Case 3 Karunya Venugopalan
This is the third case in the Cause and Effect Forum that looks at how we establish if a vaccine or a drug has caused a harm.
On January 7, 2022, there was an extraordinary article in the BMJ by Priyanka Pulla – How Covid-19 vaccines exposed India’s adverse event reporting systems. This outlined a series of injuries and deaths on Covid vaccines in India but was focused primarily on the Adverse Event Following Immunisation (AEFI) reporting system which had effectively just been put in place a short while before and was not yet up to speed. As a result, families were commonly left unclear on whether the vaccine had caused the death of a loved one or what might have happened.
The article maybe leans towards painting the situation as worse in India than elsewhere but my reaction was that things are not really different anywhere else. Nobody who reports to whatever System their country has ever gets a clear answer – other than maybe the vaccines don’t cause problems and yes you should have your next dose.
Some of the cases outlined were compelling. For me the story of Venugopalan Govindan and his daughter Karunya stood out, so much so that I contacted Priyanka to get Venu’s address and then contacted him to find out more. In the article and in real life, it seemed clear that while he was less concerned about the AEFI system he was even more concerned about the vaccine propaganda that had led his daughter to rush into getting treated and left her family and the medical system unaware of what might be happening when things started to go wrong and as a result slow to intervene in ways that might have saved her.
Karunya’s Story
Venu and his wife Sujini and I met by Zoom on January 10. He sent me Karunya’s medical records before we met and his summary of what happened.
For me the interview brought home our common humanity. Venu and his family and their story about Karunya could have been the story of the family next door. Their sorrow and now anger made me feel I had more in common with them than with most of the people I meet these days even though neither I nor the people I meet here have lost anyone to Covid, or anyone close to me to a vaccine.
Karunya was the eldest of 2 children, 20 years old, fit and healthy. The family had annual check-ups as part of their health insurance and she was always the healthiest of them.
Against a background of media coverage that everyone must get vaccinated, her parents, grandparents and other family before her had the Astra-Zeneca Covishield vaccine without harm. Vaccination was opened up to people 18 and up from May and she had the injection on June 8. She had a slight fever that night but went to work the next day.
A week later she developed a fever and a sore throat, so sore she couldn’t eat or drink or talk. Everyone thought she had Covid but a PCR was negative. A local doctor gave her treatment for a sore throat but this was no use and a day later she was admitted to hospital, where her inflammatory markers – C-Reactive Protein (CRP), ESR and d-Dimer results were very high, along with immune markers like white cell counts.
After 4 days without improvement she was transferred to a teaching hospital, where because of her immune markers it was assumed she had an infection and so antibiotics were the mainstay of treatment.
Anticoagulants and steroids were only introduced on July 4 and IVIg on July 7 but these has little impact at this point. She was transferred to ICU. At every stage of this, her family were confident that the next step in treatment was going to make a difference and restore her to normal.
Karunya died on July 10 to her parents bewilderment. They could not believe she would not be coming home.
The diagnosis on her medical record was Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS). This can be caused by Covid but repeated tests were negative. The push to get children vaccinated is because of this syndrome – called MIS-C (C for children). Covid is pretty harmless for children but we are told MIS-C can happen and can be lethal. MIS-C is real but vanishingly rare.
MIS leads to pleural and pericardial effusions among other things, all of which Karunya had.
There have now been several cases of MIS-V published, where clinical pictures like this develop against a background of Covid negative tests. This is the kind of case that early steroids, like dexamethasone, can help with. With an early diagnosis she likely didn’t have to die.
Covishield
While at every step of the way they expected their daughter to recover, after she entered hospital with a negative Covid test, Karunya’s parents began to think the vaccine was causing the problem. Every time they raised this possibility, they were told no – this was not possible.
It was only after her death that the first entry in her medical record raised the possibility that the vaccine might have caused her suffering and death. The family had sensed by this point that the medical team did not have any protocols for treating someone who was having a vaccine induced problem.
Venu contacted the Serum Institute of India, where the vaccine was made, thinking they might have treatment protocols but it seemed a completely new idea to the bureaucrats there, even the doctors, that they might have any role in managing problems like this. [Our vaccines are used in 170 countries around the world, saving millions of lives].
Venu filed an Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) report with the system in India. They did not deny that the Vaccine had caused the event but claimed to be unable to decide for certain whether it had done so or not.
Venu has since joined forces with Bri Dressen, Augusto Roux and others to get the word out that harms happen and we need to recognise this and ensure they are treated speedily and effectively.
Tackling AEFI and CDC
Venu and I engaged in correspondence with a vaccine defender who wishes to remain nameless and does not want his emails published here but you can infer his points from my responses.
First Email Response
In medicine and all science we make judgement calls based on a balance of medical probabilities – just as we do in legal cases. Absolute certainty – beyond all reasonable doubt – is reserved for cases where the outcome is the death penalty.
A balance of probabilities is normal scientific causality. Sure we may be wrong and need to take other evidence into account – which in legal and clinical cases and in science we do all the time so that if fresh evidence comes up we reserve the right to change our mind.
In Karunya’s case, the only reasonable explanation on the face of it, given the sequence of events is the vaccine killed her.
This doesn’t mean there can’t be contributory factors like a prior Covid infection, but even with that she would not have died had she not had the vaccine.
I accept that there are things people should be screened for prior to vaccination should as anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and antibodies that make thrombosis more likely and alpha1-antitripsin deficiencies, but do you really think the authorities are going to advise people to get screened for any of these?
Given the details we have, is it not more likely Karunya died from the vaccine we know she had rather than from an asymptomatic Covid infection she just happened to have at that time and was test-negative for. I’m not ruling out the latter possibility but it strains credibility to think this rather than the vaccine was the cause.
A Covid infection likely produces the same antibodies through its spike protein which the vaccines also produces. It seems increasingly like that across a range of rarely tested antibodies that we have both the infection and the vaccine producing the same antibodies and the same harms.
Another factor is this. The argument you offer can be translated into SSRI antidepressant terms and is used by the defenders of the drugs. These drugs can cause people to commit suicide. One of the many arguments the defenders of the drugs use is that this is because the people who do so were bipolar and were put on the wrong treatment. Face them with the fact that healthy volunteers with no prior mental health history become suicidal and commit suicide on these drugs – they respond that even these people were likely bipolar.
The most solid causal evidence you can find – that increasing the dose of SSRI makes things worse and reducing the dose or stopping clears the problem up and reintroducing treatment brings the problem back and an antidote can ease the problem – does not persuade the defenders.
The SSRI and vaccine defenders trade on a model of absolute causality. You can adopt this if you want but it is not how things work clinically. If I’m treating you with an SSRI and you become suicidal, and perhaps tell me you’ve been suicidal before but this was different, you and I between us (or you or on your own if I’m not listening) need to make a judgement call – reduce the dose and even stop the treatment – or increase the dose on the basis that it is the illness causing the problem. Your life depends on calls like which are made on the balance of medical probabilities.
Second Email Response
Re WHO manual and its algorithms – no I don’t agree with you.
I run a website called RxISK.org and on that we use a modified Naranjo algorithm. This is based on a line of thinking that goes back to Robert Koch’s proposal for deciding does the cholera bacillus cause cholera. We accept Koch’s idea that this is broadly how we prove cause and effect (for a germ or drug) even though Max von Pettenkoffer immediately afterwards brewed up a glass of cholera bacilli and drank it and was unharmed
I’m not against algorithms but they essentially remind people of questions to ask and give a score that can steer us toward one line of thinking – sometimes incorrectly. They are like rating scales. New phenomena that turn up don’t do well on algorithms.
In the case of some of these thrombotic phenomena, let me tell you what happened. Neurologists in 2020 were seeing an increase in Carotid Sinus Thromboses, with Covid. They were seeing several in a hospital where in a typical year they might see one. Nobody ever said – no Covid doesn’t cause this. Nobody rushed out to say don’t be alarmed at these misguided stories about Carotid Sinus Thromboses – they haven’t been through an algorithm.
It was totally predictable that when a vaccine that reproduces the Spike Protein began to be used that similar phenomena would be observed and that a bunch of doctors primed by the increased number of these events in the previous year would make a link to the vaccine. There would have been no reports to regulators of this problem unless that was the case and most of the doctors reporting will have only reported because of their certainty the vaccine was causing the problem.
None of these doctors will have gone anywhere near the WHO document – which is a document for bureaucrats not doctors or patients.
Bureaucrats like FDA, CDC, MHRA, EMA etc want paper trails and documents and to be able to say they are adherent to process. They never discover anything. Rarely and reluctantly when the data has become too overwhelming to disagree they might concede a link.
I come back to antidepressants. An antidepressant like imipramine that causes suicide can reduce suicide rates overall by treating severe depressions (in a way that SSRIs don’t). But we should not say these drugs can’t cause suicide because overall suicide rates fall when in individuals the drug can incontrovertibly cause suicide.
When the SSRIs overall in trials had excess suicides and suicidal acts compared to placebo – as the vaccines have excess deaths in RCTs compared to placebo, the drug companies turned to real world data saying suicide rates have fallen since SSRIs were introduced. Suicide rates were falling before SSRIs were introduced but this is better linked to falling autopsy rates than to anything else.
Quite astonishingly, there has been a strong disincentive to have autopsies in people who have had vaccines.
Re not having a biological basis for the vaccine harms – we still don’t have one for thalidomide and the birth defects it causes. Are you saying these aren’t incontrovertible?
Having biological fig leaves can be nice but you need more than a fig leave to be properly covered.
What?
Shortly after this email exchange, the inimitable Bob Fiddaman pursuing a correspondence with the British Regulator – the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA – aka CDC, EMA etc) was stopped in his tracks by one of their replies.
MHRA, as usual, were refusing to commit to the idea that there had ever been an adverse event on anything – drug or vaccine – or to specify exactly they go about deciding if there might have been an adverse event. Then all of sudden there was a bit of straight talking from the bureaucrats:
Should a reporter of a Yellow Card, upon reflection or receipt of additional information, no longer suspect that the drug or vaccine was the cause of the adverse reaction(s) reported the MHRA accepts this information.
Just to make this absolutely clear. MHRA are saying they pay no heed to a doctor who says a drug or vaccine caused a problem but they totally agree with a doctor who decides the drug or vaccine did not cause the problem.
Covaxin and Bharat Biotech
On February 24, a Telanga Court issued an instruction to The Wire to take down 14 articles about Bharat Biotech and its Covaxin vaccine.
The Court order was directed at The Wire but also 12 others including Priyanka Pulla. Covering vaccines is a dangerous business wherever in the world you are.
The Wire has said they will defend their position.
Also in India Amar Jesani and the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics have been shining a sophisticated light on all medical ethics issues including what has been happening with vaccines, harms and mandates. For many, the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics has emerged as one of the leading bioethical journals in the world in recent years – in part because of its independent take on serious problems.
In the last two decades, Jacob Puliyel, an Indian paediatrician, has done as much if not more than anyone else in the world to raise awareness of vaccine hazards. Jacob drew my attention to two key Cause and Effect articles which tackle the use of algorithms to solve cause and effect problems – See Bellavita and Pulliyel.
It is very clear that the WHO algorithm for vaccine related injuries, mentioned above, stresses that you need to go out of your way to find some explanation other than the vaccine in the case of injuries that happen after being vaccinated. Three years ago of course, just before Covid, WHO defined vaccine hesitancy as one of the Ten Greatest Threats to Global Health.
Back in 2008 a new virus was described – a Clinical Immune Deficiency Virus (CIV). This virus affects the immune systems of doctors and the media most, making them a threat rather than a support to us. These are the people who consume the idea that the Clinical Trials that bring drugs on the market are Science and we must follow this science even when there is:
- no access to the trial data
- all trials are ghostwritten
- negative trials are published as positive
- harms including deaths are made to vanish
- regulators like FDA turn a blind eye to publication the New England J of Misinformation even saying the drug or vaccine works well and is safe when FDA know this is not true.
It is no surprise that we have had Falling Life Expectancies from the pandemic this has led to which manifested in falling life expectanices 5 years before Covid appeared.
The Whole World is Injected with Vaccination Fever…
Propelled along, following in the footsteps of the inglorious SSRI debacles –
The entire experience has left Govindan and many of his family unwilling to take their second doses of vaccine. “Myself and my wife, who are single jabbed, are totally staying away from that poison. And so also my brother and his wife,” he says.
Peter Doshi, PhD Challenges the Majority Blind Acceptance of “Empirical” Narratives Around Covid Vaccines
https://truthcomestolight.com/peter-doshi-phd-challenges-the-majority-blind-acceptance-of-empirical-narratives-around-covid-vaccines/
Doshi and Herder made an important point when they wrote:34 “If the goal was speed at all costs, we should just get rid of regulators.” The FDA analysis of the Pfizer data appears to have been so superficial as to have been nearly no evaluation at all.
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/human-rights/why-is-the-fda-hiding-the-pfizer-vaccine-data
As has become obvious, there is no appetite for AEs which would spoil and remove the limelight from the ‘Success of the Safe and Effective Vaccination Programmes’ directed at ‘Everyone in the World’.
Regulators don’t want their boat rocked, pharma co.s don’t want their data analysed, commonly accepted mandates, but what is really horrifying is that people like Karunya’s doctors have been swept along with the pace and urgency and have foregone their ability to want to heal their patient in front of them and watch her die without thinking about what they could actually do …
@Annie 🎯
So far 447,895 Yellow Card reports including 1,466,191 adverse symptoms & 2,040 fatalities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
Government state: “It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.”
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/yellow-card-please-help-to-reverse-the-decline-in-reporting-of-suspected-adverse-drug-reactions
Expert Panel Discussion on COVID-19 and Medical Freedom
https://senatormastriano.com/medicalfreedompanel/
1 of 1
The Lancet Paper Adverse Events are not Insignificant
12:39 PM (25 minutes ago)
to me
The Lancet Paper Adverse Events are not Insignificant
Don’t let legacy Media Fool You
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Mar 10
Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe The Lancet, March 7, 2022.
The CDC published the above paper in The Lancet on March 7, 2022. The legacy media immediately promoted the study as documents that the vaccines are safe and effective. With severe side effects being rare and of short duration.
I began reading this paper with my usual wary eye, and what jumped out at me was that the conclusions reached by the legacy media did not match what I, as a trained physician and scientist, found important. As is often the case. Because they are journalists, not scientists. Please remind me, why are we relying on/allowing them to interpret science when they are not trained for this?. In any case, here are some of the headlines from the main stream media:
THE LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Large U.S. study confirms most mRNA COVID-19 vaccine side effects are mild and temporary
Huge study finds most COVID-19 vaccine side effects were mild for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna (USA Today)
Side Effects of COVID mRNA Vaccines Are Mild and Short, Large Study Confirms (Medscape)
No link between Covid vaccine and deaths, says major US study Just 4,500 people died out of the 298 million vaccines considered in the study (Evening Standard)
Wait, let’s back up a bit here and do our own due diligence and thinking! The Lancet paper documents the percent of severe adverse events (6.6%), compared to non-severe adverse events (92.1%). BTW – death was a separate category determined to be around 1.3% of all adverse events. So, what does this mean? A severe event ratio (including death) of 7.9% of all reported adverse events is high – very high! That means that about 12.6% of adverse events are severe, as defined by the VAERS system (quote from the Lancet paper below):
“VAERS reports were classified as serious if any of the following outcomes were documented: inpatient hospitalisation, prolongation of hospitalisation, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or birth defect, or death.”
One out of every eight reported adverse events were classified as serious! But “somehow” what the Medscape Headline concludes is that the side effects are “mild and short.” This is just not accurate.
But let’s dig deeper. One has to look at the actual numbers of people affected by adverse events. Not just at the percentage points of the various adverse events. So, let’s take a look under the hood and figure out what this all means.
First there are many caveats to this paper. This data is only for the first six months after the vaccine roll out, so no children and almost no teens were vaccinated during this period (the 15-18 year old age range began to get vaccinated around May, 2021, but the data analysis started January and ends June 2021). Why the cut-off at six months? There are now data that extend for 14 months, and those data include children.
There is an issue with the literature search as presented. By using too many search words, highly technical and long phrases, the search did not yield many papers that discus the health impact they were searching for (“BNT162b2” OR “mRNA-1273” OR “mRNA COVID-19 vaccine”) AND (“reactogenicity” OR “side-effects” OR “adverse effects” OR “health impact”). For instance, a search done in January, 2022 by my team had many peer reviewed papers that discussed the health impacts of these vaccines that the authors evidently did not discover, based on their following statement:
Among 429 results, few publications described health impacts following vaccination by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Available literature included reports of manufacturer-sponsored phase 1–3 clinical trials, observational and cross-sectional studies among specific groups (eg, transplant recipients or employees of a specific health-care system), and reviews or society recommendations that discussed reactogenicity and adverse events following mRNA vaccination
Then, there are issues regarding conflict of interest of the authors. The authors are CDC employees. As we have recently been warned from the New York Times, the CDC is now a political organization that has been hiding data from physicians, public health officers, and the public. They have been supporting what the executive branch wants to hear, by publishing that which they feel fits that narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective”. You know, not publishing data – so as to avoid “vaccine hesitancy.” As such, each and every author on the publication has a significant conflict of interest. This is a big red flag.
Next, we have very good documentation that the VAERS system, which is the vaccine injuries national system for tracking injuries, traditionally undercounts the actual adverse events by a wide range, depending on vaccine type and/or adverse event. this is because the VAERS system is not a mandatory reporting system. I found one study of various vaccine adverse events using the VAERS system that showed a rate of about 50% of vaccines adverse events are under reported, with a large variability range. Other studies report a much higher under-reporting rate, but going with 50% is probably a good, conservative number. This means that whatever data is presented by the VAERS system, most likely represents an undercount of at least half of the cases.
Or… at least that is what would have been my estimate until the Cell paper titled Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, came out showing that the synthetic mRNA hangs around in the lymph node germinal centers for at least 60 days – and continue to produce spike protein as well as spike protein antigen, for at least that duration of time. Physicians and medical professions have been informed by the CDC and the FDA that the side effects of the vaccine occur within a short time frame after vaccination. The FDA has stated that the mRNA degrades rapidly. So, adverse events (such as myocarditis) outside of the time limits imposed by the VAERS reporting system do not get recorded. There is a good likelihood that the adverse events and deaths reported to the VAERS system grossly under estimates these events, as event reporting is time limited. More studies will have to be conducted, but clearly the VAERS system only works if adverse events are reported. If vaccine related events are happening two months out, as the data from the Cell paper suggest may well be the case, we really don’t have any idea of what the adverse event rate is.
So, what are some of the highlights from Lancet paper, using the VAERs data for the first six months of vaccine administration:
Frequency of reports of death are 1 in 66,666 for EACH dose administered. That is, 15 deaths per one million doses administered. For two doses, the risk is much higher – as risk actually increases with each dose. The risk would be at least doubled, IMO. By three doses, the risk would be much higher. At least tripled, IMO.
Frequency of adverse events: 1 in 953 for EACH dose administered. For two doses, the risk is much higher – as risk actually increases with each dose. The risk would be at least doubled, IMO. By three doses, the risk would be much higher. At least tripled, IMO.
Frequency of severe adverse events (“inpatient hospitalisation, prolongation of hospitalisation, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or birth defect, or death”) is 1 in 11,056 for EACH dose administered. For two doses, the risk is much higher – as risk actually increases with each dose. The risk would be at least doubled, IMO. By three doses, the risk would be much higher. At least tripled, IMO.
Because this vaccine is being administered to hundreds of millions of people, this is an unacceptable risk for the young and healthy, as this is a disease of those with co-morbidities and elderly. The USA is still discussing mandating the vaccine to school aged children, please stop and think about these adverse event numbers.
BTW – for brevity, I am skipping data from many of the tables- data which show percentage and types of adverse events. Please go to the paper and read it. The adverse event list is quite varied.
This data for the first six months of the vaccine roll-out are skewed, as this manuscript doesn’t report all age cohorts, and the adverse events reported in the VAERS are grossly under reported, as discussed above.
Next the paper sought to use the V-safe survey system to determine quality of life issues after vaccination. The V-safe survey system revealed that 26% were unable to do normal activities and 16% were unable to work after vaccination.
Again, we now have Omicron. So, vaccinating for a mild cold in the healthy, young person versus loss of significant quality of life issues, even in the short term, is unacceptable. 99.5% of the cases in the USA are now the Omicron variant, per the CDC. We know that for most healthy people, Omicron is nothing more than a cold and for the young, is usually very mild cold – or often asymptomatic. To use a gene therapy technology-based vaccine with a high-risk profile and uncharacterized long term effects against a mild variant is the height of scientific ignorance and arrogance. It is time to stop.
Finally, the discussion at the end of the paper is misleading at best. The authors state that there is no pattern to heart related deaths after analysis by the authors. The methodology or data from that analysis, if there was actually such an analysis, is not presented in the paper. THERE IS NO ANALYSIS PRESENTED. THIS ANALYSIS DOES NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN or adolescents. The risk of myocarditis to young men is much higher – we know this. The Hong Kong data shows 1 in 2700 in boys.
Frankly, the CDC is again obfuscating the data to suit their own political agenda. And “The Lancet” is letting the CDC get away with yet more propaganda cloaked as semi-science. This is unacceptable.
They give them fancy names to make them sound more ‘sciency’.
A Naranjo algorithm is a questionnaire.
When MHRA told me they use an algorithm re vaccine adverse event reports, I asked them what software do they use and who created it. Their answer:
“We can confirm that this is not a software algorithm.”
To my knowledge, an algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. So, I pursued this further and asked the MHRA to forward me this process and/or set of rules.
Their answer:
“…The follow up process doesn’t fall under a specific procedure and is assessment specific, therefore we are unable to provide you with the defined process or set of rule you have requested.”
It was at this point that I started staring at paint drying.
More enjoyable.
Less stressful.
More rewarding.
Edward Dowd Explains Bombshell ‘Fraud’ Charge re Pfizer Hiding Deaths Data
https://rumble.com/vwfu7j-edward-dowd-explains-bombshell-fraud-charge-re-pfizer-hiding-deaths-data.html
‘Former BlackRock Portfolio Manager, Investor Edward Dowd, Explains Bombshell ‘Fraud’ Charge re Pfizer Hiding Deaths Data; Many Media Outlets are ‘Accomplices to Murder’ DO NOT MISS. Historic.’
“I hooked up with Dr. Malone and my voice was elevated” …
I think the hope with Edward Dowd is the financial world will bet against pharma and save us all
However
The Davos Crowd from 18.19
“they all went to the same schools.. same short list of schools, they taught each other, they all studied the same text”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAB6jTPvZnQ
Edward Dowd@EdwardDowd
Contrarian and sometimes lead steer. Remember to think for yourself. The Matrix is real. Imagine a world where “Logic is an Enemy & Truth is a Menace.”
Edward Dowd Reposted
DrNaomiRWolf
@DrNaomiRWolf
·
17h
MUST WATCH if I say so myself. @WarRoom posse identifying terrible harms in Pfizer documents post vaccination including the experimental use of a TWO MONTH OLD BABY, 11 per cent adverse effect myalgia (muscle pain) and four per cent COVID!!! Join the Campaign on DailyClout.io.
Dr. Naomi Wolf reveals some major findings within the Pfizer document dump:
“Of the adverse events that Pfizer identified in their own internal documents that followed vaccination, 4.6 percent of the adverse effects were COVID… That goes right to this point that the vaccinations do not protect you from getting COVID. Pfizer knew this!”
https://rumble.com/vx1gq8-naomi-wolf-update-on-pfizer-document-dump.html
MUST WATCH! Naomi Wolf: Update On Pfizer Document Dump
“Fighting University Vaccine Mandates – Legal Strategies”
“Thursday, March 10th, 2022, DailyClout held a live webinar, featuring Attorney Warner Mendenhall, covering the on-going vaccine mandates at prominent Universities. Mr. Mendenhall discussed legal options for students and parents affected by these mandates. Below is the recorded webinar.”
“All the students are digging”
https://dailyclout.io/university-vaccine-mandates/
Ohio was the first state in the US to collectively fight against the “Covid Theatre”, to borrow a term from another Governor. Attorney Timothy Renz of Ohio is fighting issues on a national (and international) scale. Attorney Warner Mendenhall is doing great work within the state. (As I write this, I am wondering why some attornies are limited to the state in which they’re licensed. 🤔 A rabbit hole for later)
OHIO STANDS UP! is a grassroots organization founded by people I’m honored to call friends. They have frequent live podcasts with the attornies, physicians fighting to spread the truth, as well as a very informed and informative psychologist. I encourage everyone to check them out (Facebook as well as website and other platforms) and utilize their groundwork in other US states.
https://www.ohiostandsup.org/about
I’d LOVE to see Dr. Healy and Bobby Fiddaman as guest speakers!
says Dr. Healy. “That’s not science.”
WINDSOR
News
‘Data is power’: Experts weigh-in on court-ordered release of Pfizer vaccine documents
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/data-is-power-experts-weigh-in-on-court-ordered-release-of-pfizer-vaccine-documents-1.5816089
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lost a court battle, to protect the documents they used to approve the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
On Sept. 16, 2021, a complaint was filed in a Texas court, by a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lost a court battle, to protect the documents they used to approve the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
On Sept. 16, 2021, a complaint was filed in a Texas court, by a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).
It reads in part “PHMPT exists for the sole purpose of disseminating to the public the data and information in the biological product files for each of the COVID-19 vaccines.”
The complaint was issued pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), demanding all the data and information the FDA relied upon to grant Pfizer a licence to sell their COVID-19 vaccine.
“The medical and scientific community and the public have a substantial interest in reviewing the data and information underlying the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Vaccine,” the document reads.
“Given the speed at which this came on the market, going to the mandate stage was going a step too far,” says Dr. David Healy, a member of PHMP and a psychiatrist practicing in Hamilton, Ont.
“I don’t have an issue with this vaccine or any vaccine, ok? I’m quite pro vaccines,” Dr. Healy told CTV News in a zoom interview. “My issue is actually with the science. Now in this case it’s access to the data.”
He likens Pfizer’s protection of their data, akin to creating his own vaccine at home, promising it works, but then not showing the evidence to support the claim.
“Pfizer on the other hand are able to say ‘well no you’re not going to see the evidence, we’re not going to let you see it,” says Dr. Healy. “That’s not science.”
During the court process, the FDA argued it would take them 75 years to redact all the personal information contained in the thousands of documents they have on file, related to the Pfizer vaccine.
On Jan. 6, 2022, Justice Mark Pittman ruled, “the court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance.”
In his reasons, Justice Pittman wrote, “John McCain (correctly) noted that ‘excessive administrative secrecy feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.’”
Read the orders here.
It concludes:
The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal, see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.
The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.
To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted.
The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.
Dr. Healy says it’s a win for anyone who wants to have all the facts in front of them, “before they put their lives on the line.”
However, Dr. Healy anticipates it will take some time before all of the documents are released to the public.
“It’ll all be out there in next two or three years,” says Dr. Healy. “So it’s not going to be 75 years, but it’s not going to be tomorrow.”
As a psychiatrist, Dr. Healy says it’s vital for him to understand the possible side effects of a drug or vaccine when dealing with his patients.
“Let’s say you’ve had the vaccine. Something has gone wrong. You don’t know if it’s linked to the vaccine, or not. It’s useful, for me, as part of the effort to try to work out, ‘well could it have been linked to the vaccine?’ So that I don’t try to treat you for a completely different problem.”
However, Dr. Healy has yet to see the documents he’s most interested to pour over, specifically the details of clinical trials, including how many people were in them, what happened to them and how their involvement changed the outcome of the studies.
He notes even though there are thousands upon thousands of documents to pour over, interested people need only to look through most of them to find what he calls “patterns.”
He would tackle it this way: “I’ve seen that word crop up before. Let’s see what the other document that I’m now looking at says about is actually going on here, and trying to see if there’s a level of consistency there.”
One of the documents is specifically about adverse events.
The 38-page report details the adverse events reported to Pfizer between Dec. 1, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021.
The total number of doses shipped around the world in that time period is redacted.
However, a graph appears to indicate in that same time frame 42,086 adverse events were reported.
Of them, 1,223 are listed as fatal with another 9,400 listed as unknown adverse effects.
“The events themselves are not necessarily related to the vaccine,” says infectious disease expert, Dr. Dale Kalina. “It’s just part of the reporting process. And it is a requirement.”
Dr. Kalina says it’s “disingenuous” for people against COVID vaccines to imply the list of events is proof the vaccine isn’t safe.
“This is an affront to the reality that we know which is that after the billions of people that have received COVID vaccines, they are safe, they are effective. Yes, there are of course some side effects related to it,” says Dr. Kalina.
He notes each event doesn’t mean the vaccine caused that reaction, rather he says it was reported to Pfizer in the “days and weeks” after the vaccine was administered.
For instance, one of the adverse effects included in a report is about a child who swallowed a penny after getting the shot.
“Swallowing a penny is something that five-year-olds do, on occasion, unfortunately,” says Dr. Kalina. “But I think we can plainly see that that wasn’t related to administration of the vaccine itself, but it’s a good example of the fact that all adverse events are required to be documented.”
Dr. Gerald Evans, chair of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Queen’s University, says it’s “patently false” for people against COVID vaccines to use one graph in one document, as proof positive, the vaccine isn’t safe.
“The 1,223 deaths were actually amongst approximately 10,000,000 vaccine recipients giving an overall mortality rate of 0.01 per cent or 1 in 10,000 persons,” Dr. Evans wrote to CTV News in an email.
“Most were deaths from other causes occurring in persons who happened to have been vaccinated and were not caused by the vaccine itself,” says Dr. Evans.
“Data is power,” says Essex County pharmacist Tim Brady, but only when it’s taken with a grain of salt.
“Twelve hundred doesn’t mean they’re 12 hundred deaths related to the vaccine. It means that there was 12 hundred people that died over these millions of people that had the shot, that had the vaccine, that we have to consider, could it be a possibility (the vaccine caused their death)?” says Brady.
The report includes an appendix that lists all the adverse events, detailed in medical jargon over nine pages.
“The fact is, I find it reassuring that they have nine pages, that they’re documenting every possible side effect which is what we need to do,” says Brady.
He also notes the adverse effects included everything from fatigue to fibromyalgia.
“Any adverse effect from a vaccine is not something we want to see,” says Brady. “I’m highly confident that the vaccine saved more lives.”
Here’s more about adverse events, specifically.
Could the Pfizer Covid vaccine company be in any way related to the Pfizer company in the UK which the CMA claims rigged the price on epilepsy treatment?
“Following the overnight price increases by the companies, NHS spending on phenytoin sodium capsules rose from around £2 million a year in 2012 to about £50 million in 2013. For over 4 years, Pfizer’s prices were between 780% and 1,600% higher than it had previously charged. Pfizer then supplied the drug to Flynn, which sold it to wholesalers and pharmacies at prices between 2,300% and 2,600% higher than those they had paid previously.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-accuses-pharma-firms-of-illegal-pricing
🤔🤔🤔
Despite its Effective COVID Vaccine, Pfizer Is Not Our Pfriend
BY MARTHA ROSENBERG
MARCH 11, 2022
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/11/despite-its-effective-covid-vaccine-pfizer-is-not-our-pfriend/
Pfizer’s income from its COVID-19 vaccine was the “highest one-year tally for a pharmaceutical product in history,” $36.8 billion, wrote the Wall Street Journal in February.
Even though we taxpayers funded COVID-19 vaccines drug makers pocket the profits.
As I have written before for CounterPunch, Pfizer’s drug safety track record is shocking and the company is far from our pfriend.
For example, as the world watched Ukraine, Pfizer’s long-acting blood pressure drug, Inderal, was pulled from Canadian shelves because of the presence of cancer-linked nitrosamines. Pfizer’s anti-smoking drug, Chantix, was removed for the same reason last year. It’s called quality control guys.
In one week in 2010 Pfizer:
Suspended pediatric trials of Geodon two months after the FDA said children were being overdosed in the trials
Was investigated by the U.S. House of Representatives for off-label marketing (promoting uses not approved by the FDA) of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune, specifically targeting African-Americans
Agreed to pull its 10-year-old leukemia drug Mylotarg from the market because it caused more not less patient deaths
Received a letter from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) requesting its whistleblower policy
Saw the researcher who put its Bextra, Celebrex and Lyrica on the map, Scott S. Reuben, MD, trotted off to prison for research fraud
Suspended trials of tanezumab, an osteoarthritis pain drug, because patients got worse not better, some needing joint replacements
Was sued by Blue Cross Blue Shield to recoup money it overpaid for Bextra and other drugs
Saw its appeal to end lawsuits by Nigerian families who accused it of illegal trials of the antibiotic Trovan in which 11 children died rejected by the Supreme Court
In addition to its stellar week in 2010, Pfizer also has a checked past with Health and Human Services (HHS) Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA) that are essentially promise to “sin no more.”
While Pfizer was under a 5-year CIA* with HHS for withholding $20 million in Lipitor rebates owed to Medicaid in 2002, it was already marketing Neurontin for off-label indications which earned it a second CIA in 2004. Undaunted, Pfizer proceeded to market Lyrica, a drug similar to Neurontin (sometimes called “son of Neurontin”) off-label while under its second CIA, earning it a third. CIAs are quite the deterrent!
Before its COVID-19 “good guy” makeover, Pfizer was linked to some of the most notoriously unsafe drugs that have come down the pipeline. It bought Warner-Lambert in 2000 knowing the company’s marketing practices were under criminal investigation and its Rezulin (mentioned below) had been withdrawn. Then Pfizer bought the hormone maker Wyeth knowing it carried the baggage of the diet drug Fen-Phen’s heart valve suits and cancer lawsuits from its hormone replacement drug.
Despite living on U.S. tax dollars, Pfizer tried in 2015 to dodge paying U.S. taxes by merging with non-U.S. companies and incorporating overseas. Who can say hypocrite?
Pharma Is Not the Red Cross
COVID-19 bestowed a huge image overhaul for Pharma among the pubic
including among progressives who seem to have forgiven the injuries the profit-hungry industry leaves in its wake (pun intended). Suddenly Pharma is no longer the industry responsible for 100,000 U.S. opioid overdose deaths just last year –– Pfizer only added a warning to its opioids in 2016 –– and a growing number of talcum powder-related ovarian cancers lawsuits. It is not the industry that caused 38,000 deaths and 88,000 heart attacks from Vioxx and an untold amount of suicides from SSRI antidepressants’ whose labels warn against suicide (including Pfizer’s Zoloft).
Suddenly, Pharma is no longer the industry that launched and profited from risky, withdrawn drugs like Baycol, Trovan, Seldane, Hismanal, Darvon, Vioxx, Bextra, Mylotarg, Lotronex, Propulsid, Raxar, phenylpropanolamine (PPA), Manoplax, fenfluramine, DMAA, Rezulin, temafloxacin and phenacetin –– often only admitting harm when the drug went off patent.
It is no longer the industry that boasts three lobbyists for every member of Congress and so capitalizes media outlets through its advertising that reporters treat its wrongdoing as untouchable –– no, it is a humanitarian organization that saved us from COVID-19 out of the goodness of its heart.
COVID-19 has been so good to Pharma, an analyst for a capital management firm says drug makers are now wondering “How do we turn this into an ongoing business?”
Good article, but my radar was up at “effective”.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-expert-claims-he-was-told-to-correct-his-views-after-criticising-implausible-graph-shown-during-official-briefing-12555800#:~:text=13%20Mar,21%20September%202020.
13 Mar
COVID-19 expert claims he was told to ‘correct his views’ after criticising ‘implausible graph’ shown during official briefing
Professor Mark Woolhouse, who has been advising the government about infectious diseases for 25 years, says “plain common sense” was a “casualty of the crisis”.
By Andy Hayes, news reporter
Wednesday 9 March 2022 16:58, UK
A senior epidemiologist who advised the government during the coronavirus pandemic claims he was told to “correct” his views after he criticised what he thought was an “implausible” graph shown at an official briefing.
Speaking to Sky News, Prof Woolhouse seemed concerned about a possible “big-brother” approach to the control of information about COVID.
He says he was told to watch what he was saying following a briefing given by Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) Sir Patrick Vallance on 21 September 2020.
My feeling is.. if the Sacklers were locked up – it seems they have done a deal to prevent this – it may have gone some way to holding back what is happening
“The bankruptcy system should not be allowed to shield non-bankrupt billionaires,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in an interview with NPR.
“It would set a terrible precedent. If the Sacklers are allowed to use bankruptcy to escape the consequences of their actions, it would be a roadmap for other powerful bad actors.”
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991648432/25-states-mount-legal-fight-to-block-sackler-bid-for-opioid-immunity?t=1647265137025
I don’t know the exact statistics, but I suspect that SSRIs and related drugs have killed far more than opioids when all of the unaccounted deaths by suicide and violence/homicide by persons taking SSRIs are included. Thousands of mass shootings, family murders, murders by strangers, auto accidents, SSRI-induced alcoholism and deaths, etc. Truly weapons of mass destruction and not covered by any media.
The opioid story is convoluted. Yes, pharma is at fault for a portion, but the story goes much deeper and goes back hundreds of years.
Also, all of the big settlements being announced are not going to the families, but putting money right back into pharma.
We have to ask if a story is not only covered, but pushed, by MSM, what is the motive?
*This is in no way a defense of Sacklers.
“but I suspect that SSRIs and related drugs have killed far more than opioids when all of the unaccounted deaths by suicide and violence/homicide by persons taking SSRIs are included. Thousands of mass shootings, family murders, murders by strangers, auto accidents, SSRI-induced alcoholism and deaths, etc. Truly weapons of mass destruction and not covered by any media.”
They have been able to effectively argue mental illness as the cause. As you say prescribed drug induced AKATHISIA violence is no where in the media, maybe someone could inform AG Maura Healey – she seems to have the determination to make a difference if interested, but does she know the facts about AKATHISIA?
Afterwards, it was the security guards that Albert Bourla remembered.
Pfizer’s Mr. Big: My $2 billion gamble to beat Covid
In early 2020, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had a mission: to produce three million doses of a vaccine that hadn’t even been developed within nine months
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pfizers-mr-big-my-2-billion-gamble-to-beat-covid-gdfgm2qch
It was Sunday November 8, 2020, 13.27 US Eastern Standard Time. Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, had called his executive team to the office in Connecticut. There, they awaited the results of their vaccine trial.
Some 46,000 patients had been recruited in 6 countries. Billions had been invested. Manufacturing of the vaccines had already begun. Now, this was the first opportunity to see if it had all been for nothing.
Over the weekend, statisticians had been rushing to analyse the interim data. Would it be good enough to continue the trial? Would it be bad enough that they had to abandon it? Would it be so good that they declared victory then and there?
There is a great injustice that we call it the “Pfizer” vaccine. Pfizer did not create the vaccine, nor engage in the decades of research that made it possible. It did not spend years in the scientific wilderness, refining and investing in a technology many had begun to suspect would not work. Instead, in the spring of 2020, Bourla got in touch with BioNTech, a German company that had done all those things.
If calling it the “Pfizer” vaccine is unfair, though, so too would be calling it merely the BioNTech vaccine. At the start, says Bourla, “We had nothing but problems.
Now, I feel way better that, beyond any doubt, we didn’t try to profit… There is something bigger than making a fair profit here.” The bigger thing? “To change for ever the reputation of the company.”
Book extract:
When the pandemic began I was in my 15th month as Pfizer CEO. During nine harrowing months in 2020, we had to make hundreds of difficult decisions. Many of them came down to me. It’s not an easy thing when you feel the hopes of billions of people and millions of businesses and hundreds of governments invested in this industry, and you are the leading company in this industry, and it happens that you are the CEO. And also a new CEO. You feel that pressure on your shoulders.
What was at stake was beyond imagination. It was the health of the planet in a pandemic that we hadn’t experienced in 100 years.
It was the fate of the global economy as countries around the world became paralysed by lockdowns. And then, to make it even worse, it was also a political debate, in the middle of an American presidential election, in a time of deep polarisation.
In New York where I live, hospitals were overflowing, ICUs did not have enough respirators, and bodies were stacked in refrigerated trucks because the morgues were full.
Every night when I went to sleep and every morning when I awoke, I felt the toll this disease was taking. Time was not on our side. I knew that a century ago, during the Spanish flu pandemic, the second wave was much more lethal than the first.
“[Our timeline] is not good enough,” I told my team. “We must have [a vaccine] by this October. We must have hundreds of millions of doses by next year, not tens of millions.”
I still remember their surprised faces projected on my computer screen. They felt it was impossible. Rationally, they were right. It could not be done. But it had to be done. I told them they should have zero concerns on costs. They could have all the resources they needed to get it done. They should think about doing things in parallel instead of sequentially. They should design their experiments in innovative ways that would allow us to learn fast and eliminate vaccine prototypes rapidly so that we could decide on the final one quickly. They should build manufacturing capacity at risk before knowing if we had a product or not.
A week later, the team came back to me with a genius plan that, if successful, would bring us results by the end of October 2020. The plan could cost as much as $2 billion [£1.5 billion]. It was a very expensive bet. But I also knew that it would not take the company down, and it was the right thing to do.
———-
I acted as the “project manager”. I confess that I am not the best project manager. But the value I brought was different. The CEO can knock down silos, hear everyone out and move things forward. Everyone on my team was encouraged to agree or disagree, no matter their position. But at the end of the meeting, decisions could be made fast because I was there and had the authority to make them.
The questions kept coming. After a long day, Netflix provided distraction. I’d leave my home office, stop in the kitchen to get a glass of cold chardonnay, walk into the family room, sit down on the couch and watch an episode of Game of Thrones or French spy thriller The Bureau. The kids thought it was funny that my wife, Myriam, and I would binge on Gilmore Girls, a comedy drama that reminded us that there were other problems in the world.
In meeting after meeting, I questioned every step of the process and challenged every single timeline. If someone said it would take weeks, I asked why it couldn’t be done in days. When you ask people to do in eight years something that normally takes ten, they will find it challenging, but they will think of solutions within the current process. If you ask them to make 300 million doses instead of 200 million, they will find it hard but will investigate solutions that improve the current way of doing things.
I asked them to do it in eight months. I didn’t ask them to make 300 million doses. I asked them to make three billion doses. And I insisted that these targets were not negotiable.
If someone raised a complication, I would respond, “People are dying. There is no excuse. Solve it.” I knew this was a kind of psychological or emotional blackmail. But it was unfortunately true. Looking back, I never regretted that I pushed people hard. I know that without my doing so, we would have never succeeded, and the world would have been in a very difficult place today. There were press reports of Pfizer’s crazy deadlines and its “pushy CEO”. I truly regret that on several occasions I became unnecessarily unpleasant. I let the stress show rather than hide it. And knowing that I did that to people who were working day and night makes it even more regrettable.
But later, when they were accomplishing more than they thought they could, they all took such great pride in the impact they had to the world that they forgave me. But they didn’t forget.
At Pfizer, managers are rated every six months by their teams on how they live Pfizer’s four values: courage, excellence, equity and joy. I had always performed at the top of the company in all these values. But in the survey results I received in late 2020, my “joy” scores plummeted. It was not that I had been tough. People could accept thatin the middle of a pandemic, even welcome it. But there were times I’d lost my temper. I forgot to recognise the hard work of someone because I was too busy resolving the issues of another.
In my Mediterranean culture, you use your voice for emphasis and meaning, and this can be very annoying for people from other cultural backgrounds. I can be an explosive personality.
———-
On November 8, 2020, following a top-secret board meeting in which we learnt the efficacy of our vaccine, I called Dr Tony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to Donald Trump.
The first thing I did was to ask him if he was sitting down. Tony knew that we were expecting our data readout this day, so when I asked this question, he became very anxious. Later, he told me that my question made him think that the news would be either extremely bad or extremely good.
“Yes, I am sitting. Please tell me,” he answered. Tony is usually very measured, but at that moment he became very emotional.
Extracted from Moonshot: Inside Pfizer’s Nine-month Race to Make the Impossible Possible by Albert Bourla, which is published by HarperCollins on March 17 (£20)
Dr, John Campbell
The Pfizer documents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YOD9drZasM
“Surely this should have been public domain information from the start so that we could be well informed”
“My understanding is that she would have had access to this document” – Dr. Janet Woodcock
“in my view it has just destroyed trust in authority” …