Introduction reading time: 2 minutes
The lableak was the start of a series of moves that can best be described as panic chess. Every move was disastrous. It started with hasty strategic consultation between involved teams, from lab technicians to responsible government agencies including Tony Fauci, in a virological/pharmaceutical network. The common goal was to prevent escalation at all costs. Under no circumstances should this incident be at the expense of the valuable program that was followed in the service of the world's population to withstand future pandemics (something that has threatened us with extinction for millions of years).
That story could still be made transparent. But the fact that billions of taxpayers' money have been spent under that cover on illegal activities and military cooperation with other powers, the development of biological weapons, that life-threatening and explicitly forbidden tinkering games were being played in China at the expense of the American, that should of course not be revealed under any circumstances. And certainly not if it causes a global pandemic.
You can read all about that consultation in the conversations between the medical-industrial officials involved, who are guided by what could happen if it turned out to be a lab leak. Their research programs would go up in smoke; functions, departments and funds would disappear. So even though they considered the lableak option the most likely, their scientific output argues otherwise.
Every effort was made to prevent further spread of the virus: inhumane lockdowns, a warp speed vaccine, presenting the virus ten times as deadly as it really was, circumventing protocols and laws and so on. Including science fraud.
If that were to happen, blaming government-sponsored virus experiments, the entire industry would have to go underground to keep up with the Chinese — who, of course, will continue on their own, in their own way with potentially even worse safety features.
Certainly for the Americans, this enemy thinking will be the argument for continuing GoF research anyway. It is unstoppable so we need to move towards regulation and supervision. Unfortunately, this has proved to be an impossibility: these pharma-industrial forces, which are intertwined with existential, almost instinctive values such as public health, ideology and enemy image (also found in climate thinking), are uncontrollable.
The pharmaceutical companies, in close cooperation with the scientists, governments and regulators involved, have been tempted to bring a brand new vaccine to the market in an irresponsibly short period of time. Who put pressure on whom is of secondary importance. Personally, I think the pressure from governments was just as great as vice versa, when the pharmaceutical companies came up with their conditions and prices. They were condemned to each other. How vaccine development has gone reads like a series of ruthless deceptions and outright fraud as we know from "The Real Anthony Fauci."
How that worked can be read in the first part of an article by amidwesterndoctor, here reposted by Robert Malone. The barely comprehensible science fraud is listed with links to documentation, where available. Because it gives such a complete picture and substantiates many of our observations and assumptions, I put it integrally on virus varia.
It's a long piece, I'll divide it into two articles. The second part, mainly cases of misguided victims, will follow later next week. If you can't wait, read Robert Malone's Substack.
If you don't get to the reading, you're missing a gem in the last sentences: in the case of vaccination damage, the diagnosis of "long-covid" is made because there is a right to care. After all, there is no evidence for vaccine damage, let alone treatment. Long Covid, on the other hand, is a serious problem that receives compassionate attention.
It's a computer translation that I've gotten the worst errors out of. If you find that disturbing and you read English, go to the substack by Robert Malone, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
What really happened during the COVID-19 vaccination trials?
Indeed, what really happened? What went wrong with the mRNA vaccine genetic trials? How is it possible that the many side effects and the bad effect on illness and death from COVID-19 were not discovered?
This essay provides part of the answer – overt clinical trial fraud. The other important part of the answer is that the studies were simply too small to reliably detect pathogenicity results. The virulence of the virus is relatively low, except in a number of selected cohorts (which were not selected or "enriched" in the studies), so the detection of clear protective effects would have required much larger numbers of participants, more time and more money! – Robert W Malone MD, MS
Remark: This article was originally published on Mercola.com. I (Malone) have learned a lot from his website over the decades and it was one of the main influences that inspired me to write here.
The story at a glance:
- One strategy used by Big Pharma to cheat sickened subjects by pharmaceuticals is to insist that there is no data linking the injury to the drug. Often the conditions were indeed observed during the study, but were simply withheld to create the illusion that the drug was safe.
- To hide side effects during a clinical trial, Big Pharma should aggressively inform participants with symptoms gaslights1(Gaslightingis a form of psychological manipulation in which the perpetrator, consciously or not,is out to mentally upset the victim (opponent). The perpetrator tries to achieve this by sowing doubt in the victim of his own common sense (Wikipedia).. Despite the fact that this ongoing practice has produced unreliable data for decades and seriously harmed countless research participants, nothing has been done to address this problem.
- Numerous individuals have bravely come forward to testify that serious misconduct has occurred during the COVID-19 trials. This misconduct resulted in a high human toll. The misconduct identified is similar to what has happened in previous studies and proves that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccine was fraudulent.
Recently, I discussed the horrific topic of medical gaslighting, something many have faced during the pandemic, when one doctor after another claimed that COVID-19 vaccine side effects don't occur and that physical problems should all be in your head. Today I will discuss a central basis of medical gaslighting.
One of the most important things that underlies almost all cults (along with many other organizations that want to control large numbers of people) is that its adherents are trained to interpret everything they see through the lens of their ideology, and to deny anything that might call this ideology into question. Within the modern institution of science, this is achieved by creating the mythology that humans are irrational beings whose perceptions cannot be trusted.
The "science" then solves the problem it created by providing "evidence" that is more reliable than each person's individual "flawed" observations and thus effectively silences any challenge to the institute (for example, the unwelcome side effects often seen by the public).
In medicine, we see this problem recur when doctors insist that there is "no evidence" that a negative reaction to a medical product may have occurred. Instead, it must have been a coincidence or, for example, the result of a pre-existing psychological problem. Unsurprisingly, this mind-set encourages pharmaceutical companies to do everything they can to produce clinical trials that hide all the side effects of their product.
The "gold standard" of randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the embodiment of that method. In theory, these studies provide the most accurate data (to the point that doctors will rarely consider anything else), but in reality, their benefit is much smaller than most realize (well explained in this essay by Harvey Risch).
Conversely, it costs a huge amount of money to run large RCTs and that "sponsor bias" inevitably leads to the trial being twisted to support the interests of the sponsors.
Although this is a long-standing problem, unfortunately it has never been properly addressed and the majority of doctors in practice are totally unaware of this problem, as they see RCTs as a necessary box to check off when making medical decisions.
Remark: If the effect of a drug is very small, a large placebo-controlled trial is needed to discover the benefit (or just make it up), but if the benefit is large, it can be demonstrated with a much smaller study. So I and my colleagues like to look at data from smaller trials as well, because we believe that therapies that are used clinically should demonstrate a substantial benefit rather than a minimal benefit that you have to derive from the data from a large study.
Previous vaccine debacles
As far as I know, four different vaccines have been given to a large number of adults without any benefit and with an extremely high rate of serious side effects. The forgotten lessons of what happened to the first three (smallpox, anthrax and human papillomavirus) were important because they accurately predicted what was going to happen again with the COVID-19 vaccines.
The most recent vaccine, Gardasil, the vaccine for HPV, provided no benefit to those who received it and had a very high rate of severe reactions in young adolescent girls. However, it made Merck a lot of money at a time when the company was losing revenue due to the lawsuits against the company for Vioxx. Similarly, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine is the Most successful pharmaceutical product in history, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
When the trials for the HPV vaccine were conducted, an alarming number of side effects occurred (mainly autoimmune in nature) and Merck's doctors systematically informed the participants by tricking them into believing that their diseases were not associated with Gardasil: gaslighting, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
After extensive research and testimonials from test subjects, it was determined that Merck intentionally serious side effects concealed to get the vaccine to market. But instead of addressing these medical issues (and the large number of complaints the government received from wounded Americans), the FDA and CDC join forces to produce research that suggested the HPV vaccine was in fact safe.
The best metaphor I've been able to come up with so far to describe this is entering into an abusive relationship. The abuser will first lure you by promising you anything in exchange for your permission to enter their web of deception.
Then, once they get you on board, they break every promise they made before, gradually treat you worse and worse, and make you believe that your problems don't really exist. Eventually, when they don't need you anymore, they'll discard you and you'll just have to bail yourself out, which is impossible if you have a life-changing medical injury. Keep this in mind as we look at what happened in the COVID-19 trials.
COVID-19 vaccine trials
The main purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine trials was:
- The trials were completing in a much shorter time frame than usual so that the vaccines could reach the market before the pandemic ended on its own (which essentially happened in Africa where vaccines were never used).
- Coming up with something that could be used to justify the vaccines being "effective" so that the medical profession would wholeheartedly support and promote them.
- Concealing any side effects of the vaccines so that the medical profession could calmly recommend the vaccines and, more importantly, ensuring that doctors would deny during the rollout that any harm they had observed in patients could be associated with the vaccine. If doctors acknowledged the widespread harm, it would negate vaccine readiness.
Remark: The FDA also understood the urgency to open up this market and looked away from a number of shortcomings that would normally be required, using the current "emergency" as justification. Similarly, to quote a recent study by Die Welt:
"But was there time for such a thorough assessment by the authorities? Emails from the EMA [the European FDA], which are available to WELT [the newspaper], show that the FDA, the British MHRA [the FDA of England] and the EMA itself already agreed on the date of approval before they could even look at the Pfizer papers."
Long before the vaccines hit the market, an extensive publicity campaign was launched to portray the vaccines as the miraculous "solution" to the horrific pandemic we were going through and which we had largely caused ourselves. Once the vaccines were available, those publicity efforts kicked into high gear and it became the Most aggressive propaganda campaign that we had experienced at some point in our lives.
Not surprisingly, this plan also led to the vaccine manufacturers having the guts to use titles like "Safety and efficacy of the BRNA Covid-19 vaccine of BNT162b2 [Pfizer]" for the publications of their investigations. At the same time, we were told the same soundbite over and over again "we had hoped that the vaccines would be effective, but we never thought they would be so effective".
My fellow doctors took that for granted, and it became almost impossible to provide them with any evidence to challenge this so-called modern miracle.
When the trials of the COVID-19 vaccine took place, as with many previous trials, participants were promised that any problems would be resolved by the pharmaceutical companies. When the side effects actually occurred, participants were told that their ailments had nothing to do with the vaccine.
In addition, these unfortunate people were diagnosed with "mental disorder," denied (contractually required) medical care, and were removed from the study. In short, the participants in the COVID-19 trial were attacked to the limit by means of gaslighting.
For example, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a playbook for how to hide adverse events and create the illusion of the efficacy of their medication. Those who knew this industrial playbook from previous debacles such as the Gardasil tests saw it reflected in the COVID-19 trials.
Problems with the Pfizer studies
When I original Pfizer study read through, a few red flags jumped out:
- The vaccines had never been tested for preventing transmission. Who knew how previous vaccines failed to prevent transmission, did not trust that the vaccine's efficacy in reducing symptoms would now suddenly translate to the effectiveness that all doctors were eager for (reducing the transmission of COVID-19).
- The actual benefits of the vaccine were very small. You had to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one small case of COVID-19 (e.g., sore throat + a positive test), 2711 people to prevent one "serious" case of COVID-19, and since no deaths were prevented in the study, more than 21,720 people had to be vaccinated to prevent one death from COVID-19. How much more is unclear: 21,720 is the total number vaccinated in the study.
- Most of the suspected adverse reactions of these vaccines (e.g. cancer) were not found to be part of the adverse reactions monitored. It was also virtually impossible that they would occur in the short span of time of the trials.
- The side effects reported were much higher than what was usually reported in studies for other vaccines (e.g., 59% experienced fatigue after the Pfizer vaccine, while about 10-15% experienced fatigue after a flu vaccine).
- The real benefit of the vaccines was much smaller Then the disadvantages of the side effects that were recognized in the research report.
- The notable side effects (which I remember reading in the online support groups for 2020 vaccination participants I joined) didn't appear in any research report I read, including Pfizer. I had joined these online groups because I was suspicious of the vaccines and, knowing what had happened in the HPV vaccine tests, I felt that this was the only way to find out what had really happened to the participants in the tests.
But if this was the best they could do, with their whole bag of tricks, how bad was the actual test data supposed to be?
Unfortunately, my colleagues, who often lecture us on how to dissect scientific publications skeptically, were so delighted with the "the vaccine is even safer and more effective than we thought" meme that all of these points fell on deaf ears.
A few did come up against these problems. Peter Doshi published a series of editorials (summarized here) in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which is considered one of the top 5 medical journals in the world. He explained why the design of the vaccine trials and the evidence for Pfizer's vaccines were insufficient and could not warrant FDA approval.
Unfortunately, his experiences with his colleagues matched mine and his points were almost completely ignored by the medical profession.
One of Doshi's many observations was that there was evidence in the data that the study was not blinded and that the full benefit of the vaccine may have been due to the fact that vaccinated individuals had not been tested for COVID-19 (creating the illusion that vaccinated individuals were less likely to have lab-confirmed COVID-19).
A whistleblower then spoke out: Brook Jackson, which helped conduct one of Pfizer's clinical trials. It had reported irregularities:
- The trial of the COVID-19 vaccine she participated in was conducted in a haphazard manner that she was not used to from all the other trials she had participated in throughout her career.
- The investigation was not blinded and protocols that should have been followed to ensure blinding were flagrantly violated.
- Vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 were not tested for COVID-19.
- Adverse reactions in vaccinated subjects were not adequately recorded.
Concerned that it would violate FDA requirements for clinical trial sites, Brook warned her superiors about what was going on so they could address it. After repeated unsuccessful pleas, she finally notified the FDA directly. Although the FDA did not investigate her concerns, they apparently did notify her employer, as Brook was fired the same day.
Remark: Like Doshi describes in detail, there has long been a problem with the FDA not adequately overseeing clinical trial sites. A separate study to the FDA's oversight of biologics (e.g., vaccines) revealed that their laxity in oversight dramatically worsened during Operation Warp Speed, the partnership between the Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense, with the goal of accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Brook submitted her story to the BMJ, which corroborated her claims through documents she provided and through other employees at the trial site. I highly recommend the BMJ's research to understand exactly what happened. Following her firing, Brook filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer, which is currently pending in federal court.
Remark: While you can hide most things by manipulating clinical trials, there's one thing that's very hard to hide: the total number of deaths (because they can't be reclassified as anything else). When Pfizer ended their study prematurely after 6 months, more people had died in the vaccination group than in the placebo group (and I suspect this would have gotten worse over time).
The report That revealed this fact and thereby undermined the arguments for vaccine coercion was released more than a year ago.
Another interesting fact was that most of the data collected from the clinical trial sites never made it to the FDA. Instead, the FDA receives only a very small portion that is believed to be representative of everything that has happened.
I suspect this is one of the many reasons why the FDA could truthfully claim that they didn't know this was happening, although, as this article shows, they're clearly also guilty because they didn't choose to include the reports of adverse events (such as those of Maddie), of which they directly knew they happened, to request.
Fraud is common in clinical trials and is then swept under the rug. However, the global attention for the COVID-19 vaccines also offered a unique opportunity. Numerous whistleblowers revealed what happened during the clinical trials. Before we get into what the study participants went through, I'd like to share a short video that I think does a good job of reflecting what whistleblowers have to endure.
Whistleblowers are crucial for correcting abuses in government and health care. They always pay a high price, yet they would choose to do it again.
Gøtzsche's presentation gives the best explanation I've ever seen about what drives the heroes we need now more than ever.
The strategy of the COVID-19 vaccine research
Wanneer precies weten we niet, maar Pfizer en Moderna wisten al vrij vroeg dat er serieuze risico’s verbonden waren aan het gebruik van het mRNA spike-eiwitplatform voor vaccinatie. Dit was waarschijnlijk ook het geval voor AstraZeneca en Johnson & Johnson met hun spike-eiwitvaccin.
This put them in a difficult position: how could the vaccines they wanted to make for Operation Warp Speed be "safe" enough to win the vaccination race and get the market share they wanted?
From preclinical documents (eg. this) shows that this was initially achieved by dispensing with many of the safety tests on non-human subjects, which would normally be required before proceeding with human studies. Pfizer, for example, was allowed by regulators to skip testing for autoimmunity or cancer risks, on the grounds that it would delay delivery too much.
I took this as a tacit acknowledgement that it was known that there were serious problems, given that there were major concerns about autoimmunity and cancer, which have since become some of the vaccines' best-known complications.
Pfizer, in turn, concluded that their best option was to never formally test for these problems so that Pfizer could plausibly demonstrate that they didn't know they existed and claim that there was no evidence that the problem existed: a common industry tactic.
Once the human trials began, they proceeded to minimize the number of unavoidable adverse events. This was mainly achieved by:
- To make it very difficult for subjects to actually report complications from the vaccines, except for a very narrow subset of symptoms that were not a major publicity problem for the vaccine manufacturers.
- This characterizes both the limited V-safe data (which were still incriminating enough that a lawsuit was needed to get them from the CDC), as the short list of side effects found in the main body of the Pfizer clinical research report (fever, headache, fatigue, chills, vomiting, diarrhoea, muscle pain, joint pain, or use of a fever medicine along with pain, redness or swelling at the vaccination site).
In addition, all these symptoms were followed only 7 days after vaccination (many vaccination injuries do not occur within this short time frame, which was known before the COVID-19 vaccines).
Please note: the more serious side effects in Pfizer's study were reported in an extremely vague manner (see page 9), which made it virtually impossible to establish anything.
- Aggressively reclassifying any serious complication as being unrelated to the vaccines (usually by claiming that it was in fact due to a pre-existing psychiatric condition or COVID-19).
- Avoiding any kind of long-term follow-up of patients that could provide incriminating safety data, regardless of previous commitments to do so.
These strategies allowed the vaccine manufacturers to maintain that any complications in study participants were not related to the vaccines. They also led the patients to believe that the injury had nothing to do with the vaccine, and health care providers gladly participated: gaslighting. All in the context of vaccination readiness.
One of the cruel complications of this approach was that the promises made to the subjects at the beginning of the study had to be reversed. After all, medical complications they would face could only be covered if those conditions were recognized side effects of the jab.
The only, possibly unforeseen, downside to choosing not to help with medical expenses incurred during the vaccine trial is that it could generate the outrage necessary for study participants to publicly share what happened to them and, more importantly, for the public to listen to them.
All these potential problems were the reason why the BMJ has repeatedly called to releasing the raw data from the COVID-19 vaccine tests. It is almost certain that the scarce clinical trial data we have received from the pharmaceutical companies is highly misleading. That lack of information makes it completely unethical to impose the vaccines on the population.
The lack of scientific data recognizing the side effects makes it impossible for vaccine patients to receive any kind of medical care or support. That's why many health care providers now label vaccine side effects as long-covid. With this diagnosis, the patients have the best chance of getting help.