Fishy Business in the Rio de la Plata

March, 24, 2022 | 16 Comments

Comments

  1. The running Brook…

    Brook Jackson  
    @IamBrookJackson

    SASHA LATYPOVA’S FORENSIC INVESTIGATION INTO PFIZER’S ‘FRADULENT’ PRECLINICAL STUDIES

    It really is shocking stuff…

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh08pl6sp9w1o11/GMT20220321-170215_Recording_3240x2160%281%29.mp4?dl=0

    “You can’t have multiple versions of it, it is just fraud”

    “You can speed up only fraud”

    “The public was sold this fairy tale”

    “Pfizer Cite – WHO” …

    Argentina’s health minister fired in ‘VIP vaccines’ scandal

    https://www.ft.com/content/23828ca6-b684-4dca-9efa-d72765d52bb4

    An American, a Brasilian and an Argentinian go take a test together

    In it, they all have to get in a plane, take off, go to random location, and just by putting their hand out of the window mid flight, they have to guess if they are in their countries or not and why.

    First goes the american, who says:
    – We are in the USA, i can feel the freedom of democracy just by feeling the air.

    Second goes the Brasilian who says:
    – We are definitely on brazil, i can feel the cultures, the happiness and samba in the wind-

    Lastly goes the argentinian who says:

    – Nope, we are totally on Argentina, no doubts about it-

    – Why are you so sure?- asks the interviewer, to which he responds:

    – Because someone stole my watch-

    WATCHgate NEJMgate…

  2. So how did Argentina find itself relying on Russia’s Sputnik vaccine in the first place? Why not go with Pfizer? According to reports that emerged a year later, Pfizer engaged in “high-level bullying” of Latin American countries in 2020 negotiations over vaccine access. As a result, both Argentina and Brazil walked away without a deal as the pandemic raged.

    The key sticking point? Immunity from lawsuits over vaccine-linked injuries.

    Now, other Covid-19 vaccine makers did ask countries to “indemnify” them against vaccine injuries, and compensate their own citizens for adverse effects. And most nations agreed – based on the idea that some injuries would be 1) inevitable but 2) very rare and 3) mostly not serious or fatal. But Pfizer went much further. They also insisted on immunity from suits alleging negligence or misconduct by Pfizer itself – and demanded that key national assets, from embassies to military bases, be signed over as collateral to back up this pledge!

    In other words: Despite Pfizer’s appetite for Argentine bodies to test their novel vaccine in, they felt no duty to provide the actual product once it came to market. It’s a familiar and ugly state of affairs that’s all too common in Pfizer’s home country: New drugs are tested on poor folks who (assuming the drugs work out) may never get access to them.

  3. Not for the faint-hearted

    UK government “yellow card” adverse reaction reports

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting (25 Mar 2022).

    “Up to and including 9 March 2022, we have received 746 reports of myocarditis and 514 reports of pericarditis following use of the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine….Four fatal events have been reported associated with the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine.”

    Pfizer should track down and invite these people to have periodic independent cardiological assessments over the next 10-20 years.

    They should also channel 0.1% of their profits into research into why a mRNA “vaccine” should cause heart problems.

    Pfizer deserves a red card.

  4. Evaluating COVID-19 vaccines in the real world

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00194-5/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email

    The effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines in preventing COVID-19 disease progression in 2021 set new expectations about the role of prevention interventions for the disease. Efficacy observed in the trials was more than 90%.

    The efficacy of other vaccines evaluated in large randomised trials, such as the Oxford–AstraZeneca (70%) and Sputnik V (91%) vaccines, have been criticised for elements of the trial conduct and concerns about safety.

    For that reason, mRNA vaccines have been most widely distributed

    EJM is employed by Platform Life Sciences, which is a private company providing consultancy on global health trial design and methods. Platform Life Sciences is not involved with any work on COVID-19 vaccines. EJM has previously been employed by Cytel, which does contract research and software development. GR is the founder and an employee of Cardresearch, which leads the Brazilian TOGETHER trial of repurposed therapies for SARS-CoV-2.

    References

    Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med 384: 403–16.

    Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med 383: 2603–15.

    Juan Gérvas Retweeted

    @samizdathealth
    @DrDavidHealy

    Did the New Eng J Medicine sell itself down the River of Silver? Can anything it has published on the vaccines be trusted when its editors don’t see it as their job to guarantee the integrity of their sources?

    @JeanRees10 @DrNancyOlivieri @guyattGH @eloder

  5. As a radiologist, I can confidently say that there is no pericardial effusion on that chest CT image (despite using a lung window and not soft tissue window). Just minimal pericardial fluid, which is normal.
    Everything else is outside my purview!

    • Difficult for me to argue against a radiologist
      except to say the radiologist in the hospital where A was treated note a pericardial effusion
      and I had the full sequence of X Rays reviewed by a radiologist who knew nothing of the story who diagnosed a pericardial effusion.

      But the pericardial effusion is not all that’s involved, there are the liver enzymes and a concerted effort by the research team to give Augusto illness he didn’t have – I imagine even a radiologist would not put much weight on a mental health diagnosis made by a pediatric infectologist who had a vested interest in discrediting this trial volunteer.

      D

    • because in my country who can perform an imaging diagnosis through a computed tomography is a doctor with that specialty, the radiologist only takes x-rays. That is why there is a code of ethics in medicine and I fully understand that you cannot observe it, each one with their qualifying title, greetings from Argentina

Leave a Reply