I am under a doctor's care right now for issues related to having varicose veins (or, perhaps, I might be suffering from issues related to the COVID jab having been injected into people, then transmitted from, by the people I come into contact with, such as in the grocery store).
Tomorrow at 3 PM I need to be armed with paperwork with the CDC logo on it, which I will show to my Primary Care Physician, which will make the case that in no way, shape, or form should I be required to take a swab up my nose, to be used for a PCR test for COVID, IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS TO AN ULTRASOUND STUDY OF THE VEINS IN MY LEGS.
I already have a piece of paper regarding the PCR test. Here is a scan of it:
Now, I think I need the same thing for the safety of the swab. Has the CDC put out announcements about the swab?
It seems to me that all of the info out about the swab having harmful things on it, or the swab poking you in vulnerable places while in your nose, or what have you, is by whistleblowers, or other varieties of "conspiracy theorists."
Does anyone know whether the CDC has said anything about this?
The Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not heard in the Israeli media.
We hope this project will encourage more and more people to tell their story.
Bomshell :Video Emerges Where Fauci and Others Planned for a “Universal mRNA Flu Vaccine” Which Became the “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine” Because People were not Afraid Enough of the Flu Virus
Last night Alex Jones of Infowars.com did a special broadcast regarding an October, 2019 video that they had just become aware of that was a panel discussion hosted by the Milken Institute discussing the need for a Universal Flu Vaccine. The video clip that they played of this event was a 1 minute and 51 second dialogue between the moderator, Michael Specter, a journalist who is a New Yorker staff writer and also an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Rick Bright, the director of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). In this short clip, which was extracted from the hour-long panel discussion, Anthony Fauci explains that bringing a new, untested kind of vaccine like an mRNA vaccine, would take at least a decade ("if everything goes perfectly") to go through proper trials and be approved by the FDA. He would know, because he had been trying to do it for about a decade already by then (October, 2019), trying to develop an mRNA based vaccine for HIV. But now they were discussing something much bigger than just a vaccine for AIDS patients. They are talking about a "Universal Flu Vaccine" that everyone would have to take - a huge market for Big Pharma! Rick Bright, the director of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), then speaks and states that what could happen is that "an entity of excitement that is completely disruptive and is not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes" could change that. I have found the full 1 hour panel discussion and uploaded it to our video channels. In short, this panel discussion focused on what they perceived as the need for a universal flu vaccine, but they admitted that the old way of producing vaccines was not sufficient for their purposes, and that they needed some kind of global event where many people were dying to be able to roll out a new mRNA vaccine to be tested on the public. They all agreed that the annual flu virus was not scary enough to create an event that would convince people to get a universal vaccine. And as we now know today, about 2 years after this event, that "terrifying virus" that was introduced was the COVID-19 Sars virus. And so now we know why the flu just "disappeared" in the 2020-21 flu season. It was simply replaced by COVID-19, in a worldwide cleverly planned "pandemic" to roll out the world's first universal mRNA vaccines. This was always the goal, and previous efforts through various influenzas, AIDS, Ebola, and other "viruses" were all unsuccessful in leading to the development of a universal vaccine to inject into the entire world's population.
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech that is indicated for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. It is approved for use as a 2-dose primary series for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. It is also authorized for emergency use to provide:
• a two-dose primary series in individuals 12 through 15 years; • a third primary series dose in individuals 12 years of age and older who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise; and • a single booster dose in individuals: o 65 years of age and older o 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19 o 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19
The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.1
1 The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness. Revised: 22 September 2021
... Adverse Reactions
Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials Adverse reactions following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that have been reported in clinical trials include injection site pain, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, fever, injection site swelling, injection site redness, nausea, malaise, lymphadenopathy, and decreased appetite (see Full EUA Prescribing Information).
Adverse Reactions in Post Authorization Experience Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema), diarrhea, vomiting, pain in extremity (arm), and syncope have been reported following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outside of clinical trials. Myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outside of clinical trials.
Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. ...
* Serious adverse events are defined as:
• Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above.
Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice & Research:
NOTE – This is a very long & very technical article. Here we give the ABSTRACT, a table of “Unprecedented” issues with the current COVID vaccines, and then titles and snippets from selected major sections of the article itself.
If you have time to read just ONE thing, scroll down to the “Unprecedented” table shown below.
Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns.
In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.
Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. NOTE – “Prion” based diseases include Mad Cow disease in animals and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans.
We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter. NOTE – This phenomenon is sometimes referred to, optimistically, as a “self-spreading vaccine”.
We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.
We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.
Unprecedented. This word has defined so much about 2020 and the pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2. In addition to an unprecedented disease and its global response, COVID-19 also initiated an unprecedented process of vaccine research, production, testing, and public distribution (Shaw,2021).
The sense of urgency around combatting the virus led to the creation, in March 2020, of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), then-President Donald Trump’s program to bring a vaccine against COVID-19 to market as quickly as possible(Jacobs and Armstrong, 2020).
OWS established a few more unprecedented aspects of COVID-19. First, it brought the US Department of Defense into direct collaboration with US health departments with respect to vaccine distribution (Bonsell, 2021).
Second, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) collaborated with the biotechnology company Moderna in bringing an unprecedented type of vaccine against infectious disease to market, one utilizing a technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA) (National Institutes of Health, 2020).
The confluence of these unprecedented events has rapidly brought to public awareness the promise and potential of mRNA vaccines as a new weapon against infectious diseases into the future.
At the same time, events without precedent are, by definition, without a history and context against which to fully assess risks, hoped-for benefits, safety, and long-term viability as a positive contribution to public health.
In this paper we will be briefly reviewing oneparticular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.”
We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable toany future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses. While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.
Pfizer “Secretly” Added Heart Attack Drug Tromethamine (Tris) to Children’s COVID Vaccines … But Why?
A newly released document shows that drug giant Pfizer added a “secret” heart attack drug to the children’s version of its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee that voted 17-0 to approve the jabs for children as young as five was notified that the children’s formulation of the drug contains tromethamine (Tris), a chemical that reduces blood acidity and stabilizes people who have suffered a heart attack.
“Each dose of this formulation contains 10 ?g (micrograms) of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (mRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 that is formulated in lipid particles and supplied as a frozen suspension in multiple dose vials,” the “vaccine formulation” page of the document explains.
“To provide a vaccine with an improved stability profile, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for use in children 5-11 years of age uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of the phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) as used in the previous formulation and excludes sodium chloride and potassium chloride.”
This “new formulation,” the document further reads, must be stored at a different temperature than the adult version of the injection.
Without so much as a second thought concerning this ingredient change, the FDA granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for this new drug to be administered to children as young as five.
This FDA briefing document was titled “EUA amendment request for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for use in children 5 through 11 years of age,” and was given to the advisory committee prior to its vote.
What You Need to Know About Pfizer’s Comirnaty Vaccine
Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot was approved (licensed) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late August 2021, but only for adults, and only when carrying the Comirnaty label. No other COVID shot has been FDA approved. However, Comirnaty is currently not available, and while the experimental, emergency use authorized (EUA) Pfizer shot is substituted for Comirnaty, the two products are clearly legally distinct and not the same
A licensed vaccine is not shielded from liability until or unless it’s added to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule by the CDC. So, if you were injured by Comirnaty, you could sue Pfizer. You cannot sue if injured by the EUA Pfizer shot (or any of the other EUA COVID injections)
Even though several hundred claims have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for injuries resulting from the COVID shots — which is the only possible avenue to obtain damages — not a single claim has been paid out
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is any significant variation in batch toxicity - by counting the number of adverse reaction reports associated with each batch number.
The number of adverse reactions in each State of the USA caused by each individual batch was also counted.
The results were interesting.
70% of the batches were harmless - producing only one adverse reaction report each.
80% of the batches produced only 1 or 2 adverse reaction reports. So the vast majority of the batches were harmless.
However, a very distinct and significant anomaly appeared.
1 in 200 (0.5%) of the batches was found to be between 1000 and 5000 times more toxic than the average batch, and accounted for 70% of all of the adverse reactions, and 70% of all of the deaths
1 in 20 (5%) of the batches accounted for 90% of the adverse reactions and deaths.
These toxic batches consistently produced high levels of adverse reactions, disability and death across every State in the USA, in sharp contrast to the harmless batches. As a consequence the toxic batches are easily visible as a string of numbers across the screen in the video above.
The consistency with which these batches produce adverse reactions indicates that the adverse reactions are caused by the batches rather than by the health status of the recipients.
The probable reason for these more toxic batches is either
1. The batches contain added ingredients that are highly toxic
2. The batches are of a higher concentration of the same ingredients
The later suggests that Pharma may be investigating the LD50 (Lethal Dose) in order to establish the therapeutic range. Needless to say, such experimentation carried out on human beings has already resulted in deaths and disabilities - as shown in this report.
The question arises -
If there is such high variation in the toxicity of the batches, should we be mandating this medical intervention?
Should we be coercing people under threat of losing their job or being confined at home , into taking something where death or disability is a possible adverse reaction?