• BREAKING 🚜🇨🇭

    The Swiss farmers have now joined the European wide protests against the climate agenda.

    SHARE - You won't see this on the mainstream media 👇

    https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1761797965188915594?s=46
    BREAKING 🚜🇨🇭 The Swiss farmers have now joined the European wide protests against the climate agenda. SHARE - You won't see this on the mainstream media 👇 https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1761797965188915594?s=46
    0 Comments 0 Shares 487 Views
  • CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    World Council for Health
    This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334
    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585
    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    If this content is important to you, share it with your network!

    Share

    This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12911 Views
  • “Let Them Eat Dirt”. Israel has Given Palestinians in Gaza Two Choices. Leave or Die. Chris Hedges
    The final stage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, an orchestrated mass starvation, has begun. The international community does not intend to stop it.


    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

    ***

    There was never any possibility that the Israeli government would agree to a pause in the fighting proposed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, much less a ceasefire. Israel is on the verge of delivering the coup de grâce in its war on Palestinians in Gaza – mass starvation. When Israeli leaders use the term “absolute victory,” they mean total decimation, total elimination. The Nazis in 1942 systematically starved the 500,000 men, women and children in the Warsaw Ghetto. This is a number Israel intends to exceed.

    Israel, and its chief patron the United States, by attempting to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which provides food and aid to Gaza, is not only committing a war crime, but is in flagrant defiance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court found the charges of genocide brought by South Africa, which included statements and facts gathered by UNWRA, plausible. It ordered Israel to abide by six provisional measures to prevent genocide and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe. The fourth provisional measure calls on Israel to secure immediate and effective steps to provide humanitarian assistance and essential services in Gaza.

    UNRWA’s reports on conditions in Gaza, which I covered as a reporter for seven years, and its documentation of indiscriminate Israeli attacks illustrate that, as UNRWA said, “unilaterally declared ‘safe zones’ are not safe at all. Nowhere in Gaza is safe.”

    UNRWA’s role in documenting the genocide, as well as providing food and aid to the Palestinians, infuriates the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused UNRWA after the ruling of providing false information to the ICJ. Already an Israeli target for decades, Israel decided that UNRWA, which supports 5.9 million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East with clinics, schools and food, had to be eliminated. Israel’s destruction of UNRWA serves a political as well as material objective.

    The evidence-free Israeli accusations against UNRWA that a dozen of the 13,000 employees had links to those who carried out the attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, which saw some 1,200 Israelis killed, did the trick. It led 16 major donors, including the United States, the U.K., Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Estonia and Japan, to suspend financial support for the relief agency on which nearly every Palestinian in Gaza depends for food. Israel has killed152 UNRWA workers and damaged 147 UNRWA installations since Oct. 7. Israel has also bombed UNRWA relief trucks.

    More than 27,708 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, some 67,000 have been wounded and at least 7,000 are missing, most likely dead and buried under the rubble.

    More than half a million Palestinians – one in four – are starving in Gaza, according to the U.N. Starvation will soon be ubiquitous. Palestinians in Gaza, at least 1.9 million of whom have been internally displaced, lack not only sufficient food, but clean water, shelter and medicine. There are few fruits or vegetables. There is little flour to make bread. Pasta, along with meat, cheese and eggs, have disappeared. Black market prices for dry goods such as lentils and beans have increased 25 times from pre-war prices. A bag of flour on the black market has risen from $8.00 to $200 dollars. The healthcare system in Gaza, with only three of Gaza’s 36 hospitals left partially functioning, has largely collapsed. Some 1.3 million displaced Palestinians live on the streets of the southern city of Rafah, which Israel designated a “safe zone,” but has begun to bomb. Families shiver in the winter rains under flimsy tarps amid pools of raw sewage. An estimated 90 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been driven from their homes.

    “There is no instance since the Second World War in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed,” writes Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University and the author of “Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine,” in the Guardian. “And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”

    The United States, formerly UNRWA’s largest contributor, provided $422 million to the agency in 2023. The severance of funds ensures that UNRWA food deliveries, already in very short supply because of blockages by Israel, will largely come to a halt by the end of February or the beginning of March.

    Israel has given the Palestinians in Gaza two choices. Leave or die.

    I covered the famine in Sudan in 1988 that took 250,000 lives. There are streaks in my lungs, scars from standing amid hundreds of Sudanese who were dying of tuberculosis. I was strong and healthy and fought off the contagion. They were weak and emaciated and did not. The international community, as in Gaza, did little to intervene.

    The precursor to starvation – undernourishment – already affects most Palestinians in Gaza. Those who starve lack enough calories to sustain themselves. In desperation people begin to eat animal fodder, grass, leaves, insects, rodents, even dirt. They suffer from diarrhea and respiratory infections. They rip up tiny bits of food, often spoiled, and ration it.

    Soon, lacking enough iron to produce hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the lungs to the body, and myoglobin, a protein that provides oxygen to muscles, coupled with a lack of vitamin B1, they become anemic. The body feeds on itself. Tissue and muscle waste away. It is impossible to regulate body temperature. Kidneys shut down. Immune systems crash. Vital organs – brain, heart, lungs, ovaries and testes — atrophy. Blood circulation slows. The volume of blood decreases. Infectious diseases such as typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera become an epidemic, killing people by the thousands.

    It is impossible to concentrate. Emaciated victims succumb to mental and emotional withdrawal and apathy. They do not want to be touched or moved. The heart muscle is weakened. Victims, even at rest, are in a state of virtual heart failure. Wounds do not heal. Vision is impaired with cataracts, even among the young. Finally, wracked by convulsions and hallucinations, the heart stops. This process can last up to 40 days for an adult. Children, the elderly and the sick expire at faster rates.

    I saw hundreds of skeletal figures, specters of human beings, moving forlornly at a glacial pace across the barren Sudanese landscape. Hyenas, accustomed to eating human flesh, routinely picked off small children. I stood over clusters of bleached human bones on the outskirts of villages where dozens of people, too weak to walk, had laid down in a group and never gotten up. Many were the remains of entire families.

    In the abandoned town of Mayen Abun bats dangled from the rafters of the gutted Italian mission church. The streets were overgrown with tussocks of grass. The dirt airstrip was flanked by hundreds of human bones, skulls and the remnants of iron bracelets, colored beads, baskets and tattered strips of clothing. The palm trees had been cut in half. People had eaten the leaves and the pulp inside. There had been a rumor that food would be delivered by plane. People had walked for days to the airstrip. They waited and waited and waited. No plane arrived. No one buried the dead.

    Now, from a distance, I watch this happen in another land in another time. I know the indifference that doomed the Sudanese, mostly Dinkas, and today dooms the Palestinians. The poor, especially when they are of color, do not count. They can be killed like flies. The starvation in Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is Israel’s masterplan.

    There will be scholars and historians who will write of this genocide, falsely believing that we can learn from the past, that we are different, that history can prevent us from being, once again, barbarians. They will hold academic conferences. They will say “Never again!” They will praise themselves for being more humane and civilized. But when it comes time to speak out with each new genocide, fearful of losing their status or academic positions, they will scurry like rats into their holes. Human history is one long atrocity for the world’s poor and vulnerable. Gaza is another chapter.

    *

    Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    Featured image: Let Them Eat Dirt – by Mr. Fish

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/let-them-eat-dirt-chris-hedges/5849245


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/let-them-eat-dirt.html
    “Let Them Eat Dirt”. Israel has Given Palestinians in Gaza Two Choices. Leave or Die. Chris Hedges The final stage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, an orchestrated mass starvation, has begun. The international community does not intend to stop it. All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign *** There was never any possibility that the Israeli government would agree to a pause in the fighting proposed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, much less a ceasefire. Israel is on the verge of delivering the coup de grâce in its war on Palestinians in Gaza – mass starvation. When Israeli leaders use the term “absolute victory,” they mean total decimation, total elimination. The Nazis in 1942 systematically starved the 500,000 men, women and children in the Warsaw Ghetto. This is a number Israel intends to exceed. Israel, and its chief patron the United States, by attempting to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which provides food and aid to Gaza, is not only committing a war crime, but is in flagrant defiance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court found the charges of genocide brought by South Africa, which included statements and facts gathered by UNWRA, plausible. It ordered Israel to abide by six provisional measures to prevent genocide and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe. The fourth provisional measure calls on Israel to secure immediate and effective steps to provide humanitarian assistance and essential services in Gaza. UNRWA’s reports on conditions in Gaza, which I covered as a reporter for seven years, and its documentation of indiscriminate Israeli attacks illustrate that, as UNRWA said, “unilaterally declared ‘safe zones’ are not safe at all. Nowhere in Gaza is safe.” UNRWA’s role in documenting the genocide, as well as providing food and aid to the Palestinians, infuriates the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused UNRWA after the ruling of providing false information to the ICJ. Already an Israeli target for decades, Israel decided that UNRWA, which supports 5.9 million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East with clinics, schools and food, had to be eliminated. Israel’s destruction of UNRWA serves a political as well as material objective. The evidence-free Israeli accusations against UNRWA that a dozen of the 13,000 employees had links to those who carried out the attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, which saw some 1,200 Israelis killed, did the trick. It led 16 major donors, including the United States, the U.K., Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Estonia and Japan, to suspend financial support for the relief agency on which nearly every Palestinian in Gaza depends for food. Israel has killed152 UNRWA workers and damaged 147 UNRWA installations since Oct. 7. Israel has also bombed UNRWA relief trucks. More than 27,708 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, some 67,000 have been wounded and at least 7,000 are missing, most likely dead and buried under the rubble. More than half a million Palestinians – one in four – are starving in Gaza, according to the U.N. Starvation will soon be ubiquitous. Palestinians in Gaza, at least 1.9 million of whom have been internally displaced, lack not only sufficient food, but clean water, shelter and medicine. There are few fruits or vegetables. There is little flour to make bread. Pasta, along with meat, cheese and eggs, have disappeared. Black market prices for dry goods such as lentils and beans have increased 25 times from pre-war prices. A bag of flour on the black market has risen from $8.00 to $200 dollars. The healthcare system in Gaza, with only three of Gaza’s 36 hospitals left partially functioning, has largely collapsed. Some 1.3 million displaced Palestinians live on the streets of the southern city of Rafah, which Israel designated a “safe zone,” but has begun to bomb. Families shiver in the winter rains under flimsy tarps amid pools of raw sewage. An estimated 90 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been driven from their homes. “There is no instance since the Second World War in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed,” writes Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University and the author of “Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine,” in the Guardian. “And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.” The United States, formerly UNRWA’s largest contributor, provided $422 million to the agency in 2023. The severance of funds ensures that UNRWA food deliveries, already in very short supply because of blockages by Israel, will largely come to a halt by the end of February or the beginning of March. Israel has given the Palestinians in Gaza two choices. Leave or die. I covered the famine in Sudan in 1988 that took 250,000 lives. There are streaks in my lungs, scars from standing amid hundreds of Sudanese who were dying of tuberculosis. I was strong and healthy and fought off the contagion. They were weak and emaciated and did not. The international community, as in Gaza, did little to intervene. The precursor to starvation – undernourishment – already affects most Palestinians in Gaza. Those who starve lack enough calories to sustain themselves. In desperation people begin to eat animal fodder, grass, leaves, insects, rodents, even dirt. They suffer from diarrhea and respiratory infections. They rip up tiny bits of food, often spoiled, and ration it. Soon, lacking enough iron to produce hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the lungs to the body, and myoglobin, a protein that provides oxygen to muscles, coupled with a lack of vitamin B1, they become anemic. The body feeds on itself. Tissue and muscle waste away. It is impossible to regulate body temperature. Kidneys shut down. Immune systems crash. Vital organs – brain, heart, lungs, ovaries and testes — atrophy. Blood circulation slows. The volume of blood decreases. Infectious diseases such as typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera become an epidemic, killing people by the thousands. It is impossible to concentrate. Emaciated victims succumb to mental and emotional withdrawal and apathy. They do not want to be touched or moved. The heart muscle is weakened. Victims, even at rest, are in a state of virtual heart failure. Wounds do not heal. Vision is impaired with cataracts, even among the young. Finally, wracked by convulsions and hallucinations, the heart stops. This process can last up to 40 days for an adult. Children, the elderly and the sick expire at faster rates. I saw hundreds of skeletal figures, specters of human beings, moving forlornly at a glacial pace across the barren Sudanese landscape. Hyenas, accustomed to eating human flesh, routinely picked off small children. I stood over clusters of bleached human bones on the outskirts of villages where dozens of people, too weak to walk, had laid down in a group and never gotten up. Many were the remains of entire families. In the abandoned town of Mayen Abun bats dangled from the rafters of the gutted Italian mission church. The streets were overgrown with tussocks of grass. The dirt airstrip was flanked by hundreds of human bones, skulls and the remnants of iron bracelets, colored beads, baskets and tattered strips of clothing. The palm trees had been cut in half. People had eaten the leaves and the pulp inside. There had been a rumor that food would be delivered by plane. People had walked for days to the airstrip. They waited and waited and waited. No plane arrived. No one buried the dead. Now, from a distance, I watch this happen in another land in another time. I know the indifference that doomed the Sudanese, mostly Dinkas, and today dooms the Palestinians. The poor, especially when they are of color, do not count. They can be killed like flies. The starvation in Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is Israel’s masterplan. There will be scholars and historians who will write of this genocide, falsely believing that we can learn from the past, that we are different, that history can prevent us from being, once again, barbarians. They will hold academic conferences. They will say “Never again!” They will praise themselves for being more humane and civilized. But when it comes time to speak out with each new genocide, fearful of losing their status or academic positions, they will scurry like rats into their holes. Human history is one long atrocity for the world’s poor and vulnerable. Gaza is another chapter. * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Featured image: Let Them Eat Dirt – by Mr. Fish https://www.globalresearch.ca/let-them-eat-dirt-chris-hedges/5849245 https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/let-them-eat-dirt.html
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    "Let Them Eat Dirt". Israel has Given Palestinians in Gaza Two Choices. Leave or Die. Chris Hedges
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 15106 Views
  • CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker.


    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    DETAILS ⬇️
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker. CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. cdc masks ineffective covid feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. DETAILS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 11253 Views
  • https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1754199750197268626?s=46
    https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1754199750197268626?s=46
    0 Comments 0 Shares 127 Views
  • HUGE PROTESTS 🚜🇩🇪🚜🇩🇪

    The German farmers are still out protesting against the green agenda.

    SHARE - Did you see any of this on the mainstream media? 👇

    https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1753566609854042351?s=46
    HUGE PROTESTS 🚜🇩🇪🚜🇩🇪 The German farmers are still out protesting against the green agenda. SHARE - Did you see any of this on the mainstream media? 👇 https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1753566609854042351?s=46
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1144 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    The Epoch Times

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    By Dr. Yuhong Dong

    Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here.

    Summary of key facts

    A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine.
    A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).
    A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis.
    A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination.
    While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm.
    Neurological and autoimmune disorders

    Danish review found increased nervous system disorder

    In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines.

    Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up.

    Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant).

    Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines.

    Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed.

    In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group.

    Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms.

    Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%.

    The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group.

    By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes.

    This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far.

    Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up.

    These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown.

    They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    Large studies reveal autoimmune events

    In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden.

    The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses.

    The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events.

    They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).

    But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility.

    In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44.

    The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis.

    After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding.

    Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten.

    As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after.

    1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases
    Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine
    The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.”

    Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark.

    So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored.

    This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental.

    However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted.

    Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

    The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France.

    A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves.

    The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%.

    The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.”

    This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported.

    A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations.

    In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population.

    Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination.

    Plausible mechanisms of harm

    Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how?

    Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV.

    According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins.

    This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction.

    The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins.

    The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others.

    Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear.

    The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs.

    Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare.

    The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous.

    HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind.

    Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant.

    An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response.

    The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins).

    In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection.

    The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack.

    Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity

    A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm.

    The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR).

    According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies.

    From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects.

    Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls.

    A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction.

    Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly.

    2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine
    Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity.

    3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines
    A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients.

    Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function.

    The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS.

    Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination.

    The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.”

    They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms.

    Universal HPV vaccination called into question

    Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials.

    Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer.

    Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels.

    Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

    If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Dr. Yuhong Dong Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here. Summary of key facts A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine. A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis. A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination. While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm. Neurological and autoimmune disorders Danish review found increased nervous system disorder In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines. Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant). Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines. Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed. In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group. Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms. Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%. The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group. By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes. This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far. Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up. These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown. They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Large studies reveal autoimmune events In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden. The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses. The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events. They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility. In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44. The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis. After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding. Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten. As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after. 1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.” Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark. So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored. This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental. However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted. Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France. A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves. The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%. The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.” This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported. A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations. In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population. Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination. Plausible mechanisms of harm Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how? Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV. According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins. This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction. The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins. The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others. Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear. The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs. Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare. The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous. HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind. Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant. An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response. The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins). In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection. The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack. Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm. The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR). According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies. From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls. A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction. Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly. 2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity. 3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients. Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function. The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS. Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination. The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.” They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms. Universal HPV vaccination called into question Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials. Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer. Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11262 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.

    The Epoch Times

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    By Yuhong Dong

    The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date.

    Summary of Key Facts

    This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006.
    In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward.
    International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1.
    The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury.

    In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm.

    The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries.

    More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence.

    Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome.

    While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    What is HPV?

    According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S.

    HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified.

    HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms.

    HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses.

    HPV-associated cancers

    High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers.

    Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers.

    An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers.

    Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper.

    Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease.

    In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men.

    But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems.

    Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses.

    The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests.

    HPV vaccines

    Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA.

    The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious.

    Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.”

    Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18).

    On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

    According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection.

    On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer.

    In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26.

    Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers.

    Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58).

    The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first.

    For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient.

    The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection.

    The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active.

    HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries

    U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events

    On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008.

    During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious.

    VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups.

    Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines.

    A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively.

    The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders.

    Australia HPV vaccines adverse events

    In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006.

    Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine.

    1 vaccine adverse events australia chart
    In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
    Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.”

    2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart
    In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
    Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged

    In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%.

    Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.”

    The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.”

    In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths.

    However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued?

    Ovarian insufficiency

    Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature.

    In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

    This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.”

    VAERS analysis on ovarian failure

    Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations.

    The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination.

    The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%).

    Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46.

    The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns.

    For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk.

    But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination.

    In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”).

    Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link.

    The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.”

    However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform.

    Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear.

    3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency

    In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination.

    As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency.

    One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency.

    Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause.

    She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal.

    The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system.

    However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating.

    The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms.

    Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link

    A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years.

    The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96.

    One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course.

    The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency.

    Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

    If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really? This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Yuhong Dong The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Summary of Key Facts This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006. In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward. International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1. The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury. In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm. The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries. More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence. Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome. While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now What is HPV? According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified. HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms. HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses. HPV-associated cancers High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers. Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers. An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers. Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper. Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease. In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men. But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems. Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses. The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests. HPV vaccines Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA. The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious. Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.” Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18). On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers. According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection. On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer. In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26. Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers. Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58). The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first. For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient. The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection. The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active. HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008. During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines. A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively. The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders. Australia HPV vaccines adverse events In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006. Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine. 1 vaccine adverse events australia chart In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.” 2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%. Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.” The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.” In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths. However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued? Ovarian insufficiency Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature. In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.” VAERS analysis on ovarian failure Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations. The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination. The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%). Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46. The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns. For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk. But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination. In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”). Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link. The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.” However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform. Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear. 3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination. As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency. One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency. Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause. She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal. The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system. However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating. The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms. Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years. The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96. One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course. The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 13411 Views
  • 📝🔖According to a #Binance #Survey targeting users in #France, #Italy, #Spain & #Sweden; roughly 73% of respondents are positive about the future of digital assets.
    📝🔖According to a #Binance #Survey targeting users in #France, #Italy, #Spain & #Sweden; roughly 73% of respondents are positive about the future of digital assets.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1403 Views
  • https://open.substack.com/pub/petersweden/p/woah-bill-gates-invested-millions?r=1tqe1i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    https://open.substack.com/pub/petersweden/p/woah-bill-gates-invested-millions?r=1tqe1i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    0 Comments 0 Shares 288 Views
  • https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1751364467835699614?s=46
    https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1751364467835699614?s=46
    0 Comments 0 Shares 170 Views
  • https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1750579765335998919?s=46
    https://x.com/petersweden7/status/1750579765335998919?s=46
    0 Comments 0 Shares 152 Views
  • Putin warns STOP THIS or else! U.K. conscription fears grow, Sweden stocks up on supplies | Redacted

    https://rumble.com/v499ih0-putin-warns-stop-this-or-else-u.k.-conscription-fears-grow-sweden-stocks-up.html
    Putin warns STOP THIS or else! U.K. conscription fears grow, Sweden stocks up on supplies | Redacted https://rumble.com/v499ih0-putin-warns-stop-this-or-else-u.k.-conscription-fears-grow-sweden-stocks-up.html
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 522 Views
  • Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise
    Rhoda WilsonJanuary 3, 2024
    The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes.

    Months before a pandemic was declared in 2020, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and CEO of Moderna Stéphane Bancel told his staff that there was going to be a pandemic and Moderna would need to manufacture a billion doses of vaccine the “next year,” being 2021.

    How did Bancel know?

    A recent article written by The Underdog may provide some insight which lays out his/her findings relating to Moderna infiltrating the USA and UK governments as well as academia.

    The Underdog is a non de plume for someone who self-describes as a citizen journalist and publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Daily Beagle’.

    In the USA, Moderna took control of the FDA and Operation Warp Speed, and influenced NIH and BARDA, The Underdog says. Adding that Moderna controls the UK government through Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

    As well as governments, The Underdog surmises that Moderna has compromised academics in universities in the USA and Canada.

    For previous articles we’ve published that relate to and complement The Underdog’s article, please see ‘Rishi Sunak, Thélème and Moderna’ and various other articles HERE.

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration of Politics

    By The Underdog

    Murder, They Wrote

    Let us clarify murderous: a peer-reviewed study found that myocarditis in under 40-year-old males was higher in those who had taken all vaccines, and those who had taken a second dose of mRNA-1273, the Moderna covid injection.

    It was so bad that Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine in young people, as noted in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”).

    As previously known, the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and their corrupt cohorts attempted to censor evidence that myocarditis has a fatality rate of 50% within 5 years. So it isn’t unreasonable to assert Moderna has in all likelihood murdered at least 50% of those with myocarditis caused by the Moderna injections; of which will include children.

    Like in an attempt to discourage people from getting the poisonous shots without declaring that they’re harmful and recalling them, Moderna recently jacked up the price of their injections to $130. A reminder Moderna produced injections that contained stainless steel contaminants.


    It cost only $2.85 to manufacture and despite this, the US government paid $15 to $26 a dose. Why?

    Moderna Have Infiltrated the Government

    Seems pretty incredulous, but no.

    Moderna Is Part of WEF

    Stéphane Bancel was “elected” 2009 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”).


    Bancel was founding chief executive officer for Moderna and joined Flagship Pioneering in 2013.

    Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna and CEO of Flagship Pioneering, “received a Technology Pioneer 2012 award from the World Economic Forum”.

    Noubar also “served as Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Chemicals, Advanced Materials and Biotechnology of the World Economic Forum as well as being a member of the Meta-Council on Emerging Technologies.”

    Moderna Took Control of Operation Warp Speed

    Moncef Slaoui, owning 82,508 Moderna shares on 21 February 2020, stepped down from Moderna, divested his stake, and went on to lead Operation Warp Speed. As it just so happened, the US government spent over $4 billion on Moderna, twice as much as any other pharmaceutical company:


    During this time of taking fat wads of government cash, Moderna also received heavy investment from hedge funds in September 2020.

    Moderna Influenced NIH, BARDA

    The NIH in December 2020 bragged how they worked with Moderna in a partnership, along with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Vaccine Research Centre to develop the myocarditis inducing mRNA-1273 injection:

    Factoring in that the NIH deleted evidence of the myocarditis fatality rate implicating firms such as Moderna and the NIH itself, this shouldn’t be surprising.

    Moderna ultimately got into a fight with NIH over mRNA patents, with Moderna insisting they did everything. Current NIH director Francis Collins remarked the NIH played “a major role in the development of the vaccine,” in which Moderna received approximately $10 billion in government funding.

    Moderna paid the NIH their bribe patent money, to the tune of $400 million, just under half a billion, but held dispute over another patent. To try to appease the NIH, Moderna offered co-ownership of the vaccine patent with NIH.

    Curiously, an NIH employee, Philip Leder, worked on mRNA research decades before NIH’s agreement with Moderna. They conveniently died in 2020.

    Moderna Took Control of the FDA


    Stephan Hahn
    Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner who insisted he’d fast-track the covid-19 injections, left the FDA to go join Flagship Pioneering after approving the injections. He claimed Donald Trump told him “to authorise a covid-19 vaccine or go.”


    Flagship Pioneering are a venture capital firm that financed and kickstarted Moderna. The CEO of Flagship Pioneering, Noubar Afeyan, also co-founded Moderna. So, they’re essentially one and the same.

    Moderna LLC was the successor in interest to Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2009 as Newco LS18, Inc. by Flagship Pioneering.

    SEC EDGAR filing on Moderna LLCnone
    One of the founding investors of Moderna, Bob Langer, also previously worked on the FDA’s advisory board according to his own biography, serving as both a member and later the chairman:

    It is likely Bob retained contacts within the FDA even after leaving.

    Moderna Control the UK Government

    This isn’t hyperbole. We wish it were.

    The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Flagship Pioneering:

    This includes a spin-off company called Quotient Therapeutics:

    The UK government also formed an unusually aggressive and expansive 10-year contract with Moderna, worth at least £1 billion for a “new vaccine centre” – despite the fact these are genetic modification injections.


    This was agreed during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as Prime Minister.

    Moderna de facto Control the Prime Minister

    The investment will benefit current unelected pharmaceutical bureaucrat Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (read as: Moderna have influence of the UK government).


    Unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
    Rishi was also formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (read as: controlled the UK government purse strings) back in 2020, and allocated even more funds to the vaccine industry during that time. He bragged how it was a “success.” For his bank account, we surmise.

    How will he benefit? Rishi Sunak co-founded a firm called Thélème Partners LLP (aka. Thélème) back in 2009, registered in the Cayman Islands, along with co-founder and former French Navy Patrick Degorce, after they previously met at The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCIF”). TCIF was run by billionaire Chris Hohn.


    Rishi Sunak appointed Thélème partner John Sheridan as an advisor to government during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Thélème started with an initial investment fund of £536m, and were early backers of Moderna. Thélème co-founder Degorce invested in Moderna over a decade ago, meaning their rise was also Rishi Sunak’s rise.

    Thélème are Moderna’s single largest hedge fund investor, despite Thélème cutting their exposure by 11%. On 30 September 2023, Thélème disclosed ownership of 6,897,612 shares of Moderna, Inc. (US:MRNA) valued at $712,454,343 USD, more than half a billion.

    The name Thélème is likely based upon the French ‘Abbaye de Thélème’, an idea invented by French monk Rabelais, who gives his vision of an “ideal and utopian abbey.”

    The “Thelemites of the Abbey” follow “do what thou wilt”. Occultist Aleister Crowley declared a so-called “Theleme religion” whose central belief was “do what thou wilt”, even remarking “There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.”

    Unsurprisingly, Moderna plant Rishi Sunak did whatever he wanted and declined to say that he did not profit from the Moderna injections. He claims to have left the firm in 2013 and that his finances are in a so-called “blind trust,” along with 10 other ministers. There’s no legal definition of a “blind trust” so this is pure theatre.


    Given he’s the original founder of Thélème, he no doubt has shares and investments and still stands to profit from Moderna’s success, explaining why he gave Flagship Pioneering favourable treatment and Moderna a 10-year contract on a plate. This is the same Rishi who tried to “break banks” during the 2008 collapse.

    On another note…

    Moderna Have Compromised Academia

    Bear in mind academic institutions are involved in peer-reviewed processes, clinical research and more, so this has wider, damning ramifications. Moderna were formed within the heart of academia.

    Moderna Have Control In MIT


    Noubar Afeyan
    Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was recently installed in MIT Corporation’s board of trustees.


    The purpose of the trust? (Emphasis added):

    […] to see that the Institute adheres to the purposes for which it was chartered and that its integrity and financial resources are preserved for future generations as well as for current purposes. […]

    “About the Corporation”, MIT Corporation pagenone
    Control of the finances. And integrity.

    During the founding period of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joined the likes of MIT Bob Langer. Langer, since investing in Moderna, has now become a billionaire as a result.

    MIT Mandates the Covid-19 Injection, That MIT Based Modern Just Happens to Sell

    Profitably for MIT-inspired Moderna, during Moderna’s rise, MIT adopted a vaccine mandate, one where MIT reported there were still covid-19 cases anyway and that they weren’t mild:

    They huffed the copium and tried to argue there were no Omicron-related hospitalisations (Omicron is deemed the mildest of the covid-19 set), but conveniently omitted Alpha, Delta, and the others, implying there were other variant hospitalisations (read as: The injections they mandated for profits, didn’t work).

    Noubar Afeyan and MIT’s Bob Langer are also joined by investor Derrick Rossi (Harvard), after they learn they can reprogram human cells and reverse them back into pluripotent stem cells based on Harvard Derrick Rossi’s research. Notice it involves using mRNA to change human cells (read as: Modify their DNA).

    Rossi is head of the Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Current Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel also studied at Harvard.

    Rossi approached Harvard faculty member Timothy Springer asking him to invest in Moderna, which he did so. In April 2021, Timothy Springer was declared a billionaire by Cord Magazine. Back patting their own, Timothy Springer went on to receive a Lasker award, and a Robert Koch prize.

    The Koch brothers also finances MIT Bob Langer’s lab:

    In a surprise to no-one, Harvard also mandated the injection from which they stand to profit.

    This included for Harvard staff, flushing out anyone critical of the financial abuses by the vaccine industry.


    Bearing in mind the majority of Moderna directed Operation Warp Speed financing went to Moderna, the majority of the injections that would have been available would have also been primarily Moderna, guaranteeing their selfish, harmful, murderous profit

    Remember: Those below the age of 40 are adversely affected by myocarditis, and the majority of students on campus would be below that age; 50% fatality rate within 5 years for myocarditis.

    University of Toronto, As Well – Maybe Even the Canadian Government?

    The Academia orgy was apparently not big enough, and the University of Toronto wanted some, giving Derrick Rossi an “honorary degree”.


    University of Toronto are particularly interesting because they’re one of a handful of “kingmaker universities” in Canada.

    When investigating Acuitas Therapeutics, The Daily Beagle remarked:

    The only University with more Canadian Prime Ministers is University of Toronto, with Arthur Meighen, W.L. Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, and Paul Martin.

    It is very likely a lot of ministers for the Canadian government also come from the University of Toronto. So, the University of Toronto’s corrupt love-in with Moderna implies Moderna also has influence over the Canadian government.

    And in surprise to no-one, the University of Toronto also anti-competitively mandated the emergency authorisation injections:


    You know, the same injections Health Canada admitted contained plasmid DNA, the same kind Moderna used in partnership with Aldevron.

    What is it with academic universities mandating the injections from which they stand to benefit financially?

    Moderna are in Bed with Multiple Major Pharmaceutical Companies

    To give you an idea how deep this shell game goes, did you know that AstraZeneca are one of the key initial investors in Moderna and a major shareholder? So it doesn’t matter to them if their AstraZeneca injection becomes the fall guy for mRNA shots – they profit either way!

    And guess what they focused on? Heart disease and cancer (any time you see the word ‘oncology’, think cancer).

    Moderna Clearly Expects a Lot of Cancer

    Moderna went batshit and agreed a lot of partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms and fired up a lot of oncology (cancer) related spin-offs.

    Even in their own timeline, they spun-off ‘Onkaido Therapeutics’ to research cancer, partnered with Merck to advocate “personalised” cancer vaccines, and then produced mRNA injections, mRNA-4157, for tumours.


    They also launched ‘Caperna LLC’, again focusing on personalised cancer vaccines.

    Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed with Pfizer


    Moderna love-in Flagship Pioneering got into bed with Pfizer to do a $100 million drug discovery jaunt in July 2023. What type of drugs, they mysteriously didn’t say. Pfizer said their breakthroughs would “change patients’ lives”. They didn’t say for the better.

    This isn’t forgetting that earlier in 2023 Pfizer bought out Seagan for a whopping $43 billion in order to develop cancer drugs.


    Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed With Novo Nordisk

    The target? Heart disease and “rare diseases” (it’s only “rare”):

    Established in 2022, after it was found the Moderna injections cause myocarditis. Convenient.

    The Daily Beagle Smells a Rat – Merck Again

    Despite being rightly lambasted for making a harmful, murderous product and taking a beating with stocks and shares, on about 12 December 2023, Moderna started to mysteriously climb, and The Daily Beagle smelled a rat.


    And a rat it was. On the 14 December Moderna and Merck bragged their little jaunt into personalised cancer vaccines – vaguely worded as “a powerful new cancer therapy” – was “in the works.” We wonder if it’s as “safe and effective” as the myocarditis inducing covid-19 injections.

    What a great way to profit. Introduce DNA with transfection agents that cause insertational mutagensis (read as: Cause foreign DNA to enter your DNA and cause cancer), then profit from the resulting spike in cancer cases.


    Cancer, Cancer Everywhere

    Moderna’s entire theme seems to be primarily cancer focused. Besides the partnerships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Aldevron, NIH and more, it turns out Moderna is even more focused on cancer (somehow).

    Take former FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, for example, the man who betrayed the American public for a cushy job at Flagship Pioneering:


    He specialises in oncology (cancer), having been part of the National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and American Society for Radiation Oncology. Conveniently this also means Moderna has influence over cancer research (read as: No investigating any Moderna-related causes of cancer).

    University of Texas Cancer Corruption

    In another tangled web of cancer-related corruption, MD Anderson Cancer Centre are owned by the Koch brothers. Koch financed the likes of Moderna’s Bob Langer’s lab and gave Moderna investor Timothy Springer a monetary award.

    MD Anderson Cancer Centre, were involved in controversy when the President, Ronald DePinho, was found to own stocks in Aveo Oncology, a company whose drugs University of Texas would be assessing in clinical trial, at none other than… the MD Anderson Cancer Centre.

    We bet it is exciting … for your bank account.

    Unsurprisingly, the corrupt University of Texas investigated itself and found itself innocent, using the meaningless term “blind trust” with zero transparency on the arrangement. University of Texas wheeled out the usual nonsense that financial conflicts of interest were somehow in the patients’ best interests.


    Surely they mean the best interests of the investors, University of Texas itself! And what safeguards? You kept the stocks and the clinical trial.

    Any Cure for The Cancer That Is Corruption?

    Apparently not.

    Even now, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is somehow selling off 40,000 shares a pop via automatic sells, without somehow reducing the total number of shares he holds (???):


    Apparently Moderna can just print itself as many shares for profit as it wants, on account of how many departments and institutions it controls.

    Oh, and to top it off, Moderna are even in bed with charities. Oxfam America (you know, of Oxfam child rapists fame) filed a SEC complaint that Moderna had committed fraud and misled investors (read as: Oxfam America is an investor in Moderna).

    Tip of the Iceberg

    Phew, that’s a lot to go over. No doubt there’s more, however we’ll be cutting it here for now as it is a lot to go over. It is surprising how much influence and control Moderna have consolidated in such a short space of time, and no doubt corruption is rife abounds elsewhere too.



    https://expose-news.com/2024/01/03/modernas-influence-over-the-us-and-uk
    Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise Rhoda WilsonJanuary 3, 2024 The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes. Months before a pandemic was declared in 2020, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and CEO of Moderna Stéphane Bancel told his staff that there was going to be a pandemic and Moderna would need to manufacture a billion doses of vaccine the “next year,” being 2021. How did Bancel know? A recent article written by The Underdog may provide some insight which lays out his/her findings relating to Moderna infiltrating the USA and UK governments as well as academia. The Underdog is a non de plume for someone who self-describes as a citizen journalist and publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Daily Beagle’. In the USA, Moderna took control of the FDA and Operation Warp Speed, and influenced NIH and BARDA, The Underdog says. Adding that Moderna controls the UK government through Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. As well as governments, The Underdog surmises that Moderna has compromised academics in universities in the USA and Canada. For previous articles we’ve published that relate to and complement The Underdog’s article, please see ‘Rishi Sunak, Thélème and Moderna’ and various other articles HERE. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration of Politics By The Underdog Murder, They Wrote Let us clarify murderous: a peer-reviewed study found that myocarditis in under 40-year-old males was higher in those who had taken all vaccines, and those who had taken a second dose of mRNA-1273, the Moderna covid injection. It was so bad that Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine in young people, as noted in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”). As previously known, the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and their corrupt cohorts attempted to censor evidence that myocarditis has a fatality rate of 50% within 5 years. So it isn’t unreasonable to assert Moderna has in all likelihood murdered at least 50% of those with myocarditis caused by the Moderna injections; of which will include children. Like in an attempt to discourage people from getting the poisonous shots without declaring that they’re harmful and recalling them, Moderna recently jacked up the price of their injections to $130. A reminder Moderna produced injections that contained stainless steel contaminants. It cost only $2.85 to manufacture and despite this, the US government paid $15 to $26 a dose. Why? Moderna Have Infiltrated the Government Seems pretty incredulous, but no. Moderna Is Part of WEF Stéphane Bancel was “elected” 2009 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). Bancel was founding chief executive officer for Moderna and joined Flagship Pioneering in 2013. Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna and CEO of Flagship Pioneering, “received a Technology Pioneer 2012 award from the World Economic Forum”. Noubar also “served as Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Chemicals, Advanced Materials and Biotechnology of the World Economic Forum as well as being a member of the Meta-Council on Emerging Technologies.” Moderna Took Control of Operation Warp Speed Moncef Slaoui, owning 82,508 Moderna shares on 21 February 2020, stepped down from Moderna, divested his stake, and went on to lead Operation Warp Speed. As it just so happened, the US government spent over $4 billion on Moderna, twice as much as any other pharmaceutical company: During this time of taking fat wads of government cash, Moderna also received heavy investment from hedge funds in September 2020. Moderna Influenced NIH, BARDA The NIH in December 2020 bragged how they worked with Moderna in a partnership, along with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Vaccine Research Centre to develop the myocarditis inducing mRNA-1273 injection: Factoring in that the NIH deleted evidence of the myocarditis fatality rate implicating firms such as Moderna and the NIH itself, this shouldn’t be surprising. Moderna ultimately got into a fight with NIH over mRNA patents, with Moderna insisting they did everything. Current NIH director Francis Collins remarked the NIH played “a major role in the development of the vaccine,” in which Moderna received approximately $10 billion in government funding. Moderna paid the NIH their bribe patent money, to the tune of $400 million, just under half a billion, but held dispute over another patent. To try to appease the NIH, Moderna offered co-ownership of the vaccine patent with NIH. Curiously, an NIH employee, Philip Leder, worked on mRNA research decades before NIH’s agreement with Moderna. They conveniently died in 2020. Moderna Took Control of the FDA Stephan Hahn Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner who insisted he’d fast-track the covid-19 injections, left the FDA to go join Flagship Pioneering after approving the injections. He claimed Donald Trump told him “to authorise a covid-19 vaccine or go.” Flagship Pioneering are a venture capital firm that financed and kickstarted Moderna. The CEO of Flagship Pioneering, Noubar Afeyan, also co-founded Moderna. So, they’re essentially one and the same. Moderna LLC was the successor in interest to Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2009 as Newco LS18, Inc. by Flagship Pioneering. SEC EDGAR filing on Moderna LLCnone One of the founding investors of Moderna, Bob Langer, also previously worked on the FDA’s advisory board according to his own biography, serving as both a member and later the chairman: It is likely Bob retained contacts within the FDA even after leaving. Moderna Control the UK Government This isn’t hyperbole. We wish it were. The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Flagship Pioneering: This includes a spin-off company called Quotient Therapeutics: The UK government also formed an unusually aggressive and expansive 10-year contract with Moderna, worth at least £1 billion for a “new vaccine centre” – despite the fact these are genetic modification injections. This was agreed during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as Prime Minister. Moderna de facto Control the Prime Minister The investment will benefit current unelected pharmaceutical bureaucrat Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (read as: Moderna have influence of the UK government). Unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Rishi was also formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (read as: controlled the UK government purse strings) back in 2020, and allocated even more funds to the vaccine industry during that time. He bragged how it was a “success.” For his bank account, we surmise. How will he benefit? Rishi Sunak co-founded a firm called Thélème Partners LLP (aka. Thélème) back in 2009, registered in the Cayman Islands, along with co-founder and former French Navy Patrick Degorce, after they previously met at The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCIF”). TCIF was run by billionaire Chris Hohn. Rishi Sunak appointed Thélème partner John Sheridan as an advisor to government during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thélème started with an initial investment fund of £536m, and were early backers of Moderna. Thélème co-founder Degorce invested in Moderna over a decade ago, meaning their rise was also Rishi Sunak’s rise. Thélème are Moderna’s single largest hedge fund investor, despite Thélème cutting their exposure by 11%. On 30 September 2023, Thélème disclosed ownership of 6,897,612 shares of Moderna, Inc. (US:MRNA) valued at $712,454,343 USD, more than half a billion. The name Thélème is likely based upon the French ‘Abbaye de Thélème’, an idea invented by French monk Rabelais, who gives his vision of an “ideal and utopian abbey.” The “Thelemites of the Abbey” follow “do what thou wilt”. Occultist Aleister Crowley declared a so-called “Theleme religion” whose central belief was “do what thou wilt”, even remarking “There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.” Unsurprisingly, Moderna plant Rishi Sunak did whatever he wanted and declined to say that he did not profit from the Moderna injections. He claims to have left the firm in 2013 and that his finances are in a so-called “blind trust,” along with 10 other ministers. There’s no legal definition of a “blind trust” so this is pure theatre. Given he’s the original founder of Thélème, he no doubt has shares and investments and still stands to profit from Moderna’s success, explaining why he gave Flagship Pioneering favourable treatment and Moderna a 10-year contract on a plate. This is the same Rishi who tried to “break banks” during the 2008 collapse. On another note… Moderna Have Compromised Academia Bear in mind academic institutions are involved in peer-reviewed processes, clinical research and more, so this has wider, damning ramifications. Moderna were formed within the heart of academia. Moderna Have Control In MIT Noubar Afeyan Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was recently installed in MIT Corporation’s board of trustees. The purpose of the trust? (Emphasis added): […] to see that the Institute adheres to the purposes for which it was chartered and that its integrity and financial resources are preserved for future generations as well as for current purposes. […] “About the Corporation”, MIT Corporation pagenone Control of the finances. And integrity. During the founding period of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joined the likes of MIT Bob Langer. Langer, since investing in Moderna, has now become a billionaire as a result. MIT Mandates the Covid-19 Injection, That MIT Based Modern Just Happens to Sell Profitably for MIT-inspired Moderna, during Moderna’s rise, MIT adopted a vaccine mandate, one where MIT reported there were still covid-19 cases anyway and that they weren’t mild: They huffed the copium and tried to argue there were no Omicron-related hospitalisations (Omicron is deemed the mildest of the covid-19 set), but conveniently omitted Alpha, Delta, and the others, implying there were other variant hospitalisations (read as: The injections they mandated for profits, didn’t work). Noubar Afeyan and MIT’s Bob Langer are also joined by investor Derrick Rossi (Harvard), after they learn they can reprogram human cells and reverse them back into pluripotent stem cells based on Harvard Derrick Rossi’s research. Notice it involves using mRNA to change human cells (read as: Modify their DNA). Rossi is head of the Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Current Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel also studied at Harvard. Rossi approached Harvard faculty member Timothy Springer asking him to invest in Moderna, which he did so. In April 2021, Timothy Springer was declared a billionaire by Cord Magazine. Back patting their own, Timothy Springer went on to receive a Lasker award, and a Robert Koch prize. The Koch brothers also finances MIT Bob Langer’s lab: In a surprise to no-one, Harvard also mandated the injection from which they stand to profit. This included for Harvard staff, flushing out anyone critical of the financial abuses by the vaccine industry. Bearing in mind the majority of Moderna directed Operation Warp Speed financing went to Moderna, the majority of the injections that would have been available would have also been primarily Moderna, guaranteeing their selfish, harmful, murderous profit Remember: Those below the age of 40 are adversely affected by myocarditis, and the majority of students on campus would be below that age; 50% fatality rate within 5 years for myocarditis. University of Toronto, As Well – Maybe Even the Canadian Government? The Academia orgy was apparently not big enough, and the University of Toronto wanted some, giving Derrick Rossi an “honorary degree”. University of Toronto are particularly interesting because they’re one of a handful of “kingmaker universities” in Canada. When investigating Acuitas Therapeutics, The Daily Beagle remarked: The only University with more Canadian Prime Ministers is University of Toronto, with Arthur Meighen, W.L. Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, and Paul Martin. It is very likely a lot of ministers for the Canadian government also come from the University of Toronto. So, the University of Toronto’s corrupt love-in with Moderna implies Moderna also has influence over the Canadian government. And in surprise to no-one, the University of Toronto also anti-competitively mandated the emergency authorisation injections: You know, the same injections Health Canada admitted contained plasmid DNA, the same kind Moderna used in partnership with Aldevron. What is it with academic universities mandating the injections from which they stand to benefit financially? Moderna are in Bed with Multiple Major Pharmaceutical Companies To give you an idea how deep this shell game goes, did you know that AstraZeneca are one of the key initial investors in Moderna and a major shareholder? So it doesn’t matter to them if their AstraZeneca injection becomes the fall guy for mRNA shots – they profit either way! And guess what they focused on? Heart disease and cancer (any time you see the word ‘oncology’, think cancer). Moderna Clearly Expects a Lot of Cancer Moderna went batshit and agreed a lot of partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms and fired up a lot of oncology (cancer) related spin-offs. Even in their own timeline, they spun-off ‘Onkaido Therapeutics’ to research cancer, partnered with Merck to advocate “personalised” cancer vaccines, and then produced mRNA injections, mRNA-4157, for tumours. They also launched ‘Caperna LLC’, again focusing on personalised cancer vaccines. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed with Pfizer Moderna love-in Flagship Pioneering got into bed with Pfizer to do a $100 million drug discovery jaunt in July 2023. What type of drugs, they mysteriously didn’t say. Pfizer said their breakthroughs would “change patients’ lives”. They didn’t say for the better. This isn’t forgetting that earlier in 2023 Pfizer bought out Seagan for a whopping $43 billion in order to develop cancer drugs. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed With Novo Nordisk The target? Heart disease and “rare diseases” (it’s only “rare”): Established in 2022, after it was found the Moderna injections cause myocarditis. Convenient. The Daily Beagle Smells a Rat – Merck Again Despite being rightly lambasted for making a harmful, murderous product and taking a beating with stocks and shares, on about 12 December 2023, Moderna started to mysteriously climb, and The Daily Beagle smelled a rat. And a rat it was. On the 14 December Moderna and Merck bragged their little jaunt into personalised cancer vaccines – vaguely worded as “a powerful new cancer therapy” – was “in the works.” We wonder if it’s as “safe and effective” as the myocarditis inducing covid-19 injections. What a great way to profit. Introduce DNA with transfection agents that cause insertational mutagensis (read as: Cause foreign DNA to enter your DNA and cause cancer), then profit from the resulting spike in cancer cases. Cancer, Cancer Everywhere Moderna’s entire theme seems to be primarily cancer focused. Besides the partnerships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Aldevron, NIH and more, it turns out Moderna is even more focused on cancer (somehow). Take former FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, for example, the man who betrayed the American public for a cushy job at Flagship Pioneering: He specialises in oncology (cancer), having been part of the National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and American Society for Radiation Oncology. Conveniently this also means Moderna has influence over cancer research (read as: No investigating any Moderna-related causes of cancer). University of Texas Cancer Corruption In another tangled web of cancer-related corruption, MD Anderson Cancer Centre are owned by the Koch brothers. Koch financed the likes of Moderna’s Bob Langer’s lab and gave Moderna investor Timothy Springer a monetary award. MD Anderson Cancer Centre, were involved in controversy when the President, Ronald DePinho, was found to own stocks in Aveo Oncology, a company whose drugs University of Texas would be assessing in clinical trial, at none other than… the MD Anderson Cancer Centre. We bet it is exciting … for your bank account. Unsurprisingly, the corrupt University of Texas investigated itself and found itself innocent, using the meaningless term “blind trust” with zero transparency on the arrangement. University of Texas wheeled out the usual nonsense that financial conflicts of interest were somehow in the patients’ best interests. Surely they mean the best interests of the investors, University of Texas itself! And what safeguards? You kept the stocks and the clinical trial. Any Cure for The Cancer That Is Corruption? Apparently not. Even now, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is somehow selling off 40,000 shares a pop via automatic sells, without somehow reducing the total number of shares he holds (???): Apparently Moderna can just print itself as many shares for profit as it wants, on account of how many departments and institutions it controls. Oh, and to top it off, Moderna are even in bed with charities. Oxfam America (you know, of Oxfam child rapists fame) filed a SEC complaint that Moderna had committed fraud and misled investors (read as: Oxfam America is an investor in Moderna). Tip of the Iceberg Phew, that’s a lot to go over. No doubt there’s more, however we’ll be cutting it here for now as it is a lot to go over. It is surprising how much influence and control Moderna have consolidated in such a short space of time, and no doubt corruption is rife abounds elsewhere too. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/03/modernas-influence-over-the-us-and-uk
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise
    The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes.…
    Angry
    1
    1 Comments 1 Shares 12570 Views
  • PeterSweden on X: "HUGE NEWS 🇸🇪 Sweden is now going AGAINST cashless agenda. The right-wing Swedish government is looking at strengthening the use of physical cash for the future and FORCE shops to accept cash. What's going on, is this really happening? Sweden is suddenly doing one good thing… https://t.co/OdrB7L2jyh" / X
    https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1749194129823723799
    PeterSweden on X: "HUGE NEWS 🇸🇪 Sweden is now going AGAINST cashless agenda. The right-wing Swedish government is looking at strengthening the use of physical cash for the future and FORCE shops to accept cash. What's going on, is this really happening? Sweden is suddenly doing one good thing… https://t.co/OdrB7L2jyh" / X https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1749194129823723799
    0 Comments 0 Shares 866 Views
More Results