Deception and science fraud during the COVID-19 vaccination trials (part 1/2)

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.

Over dat overleg is van alles te lezen in de conversaties tussen de betrokken medisch-industriële functionarissen, die zich laten leiden door wat er zou kunnen gebeuren als het inderdaad een lableak zou blijken te zijn. Hun onderzoeksprogramma's zouden in rook opgaan; functies, afdelingen en fondsen zouden verdwijnen. Dus al achtten ze de lableak-optie de meest waarschijnlijk, hun wetenschappelijke output pleit voor het tegendeel.

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.

Als dat namelijk zou gebeuren, het schuldig verklaren van door overheden gesponsorde virus-experimenten, zou de hele industrietak ondergronds moeten gaan om de Chinezen bij te kunnen benen - die het op eigen houtje natuurlijk gewoon zullen doorzetten, op hun eigen wijze met mogelijk nog slechtere veiligheidsvoorzieningen.

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.

De farmaceuten hebben zich in hechte samenwerking met betrokken wetenschappers, overheden en toezichthouders laten verleiden om op een onverantwoordelijk korte termijn een gloednieuw vaccin op de markt te brengen. Wie er druk op wie heeft uitgeoefend is van onderschikt belang. Zelf denk ik dat de druk vanuit overheden net zo groot was als omgekeerd, toen de farmaceuten met hun voorwaarden en prijzen kwamen. Ze waren tot elkaar veroordeeld. Hoe de vaccin-ontwikkeling is verlopen leest als een aaneenschakeling van nietsontziende misleidingen en regelrechte fraude zoals we die ook kennen van 'The Real Anthony Fauci'.

How that worked can be read in the first part of an article by amidwesterndoctor, here herplaatst door Robert Malone. De nauwelijks te bevatten wetenschapsfraude wordt op een rij gezet met links naar documentatie, voor zover beschikbaar. Omdat het zo'n compleet beeld geeft en veel van onze waarnemingen en aannames onderbouwt, zet ik het integraal op virusvaria.

Het is een lang stuk. Het laatste gedeelte heb ik niet meegenomen, dat zijn voornamelijk casussen van misleide getroffenen zoals Maddie deGaray, één van de 1300 kinderen die vrijwillig meededen aan de proeven waarmee Pfizer wilde bewijzen dat e prikken geen kwaad konden. Ook weer een veel te kleine steekproef om een wereldwijde uitrol te kunnen onderbouwen. Pfizer kon zich dus geen ongelukken permitteren. Die gebeurden wel en dus hield Pfizer die onder de pet. Zo werd in het dossier van Maddie "maagpijn" als bijwerking genoteerd, terwijl zij voor de rest van haar leven in een rolstoel zit met zware neurologische ellende.

Mocht je niet tot het uitlezen komen, dan mis je een pareltje in de laatste zinnen: in Amerika wordt bij vaccinatieschade de diagnose "long-covid" gesteld omdat er dan tenminste recht is op zorg. Voor vaccinatieschade bestaat er immers geen bewijs, laat staan een behandeling. Er kan dus niets worden vergoed. Long Covid is daarentegen een serieus probleem dat meelevende aandacht krijgt en waarvoor kapitalen worden gereserveerd. Vermoedelijk voor het uitschrijven van medicijnen; het wachten is op een verlossend vaccin dat alle problemen doet verdwijnen... Enfin. Het complete verhaal staat op de substack by Robert Malone.

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?

Dit essay geeft een deel van het antwoord - openlijke fraude met klinisch onderzoek. Het andere belangrijke deel van het antwoord is dat de onderzoeken simpelweg te klein waren om betrouwbaar resultaten met betrekking tot pathogeniteit te detecteren. De virulentie van het virus is relatief laag, behalve in een aantal geselecteerde cohorten (die niet werden geselecteerd of "verrijkt" in de onderzoeken), dus de detectie van duidelijke beschermende effecten zou veel grotere aantallen deelnemers, meer tijd en meer geld hebben vereist! - 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,^[1]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.

De "wetenschap" lost vervolgens het door haar gecreëerde probleem op door "bewijs" te leveren dat betrouwbaarder is dan ieders individuele "gebrekkige" waarnemingen en legt zo effectief iedere uitdaging aan het instituut het zwijgen op (bijvoorbeeld de onwelkome bijwerkingen die vaak door het publiek worden gezien).

In de geneeskunde zien we dit probleem terugkomen als artsen volhouden dat er "geen bewijs" is dat een negatieve reactie op een medisch product kan zijn opgetreden. In plaats daarvan moet het toeval zijn geweest of bijvoorbeeld het resultaat van een reeds bestaand psychologisch probleem. Zoals te verwachten stimuleert deze mind-set farmaceutische bedrijven om er alles aan te doen om klinische onderzoeken zo te produceren dat die alle bijwerkingen van hun product verbergen.

De "gouden standaard" van gerandomiseerde gecontroleerde onderzoeken (RCT) zijn de belichaming van die methode. In theorie leveren deze onderzoeken de meest nauwkeurige gegevens op (tot het punt dat artsen zelden iets anders in overweging zullen nemen), maar in werkelijkheid is hun voordeel veel kleiner dan de meesten zich realiseren (goed uitgelegd in this essay by Harvey Risch).

Omgekeerd kost het enorm veel geld om grote RCT's uit te voeren en die "sponsor bias" leidt er onvermijdelijk toe dat de proef wordt verdraaid om de belangen van de sponsors te ondersteunen.

Hoewel dit al een lang bestaand probleem is, is het helaas nooit goed aangepakt en de meerderheid van de artsen in de praktijk is zich totaal niet bewust van dit probleem, omdat ze RCT's zien als een noodzakelijk vakje om af te vinken bij het nemen van medische beslissingen.

Remark: als het effect van een geneesmiddel heel klein is, is een groot placebogecontroleerd onderzoek nodig om het voordeel te ontdekken (of het gewoon te verzinnen), maar als het voordeel groot is, kan het worden aangetoond met een veel kleiner onderzoek. Ik en mijn collega's vinden het dus prettig om ook gegevens van kleinere onderzoeken te bekijken, omdat we geloven dat therapieën die klinisch worden gebruikt een substantieel voordeel moeten aantonen in plaats van een miniem voordeel dat je moet afleiden uit de gegevens van een groot onderzoek.

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.

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.

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).
• Iets bedenken dat gebruikt kon worden om te rechtvaardigen dat de vaccins "effectief" waren, zodat de medische professie ze van harte zou steunen en promoten.
• 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: De FDA begreep ook de urgentie om deze markt open te stellen en keek weg van een aantal tekortkomingen die normaal gesproken vereist zouden zijn, waarbij de huidige "noodsituatie" als rechtvaardiging werd gebruikt. Evenzo, om een recent onderzoek van Die Welt te citeren:

"Maar was er wel tijd voor zo'n gedegen beoordeling door de autoriteiten? E-mails van de EMA [de Europese FDA], die beschikbaar zijn voor WELT [de krant], laten zien dat de FDA, de Britse MHRA [de FDA van Engeland] en de EMA zelf het al eens waren over de datum van goedkeuring voordat ze zelfs maar naar de Pfizer-papieren konden kijken."

Lang voordat de vaccins op de markt kwamen werd er al een uitgebreide publiciteitscampagne opgezet om de vaccins neer te zetten als de wonderbaarlijke "oplossing" voor de afschuwelijke pandemie die we doormaakten en die we grotendeels zelf hadden veroorzaakt. Toen de vaccins eenmaal beschikbaar waren, gingen die publiciteitsinspanningen in de hoogste versnelling en werd het de Most aggressive propaganda campaign that we had experienced at some point in our lives.

Het is niet verrassend dat dit plan er ook toe leidde dat de vaccinfabrikanten het lef hadden om titels te gebruiken als "Safety and efficacy of the BRNA Covid-19 vaccine of BNT162b2 [Pfizer]" voor de publicaties van their investigations. Tegelijkertijd kregen we keer op keer dezelfde soundbite te horen "we hadden gehoopt dat de vaccins effectief zouden zijn, maar we hadden nooit gedacht dat ze zó effectief zouden zijn".

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.

Bovendien kregen deze ongelukkige mensen de diagnose 'geestelijke stoornis', werd hen (contractueel verplichte) medische zorg geweigerd en werden ze uit het onderzoek verwijderd. Kortom, de deelnemers aan de COVID-19 proef werden tot het uiterste belaagd door middel van 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).
• De werkelijke voordelen van het vaccin waren erg klein. Je moest 119 mensen vaccineren om één klein geval van COVID-19 te voorkomen (bijv. keelpijn + een positieve test), 2711 mensen om één "ernstig" geval van COVID-19 te voorkomen en aangezien er geen sterfgevallen werden voorkomen in het onderzoek, moesten er meer dan 21.720 mensen worden gevaccineerd om één sterfgeval door COVID-19 te voorkomen. Hoeveel meer is onduidelijke: 21.720 is het totale aantal dat in het onderzoek werd gevaccineerd.
• 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?

Helaas waren mijn collega's, die ons vaak de les lezen over hoe we wetenschappelijke publicaties sceptisch moeten ontleden, zo verrukt over de meme "het vaccin is nog veiliger en effectiever dan we dachten", dat al deze punten aan dovemansoren waren gericht.

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.

Helaas kwamen zijn ervaringen met zijn collega's overeen met die van mij en werden zijn punten bijna volledig genegeerd door de medische professie.

Een van Doshi's vele observaties was dat er in de gegevens aanwijzingen waren dat het onderzoek niet geblindeerd was en dat het volledige voordeel van het vaccin mogelijk te danken was aan het feit dat gevaccineerde personen niet getest waren op COVID-19 (waardoor de illusie werd gecreëerd dat gevaccineerde personen minder kans hadden op laboratoriumbevestigde 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.

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.

Dit bracht hen in een lastig parket: hoe konden de vaccins die ze wilden maken voor Operation Warp Speed "veilig" genoeg zijn om de vaccinatierace te winnen en het marktaandeel te krijgen dat ze wilden?

From preclinical documents (eg. this) blijkt dat dit in eerste instantie werd bereikt door af te zien van veel van de veiligheidstesten op niet-menselijke proefpersonen, die normaal gesproken vereist zouden zijn voordat er verder werd gegaan met onderzoeken op mensen. Pfizer kreeg bijvoorbeeld van de regelgevers toestemming om het testen op auto-immuniteit of kankerrisico's over te slaan, met als reden dat dat de levering te zeer zou vertragen.

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.

Mafia meetingis a painting by None which was uploaded on January 31st, 2018.

Footnotes

• 1
  (Gaslightingis a form of psychological manipulation in which the perpetrator, consciously or not,^[1]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).