Will the real Frank Waxman please stand up?

Always read the fine print:

Pfizer Disclosure Notice
The information contained in this release is as of March 14, 2023. Pfizer assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements contained in this release as the result of new information or future events or developments.

This release contains forward-looking information about Pfizer’s efforts to combat COVID-19, the collaboration between BioNTech and Pfizer to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine program, and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, also known as COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (BNT162b2) (including an EUA of a booster (fourth) dose of the companies’ Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age (also referred to as under 5 years), planned regulatory submissions, qualitative assessments of available data, potential benefits, expectations for clinical trials, potential regulatory submissions, the anticipated timing of data readouts, regulatory submissions, regulatory approvals or authorizations and anticipated manufacturing, distribution and supply) involving substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Risks and uncertainties include, among other things, the uncertainties inherent in research and development, including the ability to meet anticipated clinical endpoints, commencement and/or completion dates for clinical trials, regulatory submission dates, regulatory approval dates and/or launch dates, as well as risks associated with preclinical and clinical data (including Phase 1/2/3 or Phase 4 data), including the data discussed in this release for BNT162b2, any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates or any other vaccine candidate in the BNT162 program in any of our studies in pediatrics, adolescents, or adults or real world evidence, including the possibility of unfavorable new preclinical, clinical or safety data and further analyses of existing preclinical, clinical or safety data, including the risk that additional data against newer Omicron sublineages could differ from the data discussed in this release; the ability to produce comparable clinical or other results, including the rate of vaccine effectiveness and safety and tolerability profile observed to date, in additional analyses of the Phase 3 trial and additional studies, in real world data studies or in larger, more diverse populations following commercialization; the ability of BNT162b2, any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates or any future vaccine to prevent COVID-19 caused by emerging virus variants; the risk that more widespread use of the vaccine will lead to new information about efficacy, safety, or other developments, including the risk of additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious; the risk that preclinical and clinical trial data are subject to differing interpretations and assessments, including during the peer review/publication process, in the scientific community generally, and by regulatory authorities; whether and when additional data from the BNT162 mRNA vaccine program will be published in scientific journal publications and, if so, when and with what modifications and interpretations; whether regulatory authorities will be satisfied with the design of and results from these and any future preclinical and clinical studies; whether and when submissions to request emergency use or conditional marketing authorizations for BNT162b2 in additional populations, for a potential booster dose for BNT162b2, any monovalent or bivalent vaccine candidates or any potential future vaccines (including potential future annual boosters or re-vaccinations), and/or other biologics license and/or emergency use authorization applications or amendments to any such applications may be filed in particular jurisdictions for BNT162b2, any monovalent or bivalent vaccine candidates or any other potential vaccines that may arise from the BNT162 program, including a potential variant-based, higher dose, or bivalent vaccine, and if obtained, whether or when such emergency use authorizations or licenses will expire or terminate; whether and when any applications that may be pending or filed for BNT162b2 (including any requested amendments to the emergency use or conditional marketing authorizations), any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates, or other vaccines that may result from the BNT162 program may be approved by particular regulatory authorities, which will depend on myriad factors, including making a determination as to whether the vaccine’s benefits outweigh its known risks and determination of the vaccine’s efficacy and, if approved, whether it will be commercially successful; decisions by regulatory authorities impacting labeling or marketing, manufacturing processes, safety and/or other matters that could affect the availability or commercial potential of a vaccine, including the authorization or approval of products or therapies developed by other companies; disruptions in the relationships between us and our collaboration partners, clinical trial sites or third-party suppliers; the risk that demand for any products may be reduced, no longer exist or not meet expectations, which may lead to excess inventory on-hand and/or in the channel or reduced revenues; the risk that other companies produce superior or competitive products; risks related to the availability of raw materials to manufacture or test a vaccine; challenges related to our vaccine’s formulation, dosing schedule and attendant storage, distribution and administration requirements, including risks related to storage and handling after delivery by Pfizer; the risk that we may not be able to successfully develop other vaccine formulations, booster doses or potential future annual boosters or re-vaccinations or new variant-based or next generation vaccines; the risk that we may not be able to maintain manufacturing capacity or access to logistics or supply channels commensurate with global demand for our vaccines, which would negatively impact our ability to supply our vaccines within the projected time periods; whether and when additional supply agreements will be reached or existing agreements will be completed or re-negotiated; uncertainties regarding the ability to obtain recommendations from vaccine advisory or technical committees and other public health authorities and uncertainties regarding the commercial impact of any such recommendations; challenges related to public vaccine confidence or awareness; uncertainties regarding the impact of COVID-19 on Pfizer’s business, operations and financial results; and competitive developments.

A further description of risks and uncertainties can be found in Pfizer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 and in its subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, including in the sections thereof captioned “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Information and Factors That May Affect Future Results”, as well as in its subsequent reports on Form 8-K, all of which are filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov and www.pfizer.com.

10 myths told by COVID experts – now debunked (nypost.com)

" In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:

Much of the time, they were wrong.

To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time.

That’s understandable. You go with the data you have.

No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives in the face of new evidence.

When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR.

In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession.

What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.

Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer should have been “we’re not sure.”

Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.

Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong.

At minimum, the CDC should come clean and the FDA should add a warning label to COVID vaccines, clearly stating what is now known.

A mea culpa by those who led us astray would be a first step to rebuilding trust."

America’s COVID Response Was Based on Lies | Opinion (newsweek.com)

Here are the 10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America’s public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics:

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude.

2. Everyone is at significant risk to die from this virus.

3. No one has any immunological protection, because this virus is completely new.

4. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread.

5. Locking down—closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel—will stop or eliminate the virus.

6. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.

7. The virus is known to be naturally occurring, and claiming it originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory.

8. Teachers are at especially high risk.

9. COVID vaccines stop the spread of the infection.

10. Immune protection only comes from a vaccine

Its Time To Stop the Shots - Full Video - #StopTheShots (rumble.com)

Canadians Injured by mRNA Vaccines Speak Out – Canadian Covid Care Alliance

How Fauci Fooled America | Opinion (newsweek.com)

" Collateral public health damage. A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.

In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech. Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world. Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci.

The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health."

" Americans who got their COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine are not fully protected against getting sick, according to a new report.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report that said the updated boosters were just 48% effective at preventing symptomatic infection from the XBB variant of the disease.

The World Health Organization has a 50% threshold to deem a vaccine effective — meaning the bivalent shots fall just below their benchmark when targeting the dominant XBB strain."

It’s insane that colleges still mandate vaccines (nypost.com)

" But bureaucracy lags far behind. It operates at its own speed, regardless of common sense, critical thinking or harmful impact. College vaccine mandates are a glaring example of this phenomenon; after all, vaccine mandates are simply not effective in protecting the community. How could they be if they don’t prevent transmission? Nonetheless, they remain stubbornly the norm in New York and elsewhere.

One of the most outrageous college mandates can be found on SUNY campuses. Shockingly, it only applies to students: Older, more vulnerable faculty and staff are not required to take vaccines, making it one of the most egregious and legally questionable mandates still standing.

SUNY’s policy affects over a million students, who are at little risk of serious COVID-19 complications. And like all medical interventions, the vaccines aren’t without risk.

So why are we still doing this? In 2021, a SUNY student succumbed to vaccine-related myocarditis after he was forced to take the vaccine to stay enrolled. Tragedies like this must not go ignored and should have been enough to call mandates into question long ago.

Risk of myocarditis in young men and menstrual cycle irregularities in women are recognized side effects of the vaccines that weren’t fully known when they were first made available. What else will we discover in hindsight, and who will be liable?"

Reproductive Health - OpenVAERS




Natural immunity found to be as effective as COVID vaccine — 3 years after mandates: Lancet study

Natural immunity as effective as COVID vax— years after mandates (nypost.com)

"Years after the rollout of vaccine mandates that led to the firing of thousands of workers, the Lancet has reported that natural immunity is just as effective as two doses of the Moderna or Pfizer shots in preventing both reinfection and serious illness from COVID-19.

The findings, which were published in the February edition of the prestigious medical journal, were based on a review of 65 separate studies from 19 different countries.

“Although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines,” the report declared.

The research was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with senior study author, Dr. Christopher Murray hailing the findings.

“This is really good news, in the sense that protection against severe disease and death after infection is really quite sustained at 10 months,” said Murray in a statement. The study “supports the idea that those with a documented infection should be treated similarly to those who have been fully vaccinated with high-quality vaccines,” according to researchers.

However, many who lost jobs, fell out with friends or were derided as anti-vaxxers simply for expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of the shots, are fuming about the findings.

Thousands took to social media to rage over the report, with one writing: ” ‘The science’ now shows we ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right all along.”

Added value of this study

“This study provides a comprehensive review of studies that have estimated the protection from past COVID-19 infection by variant and time since infection. The result shows high levels of protection against re-infection for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants for all major outcomes. Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high. Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech), as documented by Nassereldine and colleagues, in our companion study. To our knowledge, this is the first review to comprehensively assess natural immunity protection against COVID-19 re-infection by variant (primary infection and re-infection) and to evaluate waning immunity with time since primary infection”

Excess deaths, correlation study - YouTube

In my view, the theory in the following video best explains the real-world data observed after covid mRNA vaccination. If Frank Waxman wants to debunk something, he should debunk this:

A credible explanation behind vaccine adverse events, Marc Girardot - YouTube

Cardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

TropicalMed | Free Full-Text | Cardiovascular Manifestation of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents (mdpi.com)

This study focuses on cardiovascular manifestation, particularly myocarditis and pericarditis events, after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine injection in Thai adolescents. This prospective cohort study enrolled students aged 13–18 years from two schools, who received the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Data including demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography, and cardiac enzymes were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 (optional) using case record forms. We enrolled 314 participants; of these, 13 participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 301 participants for analysis. The most common cardiovascular signs and symptoms were tachycardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain (4.32%), and hypertension (3.99%). One participant could have more than one sign and/or symptom. Seven participants (2.33%) exhibited at least one elevated cardiac biomarker or positive lab assessments. Cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis. Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis. In conclusion, Cardiovascular manifestation in adolescents after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination included tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis. The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days. Hence, adolescents receiving mRNA vaccines should be monitored for cardiovascular side effects. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05288231

1 Like

Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination | SpringerLink

Cases of myocarditis, diagnosed clinically by laboratory tests and imaging have been described in the context of mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Autopsy-based description of detailed histological features of vaccine-induced myocarditis is lacking. We describe the autopsy findings and common characteristics of myocarditis in untreated persons who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In four patients who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an unexpected death. Histology showed patchy interstitial myocardial T-lymphocytic infiltration, predominantly of the CD4 positive subset, associated with mild myocyte damage. Overall, autopsy findings indicated death due to acute arrhythmogenic cardiac failure. Thus, myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Our findings may aid in adequately diagnosing unclear cases after vaccination and in establishing a timely diagnosis in vivo, thus, providing the framework for adequate monitoring and early treatment of severe clinical cases.

1 Like

The New York Times finally relents, confronts the truth about Dr Anthony Fauci,
and his cover-up of possible covid origins in a Wuhan China Laboratory.

Dr. Fauci Could Have Said a Lot More

March 28, 2023

Opinion | Dr. Fauci Could Have Said a Lot More - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


But the full story of Covid information manipulation is much broader. In the past month we’ve learned that both the Department of Energy (which oversees its own network of laboratories and scientists) and the F.B.I. now consider it most likely that the pandemic started in the laboratories. Although those assessments were made, respectively, with “low” and “moderate” confidence, they forced the laboratory theory to be roundly, if begrudgingly, acknowledged as a plausible explanation for the origin of Covid.

And so we are left to wonder how a straightforward hypothesis got labeled first as a conspiracy and later as a reflection of racism. Retracing coverage and public comments, I found a cautionary tale: Those who seek to suppress disinformation may be destined, themselves, to sow it

We talk a lot about disinformation; the word has appeared in 27 New York Times articles so far this month. The anxiety is justified: The ease with which people can be misled, especially online, creates a perpetual instability. The country is awash in propaganda and manipulative fakery.

But trying to clean up disinformation by quashing ideas that somebody — a government employee, an academic think tank, a social media team — deems undesirable? This creates its own dangers. I’ve spent too many years in censored countries like Egypt, Russia and China to believe that our disinformation problem can be solved by monitoring speech and sorting out acceptable from unacceptable ideas. You end up in a society where nobody really believes anything.

Here’s the real kicker: A recent Economist/YouGov poll indicates that 66 percent of the country, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans, now believe the pandemic originated in a laboratory.

Nobody should be surprised. After all, this is human nature: Once we realize an idea is being suppressed, we start to think it might be true.


‘Important Conversations Never Had’: Colleges Quietly End Mandates Without Addressing Harms • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

This gave the industry the perfect product, he said. Vaccines today are exempt from pre-licensing safety studies, exempt from liability and exempt from marketing costs because so many of them are mandated.

“Any industry that looked at this product would say, this is the perfect business to be in. There’s no cost. The federal government pays for anything, and there’s no liability and there’s no accountability and there’s no marketing.”

“In the days leading up to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, U.S. and U.K. health officials entered into a “mutual confidentiality agreement” to keep vaccine adverse events under wraps.”

U.S. and UK Secretly Agreed to Hide Vaccine Reactions • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

How a Tragic Story of Loss Reveals the Need for a New Ethical Framework for Managing Health • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

How could the newly emerging, medico-industrial complex formed out of the ashes of IG Farben, following the Nuremberg trials (e.g. BASF, Bayer, Agfa, Hoechst), act in its own self-interest if doctors weren’t forced to prescribe these companies’ products?

What if a doctor chose not to prescribe one or more of Big Pharma’s new-fangled products (patented, new-to-nature drugs) and used herbalism, vitamins (an early interest of IG Farben companies), homeopathy, osteopathy, meditation, forest bathing, or any other non-pharmaceutical intervention instead?

"It was this kind of stakeholder-led approach that culminated in the emergence of self-serving regulatory regimes that were, in effect, obstacle courses specifically designed so only corporations with the might of the big pharmaceutical conglomerates were able to negotiate them.

“Pay to play” medicine was born.

Few would doubt that the WHO’s original mission when it was established in 1948 wasn’t laudable. As an institution that would act in the best interests of the people, funded by governments.

“Pay to play” medicine has now ensured only 20% of funding comes from governments, 80% is now from stakeholders, of which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi account for over 90%.

After 60 or so years of this pill-for-an-ill model of general practice, the big money-spinning blockbuster drugs hit a patent cliff, came under pressure from Indian and Chinese generics, and R&D pipelines were near empty.

A new model was needed. That model involved moving the focus back to infectious diseases and using entirely different platforms based on manipulating human genetic machinery.

It also involved increasing globalization and centralization of the locus of control. The unaccountable, supranational WHO would become the ultimate doyen and puppet master of healthcare.

Two years ago, we were all witness to this new revolution that was failing badly from the stakeholders’ perspective two years ago, when COVID-19 genetic vaccines were rolled out on an unsuspecting public desperate to be released from lockdowns and return to normality.

What we really need now is an upheaval of modern ethics and an unearthing of those ancient principles that have been lost that still make sense today."

Health & Ethics: A New Framework, from the Alliance for Natural Health International. The first pillar on the Therapeutic Relationship is due for release in May.

Texas to Investigate COVID Vaccine Makers Over Gain-of-Function Research, False Efficacy Claims • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today launched an investigation into whether Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson committed fraud related to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Paxton will investigate whether the companies misrepresented the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and manipulated vaccine trial data, in violation of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

He also will investigate whether the pharmaceutical giants engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about it, The New York Post reported.

“If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible,” Paxton said. “If public health policy was developed on the basis of flawed or misleading research, the public must know.”

Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022

Christof KuhbandnerMatthias Reitzner

Published: May 23, 2023

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39371


Cureus | Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022 | Article


The results show that the observed number of deaths in 2020 was close to the expected number with respect to the empirical standard deviation; approximately 4,000 excess deaths occurred. By contrast, in 2021, the observed number of deaths was two empirical standard deviations above the expected number and even more than four times the empirical standard deviation in 2022. In total, the number of excess deaths in the year 2021 is about 34,000 and in 2022 about 66,000 deaths, yielding a cumulated 100,000 excess deaths in both years. The high excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 was mainly due to an increase in deaths in the age groups between 15 and 79 years and started to accumulate only from April 2021 onward. A similar mortality pattern was observed for stillbirths with an increase of about 9.4% in the second quarter and 19.4% in the fourth quarter of the year 2021 compared to previous years.

These findings indicate that something must have happened in spring 2021 that led to a sudden and sustained increase in mortality, although no such effects on mortality had been observed during the early COVID-19 pandemic so far. Possible influencing factors are explored in the discussion


This study used the state-of-the-art method of actuarial science to estimate the expected number of all-cause deaths and the increase in all-cause mortality for the pandemic years 2020 to 2022 in Germany. In 2020, the observed number of deaths was extremely close to the expected number, but in 2021, the observed number of deaths was far above the expected number in the order of twice the empirical standard deviation, and in 2022, above the expected number even more than four times the empirical standard deviation. The analysis of the age-dependent monthly excess mortality showed that high excess mortality starting from spring 2021 is responsible for the excess mortality in 2021 and 2022. An analysis of the number of stillbirths revealed a similar mortality pattern than observed for the age group between 15 and 80 years.

As a starting point for further investigations explaining these mortality patterns, we compared the excess mortality to the number of reported COVID-19 deaths and the number of COVID-19 vaccinations. This leads to several open questions, the most important being the covariation between the excess mortality, the number of COVID-19 deaths, and the COVID-19 vaccinations.

1 Like

ofad209.pdf (silverchair.com)

Results were unexpected by the authors, but very clear in the data:

People Who Get More COVID Vaccines More Likely to Get the Virus

1 Like

View of Lock the Doors: The Myocarditis Disaster and a call for the broad examination of the CDC and FDA (esmed.org)


The most advanced population health surveillance in the United States couldn’t find a single healthy child who died of COVID-19. Zero is a powerful number. Zero is also the number of vaccines that impart superior immunity over that of natural immunity. If we could choose one feature that the emergent 5thendemic cold virus could have, it would unequivocally be a minimal effect on children –safeguarding our future and allowing the progression of natural immunity.

There is nothing mild about pediatric myocarditis. Even with the best medical management, 1/3rd of all patients never completely recovers, and will live with dilated cardiomyopathy. If untreated, 80% of children will develop chronic heart disease. These children are subject to a high risk of sudden death and may require an urgent heart transplant2.

Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known phenomenon. In 2015 Engler, et al. found a 200-times increase above background rates of myocarditis associated with the smallpox vaccine3. Neither clinical trial for Moderna4nor Pfizer5mentioned myocarditis, so on December 11th, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.Documents6 obtained by Informed Consent Action Network’s Freedom of Information Act request reveals on September 17th, 2020, Pfizer submitted a toxicity study to the FDA showing statistically significant enlargement of hearts in male rats 17-days after injection of BNT162b2. Under the exact same conditions, enlargement was not observed in female rats.

Informed consent:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”22is a necessary concept in any representative government. The power resides in the people, and from their collective consent imbue that power into a government. That consent must be informed, which means the government must not deceive the governed (in today’s environment that is a preposterously naive requirement), or there is no representation.

The democracy experiment will fail if we cannot right our wrongs and learn from our mistakes. Though thereis a pointed truth in “the government you elect is the government you deserve”, vaccine injured children are not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind.

The prospective findings:

Lack of trust in public health agencies is the number one public health threat…the onus is not on Americans to trust the authorities, but on the authorities to BE trustworthy. The communication practices of the CDC/FDA are framed such that ‘in the interest of public health’ is as untouchable and unquestionable as ‘an interest of national security’ without the security clearance. Those communications have been socially engineered to fearmonger and turn neighbor against neighbor. Does a conspiracy exist (an agreement to deprive one or more people of their rights)? Do the conditions exist for a conspiracy to emerge? Do the patent royalties received by regulatory agencies affect the behavior of that regulatory agency? What percentage of regulatory employees go on to employment at the companies they regulated? What percentage of regulatory employees return as lobbyists? What safeguards are in place to ENSURE there was no conflict of interests? Are those safeguards circumventable?Do large government agencies inevitably self-organize into a structure that is counter to their mission? If so, are there safeguards to prevent this corruptive force?