Breaking: You can now sue the mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers for damages and the FDA is required to take the COVID vaccines off the market. Why? Adulteration. The plasmid bioactive contaminant sequences were NOT pointed out to the regulatory authorities. It's considered adulteration. I just got off the phone with Professor Byram Bridle and Dr. Robert Malone on this.
Ten times that globally - reparations needed - but who has that kind of money? A long term health plan is needed to cure and treat those maimed - to reduce the bill
Thanks Peter, just read your KKingston cross-post, who was aware from the beginning of plasmid DNA being included. She asks "why did it take so long?" My take is this needed evidence in electron microscopes of 8 or 9 independent researchers to confirm pDNA was not properly removed from mfg. process. Scientists work as a pack, and she's right! she is not in that group.
The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the so-called "placebo controls" is to be ABLE to inject people with things that WILL cause some sort of reaction similar to the "test product." They LIE and say they were NOT injected with anything but "saline" of some other "inactive" substance. But they need to be ABLE to inject them with SOMETHING, otherwise the differences in outcomes will be way to severe to explain away.
"Controls" are left ALONE. There is ZERO reason to suspect that a person will DIE (get blood clots, heart attacks, anaphylactic shock, etc.) merely because of their beliefs about NOT having been injected. And there is zero evidence to suggest that a person who is injected will suddenly have massive blood clots merely because of their "beliefs" about being injected. In fact, the person who agrees to be injected would NOT have allowed it if they "believed" the injection was going to KILL them.
So now their methodology ONLY accounts for the possibility a person's BELIEFS are capable of injuring or killing them? They are unwilling to consider the possibility of a BIOLOGICAL cause which will have an effect NO MATTER WHAT a person believes? So, it's no longer a "physical" science at all, but instead an exercise in "mind over matter?" I agree it HAS become pure religion.
We're NOT concerned about the subjects "cheating" the study, so there is ZERO justification for " blinding" the test subjects. We ARE concerned about the pharma-funded researchers cheating. And this "placebo control" is the EXACT mechanism by which they are ABLE to cheat. Show me just ONE scrap of EVIDENCE that a person's beliefs ABOUT NOT HAVING BEEN INJECTED can cause brain damage or acute organ failure, and THEN we can discuss this "placebo control" measure that so many in the "vaccine truth movement" keep demanding MORE of.
This needs to be done with TRUE controls, to whom NOTHING is done, and who are TOLD that they are the "controls" for comparison of outcomes against the "treated" group. There will not be a SINGLE death that is "caused" by their beliefs about NOT being injected. It is true that the "treated" group could have a few hypochondriacs in it, but their faked "symptoms" are not likely to result in DEATH. The deaths after injection could be safely presumed to have been caused by the injections, since the vast majority of test subject would be people who "believe" this crap is going to "protect" them, and that it's "safe."
If it were handled the same way TOXICOLOGY is handled, we would know exactly how toxic the junk is. Which is WHY they disposed of the most reliable of and logical scientific methods when it comes to testing VACCINES. And they conduct their vaccines testing in ways that any ordinary toxicologist would find abhorrent at best. Actually, they just see it as scientific FRAUD.
With the digital age coming up - or here now?- why is a placebo group even needed? You could mirror 10,000 or 20,000 people's health records on digital passports = demographics/heath conditions - with candidates from the world at large with the same characteristics - simply compare outcomes of two more or less identical groups = the untreated would not even know they were part of a trial.
Of course, therein lies the aim and the problem. All data is capable of being corrupted to suit the corrupt.
Exactly. And this is why I conducted a nationwide health survey of entirely unvaccinated people in America, (which is now peer-reviewed and published in an international journal). We covered 48 states with this, achieving a stunning random sample from this (rather unique and small) population, which is now just a bit over 800K in the U.S.. The MOE came in at only 0.04% from the sample means. The diseases/disorders within THIS group have already ruled out vaccine-exposures as a possible cause. And this established "baseline" for rates of disease/disorder from ALL OTHER possible causes, (besides vaccine-exposure). When you remove all vaccines (and related pharma products, such as the "vitamin K" shot, which contains vaccine adjuvants that trigger the immune system) only 2.64% of entirely unvaccinated people in the U.S. are suffering from ANY health conditions or disorders, no matter their age. And most of the conditions suffered by this group are MILD, i.e., no heart disease, diabetes, cancers, etc., were found in this population.
You see, since 99.74% of Americans have been exposed to vaccines (at any level of exposure) we cannot presume that this population is ABLE to establish a "naturally-occurring" baseline rate for ANY disease or disorder, for comparison against the rates found in people who are injected with a NEW vaccine. The fact the "herd" is ALREADY very ill, makes it appear as if each new jab doesn't "substantially" increase this or that disease, such that it MUST be "worth the risks."
No copying and pasting allowed! Good on you! Copyrights and malicious remote editing can be an issue!
I've eyeballed it quickly - It will take me a while to get through the 85 page report - (particularly interested in how many of the 800,000 reached out and if the follow up study is underway - targeted 3-17 year olds and allowed unvaxxed parents and others in the family to participate?).
By the way, is the footnote on page 6 of 85 correct which states "Vaccines are legally classified as unavoidable safe"? I thought the wording of the Prep Act was "unavoidably risky"?
Looks very thorough and quite the challenge to NSCH study!
Margin of Error is this instance, applies to the sample means, i.e., so for the % who reported at least one condition the possible error range could be as high as 0.04%.
This margin of error has nothing to do with the calculations which determined how many people living in the U.S. in 2020 remained entirely unvaccinated. The margin of error is calculated to determine the accuracy of the health data reported from the subjects of the study. For instance, when you calibrate the number of potential subjects, and the size of your sample, and run other calculations (from randomized split samples and other arrangements) you are able to determine the applicable margin of error for the dataset based upon deviation as well.
Oh, to answer your specific questions: We took health reports (specifically diagnosed) from literally anyone of any age who was entirely unvaccinated. Due to the age ranges within various published national disease/disorder rates we found, we then did an age-appropriate cohort comparison where ever we could.
For many specific conditions, there are no recent figures available, so we used the sources considered to be the most "authoritative" for our comparisons, (even if they were a bit stale) since ALL diseases and disorders in the vaccine-exposed American population have been on a steady increase for the past 50 years, with SHARP increases in the young beginning about 30 years ago, and ONLY accelerating. In fact, as of 2020, the % of children with diseases/disorders was DOUBLING every 12 years. Based upon the rate of acceleration observed in 2020, 100% of (vaccine-exposed) American children would be suffering serious disease/disability by 2030.
Due to the potential for the vitamin K shot to confound the results, we also asked whether the subject had been injected with these vaccine adjuvants (found in the K-shot) as well as asking whether the mother of the unvaccinated child had been vaccinated during that pregnancy.
Over 99% of babies born in America receive the K-shot at birth. However, of those who refused to vaccinate their babies (at all) only about 30% accepted the "vitamin" K-shot. The VAST MAJORITY of health injuries found in the entirely unvaccinated population were found in the group who received the K-shot at birth, and/or who had a mother who took a vaccine during the pregnancy.
A major contributor to this published paper (who audited, and expanded upon all of the math) is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT. I also have an entire PhD team who has sworn under penalty of perjury to the validity of the study, the model, the methods, AND the conclusions. These are included in our evidence packages for our federal lawsuit, which you can find HERE: https://informedconsentdefense.org/
For the "unavoidably unsafe" claim, see Restatement (Second) of Torts, 402A comment K:
They say it's "ethical" to lie to the public and refer to a product that's "unavoidably unsafe" (impossible to MAKE safe) as a "safe" drug. They commit this FRAUD because it's "ethical" fraud. You see? ;-)
Oh, an even better story right at the moment might be THIS one:
Kirsch's video covered the fact that SV40 was found in the covid vax. The most the guests would say is that "there's no evidence it's NOT dangerous."
But you can read for yourself the WHOLE TRUTH, which is that SV40 is ABSOLUTELY KNOWN to cause bone and brain cancer. And this is NOT just "theoretical" harm! SEE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/
It doesn't just "suggest" harm. For instance, the paper states: "The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals."
So AS humanity is now seeing MASSIVE increases in these particular maladies after being directly injected with SV40, we are all supposed to presume there's "no evidence" that SV40 can cause these EXACT SAME things in humans, or that the evidence merely "suggests" it "could" be harmful?
I am SO SICK of people soft-peddling the TRUTH, so they will sound "reasonable" but they just sound SOFT on the TRUTH. Why wouldn't these guys just COME OUT WITH IT? The skirt around the FACT that it is already WELL understood that SV40 causes cancer in MAMALS. Pharma is the one who is busy trying to say that HUMANS cannot be classified as "mammals" - so therefore there's "no evidence" it can harm humans.
I do not understand why Kirsch and company are willing to HELP pharma deny that there is any hard evidence of harm to humans from SV40, because the existing studies were only done on OTHER mammals. Their argument is that we need evidence that it's NOT injuring people? RAHEELY?
Hi Peter - more? or a grain of salt?
Steve Kirsch Tweeted this afternoon: https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1715820838564593745
Breaking: You can now sue the mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers for damages and the FDA is required to take the COVID vaccines off the market. Why? Adulteration. The plasmid bioactive contaminant sequences were NOT pointed out to the regulatory authorities. It's considered adulteration. I just got off the phone with Professor Byram Bridle and Dr. Robert Malone on this.
4:02 PM · Oct 21, 2023
·
951.9K
Views
Yes. Maybe using this
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/pfizer-and-moderna-guilty-of-breaches of 21 U.S. Code § 351 - Adulterated drugs and devices – and - 21 U.S. Code § 360d - Performance standards – maybe 17 trillion in compensation owed to Americans
Ten times that globally - reparations needed - but who has that kind of money? A long term health plan is needed to cure and treat those maimed - to reduce the bill
Thanks Peter, just read your KKingston cross-post, who was aware from the beginning of plasmid DNA being included. She asks "why did it take so long?" My take is this needed evidence in electron microscopes of 8 or 9 independent researchers to confirm pDNA was not properly removed from mfg. process. Scientists work as a pack, and she's right! she is not in that group.
The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the so-called "placebo controls" is to be ABLE to inject people with things that WILL cause some sort of reaction similar to the "test product." They LIE and say they were NOT injected with anything but "saline" of some other "inactive" substance. But they need to be ABLE to inject them with SOMETHING, otherwise the differences in outcomes will be way to severe to explain away.
"Controls" are left ALONE. There is ZERO reason to suspect that a person will DIE (get blood clots, heart attacks, anaphylactic shock, etc.) merely because of their beliefs about NOT having been injected. And there is zero evidence to suggest that a person who is injected will suddenly have massive blood clots merely because of their "beliefs" about being injected. In fact, the person who agrees to be injected would NOT have allowed it if they "believed" the injection was going to KILL them.
So now their methodology ONLY accounts for the possibility a person's BELIEFS are capable of injuring or killing them? They are unwilling to consider the possibility of a BIOLOGICAL cause which will have an effect NO MATTER WHAT a person believes? So, it's no longer a "physical" science at all, but instead an exercise in "mind over matter?" I agree it HAS become pure religion.
We're NOT concerned about the subjects "cheating" the study, so there is ZERO justification for " blinding" the test subjects. We ARE concerned about the pharma-funded researchers cheating. And this "placebo control" is the EXACT mechanism by which they are ABLE to cheat. Show me just ONE scrap of EVIDENCE that a person's beliefs ABOUT NOT HAVING BEEN INJECTED can cause brain damage or acute organ failure, and THEN we can discuss this "placebo control" measure that so many in the "vaccine truth movement" keep demanding MORE of.
This needs to be done with TRUE controls, to whom NOTHING is done, and who are TOLD that they are the "controls" for comparison of outcomes against the "treated" group. There will not be a SINGLE death that is "caused" by their beliefs about NOT being injected. It is true that the "treated" group could have a few hypochondriacs in it, but their faked "symptoms" are not likely to result in DEATH. The deaths after injection could be safely presumed to have been caused by the injections, since the vast majority of test subject would be people who "believe" this crap is going to "protect" them, and that it's "safe."
If it were handled the same way TOXICOLOGY is handled, we would know exactly how toxic the junk is. Which is WHY they disposed of the most reliable of and logical scientific methods when it comes to testing VACCINES. And they conduct their vaccines testing in ways that any ordinary toxicologist would find abhorrent at best. Actually, they just see it as scientific FRAUD.
With the digital age coming up - or here now?- why is a placebo group even needed? You could mirror 10,000 or 20,000 people's health records on digital passports = demographics/heath conditions - with candidates from the world at large with the same characteristics - simply compare outcomes of two more or less identical groups = the untreated would not even know they were part of a trial.
Of course, therein lies the aim and the problem. All data is capable of being corrupted to suit the corrupt.
Exactly. And this is why I conducted a nationwide health survey of entirely unvaccinated people in America, (which is now peer-reviewed and published in an international journal). We covered 48 states with this, achieving a stunning random sample from this (rather unique and small) population, which is now just a bit over 800K in the U.S.. The MOE came in at only 0.04% from the sample means. The diseases/disorders within THIS group have already ruled out vaccine-exposures as a possible cause. And this established "baseline" for rates of disease/disorder from ALL OTHER possible causes, (besides vaccine-exposure). When you remove all vaccines (and related pharma products, such as the "vitamin K" shot, which contains vaccine adjuvants that trigger the immune system) only 2.64% of entirely unvaccinated people in the U.S. are suffering from ANY health conditions or disorders, no matter their age. And most of the conditions suffered by this group are MILD, i.e., no heart disease, diabetes, cancers, etc., were found in this population.
You see, since 99.74% of Americans have been exposed to vaccines (at any level of exposure) we cannot presume that this population is ABLE to establish a "naturally-occurring" baseline rate for ANY disease or disorder, for comparison against the rates found in people who are injected with a NEW vaccine. The fact the "herd" is ALREADY very ill, makes it appear as if each new jab doesn't "substantially" increase this or that disease, such that it MUST be "worth the risks."
Here's the paper: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40
Wow!
0.26% unvaxxed are far healthier than the 99.74% (mandated to be) vaxxed?
MOE = margin of error?
I skimmed the first half dozen pages of this 85 pager:
https://cdn.website-editor.net/s/fbd2f2a8b1b04bdba97a21e6e5d356aa/files/uploaded/Control%2520Group%2520-FULL-report-updated.pdf?Expires=1700235752&Signature=UGEAr61W6tuoEqhi4o515J~BZ-W2RHmFe6Nv5QSU-r9elfXN-wj5yZpa~5HEwMm3ng~VBro51PPmuBf37jqfYXtPaR4rXGhZFI1B-BfNFjqVg8hv7qkLXdRN0Hus0UIKZRhnSe5oYBGyCmsgqHftjPpvA~M2gOiyRTxGLSt7AG51j-ZAyCAViax5H-qv48HWmE4aVOY4jeuiyf0e9~IOlnTOcH67wYIMVujPh1mBoz-2eEmKafAWPl0e~~37v2-hZ5YXa5yBMG84tfZAgkzkpEt25CLanlBqNwbubDN-secBAk6aB2Q0MXK3-yu02Yq8nxRafyKRSgKsU179exvxvw__&Key-Pair-Id=K2NXBXLF010TJW
No copying and pasting allowed! Good on you! Copyrights and malicious remote editing can be an issue!
I've eyeballed it quickly - It will take me a while to get through the 85 page report - (particularly interested in how many of the 800,000 reached out and if the follow up study is underway - targeted 3-17 year olds and allowed unvaxxed parents and others in the family to participate?).
By the way, is the footnote on page 6 of 85 correct which states "Vaccines are legally classified as unavoidable safe"? I thought the wording of the Prep Act was "unavoidably risky"?
Looks very thorough and quite the challenge to NSCH study!
Margin of Error is this instance, applies to the sample means, i.e., so for the % who reported at least one condition the possible error range could be as high as 0.04%.
This margin of error has nothing to do with the calculations which determined how many people living in the U.S. in 2020 remained entirely unvaccinated. The margin of error is calculated to determine the accuracy of the health data reported from the subjects of the study. For instance, when you calibrate the number of potential subjects, and the size of your sample, and run other calculations (from randomized split samples and other arrangements) you are able to determine the applicable margin of error for the dataset based upon deviation as well.
Oh, to answer your specific questions: We took health reports (specifically diagnosed) from literally anyone of any age who was entirely unvaccinated. Due to the age ranges within various published national disease/disorder rates we found, we then did an age-appropriate cohort comparison where ever we could.
For many specific conditions, there are no recent figures available, so we used the sources considered to be the most "authoritative" for our comparisons, (even if they were a bit stale) since ALL diseases and disorders in the vaccine-exposed American population have been on a steady increase for the past 50 years, with SHARP increases in the young beginning about 30 years ago, and ONLY accelerating. In fact, as of 2020, the % of children with diseases/disorders was DOUBLING every 12 years. Based upon the rate of acceleration observed in 2020, 100% of (vaccine-exposed) American children would be suffering serious disease/disability by 2030.
Due to the potential for the vitamin K shot to confound the results, we also asked whether the subject had been injected with these vaccine adjuvants (found in the K-shot) as well as asking whether the mother of the unvaccinated child had been vaccinated during that pregnancy.
Over 99% of babies born in America receive the K-shot at birth. However, of those who refused to vaccinate their babies (at all) only about 30% accepted the "vitamin" K-shot. The VAST MAJORITY of health injuries found in the entirely unvaccinated population were found in the group who received the K-shot at birth, and/or who had a mother who took a vaccine during the pregnancy.
The more condensed 17 page paper (and more impressive version) is at: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40
A major contributor to this published paper (who audited, and expanded upon all of the math) is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT. I also have an entire PhD team who has sworn under penalty of perjury to the validity of the study, the model, the methods, AND the conclusions. These are included in our evidence packages for our federal lawsuit, which you can find HERE: https://informedconsentdefense.org/
For the "unavoidably unsafe" claim, see Restatement (Second) of Torts, 402A comment K:
Here's a write up on how this was integrated into our system of laws: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=jcred
They say it's "ethical" to lie to the public and refer to a product that's "unavoidably unsafe" (impossible to MAKE safe) as a "safe" drug. They commit this FRAUD because it's "ethical" fraud. You see? ;-)
Thanks. I am in awe of the diligence!
I am watching the Kirsch video at the moment and then it will be 4 am here!
https://rumble.com/v3r1pqf-vaccine-adulteration-wkevin-mckernan-byram-bridle-chris-martenson-steve-kir.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
So I will get to it tomorrow.
I can't see an article immediately on your substack. I would certainly cross post one!
Oh, an even better story right at the moment might be THIS one:
Kirsch's video covered the fact that SV40 was found in the covid vax. The most the guests would say is that "there's no evidence it's NOT dangerous."
But you can read for yourself the WHOLE TRUTH, which is that SV40 is ABSOLUTELY KNOWN to cause bone and brain cancer. And this is NOT just "theoretical" harm! SEE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/
It doesn't just "suggest" harm. For instance, the paper states: "The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals."
So AS humanity is now seeing MASSIVE increases in these particular maladies after being directly injected with SV40, we are all supposed to presume there's "no evidence" that SV40 can cause these EXACT SAME things in humans, or that the evidence merely "suggests" it "could" be harmful?
I am SO SICK of people soft-peddling the TRUTH, so they will sound "reasonable" but they just sound SOFT on the TRUTH. Why wouldn't these guys just COME OUT WITH IT? The skirt around the FACT that it is already WELL understood that SV40 causes cancer in MAMALS. Pharma is the one who is busy trying to say that HUMANS cannot be classified as "mammals" - so therefore there's "no evidence" it can harm humans.
I do not understand why Kirsch and company are willing to HELP pharma deny that there is any hard evidence of harm to humans from SV40, because the existing studies were only done on OTHER mammals. Their argument is that we need evidence that it's NOT injuring people? RAHEELY?
https://ghostofjfk.substack.com/p/international-journal-has-now-published
Thanks!