One thing’s funny for sure, they do not know why they don’t like the vaccine. Is it because they believe they get a microchip with it? Is it because they believe they will get Autism? What is the symptom of this vaccine that they deter from taking it? I don’t know and I’m sure they don’t know either. But regardless of the myriad of reason, they don’t have a simple answer, because they never have real answers, only make believe ones.
You can’t properly form sentences and paragraphs. Your logic is weak to nonexistent. Parodites fuckin’ A.I. expresses a greater degree of eloquence. Thus my estimation that you might literally be retarded, albeit a high functioning retard. I didn’t mean it as an insult. It’s just an observation.
How about heart inflammation? How about immune system erosion from endless boosters? Why would anyone who eats correctly and exercises and is relatively young (and thus has a 99.999999% chance of survival if they get covid) get a “vaccine” which potentially has life altering side effects? Do you deny the reality of natural immunity? Why would someone who purports to hate “Nazis” so much be onboard with big governments COERCING people into getting an experimental vaccine? Are you also onboard with the quarantine camps in Australia? It doesn’t really make sense unless the entire persona you put on here is a charade.
Well, for one thing, they can get infected and then pass the disease on to those who are not able to survive it.
But then you’re one of Satyr’s clique/claque minions, aren’t you?
How bout em? Are these other symptoms you propose occurs from vaccines? Not the Microchip? Not the Autism? Or maybe a mixture of both? All of it? How exactly does that work?
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
[b]FDA Corruption Way Worse Than You Think
It’s called “regulatory capture,” and even cynics would be shocked at the level of corruption running rampant at the United States Food and Drug Administration. Did you know that Big Pharma funds 75% of the drug approval research that goes on at the FDA, and in return for those hundreds of millions of dollars can get “expedited” service? And the revolving door between the FDA and large pharmaceutical concerns spins like an out-of-control merry-go-round. It all adds up to a regulatory system built to benefit Big Pharma at major cost to everyday Americans - both in terms of taxes and healthcare outcomes.[/b]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=016R_E3styg[/youtube]
[b]About 45% of the FDA’s budget, or $2.7 billion, comes from industry user fees, according to a fact sheet released by the FDA in November 2020. The other 55%, or $3.2 billion, comes from federal funding.
A further breakdown of the agency’s total budget does show, depending on the department, industry fees can account for most of the funding, however.
For regulatory activities involving human drugs (which account for a third of the agency’s total budget), 65%, or about $656 million, is funded by industry user fees.
For biologics, which includes vaccines and represents 7% of the FDA’s total budget, industry fees pay about 40%, or around $337 million.
While there is a concern industry-based funding – which increased nearly 42% between the fiscal years 2017 and 2021 – may pose a conflict of interest, the FDA has said its drug approval decisions are independent of where the funding comes from.[/b]
That last part cracked me up, what a fucking joke. 
[b]The Regulatory Capture Of The FDA
The mega-profit pharmaceutical industry relies on connections with the agency tasked with regulating it.
his week, three members of an 11 member FDA advisory committee of experts resigned in protest over the FDA’s approval of Aduhelm (aducanumab) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. These resignations are extremely unusual, but in this case, understandable.
Aduhelm was approved by the agency despite the fact that both pivotal trials were stopped early because they were judged to be futile, the FDA’s own statistical reviewer did not support approval, and the FDA advisory committee reviewing the application voted it down overwhelmingly. Additionally, in a survey conducted by Endpoint News, whose readership is heavily weighted to biopharmaceutical industry staffers and executives, over 80 percent consider the approval to be a bad idea. So, how did Aduhelm’s June 7 approval happen? Two words: regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture is defined as when a supposedly objective regulatory agency ends up promoting the ends of the industries they are regulating. The FDA has been captured for quite a while. In a 2016 study published in the British Medical Journal, the majority of the FDA’s hematology-oncology reviewers who left the agency ended up working or consulting for the biopharmaceutical industry. In another investigation by Science magazine, 11 of 16 FDA reviewers who worked on 28 drug approvals and subsequently left the agency are working or consulting for the companies they recently regulated.
For example, Dr. Thomas Laughren, a former director of psychiatric products for the FDA, who had a history of less than objective actions while at the agency, left the FDA in 2012 and started a consultancy to help companies focused on psychiatric products navigate the regulator’s approval process. One of these companies is AstraZeneca, maker of Seroquel. He was instrumental in getting Seroquel a broader approval in 2009, going so far as to personally minimize questions about cardiac risk related to the drug at an FDA advisory committee meeting. After approval, however, there was no hiding from these side effects and a warning label had to be added to the drug in 2011.
Back in 2016, there was a major controversy related to the actions of Dr. Janet Woodcock, the current acting FDA commissioner, while she was the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The FDA, at the behest of Woodcock, overruled significant internal dissension to approve Exondys, a therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare and severe disease which currently has an annual treatment cost of around $1 million per patient per year. Luckily for the public, the FDA published the internal dissension with their approval documents.
One of the most vocal objections came from Dr. Ellis Unger, who was director of the Office of Drug Evaluation at CDER. According to Unger, Woodcock was intensely involved in the review of Exondys from the very beginning and decided to approve the drug before the actual review team had finished its own recommendation. And besides interference, Unger was very vocal in his belief that Exondys is ineffective, even calling it a “scientifically elegant placebo.” Exondys was approved based on its impact on dystrophin which is thought to be a biomarker for efficacy. Unger pointed out that the impact on dystrophin is so small that if you had 10 inches of snow on the sidewalk, the drug effect would be equal to 1/32 of an inch. Additionally, Dr. John Jenkins, who was the director of new drugs at the agency, also voiced opposition to the approval and retired soon afterwards.
Why did Woodcock fight so fiercely for the approval of Exondys? The worst reason was probably due to worries over the stock price of Sarepta, the manufacturer of Exondys. In her presentation in front of the Agency Scientific Dispute Process Review Board (SDR Board), Woodcock noted that Sarepta “needed to be capitalized” and mentioned how the stock reacted to different FDA actions. She also suggested that if Sarepta did not receive approval, the company might have insufficient capital to continue its study of Exondys and other drugs in the company’s pipeline. Or in essence, we have to approve this drug so they can study it.
And we shouldn’t forget the political pressure, of course. Within the approval documents it was noted that both Unger and Woodcock received significant correspondence from Congress and the public, urging approval for the drug. It was also probably not a coincidence that Sarepta significantly increased its lobbying spending ahead of and during the approval process. Lobbying continues to have a fantastic return on investment, as Exondys revenues are currently over $400 million per year (after spending less than a year’s worth of revenues from one patient on the activity on an annual basis).
Now let’s get back to Aduhelm. In March of 2019, Biogen’s two identically designed randomized controlled studies looking at Aduhelm in mild Alzheimer’s patients (trials 301 and 302) were stopped due to the data safety monitoring board judging them to be futile and unlikely to produce a clinically meaningful benefit. Then in October of that year, Biogen announced that after receiving additional data from one of the trials, they decided to file for approval of the high dose tested (10mg/kg) with the FDA. This despite the fact that the benefit was only seen in trial 302, while in trial 301 patients on the high dose actually did worse than patients on placebo. Even the pooled data, combining that from both trials, did not show a significant benefit for the high dose.
After Biogen made the decision to move forward, the company then went to work on the narrative. At the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference in December 2019, during a session to discuss the data, no skeptics or even statisticians were given a platform to speak. Additionally, no open question-and-answer segment was allowed and all microphones were removed from around the room. This was highly unusual, especially given that question-and-answer sessions are the rule at a medical conference. Even more shocking was that Biogen and the FDA released joint briefing documents for the meeting of the FDA Advisory Committee (a panel of experts convened prior to a drug’s approval) to discuss the safety and efficacy of the drug. In my 22 years looking at the biotechnology sector, I don’t remember this ever happening. Typically, the FDA has one set of briefing documents where they discuss the data from their point of view, and the company has a different set.
Despite this questionable degree of collaboration, if not collusion, the meeting did not go well for Biogen. Statisticians typically do not like the acrobatics required to make a negative study into a positive one, and the FDA’s statistician at the meeting, Dr. Tristan Massie, was no different. He concluded that the evidence was conflicting and that approval might actually negatively impact the development of more effective treatments, both with regard to the design of future trials as well as recruitment (patients often would prefer to use an approved drug over one in clinical trials). The advisory committee shared his view and on the key question regarding whether trial 302 provided evidence of effectiveness of the drug; not a single committee member voted yes and 10 voted no, with one abstention. A pretty overwhelmingly negative response.
And yet, the FDA approved it anyway. Even worse, the actual drug label, which is what physicians and patients review when considering a drug, reads like it was written by Biogen’s marketing team. First, the label indicates that it is approved for the treatment of all stages of Alzheimer’s disease, even though it was only tested in mild patients and had meager efficacy even there. This greatly inflates the addressable market size, as now all six million Americans with Alzheimer’s are eligible for therapy. Given the company decided to price the drug well ahead of any projections, at $56,000 per patient per year (the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review calculated a fair price to be between $2,500 and $8,300), this drug could be a real budget buster. And this six million patient estimate only includes people over the age of 65, hence they will be covered by Medicare (specifically Medicare Part B as it is an infusion). In 2019, total spending by Medicare Part B was $37 billion. If just 15 percent of patients with Alzheimer’s decide to go on Aduhelm, that would equal $50 billion in spending.
The FDA also stated that they approved Aduhelm because of reduction in amyloid plaques—misfolded proteins between nerve cells—even though that was not the primary endpoint of either study and there is actually no evidence that a reduction in plaques improves anything. Even in the case of Aduhelm, both studies indicated a significant reduction in plaques and yet one of the studies showed a placebo outperforming the high dose. We’ve seen a similar scenario play out before. Merck’s Verubecestat was able to show 60 to 80 percent reductions in plaques and was still unable to show any clinical benefit (and was even worse than placebo on several important measures).
There were a couple of additional irregularities in the label which seem to benefit Biogen. Trial 301 was the “bad” one while trial 302 was the “good” one. The label reverses the numbering so that the “good” trial is referred to as “Study 1,” which allows them to speak about that data first and in detail. When discussing “Study 2,” the label excludes any presentation of the clinical data that showed that placebo patients did better than patients who received the approved dose, despite the fact that this occurred with regard to the primary endpoint of the trial. That’s a very key piece of information that would be important for patients and physicians to know about when considering therapy and whether the benefit outweighs the risk of side effects, which include cerebral microhemorrhage (19 percent of patients who received the high dose) and cerebral edema (35 percent of patients).
Why did the FDA do all of this? Besides the usual incentives for post-FDA careers, there were likely political considerations at work, as in the case of Sarepta (and remember Janet Woodcock, who heavily influenced that decision, is currently acting FDA commissioner). Less than two weeks prior to the approval, President Joe Biden said that “if we don’t do something about Alzheimer’s in America… every single [hospital bed] will be occupied in the next 15 years with an Alzheimer’s patient.” Guess which 2020 candidate was the largest recipient of campaign funds by a large margin from Biogen and affiliated parties? Joe Biden, with $76,241. And like Sarepta, Biogen also significantly increased their lobbying ahead of the FDA decision, with 2020 being a record year and 2021 being a record first quarter. The FDA did not publish the internal deliberations like they did with Sarepta, but my guess is that they wouldn’t necessarily be that different and would indicate similar pressures.
I have a lot of respect for the FDA and I think the vast majority of reviewers are looking to do the right thing, but the system is broken and there need to be more firewalls to insulate the FDA from manipulation. A 2006 survey of FDA scientists indicated that 18.4 percent of them had “been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document.” I have to imagine a similar survey wouldn’t show any better results today.[/b]
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulatory-capture-of-the-fda/
[b]CDC Pressed to Acknowledge Industry Funding
A petition from advocacy groups is calling for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop claiming it does not have relationships with or accept financial support from drug manufacturers and other companies that might benefit from agency research.
The CDC has accepted millions of dollars through the CDC Foundation, according to the groups behind the petition. During fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from companies like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck. Since it was created by Congress in 1995, the nonprofit organization has accepted $161 million from corporations.
Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition, Project on Government Oversight, and U.S. Right to Know filed the petition. The groups are concerned about the pharmaceutical industry’s possible undue influence on medical research and practice.
While CDC disclaimers state that the agency doesn’t accept commercial support, the CDC media office has contradicted this. “The CDC claims its public-private partnerships are synergistic and beneficial,” the petition states, “but these partnerships are incompatible with its disclaimers of no commercial support and no relationships with manufacturers of commercial products. The CDC cannot have it both ways: It must end this oxymoronic situation of defending its receipt of corporate money while simultaneously denying that it does.”[/b]
https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/cdc-pressed-acknowledge-industry-funding/
So the next time someone tells you ‘covid’, or whatever, is so and so virulent, and that the ‘vaxx’, or whatever, is such and such safe and affective, tell 'em those are just big pharma talking points, tell 'em to do some independent research.
Big pharma owns the CDC, FDA, mainstream media and politicians.
[b]Billionaires got 54% richer during pandemic
The world’s 2,365 billionaires enjoyed a $4 trillion boost to their wealth during the first year of the pandemic, increasing their fortunes by 54%, according to a new analysis by the Program on Inequality at the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies.
Between March 18, 2020, and March 18, 2021, the wealth held by the world’s billionaires jumped from $8.04 trillion to $12.39 trillion, according to the IPS’ analysis of data from Forbes, Bloomberg and Wealth-X. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, the world’s wealthiest person, saw his fortune soar to $178 billion from $113 billion, or 57%, during that time, the study found. All told, the total wealth of the world’s billionaire class grew 54% during the pandemic year, IPS reported.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer
Bezos and other billionaires have grown wealthier through a combination of several trends. First, the stock market has reached record heights on expectations that the economy will experience a strong rebound in 2021. And some businesses, such as Bezos’ Amazon.com, have profited as people switched their behaviors amid the pandemic — boosting online services, for example.
At the same time, poverty rates have increased due to hardship created by the pandemic, with the worst effects felt by women and people of color. The number of people living in poverty globally doubled to more than 500 million during the first nine months of the pandemic, the anti-poverty group Oxfam said in January.
In the U.S., about 4 in 10 people said their household income remains impacted by the crisis, according to a recent study from TransUnion, a financial services firm.
The 10 wealthiest billionaires
Below are the 10 wealthiest billionaires, along with their net worth as of March 18, and the year-over-year increase in their wealth, according to the IPS estimates.
Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com: $178 billion (57%)
Bernard Arnault & family, LVMH Moët Hennessy: $162.6 billion (114%)
Elon Musk, Tesla: $162.1 billion (560%)
Bill Gates, Microsoft: $126.5 billion (29%)
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook: $101.7 billion (86%)
Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway: $96.5 billion (43%)
Larry Ellison, Oracle: $90.2 billion (53%)
Larry Page, Google: $88.6 billion (74%)
Sergey Brin, Google: $86 billion (75%)
Amancio Ortega, Zara: $79.1 billion (44%)[/b]
Did you read my other replies? Not enough? Here’s more. They turn people away when they seek help instead of prescribing stuff that would keep them from getting worse. When they’re worse, they prescribe an “emergency use authorized” concoction end-of-life drugs. Both of those things artificially increase the death rates. So many unreported adverse effects of vaccines—deaths prolly counted as covid deaths & not transparently reported alongside mass-communicated covid stats. FDA rushed approval on novel tech. Virtual flu strains are now virtual covid strains (are these vaccines pre-manufactured & just waiting for strain to be actual? … gain of function much?)—this is needs manufacturing paired with plausible deniability, trumped with false flag if the actual goal is public health on a brand-the-herd level (quantum dot). Flu disappeared because counted as covid.
PSYCH just kidding!!! I really had ya GOIN didn’t I??? spits coffee everywhere
fo real tho
We can’t trust the CDC, FDA and WHO to give us accurate info about ‘covid’ and the ‘vaxxines’, they’re demonstrably corrupt.
So if you say ‘covid’ is x virulent and the ‘vaxxines’ are x safe and affective, citing the CDC and so on, that’s just your opinion.
If covid exists, it could easily be 10 or 100 times less virulent than they claim.
The ‘vaxxines’ could be 10 or 100 times deadlier than they claim.
We live in a corporatocracy, big pharma is a massive part of that corporatocracy, and this corporatocracy wants to reset civilization, for power, using the pLandemic as a catalyst.
Everyone I know who hasn’t had the ‘vaxx’ is fine.
Some people I know who’ve had it got sick and a couple died shortly afterward.
All I know for sure is the people are less free and poorer than they were before the pLandemic.
Their statistics about ‘covid’ and the ‘vaxxes’ are far less real to me.
fricken. my reply is embedded in the quote. too lazy to fix
Also, harm principle means you can care all you want about people, but you can’t force a medical treatment on them without their consent. Not unless yer a fricken Nazi.
And lastly, if this was about care, and not branding the herd, there’d be a whoooooooolotta other health crap you’d be making free.
Moo, mutha f***as! LOL. God said I could say that.
If big pharma and the corporatocracy, through their stooges in media and politics, didn’t tell the people there was a pandemic, none of us would’ve guessed there was one, either because there is no pandemic, or it’s so small only a handful of virologists and statisticians can detect it, and they have no way of proving it to us, for the corporations and institutes they work at are demonstrably corrupt, so we just have to take the word for it, or not.
I’m not taking their word for it.
But the loss of small businesses, jobs and freedom, the mental and physical anguish their policies have caused, that I can see.
Agree 100%. “They” are culpable. Also, Epstein didn’t kill himself. (See my other posts first. Folks are dying & being permanently messed up.)
The ‘pandemic’ is so small, that we wouldn’t know we’re in it, unless they told us.
Why would I take an experimental ‘vaxxine’ to protect me from something so insignificant, a ‘vaxxine’ which may be many times deadlier than they claim, either because they’re lying for power and profit, or they’re mistaken about its deadliness?
These are highly experimental vaxxines.
No vaxxine has successfully been developed for a coronavirus before.
Vaxxines are always researched for many, many years before they’re given to the general public, until now that is.
These are MRNA vaxxines, such vaxxines have never been tried on the general public before.
Vaxxines were never mandated for adults before and there were medical, philosophical and religious exemptions for children.
They admit a healthy person under the age of 65 has next to 0 chance of dying from ‘covid’ or being hospitalized.
If you had your vaxx, and are far less likely to die than you were without it, why is it being mandated?
Why are there still restrictions?
Either these vaxxines aren’t working, or they are working and big brother and pharma just want to increase vaxxine intake for power and profit.
If everyone is vaxxinated, then we’ll have little idea how deadly these vaxxines are, we won’t have a control group, a group of unvaxxed people to compare vaxxed people with, convenient for big pharma.
Why’re those who’ve recovered from ‘covid’ still being mandated to get vaxxed?
Natural immunity is far superior to synthetic.
Clearly this is about power and profit.
Vaxxines have been recalled in the past many times because they ended up being far deadlier than big pharma initially claimed.
Many of these covid vaxxines have been recalled in many countries already.
They’ve admitted they have little-no idea how safe and affective they are.
I’ve heard many anecdotal reports it’s almost impossible to get vaxxine injuries taken seriously by doctors, even tho they admit these things have injured and killed many, many thousands of people, they appear trained to casually dismiss all claims offhand.
When someone tests positive (or is assumed to have covid, sometimes they don’t even test them with a device like a PCR, they just assume covid when it can easily be mistaken for other coronaviruses, influenzas or pneumonias) for covid, gets injured or dies, they immediately count that as a covid death, they don’t look into whether it was caused by covid or other factors, like AIDS, cancer, diabetes, old age, gunshot wound to the head and so on (moreover hospitals make thousands of additional dollars for every covid diagnosis, incentivizing them to lie), whereas if someone gets injured or dies right after taking the vaxx, they go out of their way to blame something else, the whole thing on its face is completely biased in favor of big pharma profits.
The only way we can know just how deadly these vaxxines are, since they’re still highly experimental, is to look through each injury and death claim with a fine toothed comb.
We already know these things can give people cardiovascular disease, among other serious illnesses, and the incidences of cardiovascular disease appear to be shooting through the roof, how much of that is caused by the vaxxines is open to speculation, I’m presuming the worst.
These vaxxine companies can’t be sued for vaxxine injures and gov basically says don’t expect any government compensation.
They’re not incentivized to make safe and affective products, on the contrary.
Insurance companies won’t give you any money if you’re injured by these vaxxes either.
If insurance companies won’t take the risk, why should I?
Big pharma by law doesn’t have to disclose all the ingredients in the vaxxine for copyright purposes, they have chosen to conceal some ingredients from the public, and so no informed consent.