Studies PROVE That Live Parasites and Parasite Proteins Are Being Used/Tested in Vaccines | Are Parasites the Cause of ALL Illnesses?

At least 650,000 – 800,000 CHILDREN have been injected with a malaria vaccine to test its efficacy.

After investigating parasitic like organisms possibly being used in vaccines – I realized, these studies have been conducted for a LONG TIME. And who knows for how long?

It is a true, real, honest-to-badness endeavor.

Now, a lot of scientists/doctors/virologists/biologists may already know all of this and see nothing wrong with it. I, however, an innocent researcher, never knew that this was a real agenda all in the sake of “curing” people from… well, parasites.

I know. It doesn’t make sense to me – why inoculate someone with parasites, if they are trying to prevent them from the very same parasite they’re being inoculated with?

It reminds me of the flu/COVID shots, actually. Why deliberately inoculate someone with a virus that you’re trying to prevent/immunize them from getting? Especially if they have a chance of acquiring it naturally and producing the more beneficial ‘natural immunity’? Perhaps I just don’t understand the “science”. Or perhaps “science” as we’re being taught to believe it, is full of holes and hidden motives.

Or perhaps, what started out as a benevolent effort to help humankind, became corrupted and twisted into a sinister agenda to perform horrific experimentation on the whole population.

I can’t give you the definitive answer to that. I don’t believe that all scientists are corrupt and have hidden agendas. But I do believe that some do. And I do believe that those “world leaders” and scientists bent on transhumanism/genetic modifications/immortality (for their own people)/depopulation-slavery(for everyone else), has hijacked the scientific/medical/health communities, and are initiating their own forms of control and influence to initiate their “great reset”, which is another way of saying “reset the human race”.

So I shouldn’t have been shocked and surprised to learn that studies of “live parasites” in vaccines is a real thing. I’m not saying they’re used in ALL vaccines, but they are certainly being used in some.

“In a one-two punch, a malaria vaccine in development pairs a shot of the live parasite that causes the disease with a whammy of infection-fighting drugs to immediately quell it.”A malaria vaccine with live parasites shows promise in a small trial

Sure, Jan.

From the same article:

“Adrian Hill, a vaccinologist at the University of Oxford and director of the Jenner Institute who is involved with the R21 malaria vaccine: “If you give people [in Africa] a whopping dose of malaria and then for any reason that drug is expired or it isn’t the right drug or they took it too late — who’s going to take responsibility for that?”A malaria vaccine with live parasites shows promise in a small trial

Another article, unironically on the same date (June 30, 2021) as the previous one, states the following:

“Participants in the study, published on 30 June in Nature1, were given a shot containing live Plasmodium falciparum parasites, along with drugs to kill any parasites that reached the liver or bloodstream, where they can cause malaria symptoms. Participants were then intentionally infected with malaria three months later to test the vaccine’s efficacy.”

“Several malaria vaccines are in development. The most advanced — RTS,S — has been given to more than 650,000 children as part of a pilot programme in three African countries to assess its safety and efficacy, as well as the logistics of rolling it out.

Another vaccine, called R21, was recently shown to be up to 77% effective in a trial of 450 young children, and a larger study is under way.

Both of these use the same malaria protein, called circumsporozoite protein, to trigger immune responses. That protein decorates the outside of the sporozoite form of the parasite, the stage in its life cycle when it first enters the human body from the salivary glands of infected mosquitoes.

Vaccine made of live malaria parasites shows early success

So let me get this straight… They are trying to combat malaria, by pumping you full of live parasites that causes malaria, in order to cure/immunize against… malaria…?

Does this make sense to anyone? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to use, say, a highly efficacious anti-parasitic drug – like, oh… I don’t know… Ivermectin, perhaps, if/when a parasitic infestation occurs?

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31948767/ ] “Ivermectin as a novel complementary malaria control tool to reduce incidence and prevalence: a modelling study”

Why deliberately inundate someone with parasites just to “possibly” immunize them from the very same thing? Then that leaves the very real dilemma… what if the immunization doesn’t work, and you’re left with a body full of parasites? Does anyone really want to take this chance? I can understand testing the correct dosage of Ivermectin to combat the amount of parasitic infestation, but no – it’s “Jump right to vaccines! Even though we don’t know if this will work either, let’s just go ahead and infect hundreds of thousands of innocent lives with live parasites and/or parasite proteins! What could possibly go wrong?”

And how HORRIFIC to be testing vaccines on children! Regardless if the vaccine has a live parasite or if it’s a protein from the parasite that HELPS them get infected… it is still an outrageous proposal to deliberately inoculate them and TEST the vaccine on them! And then are we to conclude that they are going to be deliberately infected with malaria (more parasites) to test the vaccine efficacy in later weeks/months?

650,000 babies and children?! Are you kidding me? In what world is this okay? This is outrageous and should automatically be labeled a crime against humanity. Maybe they wouldn’t be infested with malaria if they weren’t INTENTIONALLY INJECTED WITH A MALARIA VACCINE to begin with. All in the supposed “proposed” hope of “curing” them from malaria? Am I the only one who finds this absolutely ridiculous and atrocious? How about we stop experimenting on human lives and parasites to begin with? Perhaps if mad scientists weren’t genetically modifying everything under the sun, we wouldn’t be having these issues.

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29077880/ ] “Repetitive sequences in malaria parasite proteins”:

“Five species of parasite cause malaria in humans with the most severe disease caused by Plasmodium falciparum.

We discuss the diverse roles of low-complexity repetitive sequences throughout the parasite life cycle, from mediating protein-protein interactions to enabling the parasite to evade the host immune system.”

Now why would they want to enable the parasite to evade the host immune system…?

And going back to Ivermectin, touted a “wonder drug” (which is also used as a prophylactic treatment), is there something to be said for an anti-parasitic drug that not only works against parasites, but also works wonders on SEVERAL different ailments? Or… could it be possible that all ailments are caused by parasites?

Blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, encephalitis, lung disease, pneumonia, kidney issues, gout, lupus, etc., etc., etc., etc. A few examples that help lend credence to this theory are presented below (embellishments have been added for emphasis):

Arthritis:

[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003687/ ] “Toxoplasmosis seroprevalence in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis”:

“Toxoplasmosis is a cosmopolitan infection caused by an intracellular obligatory protozoan, Toxoplasma gondii. Infection to this parasite in immunocompetent patients is usually asymptomatic, but today it is believed that the infection can be a risk factor for a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA is an autoimmune disease and the most common type of inflammatory arthritis that is a major cause of disability.”

Blood Clots:

[ https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200413/Study-looks-into-how-malaria-parasite-evades-the-immune-system.aspx ] “Study looks into how malaria parasite evades the immune system”:

The parasite causing the most severe form of human malaria uses proteins to make red blood cells sticky, making it harder for the immune system to destroy it and leading to potentially fatal blood clots. New research at the Crick has identified how the parasite may control this process.”

Central Nervous System Disorders:

[ https://www.verywellhealth.com/parasitic-infections-of-the-central-nervous-system-2488670 ] “Parasitic Infections of the Central Nervous System”:

“Trypanosomiasis, also called sleeping sickness, is caused by the protozoan parasites Trypanosoma brucei gambiense or Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense. Like malaria, the parasite is spread by an insect host.

 

After a period of time, sometimes years, the parasite spreads from the blood to the brain, leading to meningoencephalitis and swelling. A headache, difficulty thinking, personality changes, and movement disorders such as tremor or ataxia (lack of coordination) can result.

Heart Attack / Myocardium / Pericardium:

[ https://heart.bmj.com/content/103/9/651 ] “Cardiac manifestations of parasitic diseases”:

The heart may be affected directly or indirectly by a variety of protozoa and helminths. This involvement may manifest in different ways, but the syndromes resulting from impairment of the myocardium and pericardium are the most frequent. The myocardium may be invaded by parasites that trigger local inflammatory response with subsequent myocarditis or cardiomyopathy

Pneumonia

[ https://thorax.bmj.com/content/66/6/528 ] “Parasitic infections of the lung: a guide for the respiratory physician”:

“Parasitic infections of the lung occur worldwide among both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients and may affect the respiratory system in a variety of ways. This review provides an update on the presenting symptoms, signs, investigation and management of diseases affecting the lung caused by protozoa, nematodes and trematodes. The clinical presentations and radiographic findings of several of these diseases may mimic tuberculosis and malignancy. It is important to consider parasitic infections in the differential diagnosis of such lung diseases. If identified early, most parasitic diseases that affect the lung are curable with medical or surgical treatments.”

Seizures & Strokes (Gastrointestinal Complications)

[ https://www.verywellhealth.com/parasitic-infections-of-the-central-nervous-system-2488670 ] “Parasitic Infections of the Central Nervous System”:

“Paragonimiasis is a parasitic infection with a flatworm which may enter the body through eating undercooked crab or crayfish. It is rare in the United States, though several cases have been reported in the Midwest. Most commonly it is found in East Asian countries.

The parasite does not often affect the central nervous system but the parasite may reach the brain either through the bloodstream or through the foramina at the base of the skull. The adult form of the parasite both releases inflammatory substances and tunnels through tissues, which can result in headaches, seizures, and strokes.”

[ https://www.verywellhealth.com/symptoms-and-complications-of-chagas-disease-4163007 ] “Symptoms of Chagas Disease”:

“The symptoms of Chagas disease, an infection caused by a protozoan parasite called Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi), resemble those of the flu—at least at first. When the acute phase of the disease resolves, however, the T. cruzi parasite can persist in the body for many years, even in people who appear entirely healthy. Many years later, often after decades, a chronic form of Chagas disease can develop, producing cardiac problems, gastrointestinal problems, or both.”

The Rod of Asclepius

“The probable medical origin of this ancient Greek symbol with a snake wrapped around a staff is the ‘worm theory’ that dates back to about 1500 BC. It was a description of treatment for the parasitic Guinea worm written on papyrus, said to be among the first ancient Egyptian medical documents. Ancient physicians probably used signs with a worm on a stick to advertising the worm treatment service they offered.”The Rod of Asclepius Symbol – History And Meaning

Perhaps the reason that Ivermectin is such a potent medicine against multiple illnesses and viruses, is because every ailment is caused by one parasite or another (or a combination of them).

If that is true, it makes one wonder why Ivermectin is so highly condemned in the medical/science community. Not all of the medical/science community, of course. It only seems to be the organizations who are incredibly politically and financially charged to do so. Who also just happen to work in conjunction with the huge alphabet government agencies, as well as the big tech / big pharma, and the mainstream media.

Hm… nothing suspicious there, right? And it’s not enough that the places who suffer the most from these diseases are also the ones selected for “investigational/experimental” trials of the very vaccines supposedly touted to immunize against the disease.

Now one could say, “Well, that’s the whole point. The whole country is suffering from this awful disease. So of course they’d want to cure them from it. So they’ll be the ones getting the injections. Duh!”

However, if you really dig into the history and the motives of those doing the “curing”, you will come to realize that they have no altruistic reason for doing so (despite what they say) and instead these “philanthropists” end up making BILLIONS of dollars for doing so. To add onto that, the REAL stories of painful and horrific side effects and deaths caused by these vaccines go mainly unheard of – kind of like how those who have taken the COVID vaccine and have suffered adverse side events are being censored and banned and IGNORED in the mainstream media and in hospitals worldwide. Their accounts also largely being wiped out from big tech platforms.

Now doesn’t it make you wonder, if they can wipe out all of these accounts and silence this awful widespread detrimental effects of the COVID vaccines, can you imagine how many MORE victims of vaccines that were touted as “miraculous cures” (just like the COVID vaccine…) that were inoculated in other countries, never got a chance to tell their stories? Since most of them were from poorly developed countries, and have a different language from the English speaking community, and don’t have common access to the internet… The only story we hear are the ones doing the vaccinating. And of course, according to them, it’s going “fabulously”.

So do you really believe that a known eugenicist, whose father worked with developing Planned Parenthood – the founder who was Margaret Sanger, who outrightly declared her desire to “wipe out the unfit” – that ranged from anyone who was poor, useless eater, African-American, mentally ill, disabled… do you really believe that this BILLIONAIRE, whose history is also connected with Jeffrey Epstein – a convicted child predator/child-trafficker – actually CARES about the human race so much to cure them all with a vaccine?

Bill Gates / United Nations

I smell a

Or, in the case of this post, a parasite.

And again you have to wonder, if Ivermectin is highly effective against parasites and cures many ailments… and the COVID vaccines (and other vaccines) have live parasites in them… then what is the real reason for the high suppression and smear campaign against using Ivermectin? So much so, that it has been banned in many places and some doctors ARRESTED and/or threatened with legal action and a revoke on their license for prescribing it to their patients, although it has been on the market FOR YEARS and approved as a safe medicine?…

Well, I leave that for you to contemplate.

For additional reading:

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778323/ ] “Genetically modified live attenuated parasites as vaccines for leishmaniasis”
[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30295650/ ] “CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing to Make Conditional Mutants of Human Malaria Parasite P. falciparum”
[ https://newatlas.com/science/crispr-gene-edited-parasite-leishmaniasis-vaccine/ ] “CRISPR-gene-edited parasite leads to unique new vaccine”
[ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/malaria-vaccine-approved-by-world-health-organization/ ] “Malaria Vaccine—the First Ever to Immunize against a Parasitic Infection—Gets Green Light from WHO”

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 by Jeremytitus from Pixabay (with slight alteration)

Get an Earful

BOMBSHELL: Pfizer whistleblower says vaccine ‘glows,’ contains toxic luciferase, graphene oxide compounds [Full Transcript] - " - it is a massive test on the world, and I believe it's a way for them to know who's vaccinated because their blood will glow."
Studies PROVE That Live Parasites and Parasite Proteins Are Being Used/Tested in Vaccines | Are Parasites the Cause of ALL Illnesses? - At least 650,000 - 800,000 CHILDREN have been injected with a malaria vaccine to test its efficacy.
Shady “Business” Practices of the NIH and the Human Genome Projects May Have Ties to Jeffrey Epstein | With Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, Eric Lander, Bill Gates - Multiple health/science organizations have ties with Jeffrey Epstein. The same organizations trying to enforce mandatory vaccines.
The War on COVID-19: Man’s Final Conquest of Nature. The Great Reset Requires “Merging Humans with the Machine” - "Man's conquest of nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men."
Taking a Look Back at the 2012 Olympics London Closing Ceremony: Does it Hold Secrets to What’s Going on in the World? - The world has been blind-sided for centuries, while underhanded organizations operate behind the curtain.
VMAT2 “God Gene” Has Been Studied Extensively Throughout the Years – And is Being Used in CRISPR Studies/Vaccines - According to studies, scientists can manipulate and "tightly experimentally tune" our level of spirituality.

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

Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer Chief Scientist) Warns Pregnant Women of the Dangers of Taking The Experimental COVID Vaccine

Study on women showed “vaccine induced autoimmune attack, on their own placenta.”

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Chief Scientist and VP of the Allergy and Respiratory Unit of Pfizer, has been very outspoken in his assessment of these “vaccines”, and has called this agenda out several times for being deliberate crimes against humanity. The following video below is an explanation and warning to people – specifically for women who are pregnant or who are of child-bearing potential, to avoid these dangerous injections.

Source: bitchute | WHAT IS TRUTH?/WAS IST WAHRHEIT? |
3 THINGS WOMEN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE COVID JAB – DR. MICHAEL YEADON

The following text is transcribed from the above video with some embellishment added for emphasis. All words are from Dr. Michael Yeadon.

“You’re being lied to. I’m being lied to. We’re not being treated like adults. And the authorities are not giving us full information about the, the risks of these products. And so I’m going to try and do a non-science presentation, um, because I really want to speak to you who are probably not scientists. You’ll be a lay audience. So I’m going to do my best.

So, uh, three things to tell you about my concerns about the impact of these vaccines in reproductive health, fertility and pregnancy.

The first thing, is so obvious, that you’ll agree with me when I tell you. And that’s, we never, EVER, give experimental medicines to pregnant women. Why do we not do that? Well, you’ll probably will have heard of the word ‘thalidomide’. 60 years ago, through, I think an ignorant failure of medicines regulation, we were more exposed to a new product for morning sickness called thalidomide. And it led to at least 10,000 birth malformations. And we didn’t know at the time, that the studies they were doing at the time simply wouldn’t pick out thalidomide as the actual toxin in the womb.

And I think it also taught us that babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think. But in fact, there are a miracle of minute development, critical stages, especially in the early stages, where if they interfered with biochemicals or something else, it can change the course of development to that child irreparably.

So that’s the thing to tell you. You never ever give, really inadequately tested medicines, medicinal products, to a pregnant woman. And that’s exactly what is happening. Our government is urging pregnant women, and women of child-bearing age, to get vaccinated. And they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie. Because those studies have simply not been done.

So reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products. Certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want. So here we are, dosing potentially hundreds of millions of women of child-bearing potential, with products which are untested in terms of impacts on fertilization and development of a baby. That’s bad enough, because what that tells me is that there’s recklessness; no one cares. The authorities do not care what happens. But it’s much worse than that. And remember, I’m a toxicologist as well as a research scientist.

Two things to tell you.

The first only came to light because of a Freedom of Information request made by somebody to the Japanese medicines regulator. So the Japanese medicines regulator had required Pfizer to do a study where they looked at how the vaccine distributed around the body, in this case of a rat, over time. It’s a distribution pharmacokinetic study. And they were not required in America or Europe, because that’s not what you do with vaccines. Another – for another day. But the Japanese regulators required it.

Now I’ve seen a copy of that report, and I’m entirely able to read and interpret it. And to my horror, what we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again. Which is what you hope. It concentrates in ovaries of rats. And it concentrates, at least, twenty-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles.

Um, what’s it doing there? Well I don’t know. You don’t want this product in your ovaries. It’s simply not necessary to induce immunity to have a vaccine in your ovaries. And, as it’s concentrating in the ovaries, getting higher concentrations over time, they have not even defined what the maximum levels are or when that occurs.

So, so now we’ve got a second problem; that the vaccine, at least in rats, distributes in the ovaries. And I’ll tell you, a general rule of thumb in toxicology, is if you don’t have any data to counter contradict what you’ve learned, that’s the assumption you make for humans. So my assumption at the moment, is that’s what’s happening to every female who’s been given these vaccines. These vaccines are concentrating in her ovaries.

That’s very worrying. So we don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign. And it could be seriously harmful. Because the vaccines will then express the coronavirus spike protein and we know that there are unwanted biologies from that spike proteins. That’s the second one.

I’ve got another one now, and it’s even worse! Because it’s actually, this time an experiment in humans. In females.

I wrote with a German doctor 8 months ago, a petition to the European Medicines Agency. And amongst several concerns we had, one was that the spike protein is faintly similar, not very strongly, but faintly similar to an essential protein in your placenta. Something that’s absolutely required for both fertilization and formation and maintenance of the placenta. So you can’t get pregnant and have a successful pregnancy if this protein is damaged in any way. And we noticed that the coronavirus spike protein is similar. Similar enough that I would worry.

And I wanted them to do some experiments, hopefully to rule out the possibility that when you vaccinate the person, who then makes spike proteins, and they develop an immune response against this spike protein; my worry was that there would be an echo. You know. A faint signal that would potentially bind this similar protein in the placenta. And the studies just came out a few weeks ago and it says, exactly, what I was worried about.

15 women were given Pfizer vaccines, they drew blood samples every few days, and they measured antibodies against the spike protein; which took several weeks to appear. They also measured antibodies against the placenta. And they found within the first 1-4 days an increase of two and a half to three times – a 300% increase, in the antibodies against their own placenta. In the first 4 days. Um, so, I’m sorry to say this, but that is a vaccine induced autoimmune attack, on their own placenta.

And I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of child-bearing potential, is generating antibodies against this critical protein required for fertilization and successful pregnancy. Now, what the effect will be we can’t be certain. Again it can’t be benign. I don’t know whether it’s enough to cause first trimester losses. But I would think it would, because I’ve looked at the literature, and women who are unfortunate enough to have what are called autoimmune diseases, tend to have a higher rate of first trimester losses. And what this vaccine’s done is induced an autoimmune response.

So, I’m here to warn you that if you are of child-bearing potential, or younger – so, not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines. Thank you.”

Thank you to Dr. Michael Yeadon for bringing this awareness and research to the forefront and warning people of the potential dangers to this COVID vaccine.

I also want to point out that most vaccine trials take 10-15 years, if not more, to determine safety and efficacy. Yet with the COVID vaccine, it was developed in 2 MONTHS since word of the outbreak hit (some sources are claiming it is because of the wonderful advancements being made in tech and the “stupendous foresight of the NIH” to predict a similar outbreak would happen… if that’s what you would like to believe…) and the clinical trials started soon after. With emergency authorized use only, NOT APPROVED, 9 months later.

With this in mind, even if it becomes “approved” – in which this little caveat has caused more drama and confusion than what was necessary – are we going to still continue to trust the FDA, the CDC, NIH, NIAID on these incredibly unnecessary vaccines, when we can now see the results of this rushed mRNA/spike protein experiment? Not to mention, there are treatment regiments available that are KNOWN to treat this illness, in which the EUA would not be required since under their own regulations they state:

“Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Doctors have proven, IN COURT, that Ivermectin, an already approved medicine, works and nutraceutical bundles are beneficial in treating these respiratory syndromes. Yet they are being SUPPRESSED by the very health agencies that are promoting vaccines every where we turn, even though the vaccines are not approved and are causing thousands upon thousands of side effects and deaths.

Please do your research and use critical thinking and discernment. Doctors like Michael Yeadon get nothing from trying to save your life and help you (except censorship and ridicule from the mainstream media and big tech platforms) and shows genuine concern for our well-being. While pharmaceutical companies have gained BILLIONS from pushing these experimental vaccines onto the population.

Thank you again to all of the sincere doctors/scientists/healthcare workers/researchers who are bringing all of this information to light.