Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Argentbear]

The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who planned to expose mRNA (modRNA) "vaccines" as a cause of turbo cancer.

Doctors killed in Brazilian plane crash promised to release evidence tying mRNA “vaccines” to TURBO CANCER – NaturalNews.com

The other day, we reported that eight of the 62 (not 68 as was originally reported) people who died in the recent ATR 72 turboprop plane crash in Sao Paulo, Brazil, were doctors headed to an important oncology conference. It has since come out that six of these eight were also scientists who...

www.naturalnews.com

Three of the "doctors" weren't doctors.
Only Dr. Mariana Belim and Dr. Ariane Risso were on their way to the conference but neither were speakers and neither were presenting papers.
Dr. José Roberto Leonel Ferreira was a retired radiologist who was traveling to meet his new grandchild.

 

[Ebionite]

Three of the "doctors" weren't doctors.

Captain Nitpick.

Pfizer stopped testing their product on animals because they kept dying?

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/165/001/321/playable/a0e53f947649ea56.mp4

 

[Argentbear]

Captain Nitpick.

Yeah those nasty facts keep getting in the way of your nonsense don't they?

Pfizer stopped testing their product on animals because they kept dying?

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/165/001/321/playable/a0e53f947649ea56.mp4

Whos senate is this?

Not the Senate of the United States. The US Senate doesn't have committee of state affairs

 

[Ebionite]

Yeah those nasty facts keep getting in the way of your nonsense don't they?

Facts like the correlation between vaccination and autism, you mean?

The data collected in Sonoma/Marin and counties with the lowest vaccination rates in the state are the sole exception to the skyrocketing autism rate in California.

California Autism Prevalence by County and Race/Ethnicity: Declining Trends Among Wealthy Whites - PubMed

County-level ASD prevalence was estimated using an age-resolved snapshot from the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for birth years 1993-2013. ASD prevalence increased among all children across birth years 1993-2000 but plateaued or declined thereafter among whites from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Argentbear]

Facts like the correlation between vaccination and autism, you mean?

The data collected in Sonoma/Marin and counties with the lowest vaccination rates in the state are the sole exception to the skyrocketing autism rate in California.

California Autism Prevalence by County and Race/Ethnicity: Declining Trends Among Wealthy Whites - PubMed

County-level ASD prevalence was estimated using an age-resolved snapshot from the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for birth years 1993-2013. ASD prevalence increased among all children across birth years 1993-2000 but plateaued or declined thereafter among whites from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Try reading your own links sometime. The study looks at autism rates for the years 1993 to 2013.
Thanks for the laugh

 

[sew.excited73]

I haven't read all 119 pages of this thread so I apologise if this has already been gone over but...

Even though I had my shots, I didn't like the way they changed the dictionary term of the word 'vaccine' to fit this, as yet untested new therapy. (no phase 4 was done at the time)
I also didn't like the fact you weren't allowed to have your own opinion and say: "But this is too new, we don't know what effect these types of therapies will have on people in 2, 3, 5, 10 years' time".
Basically, I didn't like that any form of debate that went outside the 'get jabbed to safe granny' narrative was not allowed, even though debate had, up to then, been the basis of good science... but from then on, 'good science' was just whatever the WHO had decided it would be; even though they could not possibly have know it would be 100% OK for most people either! They just had the most hubris, I guess, and won the 'I know best'-award.

 

[Ebionite]

Dr. Mike Yeadon on Ivermectin

Dr. Mike Yeadon Ivermectin Anti-Fertility Bombshell: "One Of The Most Violent Fertility Toxins"

Renowned pharmacologist Dr. Mike Yeadon has dropped a massive Ivermectin bombshell, calling it “one of the most violent fertility toxins” he’s ever seen. His comments were recorded back in June 2024 b

rumble.com

 

[Ebionite]

Even though I had my shots, I didn't like the way the changed the dictionary term of the word 'vaccine' to fit these, as yet untested new therapy. I also didn't like the fact you weren't allowed to have your own opinion and say: "But this is too new, we don't know what effect these types of therapies will have on people in 2,3 5, 10 years' time". Basically, I didn't like that any form of debate that went outside the 'get jabbed to safe granny' narrative was not allowed, even though that, up to then, had been the basis of good science... but from then on, 'good science' was just whatever the WHO had decided it would be (even though they could not possibly have know it would be 100% OK for most people either, they just had the most hubris, I guess, and one the 'I know best'-award).

Hubris is a precursor of religious insanity.

 

[McBell]

Dr. Mike Yeadon on Ivermectin

Dr. Mike Yeadon Ivermectin Anti-Fertility Bombshell: "One Of The Most Violent Fertility Toxins"

Renowned pharmacologist Dr. Mike Yeadon has dropped a massive Ivermectin bombshell, calling it “one of the most violent fertility toxins” he’s ever seen. His comments were recorded back in June 2024 b

rumble.com

Rather difficult to take Michael Yeadon seriously given his proven liar status.

 

[Argentbear]

I haven't read all 119 pages of this thread so I apologise if this has already been gone over but...
Even though I had my shots, I didn't like the way the changed the dictionary term of the word 'vaccine' to fit these, as yet untested new therapy. I also didn't like the fact you weren't allowed to have your own opinion and say: "But this is too new, we don't know what effect these types of therapies will have on people in 2,3 5, 10 years' time". Basically, I didn't like that any form of debate that went outside the 'get jabbed to safe granny' narrative was not allowed, even though that, up to then, had been the basis of good science... but from then on, 'good science' was just whatever the WHO had decided it would be (even though they could not possibly have know it would be 100% OK for most people either, they just had the most hubris, I guess, and one the 'I know best'-award).

Researchers have studied mRNA vaccines for decades, in particular, because they can be developed in a laboratory setting with readily available materials. It wasn't new or untested

 

[sew.excited73]

Hubris is a precursor of religious insanity.

As clearly evidenced as they turned 'science' into a religion!

 

[sew.excited73]

Researchers have studied mRNA vaccines for decades, in particular, because they can be developed in a laboratory setting with readily available materials. It wasn't new or untested

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were never used on people in a large-scale phase 4 setting by an independent/unbiased organisation before 2020, as far as I am aware. So we could not have known how these 'vaccines' were going to affect people in the longer term! (we still don't, as it still hasn't been even 10 years yet and, in case you didn't know, it takes on average 20 years to get from idea to bedside, for every new treatment!)
If you can prove otherwise, by sending me doi's for pre-2020 studies on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, I'd love to see them!

Each 'normal' vaccine is different and needs to go through their own thorough clinical trail (unbiased, and not by the pharmaceutical company who makes them!!!), so should the COVID therapies have been done.

Sure, these were unprecedented circumstances, and we had to act fast, so we used knowledge based on previous findings, fair enough... but that is not the same as 'safe and effective' as claimed by the producers of the product and endorsed by governments. Governments who then took over those pharmaceutical companies' liabilities! Why? Why was that necessary? Did the pharmaceutical companies not have enough faith in their own products to risk their own liability as usual?

If you are distributing a treatment/profilaxicis/vaccine/whatever on an 'emergency basis', then at least honestly inform the public of what they need to know and honestly tell them the risk of not having had a full clinical trial yet alongside any benefits.
I hear in other countries people didn't even have to sign a 'informed consent'-form to get the jab! Probably because there was no 'informed' consent! You need informed consent for such situations, and let people decide their own personal risk and make their own personal decision. This did not happen! There was a lot of gaslighting people into having to take this jab for 'granny's sake'.

Even kids were given the jab, even though they had a very, very low risk level of even getting sick if they got the virus.
We didn't know whether the risk of the jab really outweighed the risk of the illness for that age group, especially once it was clear that the jabs would only work for a few months at a time and then needed to be boosted. But the kids had to take it, because if they did 'then they wouldn't be able to pass it on'. (a blatant lie, and I work at a university and KNEW it was not correct at the time here in the UK, so why did they still go ahead with it in the US?!)

But even if they had not lied, and the kids could have stopped the spread, should we possibly (as we were not sure at the time how safe and effective these were AT ALL) sacrifice the future health of our children to save us, old people? Give them/their parents the choice - sure, in that case maybe... but gaslighting them with 'guilt tricks' and mandates etc. and not telling people the full story,...that just goes too far.

Can someone please explain the moral/ethics in that?

 

[Argentbear]

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were never used on people in a large-scale phase 4 setting by an independent/unbiased organisation before 2020, as far as I am aware. So we could not have known how these 'vaccines' were going to affect people in the longer term! (we still don't, as it still hasn't been even 10 years yet and, in case you didn't know, it takes on average 20 years to get from idea to bedside, for every new treatment!)
If you can prove otherwise, by sending me doi's for pre-2020 studies on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, I'd love to see them!

Are you aware that A phase 4 clinical trial, also known as a post-marketing surveillance trial, studies the safety and effectiveness of a drug or device after it has been approved by the FDA and is available for doctors to prescribe:

Each 'normal' vaccine is different and needs to go through their own thorough clinical trail (unbiased, and not by the pharmaceutical company who makes them!!!), so should the COVID therapies have been done.

It was done.

 

[Ebionite]

As clearly evidenced as they turned 'science' into a religion!

The scientific method is ethically agnostic, but the behaviour of the priests of science is evident in the scientism of peer review, which leads to institutional bias in favour of those who pay for the associated work.

Are you aware that A phase 4 clinical trial, also known as a post-marketing surveillance trial, studies the safety and effectiveness of a drug or device after it has been approved by the FDA and is available for doctors to prescribe:

Here's the report. There are nine pages of text which name the different adverse effects.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PMC

In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Ebionite]

Can someone please explain the moral/ethics in that?

It goes back to the rejection of deity as the source of ethics. Governments are the de-facto deity of those who reject the truth, so naturally governments are the source of the adverse effects that follow from the rejection of deity.

 

[sew.excited73]

Are you aware that A phase 4 clinical trial, also known as a post-marketing surveillance trial, studies the safety and effectiveness of a drug or device after it has been approved by the FDA and is available for doctors to prescribe:

It was done.

Of course I am, I even worked on the Push the Pace project for the NIHR, which dealt with trying to shorten the idea to bedside average of 20 years, and we were ‘successful’ in reducing it to (I think it was) 17 years and 8 months ( might have been 18 years and 7 month, need too look that up again) and that was the absolute shortest time we could manage without cutting dangerous corners Back in 2017!

Before I mentioned it in my post, we’re you aware that people in a phase 4 trial have to be told the absolute worse case scenario alongside all the glorious possible benefits of any ’experimental treatment’ (as that’s what it still is in phase 4) and then sign an informed consent form before they can take part, normally, same as for surgeries etc. as this is part of the liability policies?

But in the case of the Covid mRNA jabs, governments took on the liability and I am told that this normal procedure was skipped altogether outside the UK. (I mean, why bother with the paperwork if you don’t need the paperwork for your liability insurance anyway, right?)
I certainly signed my informed consent forms, albeit somewhat against my better conscience as I too fell foul of gaslighting by the UK government here, who threatened that you could not travel abroad without a vaccination card (and all my family live abroad),… but I got my jabs done at work (university) where people knew better and stuck to the rules, (I hope) which are there for good reasons.

 

[Argentbear]

Here's the report. There are nine pages of text which name the different adverse effects.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

you present this as if it were a quote from the report you linked. It isn't.

 

[Argentbear]

Of course I am, are you aware that people in a phase 4 trial have to be told the absolute worse case scenario along side the benefits and the sign an informed consent form before the can take part, in a normal situation, as this is part of the liability policies.

Are people not supposed to be informed?

 

[Kathryn]

Sew.excited here was my own personal experience with the Pfizer vaccines and 1 Pfizer booster.

The first two shots were totally non eventful, I mean I think my arm was a bit sore but other than that it was nothing. So since so much of my family was abroad, I went in for the third shot expecting more of the same, nothing. Instead of "nothing" I got a raging headache for four days afterward, and my blood pressure never has returned to it's low normal, though it is only about 130/80, so not high enough for meds. But immediately prior to the 3rd shot, my blood pressure was about 100/70 and that was "higher than normal" to me so I had a little wiggle room. I hate I got that third shot, I really do.

 

[sew.excited73]

The scientific method is ethically agnostic, but the behaviour of the priests of science is evident in the scientism of peer review, which leads to institutional bias in favour of those who pay for the associated work.


Here's the report. There are nine pages of text which name the different adverse effects.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PMC

In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 = 2021, thus not years before 2020, I am afraid. So, there is just no way of knowing how this is going to affect people 3, 5, or 10 years later (yet). Why don’t people just not get that? Is it their confirmation bias after having taken the jabs, and not wanting to see any normal, simple, common sense anymore as that would mean admitting that they might have made a horrible mistake? It might not have been a mistake. Nothing bad might happen to anyone at all… but that is not the point! The point is, people were not warned about any possibility of risk at all and in case of mandates or other such schemes were even bullied into complying, rather than giving the choice on what they felt was best for themselves. These were not normal vaccines, that’s the point.

I personally feel that governments should not be allowed to make these decisions for us. It is down to each patient and their doctor to come to the best decision for that person. It’s their life to risk, not the government’s. The government doesn’t own us, they work for us.

Also, did anyone, in the government, or speaking as scientific advisor, during their public mainstream media ‘propaganda’ mention any of these risk written down?

Did your doctors, before they gave you the shot? Or did they just shove a piece of paper like this with all kinds of medical terms that no non-medical person would be expected to understand under their nose (probably after administration of the jab) and send them on their merry way.

I wish I could remember the threshold at which vaccines would normally be recalled when causing damage… I need to look that up again tomorrow as I wouldn’t want to state the wrong information, but 10 per 10,000 is basically 1 in 1000, and that seems to be very near or above that threshold for me, but I could be wrong, as I said will see if I can find that tomorrow, I need to sleep now. Goodnight everyone