posted November 15, 2020 04:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Elon's devotion to his work requires he toe the line. His work (which likely isn't altogether his but anyway) will hit a brick wall unless he cooperates.

Elon knows his audience. They expect him to be the wildcard, the rebel. The tweet confirms his brand. The tweet is designed to further confusion and doubt.

---

He is certainly not 'giving in' to expectations - it's his natal Sun-Mercury square Uranus-Pluto operating.

Keep in mind 'confusion' means 'fusion with'.
People become 'confused' when there are valid options that seem incompatible with each other, triggering uncertainty due to human expectation that things are 'either-or'. Valid challenges to dominant logic generally 'confuses' people because it forces them to reconsider their worldview.

I can't see how that's a bad thing.

"They do not understand: how that which separates unites with itself.
It is a harmony of oppositions, as in the case of the bow and of the lyre."
— Heraclitus (Fragment 4)

As I said previously - this Saturn-Pluto conjunction is a New Moon-like happening: its a seed-point and not a culmination.
It will sprout fully at the full moon/opposition, when Saturn in Leo opposes Pluto in Aquarius.
The square in between will also show something about the development.

In more immediate terms, the upcoming Saturn/Uranus square will also show something, since it's very much a squaring off been new structure and old structure.

posted November 15, 2020 05:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"You have stated that you believe that either the WHO or your authorities (and that would be under Mr Trump's governance) have been reporting grossly exaggerated death tolls and you also believe that masks are not only unnecessary to reduce transmission, but actually cause more people to catch the virus."

States report 'death tolls' to the feds. Included in those state reported 'covid death tolls' are many, most in fact, who died 'WITH' covid. The actual death tolls 'FROM' covid total about 10,000 nationwide. People who died from gunshots, traffic accidents, suicides, etc, did not die 'FROM' covid 19.

As for masks, CDC reports that 85% of those who caught covid 19 wore masks all the time..or most of the time when out in public.

Further, the best mask is reported to be the N-95 mask. Most people, and I mean the vast majority don't wear the N-95 mask. The N-95 mask is designed to filter out 95% of particles, including virus, down to 0.30 microns in size. The average size of the covid-19 virus is 0.125 microns. So tell me how a mask designed to filter particles down to 0.30 microns in size filters particles almost 3 times smaller than it's specifications.

You're right, I don't believe a word the WHO says. I don't know anyone with an actual brain who does either. After the WHO lied to the world about coronavirus to protect communist China, Trump doesn't believe them either and cut off funding for that lying, corrupt, political organization.

---

Where is the evidence that the WHO lied about China? It was my understanding from reports at the time that it was China who never released the information, not the WHO.

posted November 15, 2020 06:14 AM            

We saw in Linda's post about Pfizer's study regarding the '90% effective vaccine' that there are safety concerns associated with people who have a whole slew of various health conditions, yet the BBC state:

posted November 15, 2020 07:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Well this is concerning.

We saw in Linda's post about Pfizer's study regarding the '90% effective vaccine' that there are safety concerns associated with people who have a whole slew of various health conditions, yet the BBC state:

[b]"Its developers, Pfizer and BioNTech, said it had been tested on 43,500 people, with no safety concerns raised."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54880084 [/B]

---

The list that Linda parroted was only the exclusion criteria for Phase 1 of the trial only; they have different criteria for each phase of the clinical, as standard. These are not contraindications for the vaccine, as her post intended state.

posted November 15, 2020 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsSaturnDelight:
The list that Linda parroted was only the exclusion criteria for Phase 1 of the trial only; they have different criteria for each phase of the clinical, as standard. These are not contraindications for the vaccine, as her post intended state.

Just saying.

---

I see

posted November 15, 2020 07:51 AM            

"4. STUDY DESIGN
4.1. Overall Design

This is a multicenter, multinational, Phase 1/2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, dose-finding, vaccine candidate–selection, and efficacy study in healthy individuals."

-------------------------------------------

Which means that at all phases of this trial the participants were "healthy individuals".
The criteria only changed in terms of dosage, participants' age and whether they have been infected with COVID-19.

I quote (pg. 36-38):
"4.1.1. Phase 1
Each group (vaccine candidate/dose level/age group) will comprise 15 participants; 12 participants will be randomized to receive active vaccine and 3 to receive placebo.
For each vaccine candidate/dose level/age group, the following apply:
• Additional safety assessments (see Section 8.2)
PF-07302048 (BNT162 RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines)
Protocol C4591001
Page 37

• Controlled enrollment (required only for the first candidate and/or dose level studied):
• No more than 5 participants (4 active, 1 placebo) can be vaccinated on the first day
• The first 5 participants must be observed by blinded site staff for at least 4 hours after vaccination for any acute reactions
• Vaccination of the remaining participants will commence no sooner than 24 hours after the fifth participant received his or her vaccination
• Application of stopping rules
• IRC review of safety data to determine escalation to the next dose level in the 18- to 55-year age cohort:
• Escalation between dose levels will be based on IRC review of at least 7-day post–Dose 1 safety data in this study and/or the BioNTech study conducted in Germany (BNT162-01)

• Note that, since both candidates are based upon the same RNA platform, dose escalation for the second candidate studied may be based upon the safety profile of the first candidate studied being deemed acceptable at the same, or a higher, dose level by the IRC
Groups of participants 65 to 85 years of age will not be started until safety data for the RNA platform have been deemed acceptable at the same, or a higher, dose level in the 18- to 55-year age cohort by the IRC.

In this phase, 13 groups will be studied, corresponding to a total of 195 participants.
The IRC will select 1 vaccine candidate that, in Phase 1, has an established dose level per age group based on induction of a post–Dose 2 immune response, including neutralizing antibodies, which is expected to be associated with protection against COVID-19, for progression into Phase 2/3.

4.1.2. Phase 2/3
On the basis of safety and/or immunogenicity data generated during the course of this study, and/or the BioNTech study conducted in Germany (BNT162-01), 1 vaccine candidate was selected to proceed into Phase 2/3. Participants in this phase will be ≥12 years of age, stratified as follows: 12 to 15 years, 16 to 55 years, or >55 years. The 12- to 15-year stratum will comprise up to approximately 2000 participants enrolled at selected investigational sites. It is intended that a minimum of 40% of participants will be in the >55-year stratum. Commencement of each age stratum will be based upon satisfactory post–Dose 2 safety and immunogenicity data from the 18- to 55-year and 65- to 85-year age groups in Phase 1, PF-07302048 (BNT162 RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines) Protocol C4591001 respectively.

posted November 15, 2020 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Here is a factcheck on the claims that US hospitals have been inflating the deaths from COVID-19: http://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-baselessly-suggests-covid-19-deaths-infl ated-for-profit/

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 'fact-check' deals with debunking claims of consciously profiteering. The issue is that the testing render results that are scientifically questionable.

It is a common strategy to debunk/dispel conspiracy theories that have levels of truth in them, by 'proving' they are lies through data that doesn't really answer the actual question.

Apart from running the tests at too high cycles, there is also another question - and I am merely re-reporting this from Coppolino who reported it in the youtube video I linked above: The CDC (US Centre for Disease Control ) have stated that they have no clinical samples of this virus.

This means that tests are not checked against the (sars cov2) virus. Instead they use a sample off the shelf of the gene-bank, i.e. they take another virus that has genetic sequences in common with corona-viruses, mix it with human tissue, and take a 'print' of it. They then use these print-codes as the matchpoint in the polymerase chain reaction machine for determining if people are infected with covid.

When you match the 'probably like covid' sequence you are said to be covid positive??
And in addition you run the tests at cycles that mess up the results of a matching process that was questionable in the first place????

If you are to claim a gunshot murder you better have an entry-point, a bullet, and a weapon. Basically, they don't have any of these things.

Again, I am not saying either-or.
I am saying some very strange things are going on, and people should be very aware of this.

Big Pharma are not the most trustworthy players in the human field at the moment. Their whole business model is based on capitalizing on the human body and our fear of disease.

What do we need to do to be healthy?
As Coppolina stated: not very much at all.
Drink your water and eat some good food. Watch out for pollution. "No one ever got a headache out of lack of aspirin".

posted November 15, 2020 08:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
OK, pg. 36 of the aforementioned study pdf:

[b]"4. STUDY DESIGN
4.1. Overall Design

This is a multicenter, multinational, Phase 1/2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, dose-finding, vaccine candidate–selection, and efficacy study in healthy individuals."

[/B]

---

You have quoted the study design.

P.41 is where it states the exclusion criteria of the study population, by Phase.

posted November 15, 2020 08:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsSaturnDelight:
You have quoted the study design.

P.41 is where it states the exclusion criteria of the study population, by Phase.

---

It isn't that cut and dried. Pg. 41:

5.2. Exclusion Criteria

Participants are excluded from the study if any of the following criteria apply:

Medical Conditions:
1. Other medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation/behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk of study participation or, in the investigator’s judgment, make the participant inappropriate for the study

The "Phase 1 only" exclusions come after this.

posted November 15, 2020 08:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad-monad:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 'fact-check' deals with debunking claims of consciously profiteering. The issue is that the testing render results that are scientifically questionable.

It is a common strategy to debunk/dispel conspiracy theories that have levels of truth in them, by 'proving' they are lies through data that doesn't really answer the actual question.

Apart from running the tests at too high cycles, there is also another question - and I am merely re-reporting this from Coppolino who reported it in the youtube video I linked above: The CDC (US Centre for Disease Control ) have stated that they have [b]no clinical samples of this virus.

This means that tests are not checked against the (sars cov2) virus. Instead they use a sample off the shelf of the gene-bank, i.e. they take another virus that has genetic sequences in common with corona-viruses, mix it with human tissue, and take a 'print' of it. They then use these print-codes as the matchpoint in the polymerase chain reaction machine for determining if people are infected with covid.

When you match the 'probably like covid' sequence you are said to be covid positive??
And in addition you run the tests at cycles that mess up the results of a matching process that was questionable in the first place????

If you are to claim a gunshot murder you better have an entry-point, a bullet, and a weapon. Basically, they don't have any of these things.

Again, I am not saying either-or.
I am saying some very strange things are going on, and people should be very aware of this.

Big Pharma are not the most trustworthy players in the human field at the moment. Their whole business model is based on capitalizing on the human body and our fear of disease.

What do we need to do to be healthy?
As Coppolina stated: not very much at all.
Drink your water and eat some good food. Watch out for pollution. "No one ever got a headache out of lack of aspirin".

[/B]

---

posted November 15, 2020 08:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
It isn't that cut and dried. Pg. 41:

[b]5.2. Exclusion Criteria

Participants are excluded from the study if any of the following criteria apply:

Medical Conditions:
1. Other medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation/behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk of study participation or, in the investigator’s judgment, make the participant inappropriate for the study

The "Phase 1 only" exclusions come after this.

We need a definition of "Other medical or psychiatric condition".[/B]

---

It is when you look at the section relevant to my point. The paragraph you have quoted is down to the clinicians discretion when considering against the already listed exclusion criteria (which is clearly stated in the following text of the study). You have to read the study as a whole, not by paraphraph.

However, when you continue to read the study, the exclusion criteria is pretty explicit per phase.

These are not contraindications. Contraindications are only established once the findings are published. Which this is not.

posted November 15, 2020 09:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsSaturnDelight:
It is when you look at the section relevant to my point. The paragraph you have quoted is down to the clinicians discretion when considering against the already listed exclusion criteria (which is clearly stated in the following text of the study). You have to read the study as a whole, not by paraphraph.

However, when you continue to read the study, the exclusion criteria is pretty explicit per phase.

These are not contraindications. Contraindications are only established once the findings are published. Which this is not.

---

No, I have not read the 146 pages, however, any research results are only as good as the study design which the research is based on.

Do you think the sample size is up to the task of generalising results to a global population?:

"In this phase (phase 1), 13 groups will be studied, corresponding to a total of 195 participants."

"Assuming a COVID-19 attack rate of 1.3% per year in the placebo group, accrual of 164 first primary-endpoint cases within 6 months, an estimated 20% nonevaluable rate, and 1:1 randomization, the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate selected for Phase 2/3 is expected to comprise approximately 21,999 vaccine recipients" (pg.37-38)

posted November 15, 2020 09:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
No, I have not read the 146 pages, however, any research results are only as good as the study design which the research is based on.

Do you think the sample size is up to the task of generalising results to a global population?:

"In this phase (phase 1), 13 groups will be studied, corresponding to a total of 195 participants."

"Assuming a COVID-19 attack rate of 1.3% per year in the placebo group, accrual of 164 first primary-endpoint cases within 6 months, an estimated 20% nonevaluable rate, and 1:1 randomization, the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate selected for Phase 2/3 is expected to comprise approximately 21,999 vaccine recipients" (pg.37-38)

And did you see that they are planning a 24 month follow-up? Which means this vaccine should not be given to the masses until after their 24-month benchmark for sufficient analysis of results, in this sample.

---

FYI - you only need to read 3 or so pages from p.41 to get the gist.

In terms of sample size I can’t comment. Typically a robust statistical models will be used to generate demographics and population size.

And to your last point, follow ups are common place in Clinicals. Although when the vaccine can be distributed is up for argument.

posted November 15, 2020 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsSaturnDelight:
FYI - you only need to read 3 or so pages from p.41 to get the gist.

In terms of sample size I can’t comment. Typically a robust statistical models will be used to generate demographics and population size.

And to your last point, follow ups are common place in Clinicals. Although when the vaccine can be distributed is up for argument.

---

For a study to produce statistically significant results, the sample size and characteristics have to be appropriate to the aims, which in this case is designing a vaccine that is safe for the entire world's population.
Without consulting a textbook, I highly doubt that 23000-odd participants is large enough or diverse enough to achieve this.

My concern is that the pressure is on to get a vaccine rolled out, and that scientific rigour and principles are being diluted in favour of speed.

RE distribution, it would make no sense to distribute a vaccine whose trial period has not yet been completed (24 months).

My conclusion is that it is far too early to draw any conclusions. This one trial is not enough to ensure the vaccine is safe.

posted November 15, 2020 12:39 PM            

New York Times
Jan. 23, 2020

The World Health Organization on Thursday decided not to declare the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak a global emergency, despite the spread of the dangerous respiratory infection from China to at least five other countries.

Although the disease has reached beyond China, the number of cases in other countries is still relatively small, and the disease does not seem to be spreading within those countries, agency officials said. Of more than 800 cases now reported, the wide majority — and all the 25 deaths — have been in China, according to Chinese officials.

“At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director general, said at a news conference in Geneva.
http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/china-virus-who-emergency.html

"Here is a factcheck on the claims that US hospitals have been inflating the deaths from COVID-19: http://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-baselessly-suggests-covid-19-deaths-inflated-for-profit/

Take Factchect.org...and...do whatever you wish with that factless organization. If you need help deciding what to do with that organization, I can supply at least one suggestion.

"According to the US Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] which oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, under the federal coronavirus aid relief bill known as the CARES Act, hospitals get an extra 20% in Medicare reimbursements on top of traditional rates due to the public health emergency.

That's for COVID-19 related admissions, which can include deaths. The pay-out amount varies, according to a medicare spokesperson who said "medicare adjusts hospital payment based on geographic variation in local costs."

Also, earlier this month, HHS announced a second round of federal relief for hospitals in high impact areas, totaling $10 billion.

Of that second-round money, HHS reported 63 California hospitals received $50,000 for each eligible coronavirus patient they admitted between Jan. 1 and June 10, 2020. That's a combined total of more than $607 million.

Real Clear Politics

“The case definition is very simplistic,” Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health, explains. “It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of [a] clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.”

Medical examiners from Colorado to Michigan use the same definition. In Macomb and Oakland counties in Michigan, where most of the deaths in that state occurred, medical examiners classify any death as a coronavirus death when the postmortem test is positive. Even people who died in suicides and automobile accidents meet that definition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/29/us_covid-19_death_toll_is_inflated.html

posted November 15, 2020 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"Where is the evidence that the WHO lied about China? It was my understanding from reports at the time that it was China who never released the information, not the WHO."

New York Times
Jan. 23, 2020

The World Health Organization on Thursday decided not to declare the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak a global emergency, despite the spread of the dangerous respiratory infection from China to at least five other countries.

Although the disease has reached beyond China, the number of cases in other countries is still relatively small, and the disease does not seem to be spreading within those countries, agency officials said. Of more than 800 cases now reported, the wide majority — and all the 25 deaths — have been in China, according to Chinese officials.

[b]“At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director general, said at a news conference in Geneva.
http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/china-virus-who-emergency.html

"Here is a factcheck on the claims that US hospitals have been inflating the deaths from COVID-19: http://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-baselessly-suggests-covid-19-deaths-infl ated-for-profit/

Take Factchect.org...and...do whatever you wish with that factless organization. If you need help deciding what to do with that organization, I can supply at least one suggestion.

"According to the US Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] which oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, under the federal coronavirus aid relief bill known as the CARES Act, hospitals get an extra 20% in Medicare reimbursements on top of traditional rates due to the public health emergency.

That's for COVID-19 related admissions, which can include deaths. The pay-out amount varies, according to a medicare spokesperson who said "medicare adjusts hospital payment based on geographic variation in local costs."

Also, earlier this month, HHS announced a second round of federal relief for hospitals in high impact areas, totaling $10 billion.

Of that second-round money, HHS reported 63 California hospitals received $50,000 for each eligible coronavirus patient they admitted between Jan. 1 and June 10, 2020. That's a combined total of more than $607 million.

Real Clear Politics

“The case definition is very simplistic,” Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health, explains. “It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of [a] clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.”

Medical examiners from Colorado to Michigan use the same definition. In Macomb and Oakland counties in Michigan, where most of the deaths in that state occurred, medical examiners classify any death as a coronavirus death when the postmortem test is positive. Even people who died in suicides and automobile accidents meet that definition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/29/us_covid-19_death_toll_is_inf lated.html

I'm not doing your homework for you in the future. If you wish to argue with me over something I posted as fact, do your homework/research...FIRST.[/B]

---

Newspapers are now the holders of all the facts?

If we are talking facts, the fact is that we do not know. Someone knows, but it isn't you and it isn't me.

posted November 15, 2020 01:32 PM            

I'll politely decline to take direction from anyone who believes that systematically reviewing The New York Times constitutes 'research'"

Factcheck.org sure as hell isn't the holder of 'all the facts' or even some facts. Yet you used that discredited, debunked, political arm of the democrat party. I know all about factcheck.org, the liars connected to what used to be the St Petersburg Times, the main newspaper in my area.

The NY Times was 'quoting' the DIRECTOR of the World Health Organization.

Real Clear Politics is NOT a newspaper.
Real Clear Politics 'quoted' Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health.

All my points were proved.

posted November 15, 2020 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:

Newspapers are now the holders of all the facts?
"If we are talking facts, the fact is that we do not know. Someone knows, but it isn't you and it isn't me.

I'll politely decline to take direction from anyone who believes that systematically reviewing The New York Times constitutes 'research'"

Factcheck.org sure as hell isn't the holder of 'all the facts' or even some facts. Yet you used that discredited, debunked, political arm of the democrat party. I know all about factcheck.org, the liars connected to what used to be the St Petersburg Times, the main newspaper in my area.

The NY Times was 'quoting' the [b]DIRECTOR of the World Health Organization.

Real Clear Politics is NOT a newspaper.
Real Clear Politics 'quoted' Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health.

All my points were proved.

Now, by any measure of objective reality, you've lost this argument, clearly and convincingly. Since 'argument' is your thing, it's time to take a big gulp, a deep breath and move on to an argument you can win...with facts, real facts. FACTS you find without someone doing your homework and research for you.[/B]

---

Jwhop, all you have proven is that you do not understand one of the most basic principles of research methods. You have proven none of your points to me, disappointingly.

I will again, politely decline to take any guidance from someone who doesn't understand research.

posted November 15, 2020 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
We'll be taking the vaccine. We won't be first in line. It'll likely have been in place for a good amount of time before we take it. We still don't know any locals who have been infected, despite living in a county with a persistent problem.

---

posted November 15, 2020 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
We'll be taking the vaccine. We won't be first in line. It'll likely have been in place for a good amount of time before we take it. We still don't know any locals who have been infected, despite living in a county with a persistent problem.

---

I might take it, but not right away. A woman in a local group, died during the summer. She was admitted to the hospital, and later found collapsed on the bathroom floor. She ended up on a ventilator, with a mostly anti-mask “it’s all a hoax” crowd praying for her, but she didn’t make it.

posted November 15, 2020 02:40 PM            

.
SAME STORY, DIFFERENT DECADE: HOW WHO’s DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC BENEFITS BIG PHARMA

When WHO broadened its definition of global pandemic in 2009, H1N1 vaccine makers profited at taxpayers’ expense. COVID vaccine makers will likely reap even more benefits.

By

Jeremy Loffredo

In the years leading up to 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) worked alongside vaccine manufacturers, namely  GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), to ensure that European and African countries entered into contracts to vaccinate their citizens in the event of an unforeseen global flu pandemic.

These dormant, or “sleeping contracts,” stipulated that if a global pandemic were to occur, it would trigger the contracts, specified pharmaceutical companies would manufacture flu vaccines and the respective governments would pay the vaccine manufacturers.

On June 11, 2009, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan declared H1N1 swine flu to be a global pandemic, triggering the dormant contracts and throwing the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry into high gear.

Chan was able to make this declaration based on WHO’s official definition of a pandemic, which was updated just a month before declaring the H1N1 pandemic — WHO deleted its definition of a pandemic from the organization’s website and replaced it with a new, more flexible definition.

Under the new definition, WHO no longer required that anyone die from an illness before the organization could declare a pandemic. The new definition stipulated only that infections be geographically widespread.

At the time WHO declared the H1N1 swine flu a pandemic, only 144 people worldwide had died from the infection. As Wolfgang Wodarg, then chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Health Committee, explained:

“The WHO had a definition of a pandemic, which it defined as a virus with high mortality and high morbidity. And in 2009 they suddenly dropped those two characteristics, saying nothing about severity or mortality.”
.

WHO wasn’t solely responsible for the decision to declare H1N1 a pandemic. WHO officials had consulted an emergency panel of 160 scientists on the International Health Regulations Committee. Although the identities of these scientists weren’t publicly known at the time, a 2010 British Medical Journal investigation revealed that many of the committee members who voted to declare H1N1 a pandemic had financial ties to flu vaccine manufacturers, including GSK.

The declaration of H1N1 as a pandemic launched $18 billion worth of “dormant” flu vaccine contracts, and allowed GSK to push its vaccine, Pandemrix, onto countries all over the world.

The Pandemrix vaccine caused severe, life-long, adverse neurological reactions, including narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden, brief loss of voluntary muscle tone triggered by strong emotions), in at least 1,300 children across Europe. It’s possible even more children were injured, as it’s estimated that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported through national adverse event reporting systems.

According to Reuters and other news reports, researchers believed the culprit behind the injuries caused by the GSK H1N1 vaccine was GSK’s AS03 adjuvant, added to the vaccine to stimulate a powerful immune response.

In Germany, controversy erupted when German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that top politicians and government employees were going to receive Celvapan, Baxter’s non-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, even though the government was publicly promoting GSK’s Pandemrix.

According to a British Medical Journal investigation, GSK’s own internal safety reports showed that GSK was aware of the safety problems with Pandemrix, but never disclosed them to the public. The most alarming data point was a five-fold increase in deaths among those who received Pandemrix, compared with people who received H1N1 swine flu vaccines that didn’t contain the adjuvant.

Lawsuits against the drugmaker began to pile up, but taxpayers ended up footing the bill for millions in damages — because the dormant vaccine contracts included full legal indemnity for the vaccine makers.

The panic that surrounded H1N1 swine flu and the subsequent rush to get vaccinated was in part driven by inflated and widely disseminated models which incorrectly predicted thousands upon thousands of people would die from the flu.

These models were provided by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team of researchers at London’s Imperial College. Ferguson’s group advised the UK government to prepare for at least 65,000 deaths. By the end of the pandemic, H1N1 swine flu had claimed the lives of just 457 people.
.
 
Paul Flynn, the vice chairman of the Council of Europe’s European Health Committee, said of the H1N1 swine flu debacle: “The world has been subjected to a stunt by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.”
.

Eleven years later, on March 11, 2020, WHO, relying on the same attenuated definition of a pandemic, declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.

Many governments based their COVID-19 prevention policies, including border closures and lockdowns, on computer models designed by Ferguson and his team at Oxford, despite the exponential inaccuracies of the model he had provided during the H1N1 pandemic.
Ferguson’s models predicted more than 2.2 million Americans would die from COVID-19. To date, about 229,000 have died.

Imperial College has received more than $180 million dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — making the self declared largest funder of vaccines in the world the second-largest funding source of Imperial College.
.

Imperial College also has financial ties to an organization founded and funded by the Gates Foundation, GAVI the Vaccine Alliance, a public–private global health partnership focused on increased access to vaccines.

Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientist in charge of U.S. efforts to find a COVID-19 vaccine, now known as Operation Warp Speed, was GSK’s Chairman of Vaccines in 2009. Slaoui oversaw the development and safety testing of GSK’s H1N1 Pandemrix.

In July 2020, Sanofi and GSK secured a $2.1 billion deal to supply the U.S. with 100 million doses of their vaccine. The partnership is a collaboration between a modified Sanofi flu shot and GSK’s AS03 adjuvant, the same compound believed to be responsible for causing permanent brain damage in at least 1,300 European children during the H1N1 swine flu.

If history repeats itself and GSK’s COVID vaccine causes adverse effects, taxpayers — not the vaccine maker — will once again be on the hook for damages. This is because in March 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, that broadens immunity for COVID vaccine makers, protecting them “against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration or use of medical countermeasures,” including vaccines.
.

These new protections are on top of those already granted to vaccine makers under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. NCVIA’s purpose is to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers in the face of vaccine injury claims.
👇

posted November 15, 2020 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
LESSONS FROM HISTORY -
VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE FOR EVERYONE
I'm going to post the whole short article, which is completely referenced.
👇

.
[b]SAME STORY, DIFFERENT DECADE: HOW WHO’s DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC BENEFITS BIG PHARMA

When WHO broadened its definition of global pandemic in 2009, H1N1 vaccine makers profited at taxpayers’ expense. COVID vaccine makers will likely reap even more benefits.

By

Jeremy Loffredo

In the years leading up to 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) worked alongside vaccine manufacturers, namely  GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), to ensure that European and African countries entered into contracts to vaccinate their citizens in the event of an unforeseen global flu pandemic.

These dormant, or “sleeping contracts,” stipulated that if a global pandemic were to occur, it would trigger the contracts, specified pharmaceutical companies would manufacture flu vaccines and the respective governments would pay the vaccine manufacturers.

On June 11, 2009, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan declared H1N1 swine flu to be a global pandemic, triggering the dormant contracts and throwing the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry into high gear.

Chan was able to make this declaration based on WHO’s official definition of a pandemic, which was updated just a month before declaring the H1N1 pandemic — WHO deleted its definition of a pandemic from the organization’s website and replaced it with a new, more flexible definition.

Under the new definition, WHO no longer required that anyone die from an illness before the organization could declare a pandemic. The new definition stipulated only that infections be geographically widespread.

At the time WHO declared the H1N1 swine flu a pandemic, only 144 people worldwide had died from the infection. As Wolfgang Wodarg, then chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Health Committee, explained:

“The WHO had a definition of a pandemic, which it defined as a virus with high mortality and high morbidity. And in 2009 they suddenly dropped those two characteristics, saying nothing about severity or mortality.”
.

WHO wasn’t solely responsible for the decision to declare H1N1 a pandemic. WHO officials had consulted an emergency panel of 160 scientists on the International Health Regulations Committee. Although the identities of these scientists weren’t publicly known at the time, a 2010 British Medical Journal investigation revealed that many of the committee members who voted to declare H1N1 a pandemic had financial ties to flu vaccine manufacturers, including GSK.

The declaration of H1N1 as a pandemic launched $18 billion worth of “dormant” flu vaccine contracts, and allowed GSK to push its vaccine, Pandemrix, onto countries all over the world.

The Pandemrix vaccine caused severe, life-long, adverse neurological reactions, including narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden, brief loss of voluntary muscle tone triggered by strong emotions), in at least 1,300 children across Europe. It’s possible even more children were injured, as it’s estimated that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported through national adverse event reporting systems.

According to Reuters and other news reports, researchers believed the culprit behind the injuries caused by the GSK H1N1 vaccine was GSK’s AS03 adjuvant, added to the vaccine to stimulate a powerful immune response.

In Germany, controversy erupted when German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that top politicians and government employees were going to receive Celvapan, Baxter’s non-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, even though the government was publicly promoting GSK’s Pandemrix.

According to a British Medical Journal investigation, GSK’s own internal safety reports showed that GSK was aware of the safety problems with Pandemrix, but never disclosed them to the public. The most alarming data point was a five-fold increase in deaths among those who received Pandemrix, compared with people who received H1N1 swine flu vaccines that didn’t contain the adjuvant.

Lawsuits against the drugmaker began to pile up, but taxpayers ended up footing the bill for millions in damages — because the dormant vaccine contracts included full legal indemnity for the vaccine makers.

The panic that surrounded H1N1 swine flu and the subsequent rush to get vaccinated was in part driven by inflated and widely disseminated models which incorrectly predicted thousands upon thousands of people would die from the flu.

These models were provided by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team of researchers at London’s Imperial College. Ferguson’s group advised the UK government to prepare for at least 65,000 deaths. By the end of the pandemic, H1N1 swine flu had claimed the lives of just 457 people.
.
 
Paul Flynn, the vice chairman of the Council of Europe’s European Health Committee, said of the H1N1 swine flu debacle: “The world has been subjected to a stunt by the greed of the pharmaceutical companies.”
.

Eleven years later, on March 11, 2020, WHO, relying on the same attenuated definition of a pandemic, declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.

Many governments based their COVID-19 prevention policies, including border closures and lockdowns, on computer models designed by Ferguson and his team at Oxford, despite the exponential inaccuracies of the model he had provided during the H1N1 pandemic.
Ferguson’s models predicted more than 2.2 million Americans would die from COVID-19. To date, about 229,000 have died.

Imperial College has received more than $180 million dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — making the self declared largest funder of vaccines in the world the second-largest funding source of Imperial College.
.

Imperial College also has financial ties to an organization founded and funded by the Gates Foundation, GAVI the Vaccine Alliance, a public–private global health partnership focused on increased access to vaccines.

Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientist in charge of U.S. efforts to find a COVID-19 vaccine, now known as Operation Warp Speed, was GSK’s Chairman of Vaccines in 2009. Slaoui oversaw the development and safety testing of GSK’s H1N1 Pandemrix.

In July 2020, Sanofi and GSK secured a $2.1 billion deal to supply the U.S. with 100 million doses of their vaccine. The partnership is a collaboration between a modified Sanofi flu shot and GSK’s AS03 adjuvant, the same compound believed to be responsible for causing permanent brain damage in at least 1,300 European children during the H1N1 swine flu.

If history repeats itself and GSK’s COVID vaccine causes adverse effects, taxpayers — not the vaccine maker — will once again be on the hook for damages. This is because in March 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, that broadens immunity for COVID vaccine makers, protecting them “against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration or use of medical countermeasures,” including vaccines.
.

These new protections are on top of those already granted to vaccine makers under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. NCVIA’s purpose is to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers in the face of vaccine injury claims.
👇

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-definition-global-pandemic-benefits-big-pharma/[/B]

---

posted November 15, 2020 03:01 PM            

Any dude with brains will take that 1/3rd chance to protect himself.

There are layers of filters in the N95 and the CV being short lived dies before it latches to the mucous cells. Any one living in cold countries knows how wearing layered clothing gives them more warmth. Same with filtering.

N95 cannot be bought right now by any consumer because of the gaps in demand supply and the health workers great need it. My doctor survived so far just wearing surgical masks and washing hands periodically with 60 percent alcohol.