FDA just shamefully approved MenQuadfi to be injected into infants 6 weeks to 2 yrs old based on a trial that compared it to Menveo. In the trial, 5.3% of infants receiving MenQuadfi and 3.6% of infants receiving Menveo had a serious adverse reaction (which means something very serious, see definition below). But because these rates were “similar,” this product was deemed “safe” by FDA because it assumes Menveo is “safe.”
But Menveo was licensed based on a trial in which Menactra (among other vaccines) was used as a control; and Menactra was licensed based on a trial in which Menomune was used as a control; and Menomune was not licensed based on a proper placebo-controlled trial. In fact – and this is mind twisting – the package insert for Menomune lists the clinical trial for Menactra (in which Menomume was used as the control) as the basis for its safety.
I couldn’t even dream of making this stuff up. This provides a good example of the vaccine safety pyramid scheme: -Menomune was licensed without a proper placebo-controlled trial and was then used as the control to license Menactra; -Menactra is then used as the control to license Menveo; -and then Menveo is used as the control to license MenQuadfi.
And then we get a trial with 5.3 % and 3.5% of infants suffering serious adverse reactions and no one bats an eye. They grant licensure. A pyramid scheme of safety, at the bottom of which there is no baseline on which safety is being judged. Just a get-it-licensed-to-profit shell game. FDA and pharma have nothing to lose here. We, as taxpayers, will pay for all of the harms suffered and, worst of all, the children who are injected and harmed and their families will really pay for the harms
Source: https://open.substack.com/pub/maryannedemasi/p/fda-branded-shameful-over-infant
And this is just a recent drug, the truth is, this whole "turtles all the way down" sort of scheme is pretty much how every childhood vaccine made the schedule. No placebo controls (that would be immoral), and if there are controls they're the older drug (or often many drugs) that follows the same non controlled pattern. Another modern trick is to test against the adjuvant (which causes harm in and of itself) so that the vaccine shows minor side effects by comparison, but they don't show the adjuvant against a placebo.
Its all a scam
And my friend with a PhD in microbiology is still getting every covid booster because he's pre-diabetic, for which he's taking Ozempic, so he considers himself to be an "at-risk" person, even though he's otherwise healthy and not overweight.
And if I try to talk to him about any of it, I'm just a layman conspiracy theorist who couldn't possibly understand any of this stuff.
So he'd rather pay out the nose and get Ozempic face than stop eating crap. Over-credentialed retards is a resource this country will never run out of.
That's the worst thing -- he's not even an unhealthy eater. Doesn't do soda, doesn't drink much, likes to cook and bake so makes most of his own food.
But he went to a doctor, they did his routine blood screening, his blood sugar came back borderline, they prescribed him Ozempic, and he just said, "ok, well I guess I'll do what the doctor says."
He's only borderline and his doctor went for the nuclear option? It sounds like there are 2 retards in this equation, and one of those retards needs to lose his medical license. I'd at least understand if he was morbidly obese and had a dangerously high A1C, but even then I'd try dietary changes first.
No disagreement here. I'm sure the logic is, "this person went through the same rigorous training that I did, therefore I can trust their judgement."
Education can't teach wisdom.
Especially when it isn't really education, but progandizement instead.
Keep in mind these doctors often get bonuses from the pharmaceutical company for writing prescriptions for their products. And yes I am being serious
Quite aware of this. And even more perverse, pediatricians are penalized when they don't get a high enough percentage of their patients jabbed.
His doctor is either on the take from Novo Nordisk (the company that makes Ozempic) if he’s dependent on research grants, or else he’s trying to fuck his Ozempic sales rep.
This is exactly why I never go to doctors.
I'm either going to live to a thousand, or drop dead from some weird and totally avoidable condition tomorrow. It's one or the other.
It's funny too. I've heard Alderall is sold illegally, so he could just sell it to make some money
The near totality of ozempic benefits on T2-diabetes come from ozempic causing a significant decrease in food intake.
If he was not obese and only borderline T2, eating slightly less on his own and doing some daily exercise would have fixed the problem.
He is a retard, and so was his doctor.
Hold on. He is a retard, and his doctor is getting bonuses based on drugs prescriptions.
Oh I'm sure his insurance covers it. It's a cash cow for everyone.
A university education was wasted on him.
No, he's very good at what he does. He's extremely intelligent, which is why I still consider him a friend and haven't just completely written him off.
He's just stuck in the mainstream media and mainstream institutional narrative.
Sounds like a smart guy /s (for the other PhDs that didn't get the sarcasm).
If you sold bullets that didn't work five percent of the time, you'd be sued out of existence. If you sold a car that stopped working five percent of the time, you'd go out of business.
Exactly.
Now do a drug that has limited effectiveness for a rare ass disease you'll almost never get in the modern sanitized world, but there's a 5% chance of you having serious adverse affects like violent seizures and God only knows whatever other issues that fall into an immeasurable gray area?
It's the latter that is the major issue. We have no way to measure damage to areas of the brain that will give you the 'tism, or which will lower your iq a few degrees, and so on and so forth.
As easily as people can say "that doesn't happen" you or I can say that it does - because there's zero data. Actually there's a multitude of anecdotal reports saying it does, but the science™ says that doesn't matter.
From the drug commercials, it's more like if those had a 5% chance of causing implosive diarrhea, spontaneous combustion, shrunken lungs, insulin allergies, instant alzheimers, or bleeding from every major organ. And that's what they say in commercials too (also for like skin medicine, or diabetes medicine)
I hope RFK is at least stamping out the Global Health Emergency of antisemitism, though!
The criteria for a "serious adverse event% is worse than I anticipated.
When the best case scenario is 1 of every 20 infants ends up hospitalized, that's no bueno.
Vaccine “testing” is a cult. Nothing is placebo tested properly.
Cult leaders like Peter Hotez have an autistic child and are too emotionally invested in denying the harm they did to change.
https://x.com/mjs654321/status/1816147701450309967
Hotez totally outed himself on many occasions. The autistic kid is news to me and totally makes sense now.
It's like all those parents who trannsed their kids, and then realized they fucked up, but can't live with it, so they double down...
The human condition is a fucker.
He must have a part of his brain that knows he injured his kid.
But to prevent his mind from even going there - he embraces fantasies like we’re suddenly 10,000x more genetically predisposed to autism than decades ago.
Just to put this in context. One of the biggest drug company payouts of all time in Australia was for the drug Roficoxib, which is a selective COX-2 inhibitor.
It was marketed as a painkiller and anti-inflammatory without side-effects from long term usage, which it is.
Aspirin, which is very effective, is a COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitor. COX-1 regulates the mucus production of goblet cells in the stomach. The mucus stops your stomach acid and the enzymes from literally digesting your stomach. If you take aspirin for too long, your stomach digests itself.
Roficoxib only inhibits COX-2, and is safe for the stomach. Neat, right?
Some time later, though statistical analysis, they discovered that people who are 50 or older and are at risk of heart attacks have heart attacks slightly more often when on Roficoxib.
To be clear, no one can point to a single stroke or heart attack and say that it was caused by Roficoxib. They can be fairly sure, in aggregate, that it was a contributing factor.
https://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/lawsuits/#:~:text=Vioxx%20lawsuits%20claimed%20the%20drug%20increased%20the%20risk,faced%20and%20settled%20criminal%20charges%20and%20investor%20lawsuits.
The class action lawsuit could not even point to any specific deaths. Yet the Merck settled for $4.85 billion dollars in 2005, as well as $950 million in fines for criminal behavior.
In contrast, there is a high quality Swiss study that has observed young men getting myocarditis about 1 in 45 cases directly after the Fizzer clot-shot.
A tolerable level of serious drug side effects is less than one in ten thousand administrations. Hopefully much less.
So what has changed?
And its sister drug, Celecoxib (Celebrex) remains on the North American market with a Black Box warning on it that it probably has the same problem as Vioxx.
The deaths and the follow up study revealed that COX-2 has a role in preventing platelet / blood vessel interaction and stops spontaneous clots.
People who take COX-2 inhibitors get more blood clots.
What you’ll eventually see with drugs is they all use a revolving door IP scam to keep patent rights as long as possible and in most cases increases harm. It’s a way to make as much lazy money as possible in pharmaceuticals because it requires bureaucracy to profit, not ingenuity. In this case Sanofi and GSK are playing off each other to get these shots into infants instead of 2 year olds when the shot is normally administered. These companies just made a Covid “vaccine” together in 2022, and GSK just hired the head of Sanofis R&D on vaccines this year.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html Archive: https://archive.ph/7d8JG
There are 57 recommended vaccines before the age of 18 by my count.
What is the probability that you experience at least one "severe adverse reaction" if all vaccines have the same severe allergic reaction incidence as these new ones? The math is pretty easy. It is just 1-(1-p)^57, or 1-.97^57 = .82. An 82% chance that you will have at least one vaccine hospitalization from these demons.
Never forget: DDD.
Good info. Thanks.
I'm all for being alert and aware to the risks... Your math makes a bad assumption, though: A lot of these vaxxes use similar tech (part of their other financial pyramid scheme is renewing patents by adding one tiny thing to an existing thing, then insisting that is used instead of the now-public-domain one), so those who get fucked once, are much more likely to be fucked again, making two counts (the baseline math you're using), but one victim (the arguably more important stat).
5% is too high on its own. I play D&D, those 1's roll all the time. You don't need to fall into a fallacy of incidents == victims like the 2010s college rape epidemic alarmists.
You are making a worse assumption: That repeated does have no risk. That is just false and the Covid -19 "vaccine" shows it. The first dose might not show a problem, but the second or third can.
that is covered by the "at least one vaccine hospitalization". The math doesn't care if it is more than one. Any number of hospitalizations makes the statement true. Think about the complementary event: that none of the injections cause a severe reaction. That event is one minus the probability of a reaction, to the power of the number of trials for independent events. There is no reason to assume that vaccines in different categories have the same "tech". The payload is tailored to the disease, and the rest of the solution is just a saline solution and some preservatives and pH balance. Similarly, as mentioned above, there is no reason to assume that vaccines get safer somehow the more you take them. While the second and third does for a single vaccine are not independent, they are not risk free, and 3% chance of a reaction is a fine guess.
This is terrible, but I'm pretty sure this is not how a pyramid scheme works. a pyramid scheme is when individual success is based on that individual's ability to get others to buy into the scheme.
I think a more accurate term would be circular sourcing, where item A's authenticity is based on item B, and item B's authenticity is based on item A.
What makes this even worse is that one key principle in responsible drug development is that safety takes greater priority, and so even marginal safety signals need to be taken very seriously, when you’re dealing with a medicine that 1) treats a less serious condition and 2) treats a larger population.
For example, if you have a treatment for a rare, very fatal cancer that only 100 people nationwide have, then a 1.7% imbalance in serious adverse events means about 2 extra people nationwide end up in the hospital or at risk of death from a side effect, and those people were on death’s door to begin with - you’re probably willing to roll the dice on that safety risk to get the benefit of treatment when the alternative is certain death from cancer.
And then on the other extreme, where we are here, where you’ve got a medicinal product that’s going to be given to millions of healthy babies who don’t even have an illness, to protect them against an illness that they’ll likely never get, and that is still pretty survivable if they get it, then a 1.7% imbalance in SAEs means tens of thousands of hospitalized / dead babies, for the very marginal benefit of protecting them against something they don’t have, probably won’t ever get, and could probably survive in the unlikely event they get it.
That’s what pissed me off so much about the Covid vaccines. This whole principle, which is embedded in the broader principle of balancing likely treatment benefits against risks, went out the fucking window because we live in clown world now and Pfizer needed to hit its profit targets.
Coincidentally, FDA admitted to another illegal drug approval today: OxyContin. For those who don't know, there actually is no study that proves OxyContin is effective, but FDA approved it anyway.
This is a direct quote from the FDA Commissioner himself: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835314. Naturally, even though he says they did it illegally, the drug is still on the market and nothing has changed.