Common marketing fact. If one person (1) reports something, there are fifty other people (50) who would have liked to report something, but for some reason don’t.
So, if you have 30,304 English women reporting changes with their periods after taking the jab, that means there are over 1,515,200 women who also had something to report, but didn’t – for the same reasons given in this article – because they didn’t wish to be labeled as hysterical, emotional, irrational, etc.
One means fifty.
1 Like
Just got a heads up that Los Alamos National Lab will require 100% vaccination, with medical exceptions considered on a case-by-case basis. With one exception, the Department of Energy national labs are government-owned, but contractor-operated. I asked about religious exemption or acknowledgment of natural immunity, but the communication did not include information about either.
Congratulations on having your video removed from YouTube.
They say “the truth hurts” looks like you definitely hit a nerve with this one.
You’re the best
Thank you for everything you are doing
In reference to the links annotated as : Phizer’s “FDA Approval” letter and “what an actual Approval looks like”. I did a quick search and found the fda approval letter for “Comirnaty” that looks exactly like the “what an actual fda approval letter looks like” document. So is this a new document the FDA just released and Chris didn’t mention it because it wasn’t out at the time of the video, or was the letter to Mrs Harkens used to show a greater disparity than there really is?
https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
apparently this is the real BLA for “Comirnaty”
I still don’t trust it either way, and it’s great that Chris pointed out the specificity of the name of the vax that got approved is different (and not even available), than the one currently administered. But I just have a question about the use of those two documents and why the actual BLA wasn’t used.
saurKrouse
From the file you linked above:
https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
Paragraph 3 under “Licensing”: The review of this product was associated with the following National Clinical Trial (NCT) numbers: NCT04368728 and NCT04380701.
A quick Google search revealed:
For NCT04368728, a Clinical Trial Primary Completion and Study Completion date of May 2, 2023.
For NCT04380701, a Clinical Trial Primary Completion and Study Completion date of April, 2023.
Plus the studies are unblinded.
What an absolute shitshow tool the FDA is.
2 Likes
according to the pentagon. They are going to force 800k of our troops with this crap - because the FDA has fully approved the vaccine. WHAT A FUCKING CRIME.
1 Like
Previously all vaccines’ Fact Sheets included this statement:
“If you choose not to accept the vaccination, this will not affect your standard of medical care.”
It has now been removed. Additionally the Pfizer sheet includes the “approved” not yet made vaccine.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
(I just posted this on another thread, then realized it was behind the pay-wall. So I’m re-posting it here so everyone can take advantage of the protocol.)
Dr. Flavio Cadegiani was on the FLCCC Weekly Status Webinar tonight. He’s a doctor from Columbia that Chris mentions in his comment under the Part 2 video. During the Webinar, Flavio shared a protocol he is using to treat people getting the mRNA vax. It consists of 3 days of Ivermectin (IVM) at 0.2 mg/kg:
Day 1 - the day before the Vax
Day 2 - the day of the Vax
Day 3 - the day after the Vax.
He said using IVM reduced symptoms caused by the vaccine within 24-48 hours. I think he said that IVM reduced side effects by 80-90%, but would need to verify whether I got that right.
Initially Flavio was giving people who got the vax the ivermectin after getting the vax, to reduce symptoms. But then he realized it might be more beneficial to start the IVM before they got the vax.
Maybe this protocol can help some of our folks who are having to get the vax. Apologies if someone has already posted.
1 Like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUE5EBPt-lU Dr. Cole hit so many of the points Chris does, I think he is a kindred spirit.
“Comirnaty” sounds like something out of the Soviet Union. It has a nice Slavic feel to it.
(This comment is apropos of nothing, really.)
Or… awfully close to core morbidity. Hmmm
If the doctor refuses a known allergic/immunocompromised person an exemption from vaccines that are still under the EUA, then contact the local medical board. Call and write asking if doctors’ licensure has been threatened for writing exemptions… If permitted in your area, record the call. Either they deny the allegation or they affirm it. If they deny it, inquire why your doctor would say that.
Take the information to the local news channels, write editorials, contact state legislatures, contact the governor, and find an attorney.
For those being pressured by work, here’s a link to a commentary about forced vaccine cases versus the American Disabilities Act. It mentions that all health related info must remain confidential; therefore, it would seem making unvaccinated employees or students wear anything that identifies them as unvaccinated is a breach of this law.
The ADA is not the only federal law implicated by an employee’s refusal to receive employer-required vaccinations. Employers should be aware that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act entitles employees to reasonable accommodation of sincerely-held religious beliefs – including those that prohibit employees from being vaccinated – unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship on the employer [8]. An employee may also have claims under parallel state law [1,9]. State and federal laws also address employers’ obligations to maintain a safe workplace [6]. State immunization laws for healthcare workers [1] are also be relevant in designing and implementing a workplace vaccination policy.
3. Recommendations While healthcare employers may have legitimate reasons for mandating employee vaccinations, they should give thorough consideration to federal and state employment protection legislations, as well as the objective medical risks applicable to specific employee groups, healthcare settings, and patient populations, before instituting mandatory policies. Cases like Hustvet and Ruggiero illustrate the need for health- care employers to take proactive steps to minimize conflicts between their mandatory vaccine policies and the requirements of the ADA. First, employers can request immunization records from all prospective employees after an offer of employment is made as a condition of beginning work, which the ADA allows [3]. Employers must maintain medical information and vaccination records collected from employees as confidential files in accor- dance with ADA requirements. Under the ADA, any employment- related documentation containing medical information must be maintained in confidential files completely separate from the general personnel file. Second, employers can reduce the risk of ADA claims by considering reasonable accommodations, depending on the essential job functions [3] and the nature of the work these employees seek to do (e.g., healthcare workers involved in direct patient contact or in vulnerable patient settings, such as the neona- tal intensive care unit (NICU) nurses, are different from administra- tors in the back office). As part of the reasonable accommodation process, employers must engage in a good-faith ‘‘interactive pro cess” with the employee to try to reach a solution [10]. That is, both the employer and the employee bear responsibility for identifying a reasonable accommodation; an employer who fails to engage in the interactive process may be seen as acting in bad faith. That process should include efforts to adequately document of the employee’s disability and assess existing practices the employer could allow the employee to use..
https://www.slu.edu/law/health/pdfs/pendo-vaccine-article.pdf
1 Like
Agree that words like “some” and “few” are not numbers. Over the past year I have gained a bit of experience in medical risk assessment.
First, it turned out that I would need a pacemaker, much to my total surprise. I did a great deal of research before consenting to the operation. One finding was that complications occur in 1% to 6% of all pacemaker implantation procedures, ranging from mild and treatable to possibly life-threatening, but depending on how one defined “complication,” and there’s a huge list of them, the risk could range from 10% to 59%. Such a range… In the end I concluded that the procedure was mostly safe and consented to it. Yes, it was quite safe and I seem to have no ill effects. My quality of life is much improved, I’ve got my energy back, I can do things again.
Second, it turned out later that I would need eye surgery. I was very nervous about this as my mother had had the same operation 50 years earlier and it didn’t work. Again, I did a huge amount of research; the surgeon and I went over just every problem known to science. I found a Harvard surgeon saying that in his experience one eye in 5,000 had problems. My surgeon thought that was too optimistic and that the error rate was closer to 1 in 1,000. Oh. My choices were to do nothing and definitely go blind within a few years, or have the operations and not go blind at once or at all. Again, after a lot of research and thinking, I gave my fully informed consent. All is well now, no adverse effects, I am pleased, but only time will tell if I keep my vision.
I am very happy with these branches of medical science, based on a huge amount of research and experience backing them up. Progress is made, too: the eye surgery involved a drug and techniques not available 50 years ago. Mum was in hospital for a week after her op; I was a day patient. Great.
One might argue that I had accepted risks far greater than the alleged risks associated with the mRNA vaccines, but in assessing my risks I had access to a vast range of material spanning many years of research and practice, with full and frank discussions of side effects. Some websites were just plain scary in their descriptions and images of possible side effects!
These here vaccines are simply too new, and literature on their risk profiles is nowhere near as comprehensive as for my surgeries. I get the strong feeling that much info is being withheld from us, that we may learn what the details are only after consenting to the procedure. It’s all being done in a ruddy blush which does not inspire confidence.
I wouldn’t mind so much if proper discussion of the benefits and risks and alternative hypotheses were permitted, but it isn’t. This alone makes me suspect another agenda. To me it reeks of Lysenkoism.
1 Like
Chris, from what I understand - the phase 3 trials on this one were ongoing till 2023, and the reason for that was the time it takes to collect the data on medium term side effects. That data isn’t here- so what have they just left that out (or do they claim to have collected the data some other way)?
Kind Regards, Nasir
Fantastic job, Chris. I love how you so lovingly offer sound advice to the abc agencies on how to garner more compliance. My break in faith came much earlier than yours. I started out with that gentle sarcasm and honest feedback, but over time anger has blossomed.
There is great concern about fertility issues with these vaccines. In the Moderna trials, the rats had a 16% reduction in fertility rates and this outcome was not reported because the negative affect did not reach 25%. The nanoparticles congregate in the ovaries and testes. The jab creates an auto immune reaction to placental proteins. If the jab is given in the first trimester, there is an 82% miscarriage rate! In the second trimester, the vaccine can pass thru the placenta and enter into the blood stream of the developing fetus, and the nanoparticles congregate in the baby’s brain. Babies in the womb have no immune system. Fetal tissue is extremely active. Where an adult may generate billions of spike proteins, the fetus will generate trillions - with no working immune system, mind you. Not sure if you’ve heard the gruesome stories of miscarried babies’ brains.
Very informative presentation here (on fertility issues) from a group of doctors who are trying to warn the public, including Dr. Peter McCollough: https://www.lifesitenews.com/conference-stop-the-shot/stop-the-shot-8-19/
I was born in 1960 and gave birth to five children. I was ALWAYS advised by my OB/GYN to never take any medicine, stop smoking, don’t drink, etc. Pregnant women were very special people who did not take drugs.
Fast forward 40 years and giving pregnant vaccinations has been going on for a while. It is now customary to give pregnant women the flu shot, which is still often loaded with Thymerisol *mercury) - depending on the lot number. Pregnant women are routinely given the DTP shot.
I believe the root evil of soooooo many piss poor public policies is the printing press. Without money at the touch of a button, society would be much less likely to suffer from counterproductive policies, i.e. never ending wars, surveillance state, ballooning regulatory agencies, ballooning law enforcement agencies, funding of nefarious research, and a failed medical establishment that actually creates a never ending stream of customers.
Recently, I sat down for a couple of hours and just read personal stories of vaccine injuries. You would not believe the number of medical interventions, procedures, tests, and prescription drugs doled out to the vaccine injured. It is a motherlode.
Anecdote: I know three people who got Covid and recovered just fine. I know two people who got the Moderna vaccine and both had blood clots in the heart within 3-5 months post vaccine. One ended up with triple bypass surgery, the other with a pacemaker, these two are a married couple.
That’s why I write ugly letters to the abc agencies, my representatives, and the media outlets. Every communication counts for a lot more than just one.
1 Like
During the Clinton administration, the FCC deregulated our rich and diverse media which set the stage for the present media consolidation, also during the Clinton administration, the law prohibiting direct drug marketing to the public was repealed.
Directly marketing drugs to the public did two things: it created a media dependent on drug advertising dollars and a nation of hypochondriacs.
1 Like
This info is also in the pfizer document itself, around page 60.
It’s actually warned against in Pfizer’s own vaccine document.
girlflower,
I wish you good fortune and success. That is a well reasoned and factually supported letter. It is also unerringly logical.
I am sure you know that the mandatory vaccination and discriminatory mask / testing protocols are based upon neither facts nor logic. Had concern for the facts or logic been involved these mandates would never have survived initial, critical analysis.
So - though I wish you well - you need, if possible, to prepare for the rejection of your position by your employer.
I hope that I am wrong and wish you the best.