Government’s Own Data Proves COVID-19 Shots Are Causing Blood Clots, Heart Disease, and Death

17,619 COVID vaccine deaths reported into VAERS as of October 2021 (keep in mind that only a small percentage of events are even reported)

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Brian Shilhavy / Health Impact News (November 4, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are currently two different and opposing narratives in the public regarding the safety of the COVID-19 shots.

One view claims they are safe, and the other view claims they are not.

Both views cannot be true. One view is correct, and one view is wrong.

The view of the pharmaceutical companies producing the shots and earning great profit from them is that they are safe, and this view is backed up by the U.S. Government regulatory agencies and the officials who lead them.

Here is their official statement through the CDC, as of November 1, 2021.

Source.

Please note that in order for the pharmaceutical companies and the government health agencies to make a claim that COVID-19 “vaccines” are “safe,” there must be a safety monitoring system in place in order to make such a claim. Otherwise, their claims would be without basis, because nobody would know whether those claims are true or not.

The CDC admits this in this statement on their website. And they go on to explain that this safety monitoring system is called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Based on the VAERS reporting system, the CDC goes on to state:

Serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but may occur.

For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

They then list four adverse events they have noticed from VAERS, and also make a statement regarding deaths.

Here are the four adverse events they admit are recorded in VAERS:

  • Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination
  • Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination
  • CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.
  • Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.
  • Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.

Notice how they frequently use the word “rare” to describe these adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations. But how many people even know about these “rare” side effects prior to receiving a COVID-19 shot?

Two of the side effects are only linked to one of the three FDA authorized COVID-19 “vaccines,” the J&J shot, which is the one least used.

The nice thing about the Government VAERS database is that it is open to the public, and anyone can search it. I use the MedAlerts front end to search the database, and you can find that here.

So anyone around the world can do their own search of the data in the VAERS database and fact-check the CDC’s claims, which represent the view of the pharmaceutical industry and the government health agencies and their heads.

And that’s what I am going to do in the rest of this article.

Please note that I am not dealing with the issue of under-reporting in VAERS in this article. Everyone admits that the data in VAERS is vastly under-reported, which is why when the CDC states that an adverse reaction that they admit is seen in VAERS is “rare” based on how many doses of the vaccine have been distributed, we should not take their statement at face value, because they actually do not know how rare it is.

So I am only going to deal with the available data to fact-check their claims, the very same data that they are using.

What I am going to do is compare the data on adverse reactions to the COVID-19 shots to the data recorded for the past 30 years for all other vaccines, as this will be a truer “apples to apples” comparison, and it is also a simple one that anyone can search themselves.

At the end of this analysis of the available data, nobody in the pharmaceutical industry or in the government health agencies can say that the data is wrong, because it is their data. They also cannot claim ignorance, because the statements they make regarding the “safety” of these COVID-19 vaccines is based on this data in VAERS, according to their own published statements.

And what we will see when we look at the data as compared to all other data from non-COVID-19 vaccines, is that they are lying, and that the COVID-19 vaccines are most definitely causing blood clots, heart disease, and deaths.

If they are lying, then they are complicit with causing these crippling injuries and deaths, and they should all be arrested immediately for being complicit to mass murder.

CDC Claim: Deaths following COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”

Let’s begin with deaths, since this is obviously the most serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination.

Here is the CDC claim as of November 1, 2021:

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 423 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 9,367 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths pdf icon[1.4 MB, 33 pages].

Notice that according to the CDC the only “plausible causal relationship” between a COVID-19 vaccine and death is with the J&J shot, which is linked to blood clots. And they claim that this is among 9,367 reports of death following COVID-19 shots for the past 10 months.

I am not even sure where they get this number of “9,367” from, because when we search the VAERS database for deaths following COVID-19 shots, it returns a value of 17,619. (Source.) If we exclude all the foreign reports, we still get a different value than what they are stating, with 8,068 deaths. (Source.)

So they are applying some other kind of filter to get this death count, it would seem.

For the purpose of this analysis in this article, I am going to use ALL the data in VAERS and not filter out anything, since we already know the data is vastly under-reported.

Now to determine if these reports of deaths are “rare,” let’s look at how many deaths there are from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years.

The easiest way to do this is to simply run a search for all deaths in the database, and then subtract the deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines, which as I stated above is 17,619.

Here is the result: 26,680 deaths from ALL vaccines in the database as of October 22, 2021, which covers a period of over 30 years.

17,619 of those deaths are following COVID-19 vaccines for the past 10 months. That means that for all other vaccines over the past 30 years, there have only been 9,061 deaths recorded, about 300 deaths per year. But into October of 2021, there have been already been 17,619 deaths following COVID shots.

Does this sound “rare,” or is this a national catastrophe where heads should roll and people should be locked up in jail and prosecuted?

And remember, this is THEIR DATA! They know this.

And now they are targeting children 5 to 11 years old.

Fetal Deaths

Also, the CDC and the FDA are recommending the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women, claiming it is safe for them.

But is it? What does their own data in VAERS report about fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women?

Through October 22, 2021 they have recorded 2,369 cases where the mother lost her baby after receiving a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)

How does that compare with fetal deaths in pregnant women following ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years?

For the past 30+ years there have been 2,192 cases where the mom being given a vaccine lost her baby, about 73 a year. (Source.)

But this year, 2,369 unborn babies have already died following a COVID-19 shot injected into the pregnant mother.

Does this sound “safe” to you? Would pregnant women continue getting COVID-19 shots if they knew these statistics in the government’s own database?

CDC Claim: Blood Clots from COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”

The admission that the CDC makes for COVID-19 vaccines causing blood clots is:

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. As of October 27, 2021, more than 15.5 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 48 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.

To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 401 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

What the CDC is clearly doing here is only reporting one kind of blood clot, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). They claim that this is the only kind of blood clot they found, and it is only 48 cases with J&J, and 2 cases with Moderna.

But there are many kinds of blood clots, so we should not just limit our search for only TTS. If we just search for ALL cases involving any kind of “thrombosis” following COVID-19 shots, we get a value of 13,930 cases of blood clots. (Source.)

When we search for each of the 3 FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines where blood clots are recorded along with deaths, we get 626 total deaths when blood clots are present: 381 deaths for Pfizer, 118 deaths for Moderna, and 127 deaths for J&J.

So this horrible side effect is not related to only one manufacturer.

How does this compare with cases of “thrombosis” from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30 years? With the available data we find only 489 cases of any kind of thrombosis for ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years, resulting in only 18 deaths. (Source.)

This is not a “rare” event following COVID-19 shots. This is criminal.

And frontline doctors are confirming that they are seeing high rates of blood clots in patients who have been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Canadian doctors were the first ones to blow the whistle on this. This past July we published an interview with Dr. Charles Hoffe, a doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.

He was the first one to state publicly that these blood clots were not rare, as he tested vaccinated patients in his province in Canada and found that 62% of them had evidence of small blood clots.

The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test. (Source.)

Since then an emergency medicine doctor, Dr. Rochagné Kilian, has come forward to tell the public what she was seeing in fully vaccinated patients, and the high rate of blood clots. She lost her job in order to bring this information to the public, so it is well worth listening to.

This is on our Rumble and Bitchute channel.

CDC Claim: Heart Disease from COVID-19 Shots is Rare

Here is what the CDC admits for heart disease following COVID-19 shots:

Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of October 27, 2021, VAERS has received 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 1,005 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.

Notice that they admit to 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in people under age 30, and yet still choose to call these events “rare.”

Again, myocarditis and pericarditis are just two kinds of heart diseases, so let’s select all cases where a “carditis” is listed as an adverse event following COVID-19 shots. When we expand the search of the available data, we find 9,859 cases of cardits, resulting in 136 deaths and 327 permanent disabilities. (Source.)

This is a lot more than what the CDC is telling us, because they only included 2 kinds of “carditis.”

How does this compare with reported cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines?

For the past 30+ years there have been only 913 cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines, resulting in only 95 deaths, about 3 deaths per year. (Source.)

Heart disease following COVID-19 shots is most certainly not rare! Young people, especially athletes, are having heart attacks in record numbers this year, as almost every day now we are seeing news reports of young, healthy athletes having heart attacks, like this professional hockey player who was in the news yesterday. There’s a list of athletes dying, mostly from cardiac arrest, here.

America is Run by Criminals and Mass Murderers

Your government is lying to you. They have this data, because it is their data. They know all of this.

But who will bring them to justice?

Sadly, these people in government who run the “health” agencies are simply pawns and puppets in these crimes against humanity.

The real decision makers who are guilty of mass murder are in corporate America. We have already shown how each of the pharmaceutical companies that currently have a COVID-19 “vaccine” authorized by the FDA also employ a former FDA Commissioner. See: All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners

Charles Hugh Smith published an article today highlighting just how corrupt and evil corporate America has become.

Some excerpts:

It’s becoming a routine story: a whistleblower emerges with copious documentation, revealing the ethical / managerial rot at the very top of Corporate America icons. Recently it was Facebook that was revealed as devoting far more resources to masking corporate guile than to actually improving longstanding ethical and quality issues.

Now it’s Pfizer’s fast and loose treatment of supposedly rigorous protocols that’s been heavily documented. The prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) stated that the whistleblower provided “The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.”BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.

The purpose of playing fast and loose is to maximize profits regardless of any other factors. And while corporations exist to maximize profits, the trend in Corporate America is to sacrifice everything to maximize profits and keep the putrid sewage hidden from regulators, the media and the public.

This isn’t about profit, it’s about hiding the rot that has seeped into every nook and cranny of Corporate America. The foundation of the stock market’s extreme valuations is corporate profits, and the stock market bubble is now the precarious foundation of the entire U.S. economy: should the bubble pop, everyone knows the economy and the financial system will both crash.

The usual corporate strategy–defame the whistleblower and blow smoke to cover the rot–loses traction when the rot is documented by internal memos, recordings, etc. It’s difficult for the lackeys of Corporate America to dismiss the British Medical Journal as just another tin-foil-hat outlet of “fake news,” especially with all the documentation now made public.

Lost in the obsession to profiteer and hide the rot is the notion that corporations have responsibilities to the public and their customers/users, not just to greedy managers and shareholders. These responsibilities have been tossed into the muddy ditch.

Regulations only exist in name in America. Corporate America plays by its own rules. Corporate America is not longer regulated in any consequential fashion, as the list of Pfizer’s actions reveal:

— Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff

— Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events

— Protocol deviations not being reported

— Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures

— Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and

— Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

The last item appears in virtually every whistleblower case: the corporation doesn’t rush to fix its glaring ethical and quality issues, it rushes to silence the whistleblower and “manage the narrative” to protect its precious profits. Never mind that the public pays the price for corporations saying one thing and doing another, for hiding what they dare not let regulators, users, customers and patients learn about their practices and behind-closed-doors goals.

The Prime Directive of Corporate America is to hide the rot that’s permeated the entire corporation, starting at the top.

We shouldn’t be too surprised that Corporate America is rotten to the core–the entire status quo is rotten to the core. Ethics and regulations are annoyances to be skirted, and if some random regulator catches insiders in the act, the corporation pays an inconsequential fine and then returns to BAU–business as usual, rotten to the core.

Any citizen who desires to be well-informed would be well-served to read this report closely: BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.

He goes on to write about an amazing database someone has put together which documents all the “Corporate fines and Settlements” over criminal cases since the 1990s. Pfizer, for example, has paid out over $8 BILLION in fines for criminal activities over the years.

As further documentation, I am honored to share a remarkable data base of Corporate Fines and Settlements from the early 1990s to the present compiled by Jon Morse. Here is Jon’s description of his project to assemble a comprehensive list of all corporate fines and settlements that can be verified by media reports:

“This spreadsheet is all the corporate fines/settlements I’ve been able to find sourced articles about, mostly in the period from the 1990s up to today (with a few 80s and 70s). This is by far the most comprehensive list of such things online. At least that I could find, because the lack of any decent list is what made me start compiling this list in the first place.”

What’s noteworthy is the sheer number of corporate violations of laws and regulations–thousands upon thousands, the vast majority of which occurred since corporate profits began their incredible ascent in the early 2000s–and the list of those paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements, which reads like a who’s who of Corporate America and Top 100 Global Corporations.

I encourage you to open one of the three alphabetical tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet on Google Docs and scroll down to find your favorite super-profitable corporation.

Many have a long list of fines and settlements, and many of the fines are in excess of $100 million. Many are for blatant cartel price-fixing, not disclosing the dangers of the company’s heavily promoted medications, destroying documents to thwart an investigation of wrong-doing, etc.

In other words, these were not wrist-slaps for minor oversights of complex regulations— these are blatant violations of core laws of the land.

Jon offered this commentary on Corporate America’s slide to the bottom of the moral cesspool:

“With the increases in concentration of wealth there has been a culture of idolizing wealth, one example is how prosecutors no longer find it appropriate to put bankers and CEOs in jail. I think one side-effect of the culture changing has been an increased willingness to break the law to increase profits.

The settlements with the banks along with the ongoing investigations have shown that virtually every market is being manipulated; the stocks, metals markets, LIBOR, FOREX, everything. The companies would only break so many laws if they felt they would have a reasonable chance of getting away with it; they would also need a reason to do it, which is provided by the infinite growth model our economy is based on.”

Thank you, Jon, for compiling a tremendously important and valuable database, and for connecting this staggering list of violations to the cultural worship of maximizing private gains at any cost. I am reminded of socio-economist Immanuel Wallerstein’s description of the current system of central-state/private-corporation collusion as “a particular historical configuration of markets and state structures where private economic gain by almost any means is the paramount goal and measure of success.”

Read the full article here.

It is time to STOP the killer COVID-19 vaccine campaigns, and way past time to round up all of these murderers and lock them up.

These talking heads on TV use what is called an “appeal to authority” to try and convince the public to get these shots. The data and the science is NOT on their side, and they are not nearly as intelligent as they want you to believe they are.

I know there is great risk right now in refusing the COVID-19 shots for some people, as your livelihood and means to earn income could be at stake.

But this is NOT a sustainable path we are on, and at some point those who refused the shots are going to be needed again, and chances are you will, at some point, be able to earn income again.

Just remember one indisputable FACT:

If you risk getting a COVID-19 shot, you could die or become crippled with very serious injuries. Deaths and injuries are happening at a record pace, and they are not “rare” as is being claimed, based on the data.

If you do not take a COVID-19 shot, you cannot die from that shot.

It really is that simple.

Parents who subject their children to these shots are guilty of child abuse, and attempted murder. Keep your children home, and safe, no matter what the cost, if you truly love them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY Vaccine Is Still Under “STUDY” Runs to be Completed at Different Intervals Between 2022-2026

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

In addition to the many debates and conflicts surrounding the “approval” of the Pfizer/BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine, there is interesting information to glean from the documents involved surrounding this controversy.

The below documents, some from the FDA’s own website, sheds further light into what seems to be a product still in its experimental/study phase. Some of the revelations are chilling, and doesn’t quite give the reassurance that an “approved” drug of this magnitude is more beneficial to us than what it is purported to be saving us from.

Screenshot of the FDA NEWS RELEASE: FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Selected quotes in gray text boxes are from the above document:

“Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older.

Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease.

More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.

The most commonly reported side effects by those clinical trial participants who received Comirnaty were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, chills, and fever. The vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 and potentially serious outcomes including hospitalization and death.”

There are a couple of notes to take away from this document. In the above quote, it doesn’t quite specify how long the clinical trial lasted. Only that more than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for 4 months after the second dose. It also states that 12,000 of the recipients were followed for at least 6 months.

Both of these numbers (4 and 6) are incredibly low quantities when taking into account pregnant women who are at the beginning of their pregnancy. The length of the clinical trial does not take into account the full 9 months needed to determine a healthy pregnancy, nor does it allow for any time to safely assess the development of the baby once born.

The data in this document also does not include differences between those of the placebo group compared to that of the “vaccine” group. In addition, if we are to only take the 12,000 participants into account, which from the wording of the document seems to allude that these are the recipients of the vaccine, that would still leave 10,000 participants unaccounted for. Just from the amount of vaccine recipients (22,000), this is 45% of their study that the data does not reflect. If we are to include the 22,000 of the participants who received the placebo, the data that was not tracked would rise to 72%.

There is also the challenge of how they determined that the vaccine actually prevented COVID. Were these recipients exposed to someone with COVID or were deliberately inoculated with the disease to see if they would get infected? Many people, myself included, have gone on for more than a year without developing COVID, or at least “COVID symptoms”. Since this data only involved a 4-6 month trial period, how many of us (vaccinated, placebo, or otherwise) can say that we have not contracted COVID during this time-frame either? Is this implying that unless you’re vaccinated, you will most likely get COVID every 4-6 months?

Another consideration to take into account are the many testimonies from well-respected and renowned doctors/scientists/virologists who are adamant in their assessment that these vaccines are unnecessary and instead further harms the immune system rather than help it.

In the same regard, those who are unvaccinated will obviously then not contract any of the possible side effects that are listed in this document as well as the many adverse events that are reported to VAERS. Which leaves one to wonder if the benefits really outweigh the risks of the COVID vaccines.

There is also the slight alteration on a different page of the FDA website that gives further clarification as to the efficacy of the COVID vaccines – which does not reflect that of what many people are influenced to believe:

Under the heading:

Q: What safety information did FDA evaluate to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for emergency use and approve Comirnaty?

Screenshot of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content Current as of August 23, 2021

UPDATE on September 6, 2021: Since the FDA website decided to remove this particular section from their FAQ (as of 9/1/2021), here is a screenshot taken from the web archive showing its existence:

“While the vaccine may not prevent infection, symptoms or transmission of the virus from person to person – “

This seems to be the heart of the matter, and although it continues with, “it is effective in preventing hospitalization and death.” it is in direct conflict with what we were led to believe this whole time. Most of the mainstream media, big tech platforms, health agencies, etc. have insisted that vaccines are needed to stop transmission of the virus and to protect those around us. However, this one simple statement defies everything that people were coerced into believing.

And with the last part of the sentence concluding that it prevents hospitalization and death, which even that is debatable when looking at the scope of the situation, it leaves one to wonder why this would not be an option for people to decide to take that risk on their own account. When comparing data of young individuals as well and their extremely low risk of hospitalization and death in the COVID setting, there ARE acknowledged threats when they are injected with the vaccine.

“Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support. Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes. The Comirnaty Prescribing Information includes a warning about these risks.”

The FDA is also acknowledging that there are higher risks involved with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in males aged 12-17, and up to age 40.

“Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes.”

“In addition, the FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. These studies will include an evaluation of long-term outcomes among individuals who develop myocarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. In addition, although not FDA requirements, the company has committed to additional post-marketing safety studies, including conducting a pregnancy registry study to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy.”

The document is also stating that the possibility of myocarditis and pericarditis is an accepted issue and will continue to be monitored after the marketing of the Comirnaty vaccine.

And in a rather blunt admission, FDA states on their own website that Comirnaty is not required to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy. This would explain why the initial trial run was only monitored for 4-6 months. An outline in the BLA (Biologics License Approval) also states that Comirnaty will conduct studies on this group as we see in a later section.

BLA documents state Comirnaty vaccine studies to be conducted for the next several years

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text below is page 5 of the FDA BLA Approval document

Your deferred pediatric studies required under section 505B(a) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) are required postmarketing studies. The status of
these postmarketing studies must be reported according to 21 CFR 601.28 and section
505B(a)(4)(C) of the FDCA. In addition, section 506B of the FDCA and 21 CFR 601.70
require you to report annually on the status of any postmarketing commitments or
required studies or clinical trials.

Label your annual report as an “Annual Status Report of Postmarketing Study
Requirement/Commitments”
and submit it to the FDA each year within 60 calendar
days of the anniversary date of this letter until all Requirements and Commitments
subject to the reporting requirements under section 506B of the FDCA are released or
fulfilled. These required studies are listed below:

1. Deferred pediatric Study C4591001 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in children 12 years through 15 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: October 7, 2020

Study Completion: May 31, 2023

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2023

2. Deferred pediatric Study C4591007 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants and children 6 months to <12 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: February 8, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

3. Deferred pediatric Study C4591023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants <6 months of age.

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: July 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2024

Submit the protocols to your IND 19736, with a cross-reference letter to this BLA STN
BL 125742 explaining that these protocols were submitted to the IND. Please refer to
the PMR sequential number for each study/clinical trial and the submission number as
shown in this letter.

Submit final study reports to this BLA STN BL 125742. In order for your PREA PMRs to
be considered fulfilled, you must submit and receive approval of an efficacy or a labeling supplement. For administrative purposes, all submissions related to these required
pediatric postmarketing studies must be clearly designated as:

• Required Pediatric Assessment(s)

As the document states, the completion study of Comirnaty postmarketing (after approval) is not due until May 31, 2023 / Novermber 20, 2023 / July 31, 2024 respective of older to lower age groups. There is also another important acronym to consider, which is the IND, which stands for Investigational New Drug.

With this knowledge in hand, it’s important to note that the clinical trial run was monitored for 4-6 months after the second dose on around 55% of the recipients, while the actual “approved” drug still in its investigational/study stages is set to be monitored for 2-3 years. This is a sizeable difference in the amount of time to determine safety and efficacy, especially when considering the many events already reported to VAERS. And according to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions page from the FDA website:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Are vaccine providers required to report side effects?
A: Providers administering Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine must report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and to Pfizer the following information associated with the vaccine of which they become aware:
  • Vaccine administration errors whether or not associated with an adverse event
  • Serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination)
  • Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
  • Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis issues being studied on children

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 6-8 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events
reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known
serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of
subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under
section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are
required to conduct the following studies:

4. Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of
the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate
the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of
COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021

Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022

Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025

5. Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval Active Surveillance Study
Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis
and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021

Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021

Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022

Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022

Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023

Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023

Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

6. Study C4591021 substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and
pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for
potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration
with Pediatric Heart Network).

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2026

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027

8. Study C4591007 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a
subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

9. Study C4591031 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of
participants 16 to 30 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2022

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022

It is interesting that the timing to be considered for approval of these vaccines was only a 4-6 month timeframe, however, known dangers/risks, identified as “serious”, are still allowed to be approved and to be studied for 2+ years.

The document also recognizes that myocarditis and pericarditis is enough of a concern to happen after administration of the Comirnaty vaccine, since it mentions several studies just for this specific adverse event, and to continue to assess these reports.

In addition to all of the substudies to be conducted, there is a study to be initiated on a select group of participants to administer a third dose of the Comirnaty vaccine.

All of this information leads credence to the fact that even though the Comirnaty vaccine has “officially been approved” by the FDA, it is still in the investigational stages and being experimented upon on the public. And it goes without saying, but if myocarditis and pericarditis (on top of other reported side effects) are serious risks especially in children (“The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age.”), then for this known risk to be offered to infants/toddlers defies any ethically moral boundaries and is in direct violations of the Nuremberg Code.

The next section also provides further evidence that there have been NO studies in the safety/efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine on pregnant women.

Pregnancy/Births were not studied during the initial Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty trial runs

Another snippet from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions website page, states the following:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Can pregnant or breastfeeding women receive the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?

A: While there have been no specific studies in these groups, there is no contraindication to receipt of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women. Pregnant or breastfeeding women should discuss potential benefits and risks of vaccination with their healthcare provider.

The acknowledgement above seems to indicate that the FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty company have side-stepped this particular group in their vaccine studies, and have left it up to the healthcare provider to determine whether or not to administer this vaccine to pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding. This alone should be enough of a statement that there is no sufficient/professional data to analyze if the Comirnaty is safe during pregnancies/breastfeeding stages.

And if one were to consider the VAERS reporting system, in which the Pfizer-BioNTech company is required to report to, there have been numerous conditions of miscarriages/stillbirths/complications during pregnancy after administration of the COVID vaccine. While it is difficult to determine if these complications were a direct result of the vaccine, it is up to the scientific/healthcare community to investigate these cases in a thorough, unbiased and uninfluenced manner.

Another extremely alarming section of the FDA BLA Approval documents shows the following trial to be monitored in pregnant women:

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 9-10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
POSTMARKETING COMMITMENTS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 506B

We acknowledge your written commitments as described in your letter of August 21, 2021 as outlined below:

10. Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during
Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and
Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists
(OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”

Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025

There are a couple of key takeaways in this section that are of incredible importance. One major term to focus on is the word “NON-INTERVENTIONAL“.

According to What is a Non Interventional Study?, “In general, a non interventional study (NIS) (also called a non interventional trial) is where a patient takes regular medicine, prescribed according to the label. In an NIS, the researcher sets out to exert as little influence as possible on the patient’s condition while studying a medicine’s “…effectiveness, safety and tolerability under real life conditions” (Mishra & Vora, 2010).”

The article also reiterates multiple times that “non-interventional” studies are observational studies – the researchers are not to interfere with the dosages in any way but to prescribe them exactly as listed on the label. It also seems to imply that even if severe side effects show up, they are to still carry through with the “medicinal product” in that patient as prescribed. Another insinuation that one can make is that in order to not interfere with the study, it is not recommended to prescribe treatments that may help alleviate potential side effects. The term “tolerability” is implying to keep the patient going through the side effects in order to continue to study the long-term effects of the investigational new drug.

However, with the inclusion of “real life conditions”, it doesn’t indicate whether the patient can seek out physicians to investigate what is causing the side effects in their system and engage in therapeutic treatments to alleviate these effects. If a study is to be conducted in real life conditions, then it is to be expected that patients will seek treatments on their own while the researcher is only required to observe the patient to see how the alternative treatments interact with the drug/symptoms.

The same article goes on to state that the UK/EU have different definitions of what “non-interventional” means. “Aronson (2004) states… “the term ‘non-interventional’ in the Directive doesn’t mean non-interventional (i.e. non-interference) at all; it refers to an intervention with a licensed medicinal product.”

There is controversy and conflicts in this statement as another article, Interventional or Non-Interventional? Analyzing the Differences Between Clinical Studies Using Medicines in the European Union points out:

“Although defined in DIR 2001/20/EC, non-interventional studies are outside its scope. Due to the lack of harmonized regulation, some studies designed to be non‑interventional may be considered clinical trials by EU authorities. The two blinded studies described in Table 4 (see PDF) were considered clinical trials in the EU for planning on collection of data to support the marketing authorization application of experimental IMPs, despite no IMP being given and normal clinical practice being kept during the study period. Sponsors are thus advised to consult with authorities when planning studies under these conditions and/or whenever the objectives or design may raise questions.”

Further in the article, it states the following, which again, is not reassuring considering the policies/guidelines/mandates that authorities have been engaging in in order to mandate these investigational new drugs (COVID vaccines) onto the public:

“There is no centralized submission procedure for non-interventional studies with the exception of non-interventional PASSs, imposed as an obligation by an EU competent authority.{9} Because non-interventional studies do not have harmonized legislation, some Member States require submissions to regulatory authorities, while others do not. It is therefore important that sponsors are familiar with the regulatory framework of target EU Member States, and that they consult with local competent authorities and ethics committees (ECs) when justified.”

It’s sad to have to point this out, but the quote does specify “competent” authorities. And even the inclusion of “ethics committees” is not comforting seeing as how one of the leading figures in ethics study is Christine Grady, Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and wife of Anthony Fauci – Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the president, and who is also a large spokesperson for the experimental injections.

The other takeaway from section 10 of the FDA BLA documents is the term “TERATOLOGY“.

Definition of teratology
: the study of malformations or serious deviations from the normal type in developing organisms
merriam-webster/teratology

Teratology, branch of the biological sciences dealing with the causes, development, description, and classification of congenital malformations in plants and animals and with the experimental production, in some instances, of these malformations. Congenital malformations arise from interruption in the early development of the organism. Malformations in human infants, for example, may occur because the infant’s genotype contains mutant genes or includes an abnormal number of chromosomes; they also may occur if early in pregnancy the mother has had German measles (rubella), has taken some injurious drug, or has been exposed to an injurious dosage of radiation. Experimental studies suggest similar types of factors can cause malformations in animals and plants.”
britannica/teratology

Now when you combine the terms “non-interventional” and “teratology” together, it is suggesting that the ongoing studies (that were not conducted to begin with even in a clinical trial setting, as per the FDA’s own response) on pregnant women with Comirnaty and on the developing baby, will be monitored with as little intervention as possible and is mostly to be observed for malformations/genetic defects/miscarriages/etc.

In other words, safety and efficacy were never studied in this particular group, and neither was it studied in infants. It has also not been studied for long-term analysis, as the 4-6 month trial runs proves. The current “approval” it is undergoing now is an authorized experiment on the human population that is posing incredibly unnecessary risks when considering the many effective treatments that are already available to combat respiratory illnesses. And the insistent assertiveness to push this “investigational new drug” onto babies/children who are at extremely low risk for this illness is a disastrous decision from those in an “authoritative” position and should be investigated for malfeasance and misconduct.

This is also not the first time that government agencies/health industries/etc. have conducted experiments on the public.

The Tuskegee/Syphilis experiment was initiated onto a selection of African American men between 1932-1972. The study was only stopped (allegedly) after a publication was released on Associated Press in 1972 about the immorally unethical experiments being conducted on this group:

“Of about 600 Alabama black men who originally took part in the study, 200 or so were allowed to suffer the disease and its side effects without treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a cure for syphilis. Treatment then probably could have saved or helped many of the experiment participants, PHS officials say.”AP WAS THERE: Black men untreated in Tuskegee Syphilis Study

This study seems to echo the sentiments we see going on with the coronavirus situation, in which only one type of drug is being promoted (the COVID vaccines) while suppression of other treatments that have been proven to work (such as Ivermectin) has been denounced by the very same government/health/medical fields that have conducted these experimental studies.

A study that involved the CDC/FDA’s approval, this time on Black and Latino babies, was conducted in the early 1990’s and involved the measles vaccine:

“1990: CDC Inoculated Black and Latino Babies with an Unlicensed Measles Vaccine
A covert clinical trial by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente inoculated Black and Latino babies with an experimental measles vaccine without informing parents the vaccine was experimental. More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given the deadly “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States; a vaccine that had been tested in African and Mexican babies resulting in high death rates. The parents were never informed and they never gave their consent. The CDC harmed babies, violated federal law, and trampled on parental rights with impunity.”
1990 FDA Issued a Waiver From Consent; Covert CDC Experimental Vaccine Test on Black / Latino Babies

It’s interesting that the measles vaccine experiment identifies Kaiser Permanente specifically, because as we see in another section of the FDA BLA Approval for Comirnaty, it seems as if Kaiser Permanente makes another appearance in the role of human experimentation:

Text in the gray box below is from page 10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

13. Study C4591014, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine
Effectiveness Study – Kaiser Permanente Southern California.”

Final Protocol Submission: March 22, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2022

Final Report Submission: June 30, 2023

It would seem that the approval by the FDA of these IND drugs (Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine) is a way for the government/health agencies to skirt away from liability by stating that since the vaccines are no longer “experimental” by their definition, and that they are FDA “approved”, it is no longer required to gain informed consent of these drugs. In addition, as to the technicality of their terms and protocols, there are a multitude of ways to interpret their “informed consent” rules, which officials can then bend or define in any way that best reflects the use of their study/drug.

[ https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/informed-consent#exceptions ]

Also keeping in mind how long it was determined before the “health agencies” granted approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine – (4-6 months) – it would be conclusive to state that the vaccines have NOT sufficiently been studied in young children or pregnant women (or even the rest of the age groups because of the short amount of time the clinical trial study was conducted in), and the subsequent approval of this vaccine is to continue this research on the population who is exceedingly being pressured into taking this investigational new drug.

There is also the matter of the many adverse events that have been reported since the inoculation of these injections, that have largely gone unheeded within the health/medical institutions that are endorsing this drug. Other than the widely acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis, most common in young males, which is still being studied and allowed to persist onto the public.

So again, taking into account the collusion of the government/health/medical/research fields to conduct experiments on the public, it would be necessary to reflect upon these agencies for additional breaches upon human rights, consent, and ethical behavior.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Ahmad Ardity from Pixabay

Two Whistleblowers from Facebook Expose Worldwide Effort to Censor Vaccine Concerns

Project Veritas releases new leaked information.

Ever wonder why certain posts you share on facebook, instagram, youtube, etc. never get much attention? Or perhaps get deleted altogether?

With the rollout of these covid “vaccines”, the tech industries have been hard at work aiming to discredit and/or ban ANYONE who has announced a certain form of “hesitancy” or flat out refusal to be a part of the vaccine bandwagon.

And even if certain individuals DID take the vaccine, and only wanted to share their testimony on the side effects, or perhaps a statement of what happened to their friend or family member, Facebook has initiated a global ranking and employee driven effort to tag specific posts that cross a certain threshold of “vaccine hesitancy”.

Even if the data that is being shared is TRUE, and come from verifiable health/medical papers and documents, if the data veers more towards an unflattering light of the vaccines, it is being targeted and consequently censored from these huge tech platforms. Which obviously deters the truth about the covid vaccines from getting out.

Yesterday, May 24, 2021, Project Veritas uploaded a video and a post highlighting two Facebook employees that have come out against this egregious abuse of private companies’ being able to dictate what information is allowed to be seen and what should be hidden in order to support certain agendas. The aim to target the “vaccine hesitant” is just one of them.

Here is James O’Keefe discussing the leak with Fox’s Sean Hannity:

Sean Hannity: “Now let’s turn to a brand new investigative report from Project Veritas just uncovering an algorithm that reportedly could be used to target facebook’s political enemies. Now, Fox news, we’re just seeing this for the first time, but as always, we let you decide. Listen, to this.”

Whistleblower #1: “Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content, to be what they call “vaccine hesitant”, or they call it “vaccine hesitancy”. And without the user’s knowledge, they assign a score to these comments that’s called the VH score, the “vaccine hesitancy” score. And then based on that score will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment. And that narrative being, get the vaccine… the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out… as an enemy of society.

They want to build a community where everybody complies, not where people can have open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions that anybody could ever face in their life. The policy is going to keep expanding until anything can violate it.”

Sean Hannity: “Here now, is the founder and CEO, Project Veritas, James O’Keefe. Okay, there’s a lot of significance to this, and, facebook has responded. I’ll let you tell the story.”

James O’Keefe: “Thanks, Sean. We’ve had two whistleblowers within facebook, come to us and leak us these documents regarding “vaccine hesitancy”.

What does that mean? Essentially facebook has beta tested this, these algorithms, 1.5 percent of their almost 3 billion users are getting a tiered ranking system, something called “vaccine hesitancy” – tier 1 and tier 2. Tier 1 is alarmist and critical remarks about covid and the vaccine, and tier 2 is something called “indirect vaccine discouragement”.

Now what’s remarkable about these private documents that facebook has not wanted you to see, until tonight, is that tier 2 says that even if the facts are true, that you will be targeted and demoted. Your comments will be targeted and demoted, Sean. “Vaccine hesitancy” score tiering system at facebook – these whistleblowers have given Project Veritas these documents and spoken to us in the shadows. It’s a 20 minute long video online, the documents are on our website.

And Sean, after we publish this report, we reached out to facebook, they’ve actually given us a comment – I’m going to read it to you, it says, quote, facebook has responded to Project Veritas for the first time, quote, “We proactively announce this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.” So as, in response to us publishing this, they’re claiming to now make this public but we just checked, and they haven’t yet made most of these documents public, Sean.”

Sean: “Okay, do I, knowing your ammo, is there more to come in the days to come?”

James: “Yes, there’s more to come. What’s remarkable about it, is that this has been private, they don’t want you to know that they’re doing this, and this is the town square, as you all know. We’re trying to retake our town square. Governor deSantis just signed a bill in Florida; I’m in Florida today, I was with him when he did that.

But they’re (facebook) tiering users without them knowing that they’re doing it. They’re demoting your comments, deboosting you on facebook without you knowing that they’re doing that.

And they’re obviously terrified of this report because they’re actually responding to Project Veritas – before they would attack us, or ignore us. And they have this system, you can see the documents online. They clearly have a ranking system, a tiered system, Sean. The author of this report we’ve named him, Amit Bahl, is an employee at facebook, we have the document showing that he authored the report and the chain of command from him to Mark Zuckerberg.

So there’s more to come, another one tomorrow. Two whistleblowers, on the record with Project Veritas, current facebook insiders, leaking us these documents. We consider them brave heroes and we hope that there’s a legion of more insiders that follow their lead, coming public to projectveritastips@protonmail.com with this information.”

Sean: “James O’Keefe, thank you for sharing with us, we appreciate it, we’re going to follow closely.”

Here is the Project Veritas video that was uploaded yesterday featuring one of the whistleblowers who came forward to reveal facebook’s tiering system plan:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

“I have to do something.”

“When it comes time to standing up for a world, I want my children to live in, I don’t want to leave them a world to where they don’t have these liberties.”

“People aren’t allowed to have voice and yet, facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have voice.”

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it.”

“If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “We have just obtained multiple leaked documents from inside facebook, this time detailing a plan to curb, quote, “vaccine hesitancy” on a global scale. It was so concerning it brought us not one, but two whistleblowers from inside facebook who are ready to speak out on what this means for free speech and public discourse on their own platform.”

Interview with first whistleblower starts @1:00:

Whistleblower #1 (Data Center Technician):

Whistleblower #1: “Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content, to be what they call “vaccine hesitant”, or they call it “vaccine hesitancy”. And without the user’s knowledge, they assign a score to these comments that’s called the VH score, the “vaccine hesitancy” score. And then based on that score will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “Our first facebook insider is a data center technician who leaked us multiple internal documents detailing an algorithm test being run on 1.5 percent of facebook and instagram’s nearly 3.8 billion users worldwide.

The goal? To quote, “Drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy (VH) in comments”.

Whistleblower #1: “And it’s the same thing. You’ll see a lot of this difference in their public policy verses the private policy where the public policy is very vague. It’s very ambiguous. It’s designed to be questioned because it’s designed to be able to easily defend. But then if look at the private policy, it’s much, much more clear, much more specific. I think that they’re trying to make it seem like they’re not doing as much or that they’re just kind of like generalizing it, like, “Oh, well we just have some robot that just tags your post. And then, you know, we look at it.” but I think they don’t want people to know, “Oh no, we actually have something that we made specifically for vaccine hesitancy.”

So there’s a main document along with all the, all the attachments and stuff that goes with it. So basically when they write this algorithm that goes through facebook content, and it looks for certain keywords that are related to vaccination, or, you know, not getting a vaccine and stuff like that. And it gives it a score. And the VH score means vaccine hesitancy, which is defined as being hesitant to get a vaccine, but not just like, “Well, I don’t know.” It’s even, “Well, I saw a study that said that someone died that got the vaccine.” That’s vaccine hesitancy.”

James O’Keefe: “So this is a beta test. This is all a beta test.”

Whistleblower #1: “Right, right.”

James: “And how big is this beta test?”

Whistleblower #1: “They refer to the test size as 1.5%. I’m not exactly sure which pool that pulls from, but I think it’s comments on authoritative health pages.”

James: “You seem to think that they’ve already ruled this out. Why do we believe they’ve already ruled this out?”

Whistleblower #1: “In one slideshow that they have, they call it their weekly progress tracker. They actually lay all this out in a chart and you can see it, you can look at the slides, they go by date. So we’ve got here – Covid-19 Vaccine Safety and Efficacy “Global”, “Currently Global” 13 languages, facebook plus instagram. All C-19 Vaccine [Global], “Currently Global” 66 languages. And the very first thing that brought me to the conclusion that they’re wanting to do this globally is they were developing it in like, you know, as many languages as they can get their hands on.”

James: “So this is like a product launch, almost?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes. Yeah, in their last quarterly report, they reported 2.79 billion people on Earth use some kind of facebook app.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “Who’s behind this new algorithm policy? Well, one thing is for sure, the authors of this experiment Joo Ho Yeo, Nick Gibian, Hendrick Townley, Amit Bahl, and Matt Gilles are not low-level employees. In fact, one of the internal documents Project Veritas obtained was a facebook flow chart that showed they’re only a few clicks away from Mark Zuckerberg, himself.”

James: “Who makes these decisions?”

Whistleblower #1: “These are teams at facebook and they call themselves, they work with what they call B2V “Barriers to Vaccination”. So that’s one of their core terms – is Barriers to Vaccination. And then the people on these teams, they call them Health Integrity Teams. So there’s a Health Integrity Team for messenger, there’s a Health Integrity Team for every system that facebook has.”

James: “An integrity team?”

Whistleblower #1: “Right.”

James: “Is it came about after March 2020 – covid?”

Whistleblower #1: “No.”

James: “This is something that’s existed?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes. Yes.”

James: “So, the Health Integrity Teams, and Barrier to Vaccination Teams at facebook.”

Whistleblower #1: “So this here, Amit Bahl, he is a Research Scientist for the Core Data Science Team at facebook. He also works in Health Integrity. Everyone who works on this project works in Health Integrity. Hendrick Townley, this is the experiment launch post, as you can see, this is on April 16th. This is 2021. That why there’s no year there. Cause it’s this year. And Hendrick Townley is one of the Software Engineers that worked on this. There were – I think it was him and two other software engineers. And then Amit Bahl wrote the actual classifier itself. I don’t – I’m sure he had like a team of developers, but he is considered the one who wrote it. Amit Bahl, and then as you go up, it’s like his boss, boss’s boss. Boss’s boss’s boss.”

James: “So Amit Bahl works for Udi Weinsberg, who works for Nicolas Stier – do I have that correct?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”

James: “And that person works for Danny Ferrante, and that person works for Javier Olivan, and Javier Olivan reports directly to Mark Zuckerberg.”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”

James: “So this is a chain that goes all the way down to Amit Bahl.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “This kind of censorship sounds similar to shadowbanning – when users are unaware their posts can’t be seen. A term one of our own investigations coined when exposing twitter, just a few years ago. But this time, we’re exposing facebook and instagram’s methods to quash an entire side of a conversation. Arguably, one of the most pressing issues of the day.”

James: “According to these documents, facebook tiers users, 0 to 5, and a score of 0 to 1. Can you talk a little bit about this tier system?”

Whistleblower #1: “Oh yeah. So basically this is what they’re using to structure how, how they’re going to judge this content on, on a scale to how vaccine hesitant it actually is, or if it’s explicitly discouraging. In my opinion, the main reason why they built this as was for the human, what they call “raters” so that they can use this as a reference when they, so if the algorithm can’t make a decision on a certain post, it’ll send it to a human rater and then the human rater looks at it and they will make a decision on whether or not it’s vaccine hesitant or not.”

James: “So we have tier 2 – Indirect Discouragement. What happens when you are a tier 2?”

Whistleblower #1: “So basically your comment is going to be suppressed. As to the scale of that suppression, it’s hard to say, we would have to look at it like a case by case basis. But what they’re saying is it’s going to get, they call it a position change – on some of these comments, you can see, it’ll say position change: seven. And I’m not sure whether the seven refers to like a 7% or if it’s just like seven positions down in the comment chains.”

James: “So it’s suppressed?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”

James: “But we don’t know the extent of this suppression?”

Whistleblower #1: “Right.”

James: “And we’ve heard “shadowban”, we’ve heard “deboost”, I have not heard “position change”.

James O’Keefe (narrating): “Facebook has not been shy about combating “vaccine hesitancy” as reported in their own press release stated May 11 of this year. However, what they say publicly in their own policy doesn’t scratch the surface of what is written in these internal leaked documents. By the facebook whistleblower.”

James: “If I read this correctly, facebook is saying it doesn’t matter if the story is true, so long as it doesn’t cause people to hesitate getting the vaccine? What’s your read on this?”

Whistleblower #1: ” ‘The Borderline Vaccine Framework – Shocking Stories: Potentially, or actually true events or facts that can raise safety concerns.’ “

James: “That post was done by a user. And they’ve taken a screenshot and observed it for the tier system.”

Whistleblower #1: “Right. Yeah.”

James: “What about this gives them alarm?”

Whistleblower #1: ” ‘How is this not scary?’ That would be considered indirect discouragement.”

James: “Indirect discouragement. Which would be considered tier 2.”

Whistleblower #1: “Right.”

James: “So this is an example of indirect discouragement of the vaccine.”

Whistleblower #1: “Yeah. Questioning the vaccine, questioning anything involving the vaccine.”

James: “And this was then demoted.”

Whistleblower #1: “Yeah.”

James: “So this is another example of tier 2 indirect discouragement – why don’t you tell us why this would be indirect discouragement, according to facebook.”

Whistleblower #1: “So this would be considered “vaccine hesitant” because they don’t want people to see someone had a bad effect. They’re not saying, “Don’t get the vaccine,” but they’re saying, “Look at all this negative stuff that happened after I got the vaccine.”

James: “Okay, they’re reporting facts, but truth doesn’t matter.”

Whistleblower #1: “No, because it doesn’t match the narrative. So, and the narrative being: Get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out… as an enemy of society.

So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It looks like they’re measuring the comments where they’re mentioning, you know, that the patient died.”

James: “So is VAERS a CDC supported program?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes, I think so. Really they support all of this because you know, they released the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that facebook is basing their policy off of is, well, if you looked at their public policy, it would be according to the authoritative health pages.”

James: “So they are open about the fact that they essentially coordinate with the CDC, here.”

Whistleblower #1: “Of course.”

James: “From the internal document, ‘Content pointing to the Vaccine Adverse Effects [Events] Reporting System data that suggest extreme risks without providing full context’ – full context… What do they mean by that?”

Whistleblower #1: “I think so, like in the previous comments, like she said, “Oh, during this study 653 people died” and then they don’t put the rest of the study in there. It’s like, okay, so you want me to write like a 10-page comment? What’s full context? Another ambiguous term. If they saw a study from someone they didn’t like, would they say, “Well, that’s not the full context because ABCDEFG.”

James: “Ultimately it seems like any facts that escape a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned…”

Whistleblower #1: “Absolutely. Yes.”

James: “Considered dangerous to society.”

Whistleblower #1: “Suppressed in any way possible.”

James: “Where do you think this is headed? Does it get worse from here?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”

James: “How so?”

Whistleblower #1: “I think people accept it and they see people like twitter, facebook, google, and stuff like that, they see that this is accepted by the public and then they go, that’s like a green light to be like, “Oh, well we can go ahead and do this more.” So not only are we going to start doing vaccines stuff, we’re going to spread it to everything. So we’re going to start saying, “Oh if you make a post that could put somebody in danger or it could compromise someone’s safety,” whatever that means, “then we’re going to go ahead and look at that and assign that a score of some unknown classifier.” Who knows what it could be. They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it. And when you’re scrolling on your phone, I think they’re afraid of what people would conclude.”

James: “Tell me they don’t think about the underlying value.”

Whistleblower #1: “Yeah. Or what could, what it could turn into: the slippery slope.”

James: “They’re not even thinking about that.”

Whistleblower #1: “Nope.”

James: “And do you think there’s a lot of people inside facebook that agree with you or some percentage? What would you estimate that number of people to be?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes. I would say at least 25%.”

James: “So you’re telling me, that 25% of the people there, agree that what they’re doing with this vaccine hesitancy coding and algorithms, is morally wrong?”

Whistleblower #1: “Yes. That would not surprise me at all. The policy is going to keep expanding until anything can violate it. What would happen if this was scaled larger and scaled to twitter and the internet as a whole is way worse than anything that could happen from me getting fired from my job. To me, that, it far outweighs that. Because it’s about more than me. It’s about really everyone in the world.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “It’s clear this facebook insider is not alone in his concerns of facebook’s new policy that would promote discourse on vaccines in general. As a matter of fact, the next insider you’re about to meet, felt so compelled to come forward, he goes so far as to compare the new policy to an abusive relationship.”

Interviewer with second whistleblower starts @11:58:

Whistleblower #2 (Data Center Engineer):

James: “What do you do at facebook?”

Whistleblower #2: “I’m a data center engineer.

I’d say that in a sense it’s prohibiting people from being able to have an open dialogue about issues that affect their personal security. Some of these things, the questions, the comments that are being presented, you know, are from people that have concerns about their personal health or their personal security being affected. It’s kind of like having a relationship with somebody that’s controlling and abusive in a sense like an abusive partner, not allowing their spouse to speak out about the things that are going on in their marriage or their relationship and limiting their voice. It’s very damaging from that sense. You know, if you think about this logically, it just, you know, it’s very incriminating in my opinion.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “Just months ago, the same insider leaked us a tape of Mark Zuckerberg privately speaking to his team last July, showcasing his own vaccine hesitancy when talking about covid.”

Inside clip of Mark Zuckerberg on July 16, 2020: “I just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “Today, his own words would violate their new public policy.”

James: “You were the source who brought us the Mark Zuckerberg vaccine footage from July 2020, is that correct?”

Whistleblower #2: “That’s correct.”

James: “Zuckerberg seemed to change his mind – evolve on the issue of vaccine, and the facebook policy itself would have prevented Zuckerberg from saying what it is he had said just a few months ago. Pretty crazy!

What prompted you to give that footage to Project Veritas?”

Whistleblower #2: “Well, based on my own knowledge and research of, you know, the adverse effects and the potential side effects of vaccines of any medication really. So I think it’s important for people to be understanding of the – of those facts. We’re able to have these conversations at work with our, with our coworkers about our medical decisions. And we do. We have them, you know, frequently.

Why is it okay for us to have these conversations at work as adults and not have somebody step in and say, “Hey, you need to stop talking about that and you shouldn’t talk about that. You’re not allowed to talk about – that’s ‘fact-checked’. That’s false.”

Occasionally people do, in the conversation, but, but we’re allowed to have open dialogue. And, and here – “

James: “You’re saying that you can have these conversations at the water cooler and office – “

Whistleblower #2: “Absolutely. Even in the midst of the office.”

James: “In the midst of the office?”

Whistleblower #2: “Yes.”

James: “At facebook, the location, facebook, but you’re not allowed to go onto facebook and write this stuff.”

Whistleblower #2: “No.”

James: “That’s ironic.”

Whistleblower #2: “It is very ironic.”

James: “What is your message to Mr. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is certainly watching this video?”

Whistleblower #2: “I would ask, you said that you support freedom of expression. My question to you is, why, in a sense, you don’t support freedom of expression in the most basic sense, that’s available to all people everywhere: which is to exist as God created them – without any interference or intrusion by any corporation or government to exist as they are? And why push a narrative that it’s not okay for people to go ahead and exist to express themselves as God’s creation, without taking a vaccine? Why is there this push to suppress that ideology?”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “This insider’s biggest concern is facebook building a quote, “community of compliance”, unquote. And feels the topic may go beyond the authority of Zuckerberg himself.”

Whistleblower #2: “It’s the platform that they want to build. It’s the community that they want to build. They want to build a community where everybody complies, not where people can have open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions that anybody could ever face in their life, which regarding their own body, their own health.”

James: “And based upon your position, and what you’ve seen, and your role at facebook, why do they want people to comply? Why is that the culture at facebook?”

Whistleblower #2: “For the promotion of a society that is focused on medical progress in a sense or medical, you know, medical experimentation.”

James: “What is facebook doing to promote covid vaccines to its billions of users?”

Whistleblower #2: “Specifically encouraging people to post, you know, to take on the profile frame for showing that they’ve been vaccinated and to promote in a sense, solidarity amongst other people that have taken the vaccine and encourage users to also go and get the vaccine. It’s interesting that they would, you know, encourage one side, but not allow the other side to speak of, you know, why they wouldn’t be making the decision to get a vaccine. There’s no solidarity, there’s no opportunity to be united around that. It’s just basically: Get the vaccine or feel left out.

You know, people aren’t allowed to have voice and yet, you know, facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have voice. And, you know, as stated before, you know, have a voice about the most important decisions anyone has to face in their life is pretty important and it’s shocking and disturbing really to see people that are willing to go to the lengths of limiting those discussions around the world, you know, for things that, that concern people’s own personal security.

I almost feel like there’s, there’s outside sources pressuring Mark, or could be, I’m not saying that’s a fact, but you know, it does make me concerned. And, and you look at the video with Fauci and, you know, Mark discussing it, Mark doesn’t seem too pleased with you know, the fact that he had to bring it up. It’s almost like he was, you know, he had to mention it.”

James O’Keefe (narrating): “These two brave insiders know, that they risk it all standing against facebook – one of the most powerful institutions of the day. Yet, they are still putting it all on the line in order to preserve our liberties.”

Whistleblower #2: “I think that’s also the main reason why people don’t want to come out with it, because what if I, you know, I have, I had two kids, I have my wife and if I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”

James: “And the people who may do what you did, next, but they’re not sure if they should do it, what’s your message to those people?”

Whistleblower #2: “I would say, go ahead and do it. And I – and then just think about what I said. There’s a lot of blowback to telling the truth. And that’s true, as far as human history is concerned. And yeah, you are going to receive blowback, but just weigh, weigh it out.

Can you live with yourself for the rest of your life if you work at facebook and you knew about this? Especially if it came out later and you’re like, “Man, I saw that so many times. I could have said something and I didn’t.” How are you going to feel about that? That’s my thing. My morality. I have to show somebody this because at least, even if nothing were to come of this, and for some reason everything was scrapped, I would still think that it, that it was worth it. Cause I’m like, well, at least I tried, I tried to show somebody this.”

James: “It’s almost like you’re saying that your desire to follow your conscience outweighs any potential risk there might be to you. Doing this.”

Whistleblower #2: “Yes. Yes.”

James: “What is your message to those people? That are watching this who agree with you inside facebook?”

Whistleblower #2: “I would say that you’re not alone. The biggest thing with social media, that we’ve seen throughout the years is that ranking people’s comments, their posts, even, even like news media, there’s this view that tries to make you think that you’re alone in this and that you’re not the majority. And even people that say that they agree with internally, they deal with struggles. Internally, they question things. It’s just that they’re not able to overcome that, that cognitive dissonance that sits in and they resort to what is safe. It’s easier to comply with things than it is to come forward and say, “This is wrong.” Or to really awaken to understanding that the way you’re being treated or the way other people are being treated is wrong.

And so that’s challenging, but know that you’re not alone. And that if you do come forward and you do speak up that you can live peacefully, knowing that you did the right thing, no matter what. And that’s encouraging, not just to other people, but it’s also encouraging to yourself. It’s an – and it won’t make you feel as alone anymore.”

James: “That’s very profound, I think.”

Whistleblower #2: “I’m a father. So, you know, obviously like I fear for my family, for my children’s safety. And, but I also understand that I have to, as I told, you know, my wife, I have to do something. You know, when it comes time to standing up for a world I want my children to live in, I don’t want to leave them a world to where they don’t have these liberties, these personal securities to where they can willingly make their own medical decisions between them, their doctor, and, those that are closest to them. That’s not something I can live in. That’s not something I could do. And it came down to the point where I had to make a decision to do what was right.”

After Project Veritas received the leaked documents, a team member from PV reached out to facebook for a response. Mario Balaban contacted a spokesperson to address a couple of questions about the “vaccine hesitancy” policy.

Rather than answering the questions, a facebook spokesperson responded with this line, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”

As of this moment, there is no indication that they have updated their policies regarding this information, and they did not respond back when Project Veritas requested a follow-up to answer the questions directed to them from the original email.

For more information and images of the documents that were leaked from the insiders, please visit Project Veritas’s website at:

Thank you to James O’Keefe and the Project Veritas team for going to such incredible lengths to get the Truth out to the public. Your hard work and dedication to these efforts are sincerely appreciated!

And a HUGE thank you to the brave individuals who have spoken out against these oppressive establishments and who are helping to expose the corruption within. Your honesty and integrity is greatly needed in these uncertain times.

Thank you!

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image (slight alterations have been added – original artist created the “f” used in the image and not the addition of words) by kropekk_pl from Pixabay

Get an Earful

DARPA BRAIN Initiative – Inhumane Experimentations Using Fusion Centers and Electromagnetic Fields to Control & Torture People - "If they want to experiment on you, by the thousands, they will. And you can be driven to insanity and death"
The “FEW” Involved in the “WEF” | Davos and the Purloined Letter Conspiracy. Klaus Schwab’s “Global Leaders of Tomorrow” - "A conspiracy like this could never happen because 'too many people would be involved'." ...
Senator Ron Johnson’s “A Second Opinion” Panel: Renowned Doctors and Medical Experts Discuss Medical Tyranny and Vaccine Injuries/Deaths (Highlight Video – FULL TRANSCRIPT) - Dr. Pierre Kory: "And that’s what I wanted us to be clear that we’re calling attention to today. This is corruption! Plain and simple, it’s corruption!”