Challenging Corruption

Traumatised New Zealand mother Anna Hodgkinson spoke with Liz Gunn about the experience of seeking answers and care for her 23 year old daughter. She describes a broken health system where the idea of New Zealanders “being kind” appears to have been abandoned. Casey, who also spoke to Liz Gunn, is living with a serious neurological reaction following a Pfizer Covid inoculation.

On the other side of the world, Canadian Covid Care Alliance is “over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists and health care professionals committed to providing quality, balanced, evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalisations can be reduced, lives saved, and <Canada> safely restored to normal as quickly as possible“. This CCCA presentation video discusses the trial data provided by Pfizer, highlighting corrupt practices enacted and challenging the narrative of “safe and effective” Covid-19 vaccines being enforced on populations globally.

Issues discussed include:

Political obligation to ensure safety of treatments licenced for use.
Hierarchy of scientific evidence.
Analysis of Pfizer’s safety and efficacy data.
Difference between Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR).

“How many people would have chosen to take the Covid-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit”?

The unblinding of Pfizer’s study a few months into what was supposed to be a 3 year trial. This means all participants were informed which group they were in (inoculated vs placebo), and placebo participants were offered the option to move into the control group. Most placebos accepted the offer, meaning adequate placebo data is no longer available for comparison with regards to long term effectiveness or safety. This is a highly unusual, corrupted research approach.

Six month trial data, in Pfizer’s own study, showed an increase of illness and death in the inoculated group (all-cause morbidity and mortality), signalling vaccine safety concerns. The presentation then shows in detail how Pfizer disguised this data to obscure it from public knowledge.

The failures to follow established, high quality safety and efficacy protocols were evident right from the beginning. Pfizer did not follow established protocols for vaccine development … animal testing was skipped, phases II and III were combined, after two months of Phase II and III Emergency Use was authorised, the trials were unblinded and the rollout began. We heard a persistent claim that the Covid-19 inoculation products don’t need to be tested because mRNA technology has already undergone extensive testing. But mRNA technology is the delivery mechanism, not the vaccine itself. So that’s like saying since we’ve used syringes safely in the past, anything delivered by syringe is safe …

The age distribution of people affected by Covid-19 differed substantially from the age distribution in the trial. 85% of those at risk of Covid are aged over 75yo, yet in the trials only 4% were over 75yo. Trial data therefore misrepresents those who might benefit from the “vaccines”. Younger demographics are less likely to need vaccine; less likely to suffer an adverse event from a vaccine; and more likely to respond well to a vaccine because the elderly have generally poorer immune responses.

Health status is also misrepresented in the trials. Participants tended to be healthy, whilst in the real world 95% of those who have died with Covid-19 have had at least one co-morbidity, and the average is four co-morbidities. The trials excluded many health conditions including pregnancy, breastfeeding, people with allergies, immunosuppression, bleeding disorders, prior Covid-19 infection, those taking steroids, and many other conditions. Such people are being told it is safe to take the inoculations, and have not been excluded from mandates, when this information has not been included in trial data. This is unscientific and unethical.

The Pfizer trial only included two groups (exposed/inoculated; exposed/not inoculated), whilst not studying the unexposed/inoculated and unexposed/not inoculated).

Various issues related to short term and long term potential for “vaccine” adverse events are discussed. All-cause mortality and illness should have been studied, but were not.

The use of vaccine passports to reduce transmission was not studied in the trials. There is zero evidence to support the use of vaccine passports.

The trials did not have adequate criteria for testing of trial participants. Investigators were able to sway the results by determining subjectively who they would and would not test for possible infection. The trial results are therefore unreliable. There is also considerable missing data, for example details about participants who were lost to follow up and numbers of participants who developed symptoms but were not tested and therefore not counted when they may have been infected.

The adolescent trial was severely underpowered, meaning there were not enough numbers for results to be statistically significant. Nevertheless, there was one severe adverse reaction which occurred within 24 hours of injection and included multiple systemic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, gastroparesis, erratic blood pressure, headaches, dizziness, fainting, seizures, verbal and motor tics, lower limb paralysis, lost bladder and bowel control, inability to eat, unable to mobilise and requiring multiple hospitalisations. Her reactions were reported by Pfizer as “functional abdominal pain”. This suggests a possibility of other adverse events being misrepresented.

In Pfizer’s own data, they confirm that myocarditis will occur in children who are given mRNA vaccines. Governments have now normalised heart problems in children, which are not normal. This damage to the heart is irreversible. The mortality rate is up to 20% at 6.5 years. CCCA maintain that a 1 in 5 chance of dying within 5 years is an unacceptable risk for children. Abandoning the “first do no harm” principle, the FDA claim this is an acceptable risk for children. Pfizer also admit that long term efficacy and safety data is limited and that their studies were not powered to find rare side effects.

The British Medical Journal has challenged Pfizer on serious issues relating to the execution of their trials. Ventavia, a company involved in the trials, have been reported by a whistleblower for falsifying data, unblinding participants, not following up and testing participants who reported symptoms, and mislabelling specimens. Neither Pfizer or FDA audited this company. Pfizer have since hired Ventavia to run four more trials. Pfizer has also manipulated data by mixing adult and adolescent cohort results, when the two trials occurred over different periods of time.

The difference between passive and active monitoring for adverse events are discussed and explained.

Pharmacovigilance issues are discussed, including a rise in heart issues among young Ontarians. A lot more deaths in a lot more younger people than is normal, appears to be occurring. It seems to be especially showing up in athletes, who push their heart rates up whilst exercising. A German news site provided information on 75 known cases of athletes collapsing and even dying in the last five months. An Israeli news site analysed the number of sudden deaths on the pitch, or in mid play, of members of the international football association (FIFA). Over the past 20 years the average number of FIFA sudden deaths on the pitch was 4.2 per year. But in 2021 there were 21 deaths, five times the normal average.

On 17 November 2021 the FDA released the first batch of what will ultimately be over 300,000 pages of information relating to the data supplied by Pfizer which the FDA used to approve their vaccine. The FDA asked the court to give them 50 years to release the documents. The real world data tracked by Pfizer in the first 2.5 months of the rollout included 2,500 deaths and over 25,000 nervous system adverse events. Under safety concerns, Pfizer listed anaphylaxis and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (Antibody Dependent Enhancement, aka ADE).

Conflicts of interest are also discussed. Pfizer has made $33 billion so far in 2021. This conflict of interest should ensure rigorous oversight of the process and as many safeguards as possible. It is well known that over the years, Pfizer has engaged in many spurious and criminal activities, such as lying to get approval for a heart valve that fractured and killed hundreds of patients worldwide; conducting clinical trials on African children without parental consent, after which some of the children died; bribing doctors; suppressing research; manipulating studies; witholding information that their products caused cancer; fraudulent marketing; and many more. They have paid billions in fines and settlements for their actions. Links are provided.

Conflicts of interest are seen in 84% of Pfizer’s research authors. This includes employments and contracts with Pfizer, receiving grants from Pfizer, hired as consultants for Pfizer, and running clinical trials for Pfizer. There were only five authors who did not have connections with Pfizer, and they don’t represent any of the main authors listed. A husband and wife team who were authors on the Pfizer trial profited to the tune of $9 billion from the Pfizer inoculations.

Another issue is that the Centers for Disease Control appear to have redefined “vaccine” to suit political and pharmaceutical interests.

The Canadian Covid Care Alliance adhere to the correct definition of vaccine, as something which provides immunity and is protective against disease. So why aren’t the media reporting on corruption if it is taking place? This 1 minute video likely answers the question: Brought To You By Pfizer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s