I'm pasting in the introduction and conclusion of a paper by Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bhakdi for doctors4covidethics.org. The full 17 page paper can be found here. Thanks to the commenter who provided the link.
I would call particular attention to the conclusions regarding the possible effects of repeated injections.
The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity
Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD
July 23rd, 2021
We summarize the findings of an animal study which Pfizer submitted to the Japanese health authorities in 2020, and which pertained to the distribution and elimination of a model mRNA vaccine. We show that this study clearly presaged grave risks of blood clotting and other adverse effects. The failure to monitor and assess these risks in the subsequent clinical trials, and the grossly negligent review process in conjunction with the emergency use authorizations, have predictably resulted in an unprecedented medical disaster.
1 Introduction and background
As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines
is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there.
Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly
investigated and during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and
also on toxicity are carried out in animals. If the outcome is favourable, similar
experiments will be performed on a small number of human volunteers. Only after
such preliminary studies have been successfully concluded will proper clinical trials
be approved, which will then determine whether the drug or vaccine in question has
the desired clinical efficacy.
Because of the officially sanctioned haste and systematic gross negligence in
the development and approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, our knowledge of their
pharmacokinetics is sketchy. The only somewhat detailed animal study that has
reached the public pertains to the Pfizer vaccine [1, 2]. These data were publicized
after Pfizer had filed them with the Health authorities in Japan when applying for
emergency use authorization of its vaccine in that country.1 These data pertained
in particular to the distribution of the vaccine within the body after injection and to
its elimination from the body. Even though far from being comprehensive or even
adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—
as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized
the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical
trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical
risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed
to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most
grievous harm to the public.
Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:
• blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks,
stroke, and venous thrombosis
• grave harm to female fertility
• grave harm to breastfed infants
• cumulative toxicity after multiple injections
With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the
short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks
have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in
the reports to the various adverse event registries . Those registries also contain
a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after
vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
We must emphasize again that each of these risks could readily be inferred from
the cited limited preclinical data, but were not followed up with appropriate indepth
investigations. In particular, the clinical trials did not monitor any laboratory
parameters that could have provided information on these risks, such as those
related to blood coagulation (e.g. D-dimers/thrombocytes), muscle cell damage (e.g.
troponin/creatine kinase), or liver damage (e.g. γ-glutamyltransferase). That the
various regulatory agencies granted emergency use authorization based on such
incomplete and insufficient data amounts to nothing less than gross negligence.
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic
lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids—
be they directed against COVID, or any other pathogen or disease—this would result
in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate
in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent
attention of the public and of the health authorities.
Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real
trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results.
This vaccine, and others, are often called “experimental.” Calling off this failed
experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous
vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes
If the vaccine is only really effective for 180 or so days, does this means the side effects will also go away?ReplyDelete
No. It's known that the spike can remain in those organs almost indefinitely--how long is not known.Delete
I read this report and from what I can tell I think what they’re basically saying is nobody knows. There emphatically stating that none of this due diligence was done during the initial trial before it even got EUA And it sounds like they may not even be doing it now. To me this sounds way past gross negligence. Given the fact that they have these contracts with no indemnification whatsoever I think means that a lot of these corporations that are arm twisting are going to be next in line and on the hook for a lot of damages down the road. We just don’t know what or when.ReplyDelete
Nuremberg code. They can't hide behind emergency use or the WHO or the CDC or the FDA or NIAID. The crime is forcing every single one of the injected into a medical experiment without informed consent. We KNOW "they" did that. Mark A.ReplyDelete
What's more, I think we should all cast our minds back to those early days of lockdown when Bad Orange Man was President and "authorities" discussed vaccines as only distant if ever possibilities. Why were they characterized as such in those early days before the miracle cures were made public? Because the entire medical establishment knows the drill on new drug development, clinical trials and ethical treatment, that's why. And even if you grant emergency use, you STILL have the obligation of Nuremberg, else it is meaningless. Every single person involved in devising, pushing and promoting mass vaccination with an experimental drug has committed a crime against humanity. May God have mercy on their souls. Mark ADelete
At the risk of Dead Horse Syndrome, i will ask again, where does Trump's culpability fit into all this? Does it matter? If not, why not? Is this a buck-stops-here thing or a plausible deniability thing? Does Trump owe any sort of apology for his role in rushing out these jabs or is that overthinking it? KrtDelete
It doesn't matter.Delete
Trump was one man, with a large ego and a penchant for prestige. It seems he got duped by Big Pharma, Big Health, in much the same way he consistently got duped by Big Media (giving that 60 minutes interview till the end) and Big Generals. In essence, his Achilles Heel was anything Big.
Let's celebrate the man for what he achieved, noting that the buck did not rest with him, seeing as how much of the power invested in him was usurped by the swamp/DS.
Plus, Trump's MO was always that he had the ability to get the best expertise for any given problem.Delete
I place zero culpability on Trump for not knowing about leaky vaccines, ADE, etc. It was the responsibility of the experts to guide him through those issues.
Ironic that, for all the Orange Man Bad TDS and for all his 'They hate you' rhetoric, I don't think Trump could conceive of the depth of malice of their plans, nor the willingness of those influential scientists who knew better to go along with the deceptions because they feared association with him, nor the worldwide lock-step groupthink, nor, frankly, the readiness of too many Americans for authoritarian government.
Denninger today, in "You Must Have ENJOYED Covid!":ReplyDelete
< Well, the CDC and a number of other articles claim, that natural antibodies are "poor" in quantity compared to that of the vaccines. Is that true? Not really. The distribution and type of antibodies are different; that much is certain. The vaccines produce *spike protein* antibodies only, where natural infection produces mostly *"N" protein* antibodies. In addition, there is a very significant difference between CD4 and CD8 response, between natural infection and the jabs.
But wait: Is the CDC lying through obfuscation? That MMWR was poorly-researched and slanted, as damn near everything that comes out of that evil organization has been, for the last 18 months. How about Lombardi, which as we all know got monkey-hammered in the early part of 2020.
"During the follow-up (mean [SD], 280  days) 5 reinfections (0.31%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.58%) were confirmed in the cohort of 1579 positive patients. Most of these patients were evaluated, treated, and followed in hospitals or dedicated COVID-19 ambulatories.6 Only 1 was hospitalized....."
Ah, they are lying. This showed an 0.3% chance of reinfection, and do note that Lombardi was a situation, where most of the people who got hammered were *older*, and thus presumably at least partially immune-compromised.
This does not stand alone. Here's another paper on it, showing a zero reinfection rate, among over 1,000 persons who had confirmed Covid-19. Zero, of course, cannot be improved upon....
... Multiple physicians have reported, they've been *barred* by their medical groups from *reporting* adverse events. True? We don't know. But there is no such thing, ever, as a medication without risk, and these jabs, on the data, are wildly more-dangerous than anything else we commonly use.
Folks, the data is that, the jabs don't work for long. Whether they never really worked (that is, they simple wore off), which we didn't test, because it's not possible to know something works over the space of a year or more, without taking the *year or more* to test it, or whether the narrow antibody response was evaded by natural mutation, an event that incidentally is promoted by using non-sterilizing vaccines we do not know. >
Someone commented the other day about Dr. David Martin, I made a remark that he was an opinion writer, and Mark came back with a great retort. I was out of line, but I’d not found this, so I’ll say “mea culpa” and drop this for your consideration:ReplyDelete
He closes his introduction to this paper with:
This dossier is by no means exhaustive. It is, however, indicative the numerous criminal violations that may be associated with the COVID-19 terrorism. All source materials are referenced herein. An additional detailed breakdown of all the of individuals, research institutions, foundations, funding sources, and commercial enterprises can be accessed upon request.
And here is more on David E. Martin, PhD, and his company M-CAM:Delete
That wasn't actually a "retort". More of a semi-ironic, self-deprecatory reflection.Delete
But why not just summarize your take on this guy. My take is, he's a guy with some native intelligence who doesn't seem to know what he doesn't know. Which means he missed the beginning of wisdom.
Sounds as though he has opinions and has been searching for confirming data. He and his troops have amassed quite a lot to pile on Fauci...Delete
As for my dictionary’s definition of “retort”, one is to “say something to a remark in a wittily incisive manner”… You are always incisive - frequently wittily. :-)
“doesn't seem to know what he doesn't know. Which means he missed the beginning of wisdom.”Delete
In my view, after this beginning of wisdom comes the harder parts, e.g. weighing how to tell when you know enough to act on such knowledge, vs. when you don't know enough, such as to get you to sit tight, until you do know enough.
Do any key writers on such matters spring to mind?
@Mark, is this take an example of your engaging in some "semi-ironic, self-deprecatory reflection" or are you endeavoring to set up some kind of standard , call it the wisdom standard, for making claims on the internet? I don't quite understand your beef with Dr Martin's presentations. Is it that he accuses public figures of crimes without providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Can we call the paper linked by Bebe a piece of journalism? Can we not? Why not? How does his paper differ from an expose by Ronan Farrow? Too conclusory, in your opinion. My opinion is it is very much like something we would have seen on 60 minutes 25 years ago. Mark A.ReplyDelete
I already explained that. He's talking about legal matters that he's utterly ignorant about.Delete
One thing I constantly have to remind myself of is for everything I learn about legal topics, I know nothing.
Unfortunately it seems like every third thing I read today is someone pushing some type of legal or illegal basis for making their point seem more valid. 9.99 out of 10 times it's simply hair brained interjection or complete ignorance. Lots of the times I see cherry picking where a sliver is plucked and exploited out of context.
I see this happening in all sides (there's more than 4) of our current little information war, some make tidy profits from doing it.
One of the easiest examples I see is the word "treason". Every second thing today is some act of treason or another. Yet I doubt anyone of the people that use the word has ever even read the federal code for what it means. If they did they would delete themselves off the internet for embarrassment.
Things I learn as I get older... Legal exploitation is nothing more than newspeak.
devil, on "all sides (there's *more* than 4)", can you steer us to a place which give a map of the more than 4 ?Delete
All this confirms my decision to not get a vaccination.ReplyDelete
Got COVID-19 in early October, got the HCQ cocktail, and tested negative five days later