Elite’s Depopulation Agenda Is Now Irrefutable | “This [Covid-19] vaccine is the biggest risk to humanity and the biggest risk to genocide in the history of humanity.”

62% of Charles Hoffe’s First Nations patients experienced permanent blood clot damage after “COVID vaccine”.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Joachim Hagopian (October 10, 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

By now – October 2021 – it’s more than evident that the Big Pharma-Great Reset globalist elite are currently committing human genocide, carrying out their eugenics depopulation agenda. In spite of Big Media’s censorship blackout as complicit murderers causing misinformed, lied to hundreds of thousands of innocent victims to die from the killer vaccines already, in response scores of leading medical doctors, expert scientists and insider whistleblowers at great risk to themselves have been shouting from rooftops to sound the apocalyptic alarm.

Early on during the vaccine rollout, last February 2021 Dr. Sherry Tenpenny accurately predicted that by May through August, thousands of deaths from the vaccines will be falsely blamed on the fake variants. Outspoken Dr. Carrie Medej is now speaking out against the vaccine dangers through nanotechnology and the transhumanist elements of how AI through nanoparticles in vaccines are merging with genetically modified GMO former humans.

Veteran medical vaccine whistleblower Dr. Joseph Mercola exposes the “medical reset” within Klaus Schwab’s NWO reset. Top international cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough has been making big waves, in late August 2021 asserting that the vaccinated carry 251 times the viral load than the nonvaccinated. Dr. McCullough also promotes natural immunity and benign drugs HCQ and Ivermectin instead of the harmful vaccines, just declaring:

We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe.

Even the mRNA and DNA vaccine technology inventor, Dr. Robert Malone, MD rails against the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines as bioethically irresponsible and highly dangerous:  

We need to confront the data [and] not try to cover stuff up or hide risks.

Canadian Dr. Charles Hoffe was horrified to learn that 62% of his mostly First Nations patients experienced permanent blood clot damage after receiving their vaccine.

Below is his interview, with Laura Lynn Tylor Thompson (also available on  Rumble channel).

This week the treating physician of national presidents, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko stated in an interview:

If we follow the advice of some of the ‘global leaders,’ like Bill Gates said last year, ‘7 billion people need to be vaccinated,’ then the death rate will be over 2 billion people. So wake up! This is World War III.

The cited medical doctors above are but a handful of countless heroic physicians who’ve gone public raising their concerns and outrage. 

Renowned PhD scientists including virologists, immunologists and biochemists have also led the way, calling out the Covid-19 plandemic based on the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 Lockstep blueprint. Another Nobel prize winner for inventing the nefariously misused PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis died on the eve of the fake pandemic Wuhan outbreak after repeatedly exposing Dr. Frankenstein Fauci.

Patent and intellectual rights expert Dr. David Martin deconstructs the criminal etiology of the Covid-19 pandemic while ex-Pfizer VP chief scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon has repeatedly delivered his dire warnings:

The gene-based design makes your body manufacture virus spike protein, and we know, and we’ve known for years, that virus spike protein triggers blood clots. That’s a fundamental problem. 

Listen to Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, talking about the pandemic and the COVID vaccine.  Watch the video below.

Additionally, a growing army of Big Pharma whistleblowers have also courageously shed light on this much needed truth of what humanity is perilously facing in the coming Dark Winter months when likely millions of democide victims the world over will be shockingly laid to rest from fatal blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, multiple organ failure, cancer – all directly linked and caused by the Big Pharma non-vaccines.

Idaho board certified pathologist and diagnostics lab owner Dr. Ryan Cole has observed an unheard of 20 times increase in endometrial cancers since this year’s vaccine rollout, caused by an absence of two types of cells (helper T-cells and CD8 killer T-cells), both vital to a functioning immune system. 

This notorious pharmaceutical killing machine includes the mRNA spike protein DNA altering injections produced by Pfizer and Moderna as well as the Johnson & Johnson, UK’s AstraZeneca and China’s Sinovac.

From December 14, 2020 to September 10, 2021 the US government’s own VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) tracking mechanism reported 14,925 vaccine deaths (though a whistleblower claimed over 45,000 within 3 days from only one of nine districts).

But estimates of less than 1% of adverse injuries and deaths actually do get reported to VAERS, so a far more accurate and realistic estimate would be to multiply the reported number of deaths by 100, or on the low side, minimally multiply by 10 to account for the truer death toll estimate, that would then range from nearly 150,000 deaths.

Combine that with the EU numbers of 25,248 deaths reported over roughly the same time period till September 18, 2021, and the numbers jump to over a quarter million. Thus, it’s safe to assume that millions around the world have already died as a result of Big Pharma kill shots. And this is just the beginning.

With 81% of September’s supposed Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom among those determined to have already been vaccinated, the evidence of lethal harm caused by the non-vaccines is overwhelming. In related testimony, Ontario emergency room doctor Rochagné Kilianwho just resigned over the local draconian, anti-health Covid-19 protocols, stated recently that 80% of incoming ER patients she treated in the last month suffering from “mysterious issues were double vaxxed.” Running close behind the UK death toll is the 76% of September Covid-19 deaths reported in the US state of Vermont that also were fully vaccinated. By diabolical design, this burgeoning medical holocaust has rapidly become globalized death by injection on a massive, never before seen scale. 

Nobel prize winner for discovering the HIV virus – Dr. Luc Montagnier, recently submitted a sworn affidavit to the International Criminal Court, concluding:

This [Covid-19] vaccine is the biggest risk to humanity and the biggest risk to genocide in the history of humanity.

Governments of the world, Big Pharma and Big Media are clearly guilty. 

*

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.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

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.

Somewhat of a disclaimer: I put “may” in the title of this post to deflect direct allegations that “may” end up turning out to be false. Of course, in the world we find ourselves in, where money, power and hidden motives rule, it seems the same key players are involved, over and over again. I’d say that is no coincidence and holds incredible importance when addressing the strange situations that are occurring around us.

I also focus on the names given above because they are the most prominent figure-heads of the “health initiative” and have high-ranking positions who may also just happened to have ties with Jeffrey Epstein. Again, coincidence? I’m inclined not to think so.

Why is bringing up connections of Jeffrey Epstein to the NIH and the Human Genome Project so important?

Well, other than the obvious reasons (convicted serial pedophile and blackmail extraordinaire – along with Ghislaine Maxwell, currently under trial) are the incredibly suspicious interests that Epstein has divulged and perhaps invested in to further his goals.

Take the following, for consideration:

“- He hoped to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating women / Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies

– longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence

– Epstein discussed the financier’s interest in cryonics, an unproven science in which people’s bodies are frozen to be brought back to life in the future. Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen.

– Epstein said he was fascinated with how certain traits were passed on, and how that could result in superior humans.”

Original source: Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA
Alternative source found here: [ https://storageunit.home.blog/2020/02/17/jeffrey-epstein-hoped-to-seed-human-race-with-his-dna-at-zorro-ranch/ ]

Some studies that Jeffrey Epstein supported and sponsored are the following:

(all 4 published wholly or in part by Martin A. Nowak – “Professor of Mathematics and of Biology at Harvard University. He works on the mathematical description of evolutionary processes, including the evolution of cooperation and human language, as well as the dynamics of virus infections and human cancer” [ https://oeb.harvard.edu/people/martin-nowak ])

2006[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/ ] “Five rules for the evolution of cooperation”

“Support from the John Templeton Foundation and the NSF/NIH joint program in mathematical biology (NIH grant 1R01GM078986-01) is gratefully acknowledged. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University is sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein.”

2007[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387227/ ] “Breaking the symmetry between interaction and replacement in evolutionary dynamics on graphs”

“Support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (H.O.), the John Templeton Foundation and the NSF/NIH joint program in mathematical biology (NIH grant 1R01GM078986-01) (M.A.N.) and FCT-Portugal (J.M.P.) is gratefully acknowledged. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University is sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein.”

2008[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567469/ ] “Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution”

“This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (H.O.), the National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health joint program in mathematical biology (NIH Grant R01GM078986), and J. Epstein.”

2010[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842638/ ] “Stochastic evolutionary dynamics of direct reciprocity”

“This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation, the National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health Joint Program in Mathematical Biology (National Institutes of Health grant R01GM078986) and J. Epstein.”

Of course, the studies mentioned above are all tied into one particular grant, by the NIH, no less. And again, as a reminder, who is the head (soon to be former) of the NIH? Mr. Francis Collins (who is also known for his leadership position of the Human Genome Project), who is to step down from the NIH role at the end of the year, but yet continue his research at his lab.

And that of course ties into with Anthony Fauci as a close colleague and friend of Francis Collins, and as most of us know about Fauci, is the lead of the Coronavirus Task Force and director of the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – a branch within the NIH) – and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Mrs. Christine Grady, wife of Anthony Fauci and also Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.

But that also brings up a Mr. Eric Lander, well known for his work on the Human Genome Project, who has met Jeffrey Epstein at least twice, according to records. Does this necessarily mean that Eric Lander was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and all of the allegations and crimes he has been engaged in? Of course not. But it does set a suspicious light in regards to Jeffrey Epstein’s close relationships to other scientific researchers, who many have alleged to have known about Epstein’s interests and various fundings into these projects, not to mention his sordid history. It would appear that Jeffrey Epstein was quite a prolific (no pun intended) character in the scientific and medical community.

And it would make sense that someone with money, plus a sinister desire to populate the world with his offspring, would attempt to get close to those who could further his goals. So for multiple scientists and researchers to have a passing acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein would not be unheard of. However, this points a very specific light on those who do seem to entertain Mr. Epstein’s ideals.

And now with Mr. Eric Lander, selected by Joe Biden as the head of the Science and Technology division,

Jeffrey Epstein (left), Eric Lander (right)

it makes one wonder, to what degree would money be a motivational factor, even if ideologies differ? Would some scientists care? There would not only be excessive financial compensation, but it may also satiate a scientific curiosity of a “what if” scenario.

Then of course we have to mention Bill Gates, who isn’t necessarily a scientist or medical researcher, but who has “philanthropic” ventures into transhumanism, synthetic meat, genetically modifying products and human beings, as it is, despite what “fact-checkers” try to refute.

“Gene editing in animals or even humans raises more complicated questions of safety and ethics. In 2014, the World Health Organization issued guidelines for testing genetically modified mosquitoes, including standards for efficacy, biosafety, bioethics, and public participation. In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences built on the WHO’s guidelines with recommendations for responsible conduct in gene-drive research on animals. (The Gates Foundation co-funded this work with the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.)”

[ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-04-10/gene-editing-good?linkId=50322894 ] “Gene Editing for Good | How CRISPR Could Transform Global Development” by Bill Gates

“Gene editing in animals or even humans raises more complicated questions of safety and ethics.”

…Well, it’s a good thing Bill Gates is such good friends with Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, both of whom work in the NIH and have leadership roles; including Fauci’s wife, head of Bioethics at the NIH. Very useful and convenient, I’m sure.

And who, by several accounts, has met with Jeffrey Epstein not once, not twice, but NUMEROUS times.

“In fact, beginning in 2011, Mr. Gates met with Mr. Epstein on numerous occasions — including at least three times at Mr. Epstein’s palatial Manhattan townhouse, and at least once staying late into the night, according to interviews with more than a dozen people familiar with the relationship, as well as documents reviewed by The New York Times.”

Bill Gates (left), Francis Collins (middle), Anthony Fauci (right) – Source: nih.gov

Now, of course we can’t claim “guilty by association”, right? But what about when the individuals/institutions listed above have direct funding and sponsorships from Jeffrey Epstein and sit on the Board of Directors of these very organizations? Can they claim plausible deniability?

“Even though Epstein did not donate to PED or Harvard after 2007, he played an “indirect but significant role” in facilitating a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to PED in 2015.”

Epstein, Martin Nowak, Eric Lander, MIT and a very sinister genome project tied to the Covid test

“Epstein had suggested at one point that the John Templeton Foundation could match any donations dollar for dollar. Unfortunately for Ito and Epstein, a spokesperson for the Foundation could find no record of Epstein’s plan, and provided no funding, according to Farrow.”

MIT’s Media Lab Director Resigns From NYT Company Board After Pocketing Millions In ‘Anonymous’ Epstein Donations

Although these two statements seem to contradict each other, and the fact that Jeffrey Epstein is mentioned as a sponsor on Martin A. Nowak’s published studies (unless we are to conclude that Mr. Nowak is lying about his sponsorships; though in light of multiple various sources agreeing that this was a huge interest of Epstein, and with proof of various meetings with those in higher positions, the supposition that Mr. Nowak is lying is highly unlikely), we can’t ignore the fact that anonymous donors and facilitators were likely happening, especially when groups/foundations involved knew what kind of detrimental publicity would arise from a known connection with this infamous criminal.

Continuing on with the John Templeton Foundation, who named Francis Collins as the recipient of the 2020 Templeton Award, and who was involved in the very studies that Jeffrey Epstein sponsored and funded, according to the ncbi/pubmed articles listed above (of which were also supported by a NIH grant, I should add) also sponsors BioLogos, a “Christian” outlet founded by Francis Collins who is eager to combine science and religion together. Make no mistake, the material exposed on the BioLogos site is meant to lead Christians astray; with many articles a propaganda piece to influence and convince Christians that getting the vaccine is for the betterment of humankind.

But again, this still raises the issue that even if Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci aren’t directly involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates is, and seems to be a very significant one at that. With such financial sway and investments, including funding and sponsorships of numerous organizations, largely of which consist of pharmaceutical companies that just so happen to be insisting that everyone on the planet needs to take these mRNA/DNA “vaccines” – and when researching their possible involvement in CRISPR technology as well – this sets a very alarming precedence on who’s really in charge of our health system.

So again, why is it such a concern that the heads of the National Institutes of Health, and the heads of the Human Genome Projects, and prominent scientists/researchers, and professors at acclaimed universities, and billionaire philanthropists who have a vested interest in CRISPR/gene editing technology, have such business (and perhaps personal) ties and gains related to a man who wanted to populate the world with his seed and went so far as developing a “breeding ranch” and funded studies devoted to human evolution?

The answer speaks for itself, honestly.

Now, with all of Epstein’s connections and influence, not to mention all of his funding of numerous projects, are we to really believe that those involved with his projects have the best interest of humankind at heart? The same people, mind you, who are directly involved with pushing a “COVID vaccine” on the WHOLE WORLD?

And are we to really believe that the Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, and Eric Lander, a very prominent figure in the scientific community, including at Harvard and MIT:

“An influential geneticist, molecular biologist, and mathematician, Dr. Lander has won many awards and recognitions for his work in mapping and discovering the human genome. Among other former positions, Dr. Lander was a leader in the international Human Genome Project (1990-2003) and served as co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) for President Barack Obama (2009-2017). He was a professor of biology at MIT, professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School, and President and Founding Director of the Board Institute at MIT and Harvard before going on leave in 2021 to serve at the White House.”

[ https://chinaus-icas.org/biden-administration-international-affairs-personnel-tracker/biden-personnel-tracker-climate-health-and-technology/eric-lander-presidential-science-advisor-director-of-the-ostp/ ]

had NO idea about Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement in these studies, supported by the very same institutions they oversee? This either speaks to their complicity, or their ineptitude in directing these organizations. Is this an unfair assessment? Does it instead speak of the inherent flaws (or perhaps strengths, depending on who’s looking at it) of compartmentalization and the excessive ways it can get out of control without proper supervision? But this would ultimately ignore the very real dilemma of bribery, coercion, threats and blackmail – of which Mr. Jeffrey Epstein seems to have been adept in and the center of in various circles.

With credentials such as boasting of sponsoring scientific giants, some of which have won the Nobel Prize:

“The Foundation has also had the priviledge of sponsoring many prominent scientists including Gerald Edelman, Murray Gell-Mann, Eric Lander, George Church, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Marvin Minsky, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin and Gregory Benford and Nobel laureates, Gerard ‘t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek.” – Web archive: Jeffrey Epstein Ideas Forum

we have to ask ourselves, why would Jeffrey Epstein lie about Eric Lander, out of everyone? Are we sure he embellished his sponsorships, as multiple articles claim? Or is perhaps the person who has been chosen as President Joe Biden’s top Science Advisor and Director of OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) denying such claims in order to preserve his own reputation? In the same sense, wouldn’t a person selected for such a prestigious title undergo a stringent selective process, including investigations of past connections and potential involvement in secret programs?

That is, of course, if the presidential/government committees aren’t involved in it themselves…

One last note: am I saying that Jeffrey Epstein was the mastermind behind these nefarious ideas? No. I think there were individuals above him who were directing where these studies and blackmailing efforts were going and who keep themselves largely hidden from the public eye; and who, in my opinion, may have supplied Epstein’s budget. There may also have been connections with certain alphabet agencies involved in these schemes, although these suspicions remain to be substantiated.

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 Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Get an Earful

Does the PCR Test Affect the Pineal Gland? Humans and “Transhumans”. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger - "- vaccinating has nothing to do with protecting human health, but all to do with subjugating humanity to a bioweapon"
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.

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