, and caused horrendous birth defects and around 40% of babies born died at birth or shortly after. No-one knows just how many worldwide victims there are of this flagrant absence of due diligence, precaution and responsibility. In many countries including the UK there were lengthy legal battles to get any compensation at all for surviving victims.
It took until August 2012 for a representative of Grünenthal to apologise for producing the drug and remaining silent about the known birth defects it was causing. Obviously after that many years going by anyone involved at the time would be long gone and in no danger of any consequences.
Ironically the drug was never approved in the United States as a pharmacologist named Frances Oldham Kelsey withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co to approve it. That company is now part of Sanofi, with Sanofi selling off the bits that are of no value to them now. One cannot imagine that anyone at the FDA would act in the manner Frances Kelsey did, i.e. doing her job protecting the public despite pressure from corporate interests. She received the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service from President John F. Kennedy in 1962 for her efforts.
All this information is verifiable and a matter of public record. What this shows us is that pharmaceutical corporations just don’t care about harming people, including unborn babies. Does anyone believe things are better now?
Example #2: Diethylstilbestrol
Again we will use Wikipedia as a reference point, although there are obviously plenty of other sources.
Diethylstilbestrol, known as DES, and also known as stilbestrol or stilboestrol, is a nonsteroidal estrogen medication. It is synthetic, was discovered in 1938 and was introduced for medical use in 1939, so not much time between discovering it and prescribing it went by, which would indicate that there would be zero data on any kinds of long-term effects.
As stated in the Wikipedia entry, from “1940 to 1971, the medication was given to pregnant women in the incorrect belief that it would reduce the risk of pregnancy complications and losses”.
The “incorrect belief” was based on what? It turns out that just failing to prevent pregnancy complications and miscarriages was not the only issue. Wikipedia lists the following “side effects” at prescribed rates of more than 1mg/day…
- Breast changes and feminisation in men
- Blood clots and cardiovascular issues
Other “long-term effects” which obviously could not be known as they pushed this on the public within a year of its discovery include…
- vaginal clear-cell adenocarcinoma
- vaginal adenosis
- T-shaped uterus
- uterine fibroids
- cervical weakness
- breast cancer
- intersexual gestational defects
…in women who were treated with DES during pregnancy, and/or in the offspring. This drug has multigenerational adverse effects. Apparently no-one in the pharmaceutical, medical or regulatory industry sees this example as worth learning from.
This drug as noted by Wikipedia was, from its very inception, highly controversial. But that didn’t stop the FDA approving it. Early DES research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. The public was made to fund this drug, and then over 200 companies around the world produced it, and it was prescribed for some of the very things it was causing. In the 1940s the off-label use to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with a history of miscarriage began. Dosages were incremental, starting at 5mg/day and increasing to 125mg/day. Wikipedia states:
DES was originally considered effective and safe for both the pregnant woman and the developing baby. It was aggressively marketed and routinely prescribed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol
It is now known that even 1mg/day is enough to cause all manner of issues, and pregnant women were being given 125mg/day. It was known by the 1950s that there was no benefit to taking DES during pregnancy. Despite that, it continued to be given to pregnant women through the 1960s. It was even prescribed to prepubescent girls from the 1950s to the start of the 1970s to…
…begin puberty and thus stop growth by closing growth plates in the bones. Despite its clear link to cancer, doctors continued to recommend the hormone for “excess height”.
Back in 1938 the excuse for approving this horrendous drug was…
In 1938, the ability to test the safety of DES on animals was first obtained by the FDA. The results from the preliminary tests showed that DES harmed the reproductive systems of animals. The application of these results to humans could not be determined, so the FDA could not act in a regulatory manner.
You couldn’t make it up. Now we have experimental drugs with no long-term data being granted approval for use on humans including children and pregnant women based upon testing on 8 mice, but in 1938 they only tested on animals and even though DES was shown to harm the reproductive systems of those animals, because they were animals and not humans, the FDA “could not act in a regulatory manner”. Except it did get approved.
The main reason it got approved was (again as Wikipedia states) the “Vice President of the American Drug Manufacturers Association, Carson Frailey, was employed by drug companies creating DES in order to help get it approved by the FDA”. It is explained that Frailey “persuaded fifty-four doctors from around the country to write to the FDA, describing their clinical experiences with a total of more than five thousand patients. Only four of these fifty-four doctors felt that DES should not be approved, and the result was that, against the concerns of many of the FDA medical staff, the FDA’s drug chief Theodore Klumpp recommended that the FDA approve DES”.
Even back in the 1930s the FDA had been neutered by court case losses such as the case of a company called Hiresta that was marketing a breast-enlargement estrogen cream where the American Medical Association (AMA) was concerned about the possible increase in cancer risk and published an editorial outlining their concerns. Hiresta then sued the AMA for defamation. The federal judge ruled against the AMA on the basis that animal studies failed to prove the estrogen cream would definitely cause cancer in women. After that the FDA abandoned plans to regulate estrogen creams and it meant relying on animal studies wasn’t going to get them very far. It seems the US federal court system wants actual women to get cancer before they will do anything, and even then, the challenge of proving beyond doubt what specific thing caused a cancer is near impossible when you’re up against the might of the pharmaceutical and medical industry that has most doctors in its extremely deep pockets.
This part of the story is in an article Wikipedia cites. It’s a 2008 article titled “The Retreat from Precaution: Regulating Diethylstilbestrol (DES), Endocrine Disruptors, and Environmental Health” by Nancy Langston on this topic. Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall and not publicly available. Here are a few quotes from the article…
DES approval was influenced by changing conceptual models that made it difficult for scientists, doctors, and regulators to counter drug company arguments in favor of DES, even when the regulators were presented with growing evidence of toxicity. The pharmaceutical companies used several strategies to buttress their case for DES. First, the industry manipulated the concept of naturalness, with its attendant implications of purity and safety. The drug companies argued that since bodies naturally produced estrogens, DES was similar to nature and therefore safe as well. For example, Lilly submitted a statement on its required warning circular that reassured doctors that “in toxicological studies stilbestrol resembles the natural estrogens. … In terms of the estrous dose Geschickter has reported stilbestrol to be no more carcinogenic than the natural hormones in the rat.” Because the warning did not go on to detail the evidence that shows natural hormones can be carcinogenic, the statement implied that DES would not cause cancer.The Retreat from Precaution: Regulating Diethylstilbestrol (DES), Endocrine Disruptors, and Environmental Health – Nancy Langston
The second conceptual strategy the drug companies used to argue for approval of DES relied on assumptions about human exceptionalism, and particularly on the uncertainty about the applicability of animal models to humans. The drug companies simply insisted that animal studies could be ignored, if human short term studies showed no harm. FDA administrators did not agree with this insistence that humans were different from other animals, yet as the Hiresta case shows, FDA staff knew that their concerns about DES were not supported by evidence that would stand up to court challenges
These strategies used by drug companies are so blatantly dishonest it seems incredible that anyone falls for it. The trouble is the regulatory bodies are all hollowed out shells that are staffed with allies, or apparently extremely stupid and gullible people.
It actually gets worse, if you can imagine such a thing. Another quote from Nancy Langton’s article explains…
Meanwhile, millions of people were being exposed to DES through their diet. Beginning in the 1947, DES was approved in the United States as a growth promoter, first in poultry, then in hogs and cattle. Very high levels of DES were soon detected in poultry sold for human consumption-up to one hundred times the concentrations necessary to cause breast cancer in mice. Concern over DES effects soon grew in various lay groups: women who used the drug, farmers who handled treated livestock, and workers who manufactured the material. Women who were treated with DES for menopause began to be concerned about painful breasts, uterine bleeding, and the possibility of breast cancer. When these women wrote to the FDA, their concerns were dismissed as hysterical. Mink farmers who were feeding their animals discarded chicken heads that contained DES implants began to notice that their mink were having miscarriages. The FDA refused to investigate, arguing that farmers were entirely unqualified to observe, much less interpret, hormonal problems. When the owner of Arapahoe Chemicals wrote to the FDA in 1947, concerned that male workers who handled DES were suffering impotence and breast growth, the FDA advised them to hire old men who might be less concerned about DES’s “devirilizing effect.”
But “Trust the Science”, right? Trust the “Experts” too, obviously.
On top of all this, as we have learned DES was also used in the livestock industry. According to the Wiki article…
During the 1960s, DES was used as a growth hormone in the beef and poultry industries. It was later found to cause cancer by 1971, but was not phased out until 1979. Although DES was discovered to be harmful to humans, its veterinary use was not immediately halted. As of 2011, DES was still being used as a growth promoter in terrestrial livestock or fish in some parts of the world including China.
So it was until quite recently being pumped into animals, and quite possibly still could be. A 2018 study on the NIH website titled “Association of Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol During Pregnancy With Multigenerational Neurodevelopmental Deficits” demonstrates third-generational neurodevelopmental issues associated with DES. Over 80 years since this stuff was rushed to market, unethically “approved”, aggressively pushed onto mostly pregnant women and young girls, knowing it did not do any of the things claimed and also knowing of the harms caused, and they are still finding out things that this is causing three generations later.
The notion we should just “Trust the Science” when for almost a century we have seen one horrendous medical experiment after another, all pushed for political and financial reasons without the remotest concern for the welfare of the people this crap gets inflicted on, would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
Does anyone believe politics and financial interests are less impactful on the pharmaceutical and regulatory industries than they were almost a century ago? Of course not. Things are worse now than they have ever been, and to trust proven liars in Government, criminal (the fines, remember) pharmaceutical companies and the entire medical industry that dares not bite the hand that feeds, is akin to a young woman leaving a pub late in the evening and asking Ted Bundy to walk her home.
The “Thalidomide scandal” is described on Wikipedia as the “biggest man-made medical disaster ever”, the effects of Diethylstilbestrol are not fully understood to this day and are still affecting people multiple generations later.
Now that a new, never-before used on humans technology like mRNA, that in October 2019 was still unproven (as we demonstrated in this article), was pushed on billions of people with the dishonest claim of “if you don’t have it you’ll kill granny” followed now by the claim they never said any of that, ask any questions and you’re an anti-vaxxer misinformation spreading extremist. The thing is, the facts, evidence and history are all on the side of the “anti-vaxxers”.