The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an investigation into the EU’s coronavirus vaccine purchases, an announcement that will refocus attention on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s role in the matter.
The EPPO is an independent EU body responsible for investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, including fraud, money laundering and corruption. In its announcement on Friday, the EPPO didn’t specify who was being investigated, or which of the EU’s vaccine contracts were under scrutiny.
However, twoother watchdog agencies have previously drawn attention to one particular deal involving high-level contacts between Pfizer’s leadership and von der Leyen.
So I wrote a question in response at 10pm on October 17, 2022:
Dr. Paul Offit who sits on the FDA advisory committee isn’t getting the booster. He is a world expert on vaccines. The vaccine offers no benefit: all the mice challenged with Omicron got Omicron. It was 100% a failure in preventing infection and previous doses already provide protection for hospitalization and death. Do any of you know something Paul Offit doesn’t know? Please let us know and share the scientific evidence. Thank you.
The only question is, how long do you think my post will last before they censor it?
Few quotes from the article I wanted to highlight:
“there are other signs that faith in vaccines might be falling:”
“First, the Trump administration and many of its political allies downplayed the threat of the virus”
At the start of the pandemic the Democratic party denied that the virus was a threat and heavily criticized for his discriminatory and unscientific travel bans from countries like China.
“It’s not very hard to imagine an alternate universe where the successful development and deployment of Covid-19 vaccines engendered renewed faith in vaccines generally.”
It always amazes me that these people can’t grasp the opposition may be a result of the vaccines not having been successfully developed and instead being unsafe and uneffective.
“or eliminate the right of a minor to make their own decisions about getting vaccinated”
Laws were pushed through previously to make minors be able to be vaccinated without parental consent, which resulted in many children who could not say no being forced to vaccinate (e.g. against HPV) and then be seriously injured. California tried to pass one of these laws recently and there was so much protest it was withdrawn.
“And the occasional measles outbreak in areas with low local vaccination rates has shown how quickly these diseases can recover and spread when given the opportunity.”
This quote highlights many of the problems with vaccines from a public health standpoint but why vaccines are excellent from a business standpoint.
(Natural News) Dr. Paul Offit, one of the Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) vaccine advisers, admitted on video that the new Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) bivalent boosters have no benefits whatsoever.
Vaccine safety advocate Steve Kirsch posted a video of Offit’s remarks about the boosters during the expert’s interview with CNBC. Offit, a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), voted against the approval of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose.
“Do the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks? I didn’t see the benefits [and] I feel very strongly about my ‘no’ vote there. In fact, the only reason I voted no was because ‘hell no’ was not a choice,” he said.
“It just surprised me that we were willing to go forward with this, with such scant evidence of benefit. I think the phrase that I used was ‘uncomfortably scant.’ You just sort of felt like the fix was in a little bit here. I felt like we were being led here with a critical lack of information.”
According to Offit, the FDA based its approval of the bivalent COVID-19 boosters on data from clinical trials done on eight mice. “I don’t think you should ever ask tens of billions of people to get a vaccine based on mouse data,” he said.
“The reason to consult [the VRBPAC] is because when [the FDA does] that … that’s open to the public. So we’ll get then all the data from the two companies, which then is available to the public. By not doing that, by simply saying ‘We don’t need that advice’” what they’re also saying is ‘We’re not [going to] be transparent about what we have to the American public.’ And I just think that’s not fair.”
Offit ultimately concluded: “If you clearly have evidence of benefit, great. But if you don’t clearly have any evidence of benefit, then say no.”
Kirsch explains why Offit voted no on the bivalent booster
“You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccine in general, and the COVID-19 vaccines specifically, in American medicine than Offit,” the vaccine safety advocate wrote. “He voted ‘yes’ to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as six months.”
Kirsch then put down Offit’s three reasons for voting against the booster.
First, he pointed out a lack of a trial to “show that there are any clinical benefits at all.” Kirsch added: “Any clinical benefits must be weighed against the risks.”
Second, he cited Offit’s remarks during an interview with MedPage Today that the initial vaccine doses provide sufficient protection against severe COVID-19 – meaning there is no additional benefit for a booster.
“The question is: Does it matter? Because still, it looks like you’re protected against severe illness – so does it really matter to get that third dose? I would argue ‘no’,” Offit expounded.
Third, Kirsch pointed out that the FDA “does not really want the outside committee members to actually review the scientific data. They just want them to vote yes, so it looks like outside experts reviewed the data.” This third reason, incidentally, aligned with Offit’s comments regarding how “the fix was in” and that he and other experts “were being led … with a critical lack of information.”
“The FDA provides hundreds of pages of material just days before the meeting, giving members an inadequate amount of time to review the data before voting on it,” Kirsch remarked.
“It’s just another example of sham science. The [VRBPAC] panel is simply there to rubber stamp what the White House and FDA want to do. They are not there to protect the public.”