Karunya Come Home

March, 8, 2022 | 21 Comments


  1. 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


    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.


    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 …

  2. So far 447,895 Yellow Card reports including 1,466,191 adverse symptoms & 2,040 fatalities


    Government state: “It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.”


  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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


    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!”


    MUST WATCH! Naomi Wolf: Update On Pfizer Document Dump

  6. “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”


    • 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.


      I’d LOVE to see Dr. Healy and Bobby Fiddaman as guest speakers!

  7. says Dr. Healy. “That’s not science.”


    ‘Data is power’: Experts weigh-in on court-ordered release of Pfizer vaccine documents


    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.

  8. 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.”


  9. Despite its Effective COVID Vaccine, Pfizer Is Not Our Pfriend


    MARCH 11, 2022


    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?”

  10. 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.

  11. 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.”


    • 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?

  12. 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


    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


    “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” …

Leave a Reply