A More Honest Perspective of COVID-19

A More Honest Perspective of COVID-19

by Gary Null and Richard Gale

As published by the Centre for Research on Gloabalization

Since the first cases of the new coronavirus strain outside of China, every aspect of the pandemic’s ever-changing amoebic narrative has been carefully controlled by the World Health Organization and major government health agencies.

High officials within a syndicate of institutions, including the CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the UK’s National Health Service, have largely dictated government responses to lessen the pandemic.  The Sars2-Cov19 pandemic is not the first time unelected medical bureaucrats, who the average person assumes to possess an enduring expertise, have guided global policies against pandemics and serious infectious outbreaks.  The most recent example was the 2009-2010 HIN1 Swine Flu pandemic that never truly happened according to plan. Subsequently that effort revealed a surprising incompetence in the international medical hierarchy that can be blamed on the entire system rather than a few inept individuals.

However, during the current pandemic scare, something unusual and remarkably radical has happened. Historically, voices of opposition within institutionalized medicine remain relatively silent. Most often it is only a handful of health professionals who come forward to challenge official statements or to uncover the serious flaws in the scientific literature to support their actions.

Yet for the past year we have witnessed tens of thousands of physicians, medical experts and researchers coming forward publicly with harsh and even damning criticisms of how the ruling medical agencies have mishandled the pandemic.  They easily recognize these agencies’ contradictions, the conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, the large body of medical literature deconstructing and discrediting their fundamental claims, and the evidence to prove their policies are scientifically baseless.  These are not dissident mavericks. Over 52,000 medical professionals representing some of the world’s leading medical schools and research institutions have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration in protest against the official Covid-19 strategies and these policies’ serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of children, working class citizens and the poor.  Moreover, they have nothing to gain. No financial interests jeopardize their judgments. And they are fully aware of the pushback and blacklisting that may follow and would injure their reputations.

Around the world, dissident medical voices are warning us that:

  1. The official death counts, particularly in the US and the UK are grossly exaggerated
  2. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was never created to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine Covid-19 infection or any other virus. Overreliance upon PCR is a travesty that has created a Case-pandemic rather an actual symptomatic scourge.
  3. The evidence to support the belief that large social lockdowns and social distancing, perhaps even mask wearing, will deter the spread of the virus is overstated and inaccurate.
  4. America’s official narrative, where the number of cases per capita far surpass any other nation, that effective, safe and cheaper drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have no value and post serious harm is completely unfounded. Rather, if used wisely it is highly effective and safe as a preventative measure for first stage treatment of mild and moderate infections.

A compilation of 210 studies on HCQ’s effectiveness against Covid-19, 145 peer reviewed, only found 26 showed that the cheap, widely used drug posed some risks or was ineffective. The remainder clearly indicate that HCQ is one of our best and most reliable courses of treatment. For example, a study of 585 patients treated with HCQ along with azithromycin and zinc were relieved in under 3 days and none were hospitalized, required ventilation or died. Another study published in the journal Clinical and Translational Science reported 73% reduction in hospitalization with no serious adverse events.

  • In the meantime, we are told we must wait for a vaccine or a new miracle drug and no other medical intervention is warranted other then personal hygienic practices, masks and social distancing.
  • The New York Times and other major media outlets are misrepresenting new cases of Covid-19 with the actual disease thereby grossly inflating those who may be positive but are otherwise healthy and pose no public threat.

The WHO’s, CDC’s and NHS’ internal confusion and culture of inconsistency is leaving more and more citizens questioning who can be trusted. Even the otherwise conservative British Medical Journal published a rare and brutal condemnation of the corruption and commercialization throughout the official Covid-19 narrative.  BMJ’s executive editor Kamran Abbasi wrote:

Gunshots, Motorcycle Deaths Count as COVID Casualties

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”

Sadly mainstream media such as the New York TimesWashington Post and BBC are revealing a lack of journalistic integrity despite the open accessibility of medical studies to the contrary. Instead the media serves as an echo chamber to continue advancing this international debacle created by our leading health officials.

To understand the miscalculation of deaths that can be directly attributed to Covid-19 we can begin with the CDC’s own website:

“Due to the ongoing COvID-19 pandemic, this system will suspend data collection for the 2020-2021 influenza season.”

In other words, the CDC’s monthly mortality reports will no longer be monitoring actual influenza deaths, which are more often than not also conflated with deaths due to pneumonia. William Briggs, a former professor at Cornell University noted that last summer the CDC ceased counting flu and pneumonia deaths “because, we suppose, of the difficulty telling these deaths from doom deaths [Covid-19].” So how will these deaths be entered into mortality reports?

In early December, an assistant director at Johns Hopkins Medical School’s Department of Applied Economics examined death statistics during the Covid pandemic and previous years. Due to the high percentage of non-Covid deaths decreasing during the pandemic, her conclusion was that these deaths were intentionally being labeled as Covid-1 caused. Her colleague Dr. Yanni Gu summarized the problem:

“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to Covid-19 simply as Covid-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with Covid-19 count as Covid-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why Covid-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”

This irrational discrepancy in causes of death is not solely an American problem. Globally there has been a 98% percent decrease in diagnosed flu cases compared to 2019. Australia alone has recorded a 96% drop off.

There may be a sensible way to explain the decrease in flu and this in turn helps explain the dramatic increase in Covid-19 cases due to inaccurate testing and an infestation of false positives. Given the enormous impact of lockdowns, closing of businesses and public spaces, social distancing and masks, it is feasible that flu rates would decline noticeably. However, then the rise in Covid-19 cases becomes completely nonsensical unless spurious testing is the culprit.

Recently, even the World Health Organization had to acknowledge PCR’s failures. Despite the mincing of words, the WHO reported,

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus so the Ct [cycle threshold] will be low. Conversely when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect the virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”

Most testing labs are using a cycle threshold of 40 amplifications, consequently the high rate of false positives. This is the reason for cases rising exponentially while actual deaths had leveled in mid-summer until more recently. In the UK, Public Health England states, “if a person has both a negative and positive test, then only their positive test will be counted.” The US does likewise.

University of California virologist Dr. Juliet Morrison stated, ‘I’m shocked that people think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” She recommends a reasonable cutoff at 35, and Dr. Michael Mina at Harvard’s School of Public Heath suggests 30 or less. University of North Carolina’s director of clinical microbiology Melissa Miller has called the application PCR for all situations “completely irresponsible.”

The most damning indictment against every governor across the US who continues to rule on lockdowns, school closures and draconian police enforcement and yet has failed to reign in the plague of erroneous PCR testing in his or her state is found in a recent study by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Using as a low a 25 cycle threshold, 70% of positives were not actual cases because the virus was unable to be cultured. In other words, the virus was already dead.

And yet when PCR cycle thresholds are adjusted, the number of cases plummet. This was observed in efforts made in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada where it was discovered that 90% of those testing positive carried “barely any virus.”

Fortunately some countries are waking up to PCR’s unreliability that was originally perpetuated by a very entrepreneurial German doctor Christian Dosten.  Dosten also happens to be an advisor to the Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health.  A Portugal appeals court ruled PRC is unreliable for testing Covid-19 and any enforced quarantine based on a positive PCR test would be illegal. As for Dosten and his paper published in the journal Eurosurveillance, it has served as the rationale for widespread PCR use. But the paper is substantially inaccurate but helped serve as a means for Dosten to gain a patent for coronavirus PCR testing.  Now 22 leading medical professionals from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences have filed for the paper’s retraction due to “a tremendous number of very serious design flaws… which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The real crime is that none of the above failures were inevitable.

There is no reasonable explanation for miscalculating actual deaths associated with Covid-19 other than sheer stupidity or gross intentional neglect.  PCR’s unsuitability to accurately diagnose the presence of active Covid-19, or any other infectious virus, has been well documented for many years. Even PCR’s inventor Dr. Kary Mullis has stated it is unsuited for clinical diagnosis.

Yet despite all of the foreknowledge of these facts, countless people have had their lives devastated by the choices our federal health officials and politicians have made based upon severely flawed science. Unnecessary quarantining, loss of income, lockdowns, and mental stress have adversely effected millions of Americans and people around the world.  Again, we might to turn Abbasi’s article in the BMJ:

“… as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”

*Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-honest-perspective-covid-19-pandemic/5733198


What You Need to Know About the COVID Vaccine

What you need to know about the COVID Vaccine

In this article we will get straight to the point and go over the details provided by the manufacturer (specifically Pfizer, with sources for information on the Moderna vaccine at the end as well) based on the vaccine package insert, published phase 3 clinical trial, and FDA Briefing document.

We will cover ingredients, effectiveness and how it was evaluated, and safety, including reports of adverse events since administration of the vaccine began in December.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID Vaccine


“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is supplied as a frozen suspension in multiple dose vials; each vial must be diluted with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP prior to use to form the vaccine. Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine contains 30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2.

Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids (0.43 mg (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 0.05 mg 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]- N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 0.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.2 mg cholesterol), 0.01 mg potassium chloride, 0.01 mg monobasic potassium phosphate, 0.36 mg sodium chloride, 0.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and 6 mg sucrose. The diluent (0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP) contributes an additional 2.16 mg sodium chloride per dose.”

Source: Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Insert. (Page 26) https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx

Ingredient of concern: Modified mRNA.

COVID vaccines are the first vaccine to use modified (synthetic) mRNA technology. There is ongoing debate and concern amongst the scientific and medical community with regard to potential unknown effects of injecting lab-created genetic material into the body.

“…there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.”

Source: Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term? https://m.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

Typically, when mRNA is present outside of a cell, it degrades relatively quickly. In order to prevent this from happening, scientists encapsulated the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle. How long the mRNA remains in the body to continue being translated into the viral spike protein, is unknown.

Ingredient of concern: Polyethylene Glycol (PEG).

Polyethylene glycol is one of the ingredients used for the lipid nanoparticle that protects the mRNA sequence. Traditional vaccines often contain a chemical substance like aluminum which provokes the immune system to attack the contents of the vaccine. Although mRNA vaccines do not contain aluminum or other traditional adjuvants, the proprietary PEGylated lipid nanoparticle designed by Pfizer is said to have “adjuvant activity”.

Additionally… “[Polyethylene glycol, or PEG] has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.”

Source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions


Claim: 95% effective

What this claim is based on:

Although there were a total of 43,548 trial participants in Pfizer’s phase 3 trial, their calculation of effectiveness is based on a total of 170 participants.

These 170 participants were the first to develop symptoms of COVID and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, within the two-month monitoring period starting 7 days after the administration of the second vaccine.

From the chart below, it states that of the first 170 participants to develop symptoms and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, 162 of them were placebo recipients and 8 were vaccine recipients.

This is where the “95% effective” calculation comes from.

Source: Pfizer Vaccine Insert.

However, the rest of the participants were not tested for infection, nor were they tested for the development of antibodies, which is the endpoint typically used to measure vaccine effectiveness.

The published phase 3 clinical trial states the following “Limitations and Remaining Questions”:

Note: Remaining questions include “whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission”.

Source: Phase 3 Clinical Trial. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

Pfizer’s phase three trial was designed to determine if the vaccine may prevent (or suppress) symptoms, but not infection. Therefore, it is not known whether or not the vaccine actually prevents (asymptomatic) infection or transmission.

Why is this important?

First, the ability of a vaccine to suppress symptoms of infection, but not prevent infection itself, is not an indication or measure of immunity. If an individual is infected with a virus while displaying no symptoms of that infection, that makes them an asymptomatic carrier. Immunity develops with an immune system response. Typically, symptoms are the sign of that immune system response.

Second, although it wasn’t initially studied, the FDA discovered several decades after current pertussis vaccines were put into use, that the pertussis vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission and that vaccinated asymptomatic carriers have actually contributed to pertussis outbreaks.

Third, if the COVID vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and only suppresses symptoms, then herd immunity is not possible with this vaccine, even if 100% of the population receives it.

This is precisely why Dr. Fauci and others have stated that regardless of whether or not you receive the vaccines, you will still be expected to wear masks, social distance, avoid gatherings, etc. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/12/956051995/why-you-should-still-wear-a-mask-and-avoid-crowds-after-getting-the-covid-19-vac

But let’s go back to the “95% effective” claim.

To add more clarity to previous statements, participants who tested positive for or developed symptoms of COVID infection within the first four weeks after the first shot, were not included in the analysis on effectiveness.

The vaccine insert states that the population assessed for the primary efficacy endpoint (preventing symptoms) includes:

“All eligible randomized participants who receive all vaccination(s) … and have no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after Dose 2.”

What do we know about the risk of COVID symptoms or infection during the initial four weeks after the first shot?

From the FDA Briefing document below, Pfizer shares the following regarding “Suspected COVID-19 Cases” on page 42:

“Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

Source: Pfizer’s FDA Briefing document: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

This means that over 70% of the participants who developed symptoms of COVID in the first 7 days following each shot, were those who received the vaccine.

It also states:

“Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

Therefore, over the entire duration of the trial (about 105 days), almost half (47%) of the participants who developed symptoms identical to COVID, received the vaccine (vs 53% of placebo recipients).

While it was stated previously, let’s reiterate what exactly the vaccine prevents:

“The protocol-specified 2-dose vaccination regimen was [95%] effective in preventing PCR- confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen.”

(Does not include suspected but untested cases of COVID during the length of the trial, nor confirmed cases of COVID in the first four weeks after the first shot.)

Unfortunately, even the PCR test (whether it is positive or negative) is subject to interpretation, as stated by PCR test manufacturers and the World Health Organization. Pfizer does not state how many cycles was used to determine positivity of participant tests. Therefore it is difficult to know how reliable their testing method actually was.

More about the PCR test, here: https://everlyreport.com/world-health-organization-pcr-test-recommendation/

And yes, you can still contract COVID and test positive for the virus even after receiving both doses of the vaccine.

Congressman tests positive for COVID virus a few weeks after receiving second dose of Pfizer vaccine.https://www.foxnews.com/us/congressman-second-covid-19-dose-tests-positive-virus

Does the vaccine at least prevent death from COVID?

Regarding the ability of the vaccine to reduce mortality from COVID, the FDA briefing document states:

“A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”

Mortality was not evaluated because there were no deaths from COVID in their trial, even amongst 21,728 participants who received placebo.


Safety was evaluated for a “median of two months” during the phase 3 Pfizer clinical trial.

“The Most Commonly Reported Systemic Events Were Fatigue And Headache (59% And 52%, Respectively)…”

“Fever (Temperature, ≥38°C) Was Reported After The Second Dose By 16% Of Younger Vaccine Recipients And By 11% Of Older Recipients.”

“More [Vaccine] Recipients Than Placebo Recipients Reported Any Adverse Event (27% And 12%, Respectively) Or A Related Adverse Event (21% And 5%).”

Ultimately, Pfizer Suggests That The Amount And Severity Of Adverse Events From The Vaccine Compared To The Placebo Are Not Significant Enough.

However, If The Vaccine Is Intended To Prevent Symptoms (And Whether It’s Actually 95% Effective At Doing So Is Up To You To Decide), While Also Causing Significantly More Symptoms Than Placebo (Over Twice As Much), What Is The True Net Benefit? How Will We Know If There Will Be A Net Benefit, In The End?

Although Pfizer States In Their Published Trial That “Safety Monitoring Will Continue For 2 Years After Administration Of The Second Dose Of Vaccine”, Participants In The Trial Who Received Placebo Are Already Being Offered The Vaccine.

Therefore, There Will Be No Placebo Group Left To Compare Chronic Adverse Events, To See Whether Or Not More Long Term, Long Lasting Health Conditions Such As Autoimmunity, Neurological Disease, Or Cancer, Are More Or Less Prevalent In The Vaccine Group Compared To Placebo.

Therefore, We Won’t Be Receiving Much More Scientifically-Founded Information With Regard To Safety Of The Vaccine Beyond A Few Months, From The Ongoing Trial Itself.

Opinion: The Loss Of A Control Group Moving Forward And The Lack Of Long Term Safety Data Monitoring Should Be Of Great Concern To Everyone, Since These Are The First MRNA Vaccines Being Distributed To The Public, And This Technology Itself Is Still Experimental. That The Pfizer And Moderna Vaccines Have Not Obtained Full FDA Review And Approval, And Have Only Been Accepted Under Emergency Use Authorization.

From The Previously Mentioned Article On The Potential For MRNA Vaccines To Be Dangerous Long Term:

“We Will Have A Safety Profile For Only A Certain Number Of Months, So If There Is A Long-Term Effect After Two Years, We Cannot Know,” Brosh Said, Adding That We Could Wait Two Years To Discover Them, “But Then We Would Have The Coronavirus For Two More Years.”

Linial Expressed Similar Sentiments: “Classical Vaccines Were Designed To Take 10 Years To Develop.”

Pfizer Did It In About 9 Months.

What Else Can We Conclude About Safety From What We Know About The Trial?

It’s Important To Understand That The Reported Adverse Events From The Trial Did Not Capture Or Reflect All Possible Adverse Events That Will Occur When It Is Administered To The Public.

The US Population Is Around 330 Million People. There Were 21,720 Participants Who Received The Vaccine In Pfizer’s Clinical Trial. In A Sense, Every 1 Participant In The Trial Represents 15,000 Other People In The US Who Could Potentially Receive The Vaccine. Yet, The Demographics Of The Trial Participants Do Not Reflect The Demographics Of The US Population, Based On Health, Age, Ethnicity, Chronic Conditions, Etc. (Page 20 Of The FDA Briefing Document.)

Dr. Fauci Stated It This Way:

“I Think People Need To Understand That The Issue Of The Safety Goes Well Beyond The Confines Of A Clinical Trial,” Fauci Told CNBC.

“Because When You’re In A Clinical Trial, You’re Giving It For Example, The Pfizer Trial Was 44,000 People. Once You Decide To Dispense The Vaccine Widely, You’re Talking About Millions And Tens Of Millions And Ultimately Hundreds Of Millions Of Doses. So You May See Reactions That You Didn’t See In The Clinical Trial,” Added Fauci, Who Is Director Of The National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases.

Here’s A Bit Of An Example Why Rare Adverse Events In Clinical Trials Are Important To Consider:

From The FDA Briefing Document On Page 33, It States That The Difference Between The Number Of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) Between The Placebo And The Vaccine Group Is Just 0.1%. The Placebo Group Had An SAE Rate Of 0.5% And Vaccine Group Had An SAE Rate Of 0.6%. If The Background Rate Of Serious Adverse Events In Our Population Is Equivalent To Placebo, Then The Added Rate Of Serious Adverse Events From The Vaccine Would Be 0.1%.

What Is 0.1% Of 330 Million People?

330,000 People.

And That Reflects Only The Serious Adverse Events That They Were Able To Capture In The Clinical Trial, Based On A Demographic Group That Is Generally Healthier Than What Is Representative Of The US Population As A Whole.

What About Reported Adverse Events Since The Vaccine Began To Be Administered And Distributed?

Adverse Events Are Supposed To Be Reported To VAERS, The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, Under The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS). Unfortunately, An HHS Study Found That Less Than 1% Of Vaccine Adverse Events Are Actually Reported To VAERS.

In Addition, The VAERS System Search Tool And Downloadable Data In Order To Access And Read VAERS Reports Are Difficult To Use For The Average Person. If You Would Like, You May Attempt To Use It Yourself, Here: Https://Wonder.Cdc.Gov/Vaers.Html

Here Is An Example Of Search Results From January 29th, 2021 For COVID Vaccines:

Thankfully, An Independent Group Of Individuals Who Are Concerned With Transparency Have Created A Website And Search Tool Of Their Own Which Uses VAERS’s Raw Data. If You Would Like To Explore This System, You May Do So Here.

Otherwise, With Regard To Safety, On December 19th, 2020, The CDC Presented Data Regarding Adverse Events Reported During The First 5 Days Vaccines Were Administered, December 14th-18th.

According To The Data Received, 2.8% Of COVID Vaccine Recipients Experienced “Health Impact Events” Which Made Them Unable To Perform Normal Daily Activities, Unable To Work, And/Or Required Care From A Doctor Or Health Care Professional.

This Is A Relatively High Percentage Of Significant Adverse Events Considering The Amount Of People Who Intend To Receive The Vaccine, And This Is Just For The First Dose. The Second Dose Is Known To Be More Reactogenic For More People (Often Causing More Adverse Events).

There Have Also Been Several Reports Of Deaths Of Health Care Workers, Elderly Patients, And Others Shortly After Receiving The COVID Vaccine (The Following List Does Not Encompass All Media Reports):

Portuguese Health Worker, 41, Dies Two Days After Getting The Pfizer Covid Vaccine As Her Father Says He ‘Wants Answers’.Https://Www.Dailymail.Co.Uk/News/Article-9111311/Portuguese-Health-Worker-41-Dies-Two-Days-Getting-Pfizer-Covid-Vaccine.Html

Doctor’s Death After Covid Vaccine Is Being Investigated. Https://Www.Google.Com/Amp/S/Www.Nytimes.Com/2021/01/12/Health/Covid-Vaccine-Death.Amp.Html

75-Year-Old Man Dies Of Heart Attack Shortly After Receiving Coronavirus Vaccine. Https://Www.I24news.Tv/En/News/Coronavirus/1609155691-Israel-75-Year-Old-Man-Dies-Of-Heart-Attack-Shortly-After-Receiving-Coronavirus-Vaccine

Health Care Worker Dies After Second Dose Of COVID Vaccine, Investigations Underway. Https://Www.Ocregister.Com/2021/01/26/Health-Care-Worker-Dies-After-Second-Dose-Of-Covid-Vaccine-Investigations-Underway/#

Person In Placer County Dies Shortly After Being Given The COVID-19 Vaccine, Authorities Say. Https://Www.Sacbee.Com/News/Coronavirus/Article248731805.Html#Storylink=Cpy

23 Die In Norway After Receiving Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: Officials. Https://Nypost.Com/2021/01/15/23-Die-In-Norway-After-Receiving-Pfizer-Covid-19-Vaccine/

South Dakota Reports 2 Deaths Recorded After COVID-19 Vaccinations. Https://Www.Blackhillsfox.Com/2021/01/20/South-Dakota-Reports-2-Deaths-Recorded-After-Covid-19-Vaccinations/

Auburn Woman Warns She Saw Grandfather’s Aid Die After COVID Vaccine. Https://Sacramento.Cbslocal.Com/2021/01/25/No-Link-Found-Yet-Auburn-Woman-Warns-She-Saw-Grandfathers-Aid-Die-After-Covid-Vaccine/

Dozens Of Care Home Residents Died With Covid Before Second Jab. Https://Metro.Co.Uk/2021/01/24/Dozens-Of-Care-Home-Residents-Died-With-Covid-After-First-Jab-13956611 (After The First Jab.)

Family, Community Mourn Loss Of Provo NICU Therapist To COVID-19*.Https://Www.Fox13now.Com/News/Coronavirus/Local-Coronavirus-News/Family-Community-Mourn-Loss-Of-Provo-Nicu-Therapist-To-Covid-19  (*The NICU Therapist Had Received The COVID Vaccine 6 Days Before Testing Positive For The Virus And Eventually Passing.)

Of Course, The Deaths Occurring In The Articles Above Are Not Stated As Considered To Be Caused By The Vaccine.

Yet In Some Cases, It Is Possible That The Vaccine Even Contributed To Enhanced COVID Disease, Due To A Phenomenon Known As Antibody Dependent Enhancement. In Prior Vaccine Trials Which Were Abandoned, It Was Discovered That The Development Of Antibodies In Response To The Experimental Vaccine Actually Made Symptoms Of Disease More Severe When The Subject Was Challenged With The Virus.

The FDA Also Considers “Vaccine Enhanced Disease” A Possibility When Planning For The Collection Of Safety Data On COVID Vaccine Adverse Events.

Side Note: While Most Think Or Believe That Autopsies Are Comprehensive And Will Find Evidence Of Vaccine Injury If It Is Present In The Deceased, It Is Important To Know That There Is No Protocol In Place To Determine Whether Or Not A Vaccine Caused The Death Of A Person, During An Autopsy. Unfortunately, Parents Have Had To Spend Thousands Of Dollars To Order Their Own Private Autopsies To Begin To Look For Evidence Of Vaccine Injury When Their Children Die Shortly After Receiving Vaccines.

From A Personal Contact Of Mine, Joy Fritz:

“I Worked In The Mortuary Industry Doing Death Certificates For Over Six Years. Vaccine Deaths Will Be Chalked Up To Natural Causes. We Can Never Get Accurate Prevalence Rates Of How Many People Die From Vaccines, Medications Or Any Medical Interventions Due To Cause Of Death Reporting Being Biased Towards Natural Causes. Death Recording Protocols Are Not Conducive To Scientific Investigation Of What Truly Caused A Death. Any Underlying Natural Condition That A Patient Has, No Matter How Well Managed Is The Default Cause Of Death. The Death Recording System Is Not Set Up To Accurately Inform Public Health Beliefs, Public Policy Creation Or Medical Decision-Making.”

Vaccine Resistance By Health Care Professionals

In Some Areas, 50% Of Health Care Workers And Up To 60% Of Nursing Home Workers Are Refusing The COVID Vaccine. These Have Been The First Individuals To Receive The Vaccine As It Has Been Rolled Out.

Why Are They Refusing, And Are They Seeing Something That We Aren’t Seeing?

Large Numbers Of Health Care And Frontline Workers Are Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine. Https://Www.Google.Com/Amp/S/Www.Forbes.Com/Sites/Tommybeer/2021/01/02/Large-Numbers-Of-Health-Care-And-Frontline-Workers-Are-Refusing-Covid-19-Vaccine/Amp/

Criminal Convictions

I Think It’s Important For People To Know That While Developing Vaccines May Seem Like A Product Of Good Will, Unfortunately The Pharmaceutical Industry Has A Long History Of Criminal Convictions For A Wide Variety Of Fraudulent Actions, Pfizer Included. In 2009, Pfizer Was Ordered To Pay $2.3 Billion For Fraud They Committed.

“Pfizer Has Been A ‘Habitual Offender,’ Persistently Engaging In Illegal And Corrupt Marketing Practices, Bribing Physicians And Suppressing Adverse Trial Results.”


Unfortunately, Under The United States Prep Act, Pfizer And Other COVID Vaccine Manufacturers Were Granted Liability Immunity From Adverse Events Resulting From The Administration Of Their Vaccines. If You Are Harmed By A COVID Vaccine, You Cannot Sue The Manufacturer.

Ultimately, I Do Not Seek To Make Conclusions About The Information Presented Above, Nor Do I Want To Provide Much Personal Opinion On The Matter. The Decision To Receive Any Vaccine Is Yours And Yours Alone. However I Hope That The Above Information Helps You To Be Better Informed And Better Equipped For That Decision.

Thank You For Reading And Sharing.

Additional Information Below.

Human Aborted Fetal Tissue

I Wanted To Include A Note On The Use Of Human Aborted Fetal Cell Lines In The Production, Development, And Testing Of Coronavirus Vaccines.

Both Pfizer And Moderna Used Human Aborted Fetal Cell Lines In The Testing Of Their COVID Vaccines. The Following Chart Is Compiled By The Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute.


Sound Choice Is Led By Dr. Theresa Deisher, PhD Who Has Over 30 Years Of Pharmaceutical Research And Discovered Adult Cardiac Derived Stem Cells. She Has Been Working On The Therapeutic Use Of Adult Stem Cells As An Alternative To Aborted Fetal Cells.

More About The Use Of Aborted Fetal Cells In COVID Vaccine Production, Here.


Vaccine Insert: Https://Www.Modernatx.Com/Covid19vaccine-Eua/Eua-Fact-Sheet-Providers.Pdf

Phase 3 Clinical Trial: Https://Www.Nejm.Org/Doi/Full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

FDA Briefing Document: Https://Www.Fda.Gov/Media/144434/Download Pg. 42 Serious Adverse Events “SAEs”.