Moment hundreds of Antifa terrorists storm, take Atlanta Police training compound captured on video

Image: Moment hundreds of Antifa terrorists storm, take Atlanta Police training compound captured on video

(Natural News) The moment that hundreds of thuggish Antifa “domestic terrorists” took over an Atlanta Police training compound that is under construction was caught on video last week and posted online.

A video posted on Facebook showed almost 150 rioters dressed in all black or camouflage and wearing ski masks entering the site of Atlanta’s future Public Safety Training Facility, also known as Cop City by those protesting its development. They threw commercial fireworks at police officers immediately upon entering, the Daily Mail reported.

“Some of the group could later be seen gathering riot shields, as they motioned for others to join them,” the outlet noted.

Other footage posted online showed the rioters setting a police surveillance tower on fire, causing smoke to billow nearby. After that, the group proceeded to throw Molotov cocktails at a construction vehicle and fled the scene as it was left burning, the outlet noted further.

“A group of violent agitators used the cover of a peaceful protest of the proposed Atlanta Public Safety Training Center to conduct a coordinated attack,” the Atlanta Police Department said in a statement. “They changed into black clothing and entered the construction area and began to throw large rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails and fireworks at police officers.

“The agitators destroyed multiple pieces of construction equipment by fire and vandalism. The illegal actions of the agitators could have resulted in bodily harm,” the statement continued.

The department insisted that officers on the scene “exercised restraint and used non-lethal enforcement to conduct arrests,” though clearly, as many believe, they would have been justified at using more force — perhaps even deadly force considering the Antifa mob was armed with lethal Molotov cocktails.


“With protests planned for the coming days, the Atlanta Police Department in collaboration with law enforcement partners have a multi-layered strategy that includes reaction and arrest,” the department’s statement noted further. The Atlanta Police Department asks for this week’s protests to remain peaceful.”

CNN reported further:

Police and construction equipment were assailed with Molotov cocktails, commercial-grade fireworks, bricks and large rocks, authorities said.

A construction tractor was set ablaze, with smoke billowing into the air, footage from the area shows. At least four other fires burned in and around the fenced site as people dressed in black swarmed both sides of a police barricade before additional officers arrived, surveillance videos released by the Atlanta Police Department show.

Following the incident, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) announced that she is sponsoring a bill to declare Antifa as a terrorist organization.

“This is domestic terrorism. It was planned for weeks and announced on social media. Antifa are domestic terrorists, and I’m introducing my bill to officially declare them a terrorist organization on Tuesday,” she wrote on Monday, on Twitter.

On Sunday night, protesters claimed that police arrived at a music festival being held at the site and surrounded the attendees as the sun went down. They allegedly threatened legal observers with arrest. Photos and videos taken at the scene showed police forcing people to the ground and placing them into police vans. Officers have had to deal with thugs and terrorists at the construction site for months.

“Seven of those arrests emanated from a violent riot in downtown Atlanta on January 21, sparked by Teran’s death. Several had ties to Antifa and were charged with domestic terrorism and criminal trespass,” the Daily Mail reported further.

The Atlanta Police Department provided a list on Monday that showed 35 people had been detained, with two of them being from Georgia and others coming from as far as Maine and Arizona in the US, as well as Canada, and France. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation will prosecute the charges.

They should get the maximum prison sentence allowed to send a message that this kind of nonsense is no longer going to be tolerated.

Sources include:

Left-wing ACLU urging Congress not to ban China-linked spyware app TikTok

Image: Left-wing ACLU urging Congress not to ban China-linked spyware app TikTok

(Natural News) Once again, the far-left ‘legal’ group the American Civil Liberties Union, has proven that it loves America’s enemies more than it loves tens of millions of Americans.

The ACLU is pushing Congress to refrain from banning the social media platform TikTok, arguing that prohibiting the app, which is owned by China, a foreign nation considered hostile, would infringe upon Americans’ First Amendment rights.

A TikTok ban would allegedly “limit Americans’ political discussion, artistic expression, free exchange of ideas — and even prevent people from posting cute animal videos and memes,” the ACLU said in a letter to lawmakers, said a report by MSN.

“Americans have a right to use TikTok and other platforms to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people around the country and around the world,” the ACLU added.

“Congress must not censor entire platforms and strip Americans of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. Whether we’re discussing the news of the day, live streaming protests, or ??even watching cat videos, we have a right to use TikTok and other platforms to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people around the country and around the world,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU, according to the group.

During the first House China Select Committee hearing last month, former Deputy National Security Adviser of the United States Matthew Pottinger warned that Chinese company-linked platforms like TikTok “gives the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] the ability to manipulate our social discourse.”


“TikTok is already one of the most powerful media companies in American history, and it’s still growing. It’s not just dances and kid stuff. It’s becoming a major source of news for a generation of Americans,” he added.

The social media platform TikTok is widely believed to be a tool for Chinese surveillance and propaganda, disguised as a regular app. It has been flagged as a danger to minors, a national security threat, and accused of meddling in US elections. Recently, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee voted along party lines to pass a bill that would authorize President Joe Biden to ban TikTok and other Chinese-owned apps throughout the country.

“On Monday, the White House issued a directive that gave all government agencies 30 days to eliminate TikTok, which is now banned by law from any U.S. government devices,” Breitbart News reported.

TikTok really began to face scrutiny after the Trump administration, when the then-president announced plans to ban the app, along with other Chinese apps, from operating in the United States, citing security concerns.

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman called the app out, stating that it was “fundamentally parasitic.”

“Maybe I’m going to regret this, but I can’t even get to that level of thinking with them,” Huffman told the site TechCrunch. “Because I look at that app as so fundamentally parasitic, that it’s always listening, the fingerprinting technology they use is truly terrifying, and I could not bring myself to install an app like that on my phone.”

“Don’t install that spyware on your phone,” he added.

Apple recently discovered that TikTok was spying on users through a security loophole in iOS that allowed apps to access the clipboard on users’ devices secretly. Security researchers Talal Haj Bakry and Tommy Mysk found that TikTok was one of the apps using this loophole, which was set to be plugged in the upcoming iOS 14 update.

Cybersecurity expert Gary Miliefsky, who in 2014 discovered that many of the top mobile flashlight apps in Google’s Play store were linked to China, worries that the app may be a scaled-up version of those spyware apps.

“If you want to spy on a country, why send in a spy the old-fashioned way?” he said. “Why not just send in a great app and make it go viral?”

Sources include:

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel admits company made 100K COVID-19 vaccine doses in 2019 before the pandemic even started

Image: Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel admits company made 100K COVID-19 vaccine doses in 2019 before the pandemic even started

(Natural News) Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel admitted during a talk with the World Economic Forum (WEF) that the company was already manufacturing Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines as early as 2019, months before the pandemic officially started.

The admission occurred during a Jan. 19 panel session of the WEF 2023 conference in Davos, Switzerland, called “State of the Pandemic.”

During the session, journalist Sasha Vakulina, who was moderating the panel, asked Bancel to discuss Moderna’s vaccine development, adoption and scaling with regard to how the company responded to the rise of different coronavirus variants. In his answer, Bancel admitted that the company had already been manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines since 2019, months before the first cases reached Europe and North America.

“So the great news versus 2020, where we are today is that we have manufacturing capacity,” said Bancel. “When the pandemic happened, Moderna had made 100,000 doses in 2019 for the whole year.” (Related: Moderna plans to release mRNA vaccines for other diseases, including cancer.)

Furthermore, Bancel admitted that the company knew that there was going to be a global pandemic in 2020.

“And I remember walking into the office of my manufacturing and I say, ‘How about we make a billion doses next year?’” he added. “And they look at me a bit funny and say, ‘What?’ And I say, ‘Yeah, we need to make a billion dose next year, there’s going to be a pandemic.’”

Mainstream media outlets defend Bancel, claim his words were “misinterpreted”

The clip of Bancel’s admission spread rapidly all over social media in the days and weeks following his statement. Kate Cronin, a spokesperson for Moderna, immediately claimed that it is “totally incorrect” to suggest that Bancel admitted to the company manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines in 2019.


Furthermore, multiple mainstream media outlets have also come to the defense of the Big Pharma CEO, claiming his words were deliberately misinterpreted.

Sudiksha Kochi, writing for USA Today, claimed that Bancel never specifically said the company made 100,000 COVID-19 vaccines in 2019, writing: “Moderna made approximately 100,000 vaccine doses in 2019 across all of the company’s products.”

Sophia Tulp, writing for the Associated Press, reiterated Kochi’s claim, pointing out that transcripts of other interviews with Bancel show he has made similar remarks in the past that make it clear the 100,000 doses he mentioned to refers to all of the vaccines Moderna manufactured in 2019. Tulp further claims that people who shared the clip of Bancel were deliberately misconstruing his words.

“Social media users sharing this clip to suggest Bancel was admitting to predicting the pandemic, and preliminary producing vaccines, ignore the fact that he does not specify what kind of doses he’s discussing when he mentions 2019 production,” she claimed. “Previous interviews with Bancel in which he makes nearly identical remarks also make clear that he’s comparing 2019 doses of any kind of vaccine with the upgraded capacity put into place once the virus began rapidly spreading in early 2020.”

But what media outlets fail to point out is that these previous statements from Bancel also show him admitting to developing COVID-19 vaccines before the pandemic.

In one appearance on CNBC in early January, journalist Rebecca Quick commented that in her last meeting with Bancel, during a WEF meeting in early 2020, the CEO admitted that Moderna was already working on a COVID-19 vaccine even though the disease at that point didn’t even have a name yet.

“I remember … you were talking about how you had actually, you were working on a vaccine for COVID,” said Quick. “At that point, COVID-19 didn’t even really exist in our minds.”

“I think there was no name at that time,” responded Bancel.

For more news about Big Pharma companies, visit

Watch the full clip from the World Economic Forum of Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel admitting to producing thousands of COVID-19 vaccine doses in 2019 before the pandemic even began.

This is from the GalacticStorm channel on

More related articles:

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel brags to WEF attendees about predicting a “billion dollar” pandemic in 2019.

CHURNING OUT DEATH: Moderna CEO wants mRNA vaccine factories on every continent.

GREED PARADE: Moderna plans to sell COVID-19 vaccine for up to $130 per dose – more than 8 times its initial price of $15.25 per dose.

Moderna patented a 19-nucleotide sequence in 2013 that matches the most infectious sequence of SARS-CoV-2.

Moderna developing new mRNA injection to heal damaged hearts, after mRNA COVID vaccines cause heart damage.

Sources include:

How Pfizer’s Trials Were Fraudulent

how pfizers trials were fraudulent

  • Die Welt, a mainstream media outlet in Germany, revealed that numerous subjects who suffered adverse events, including deaths, during Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials were removed from the trial data

  • A person known as “Pfizer subject C4591001 1162 11621327” died three days after receiving the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot, reportedly due to stroke and arteriosclerosis; it was deemed unrelated to the shots

  • The CDC has since warned that people ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke

  • Die Welt also revealed contradictions in Pfizer documents, adverse events from the shot downplayed and mass unblinding of study subjects, which wasn’t revealed in a later approval study

  • In November 2020, Pfizer claimed their COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and based on flawed methodology, including excluding people who got COVID-19 within 14 days after their first shot

  • Pfizer has profited immensely despite the concerns, earning a record $100 billion in 2022, including $37.8 billion for its COVID-19 shots and $18.9 billion for its antiviral drug Paxlovid

Visit Mercola Market


Details continue to emerge about coverups and fraud that took place during Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot trials. Die Welt, a mainstream media outlet in Germany, revealed that numerous subjects who suffered adverse events, including deaths, were removed from the trial data.

Meanwhile, trial data were manipulated “to create the illusion” the shot is 90% effective, for instance by excluding participants who got injected and developed COVID-19 within the next 14 days.

Taken together, it leaves little doubt that COVID-19 shots cannot be trusted.

The Die Welt report described several deaths that occurred shortly after the injections, but were excluded from the trial data. Among them was a person known as “Pfizer subject C4591001 1162 11621327.” The person, a 60-year-old man, died three days after receiving the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot, reportedly due to stroke

and arteriosclerosis.

Independent journalist Igor Chudov detailed the case on Substack, noting that the man was discovered via a welfare check, and may have died within two days of the shot. Chudov reported:

“According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.

In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

However, it appears the medical examiner may have been unaware the man had received an experimental COVID-19 shot shortly before his death, and didn’t give the examination a closer look. Pfizer also neglected to request the medical examiner’s report to assess a potential link. Chudov continued:

“They just took the police report’s word that he died of ‘arteriosclerosis,’ stated that Covid Vax cannot cause ‘arteriosclerosis,’ and ruled it ‘unrelated.’ The patient was buried and forgotten. If I may guess, the examiner’s diagnosis was not even accurate. The medications that the deceased took, indicate no ongoing, severe sclerotic disease.”

Another subject in Pfizer’s trial also died 20 days after the shots. The death was ruled as due to a cardiac arrest. But pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner told Die Welt:

“According to the current state of science, these two cases would be assigned to the vaccination, especially since the U.S. health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known. [Pfizer’s investigators] falsely ruled these deaths unrelated.”

Indeed, an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration warned that people ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke.

The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which uses near real-time surveillance to track vaccine safety, flagged the potential safety issue, revealing that those 65 and over were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving Pfizer’s bivalent COVID-19 shot compared to 22 to 44 days later.

The FDA and CDC released the statement on a Friday night before a three-day weekend, “which is proof they wanted to bury it,” Dr. Meryl Nass, a board-certified internal medicine physician with special expertise in vaccine safety and vaccine mandates, said.

Even Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo tweeted about the odd timing:

“What better time than a Friday afternoon for @CDCgov and @US_FDA to let Americans know that the mRNA shots they’ve been pushing may be causing strokes? Don’t worry, we’ll make sure the word gets out — just like we’ve been doing for months.”

Die Welt also revealed contradictions in Pfizer documents and mass unblinding of study subjects, which wasn’t revealed in a later approval study:

“In one fell swoop, the test management said goodbye to 53 subjects on August 31, 2020. The test candidates were ‘unblinded,’ which means they were informed about their vaccination status, a process that the Pfizer study protocol expressly only provides for ‘in emergencies.’

But there is nothing about it in the approval study. In protocol documents that are available to WELT, and which are actually not intended for the public, those responsible get caught up in contradictions.”

Another example revealed by Die Welt involves trial participant Augusto Roux, a lawyer in Argentina. After receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, he experienced shortness of breath and chest pain, and passed out. Within days, he visited a hospital for his symptoms, where he tested negative for COVID-19 but a CT scan showed fluid, or pericardial effusion, in Roux’s heart.

A physician noted in his chart, “Adverse reaction to the coronavirus vaccine (high probability).” Despite this connection and ongoing health problems, this adverse reaction was downplayed by Pfizer and listed as unrelated to the shots. According to Die Welt:

“Over the next few months, Roux lost 14 kilos [30.8 pounds], he had liver problems, and his heart sometimes beat irregularly … The diagnosis for the symptoms after the second vaccination is very likely to be ‘pericarditis,’ inflammation of the heart. All of this fits exactly with a clinical picture that the Paul Ehrlich Institute also has in its list of ‘rare side effects’ for mRNA vaccines.

… His story, one might think, should appear in Pfizer’s pivotal study papers, but it doesn’t. The pharmaceutical company’s papers say Roux informed the research team that he was hospitalized with pneumonia on both sides, following the initial report, which was classified as an ‘adverse event of toxicity level 1.’

That could have nothing to do with the vaccine, the file goes on to say, it is probably a Covid infection. Not a word that Roux had tested negative for Corona in several PCR tests.”

In November 2020, Pfizer claimed its COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and based on flawed methodology.

One trick used to get this misleadingly high efficacy figure is to ignore people who got COVID-19 within 14 days after their first shot.

In Pfizer’s trial, 37.2% of those who were tested for COVID-19 within 13 days of their first shot were positive — but not counted as such. How can this skew results? As explained on Substack’s “Where are the numbers,” a newsletter about the abuse of science and statistics:

“Imagine the most extreme case in which every vaccinated person gets covid within the first two weeks of their first dose. Then, assuming (as is likely) that none get infected a second time within the 19 weeks, according to the study definition no vaccinated people ever got covid over the whole period of the study.

If only one person in the the unvaccinated comparative cohort had got covid, over the same period, the vaccine efficacy (defined as one minus the proportion of vaccinated infected divided by the proportion of unvaccinated infected times 100) will be reported as 100%.”

The study found that during any two-week period from December 28, 2020, to May 19, 2021, the COVID-19 infection rate was about 0.8%, compared to 37.2% among those tested within two weeks of their first shot.

“If people were tested every two weeks then we could reasonably conclude the vaccinated were getting infected — within two weeks of their first jab — at a rate that was almost 50 times greater than the general rate for this population,” but “if you don’t look for covid, by not testing for it, or by ignoring the test results you won’t find it.”

They also pointed out that no deaths occurred among the participants who tested positive for COVID-19 and had at least one COVID-19-like symptom, including among the 812 (out of 1,482) who were unvaccinated. But since this clearly makes the shots look unnecessary and ineffective, it was conveniently ignored:

“[T]here was a grand total of zero deaths: an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0%. And 812 of those were unvaccinated. Bear in mind that this when covid was supposed to have been rampaging globally and causing widespread death.

And of course that nugget somehow never got mentioned in the abstract, mains results, conclusions, or discussion. It only appeared in the detailed results section (along with the fact that only 2% were hospitalized).”

Former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd also warned about problems with Pfizer’s trial. A friend from the biotech industry told him that the all-cause mortality endpoint had been missed by Pfizer in the original clinical trial, meaning that in the jab group there were more deaths than in the placebo group. Normally, during the drug approval process, if you fail that endpoint, you do not get approved.

Dowd said. “When that came out in November, the biotech executives who saw that decided they weren’t going to get boosters, and the people who weren’t vaxxed were not going to get vaxxed.”

Whistleblower Brooke Jackson, a regional director formerly employed by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, also witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported.

“I was working on Pfizer’s trial,” she said in the film “Anecdotals.”

“What I saw was like nothing I’ve ever seen before.” She explained:

“The speed in which they were enrolling in the study — four to five coordinators pushing through 40, 50, 60 patients a day. We were not storing the vaccine at its appropriate temperature, the failures in reporting serious adverse events. We had so many reports of adverse events … we just could not keep up. The study doctor signed a physical exam when he wasn’t even in clinic.

Then Ventavia had unblinded every patient that was randomized in the trial. When we brought it to their attention, that’s what we were instructed to do — remove the evidence and destroy it. Emails about mislabeled blood specimens per Pfizer’s protocol, we should have immediately stopped enrolling, but they never told Pfizer.

I would bring the concerns to my managers and it was, ‘We’re understaffed.’ The FDA — they only see what Pfizer gives them. So I was documenting all of this. And on the 25th of September, I went directly to the FDA, and about six and a half hours later, I lost my job. I was fired.”

The FDA and Pfizer attempted to hide the COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years, but the FDA was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to release redacted versions of trial documents on a much faster schedule. As part of the court order, 80,000 pages of documents related to the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots were released June 1, 2022.

Among those documents were case report forms revealing that deaths and severe adverse events took place during Phase 3 trials, but, as reported by Children’s Health Defense, Pfizer had “a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”

Pfizer has profited immensely nonetheless, earning a record $100 billion in 2022, including $37.8 billion for its COVID-19 shots and $18.9 billion for its antiviral drug Paxlovid.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

What Really Happened Inside the COVID-19 Vaccine Trials?

what happened inside covid vaccine trials

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • One strategy used by Big Pharma to gaslight those injured by pharmaceuticals is to insist that there is no data linking the injury to the drug. Frequently however, these injuries were, in fact, observed in the trial but simply covered up to create the illusion the pharmaceutical was safe

  • For Big Pharma to hide injuries that occur within a clinical trial requires them to aggressively gaslight the injured participants. Despite the fact that this ongoing practice had produced decades of bad data and severely harmed countless trial participants, nothing has been done to address this issue

  • Numerous individuals have bravely come forward to provide testimony that severe research misconduct occurred throughout the COVID-19 trials. This misconduct resulted in a high human cost. The misconduct observed is similar to what has happened in previous trials, and proves that the COVID-19 vaccine approval was fraudulent

Visit Mercola Market


Recently, I reviewed the horrendous subject of medical gaslighting, something that many have had to face throughout the pandemic, when one doctor after another made the claim that COVID-19 vaccine reactions can’t exist and your physical problems must all be in your head. Today I will discuss a central foundation of medical gaslighting.

One of the major things that underlies almost all cults (along with many other organizations that seek to control large numbers of people) is that its adherents are trained to interpret everything they see through the lens of their ideology, and deny anything they observe which challenges it. Within the modern institution of science, this is accomplished by creating the mythology that humans are irrational beings whose observations cannot be trusted.

“Science,” then solves this problem it created by providing “evidence” that is more trustworthy than anyone’s individual “flawed” observations, and thus effectively silences any challenges to the institution (e.g., those inconvenient observations frequently made by members of the public).

Often in medicine, we observe this issue because doctors will insist that there is “no evidence” that an adverse reaction to a medical product could have occurred. Rather, the injury must have been a coincidence or the product of a pre-existing psychological problem. As you might expect, this mindset incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to do everything they can to produce doctored clinical trials that conceal any and all adverse events from their product.

This problem is epitomized by the “gold standard” of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In theory, these trials provide the most accurate data (to the point doctors will rarely consider anything else), but in reality, their benefit is much less than most realize (eloquently explained within this essay by Harvey Risch).

Conversely, it costs an enormous amount of money to conduct large RCTs, and that “sponsor bias” inevitably results in the trial being twisted to support the interests of its sponsors.

Sadly, although this is a longstanding issue, very little has been done to address it and the majority of doctors in practice are completely unaware of this problem, as they view RCTs as being a necessary box to check off in deciding what medical decisions to make.

Note: When the effect of a drug is very small, a large placebo controlled trial is necessary to detect the benefit (or just fabricate it), but when the benefit is large, it can be demonstrated with a much smaller trial. I and colleagues are thus comfortable using data from smaller trials as we believe that therapies used clinically need to demonstrate a substantial benefit rather than a minute one which you must take on faith from a large trial’s data.

As far as I know, there have been four different vaccines that were given to a large number of adults that had no benefit, and an extremely high rate of serious adverse injuries. The forgotten lessons of what happened from the first three (smallpoxanthrax and human papilloma virus) were important as they each accurately forecasted what would happen once again with the COVID-19 vaccines.

The most recent one, Gardasil, the vaccine for HPV, provided no benefit to those who received it, and had a very high rate of severe reactions in adolescent young girls. It did however make Merck a lot of money at a time when the company was hemorrhaging income from the lawsuits against it for Vioxx — similarly Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is the most successful pharmaceutical product in history.

When the trials for the HPV vaccine were conducted, an alarming rate of adverse events (predominantly autoimmune in nature) occurred, and Merck’s doctors systematically gaslighted the participants into believing that their illnesses were not associated with Gardasil.

After extensive investigation, and trial participants coming forward, it was determined that Merck deliberately concealed a large number of severe adverse events to make it possible for the vaccine to go to market. However, rather than address these medical issues (and the large number of complaints the government received from injured Americans), the FDA and CDC worked in tandem to produce research suggesting that the HPV vaccine was, in fact, safe.

At this point, the best metaphor I have come up with to describe what I’ve observed regarding enrolling in the pharmaceutical clinical trial process is that it is akin to entering an abusive relationship. The abuser will initially flatter you and promise you one thing after another in return for your consent to enter their web of deception.

Then, once they have you on board, they will break each promise they made, gradually treating you worse and worse, and gaslighting you into believing that those issues are not really happening. Finally, once they no longer need you, they will discard you and leave you to pick up the pieces (which is often almost impossible if you have a life-changing medical injury). Keep this in mind as we review what happened in the COVID-19 trials.

The essential purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine trials was to:

  • Be completed in a much shorter time frame than normal so that the vaccines could make it to the market before the pandemic ended on its own (which is essentially what has happened in Africa where vaccines were never used).

  • Come up with something that could be used to justify that the vaccines were “effective” so that the medical profession would wholeheartedly support and promote them.

  • Conceal any adverse reactions from the vaccines that would make the medical profession reluctant to recommend the vaccines, and, more importantly, ensure that during the rollout, doctors would deny that any harms they observed in patients could be linked to the vaccine (because doctors acknowledging widespread injuries would destroy the public’s willingness to continue vaccinating).

Note: The FDA also understood the urgency to open this long-term marketplace, and waived a variety of oversights that would normally be required using the present “emergency” as the justification for doing so. Similarly, to quote a recent investigation by Die Welt:

“But was there even time for such a solid assessment by the authorities? E-mails from the EMA [Europe’s FDA], which are available to WELT [the newspaper], show that the FDA, the British MHRA [England’s FDA] and the EMA itself had already agreed on the date of approval before they could even take a look at the Pfizer papers.”

Long before the vaccines entered the market, I started to see the signs that an elaborate publicity campaign was being put together to frame the vaccines as the miraculous “solution” to the horrific pandemic situation we were experiencing (which was largely self-inflicted). Once the vaccines became available, that publicity campaign kicked into high gear and became the most aggressive propaganda campaign we had ever witnessed in our lifetimes.

Not surprisingly, this scheme also led to the vaccine manufacturers having the audacity to use titles like “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 [Pfizer] mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine” for the publications of their trials. Simultaneously, we were hit with the same soundbite over and over “well we had hoped the vaccines would be effective, but we never imagined they would be this effective.”

My colleagues ate that up, and it became nearly impossible to provide any piece of evidence with which to challenge this purported modern-day miracle.

When the COVID-19 vaccine trials happened, like many before them, the participants were promised that any issues that emerged would be taken care of by the vaccine manufacturers. Instead, when those injuries did occur, the participants were repeatedly told that their ailments had nothing to do with the vaccine.

In addition, these unfortunate people were diagnosed with a mental disorder, denied (contractually required) medical care, and removed from the trial. In short, textbook abusive gaslighting was perpetrated to its fullest extent on COVID-19 trial participants.

Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a playbook for how they can conceal adverse events and create the illusion of their medication’s efficacy. Those who had become familiar with this scheme from studying past debacles like the Gardasil trials were thus able to rapidly identify the same industry playbook being utilized within the COVID-19 trials.

When I read through the original Pfizer trial, a few red flags jumped out at me:

  • The vaccines were never tested for preventing transmission, and based on their design and my knowledge of precisely how previous vaccines failed to prevent transmission, I did not believe it could be taken on faith that the vaccine’s efficacy in reducing symptoms translated to the benefit that all my colleagues ultimately cared about (reducing the transmission of COVID-19).

  • The actual benefits provided by the vaccine were very small. You had to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one minor case of COVID-19 (e.g., a sore throat + a positive test), 2711 people to prevent one “severe” case of COVID-19, and since no deaths were prevented in the trial, well over 21,720 people needed to be vaccinated (21,720 is the total number who were vaccinated in the trial) to prevent a single death from COVID-19.

  • Most of the suspected adverse reactions to these vaccines (e.g., cancer) did not appear to have been amongst the adverse events that were monitored (they were also unlikely to appear in the brief timespan of symptoms being monitored within this trial).

  • The adverse events that were reported were much higher than what has typically been reported in trials for other vaccines (e.g., 59% experienced fatigue after Pfizer’s vaccine, whereas around 10-15% experience fatigue after an influenza vaccine).

  • The actual benefit that the vaccines provided was much less than these adverse events that were acknowledged within the trial report.

  • The noteworthy adverse events (about which I remembered reading in the online support groups I had joined in 2020 for vaccine trial participants) were not accounted for in any of the trial reports I read (Pfizer included). I had joined these online groups because I was suspicious of the vaccines and, knowing what had happened in the HPV vaccine trials, felt that doing this would be the only way to find out what actually happened to the trial participants.

As I considered all of this, I could not help but wonder “if this was the best they could do using every possible trick at their disposal to rearrange their data to paint a positive picture of the vaccines, just how bad was the actual trial data?”

Unfortunately, my physician colleagues (who frequently lectured us on how to skeptically dissect scientific publications) were so enraptured by “the vaccine is even more safe and effective than we imagined” meme, that all these points fell on deaf ears.

Fortunately, some DID notice these issues, and Peter Doshi published a series of editorials (summarized here) in the British Medical Journal (BMJ — considered to be one of the top 5 medical journals in the world) that explained why the design of the vaccine trials and the evidence for Pfizer’s vaccines was very poor, and could not justify an FDA approval.

Sadly, his experience with his colleagues mirrored my own, and his points were almost entirely ignored by the medical profession.

One of Doshi’s many observations was that there were signs in the data that the trial was not blinded, and the entire benefit of the vaccine may have been due to a failure to test vaccinated individuals for COVID-19 (thus creating the illusion that vaccinated individuals were less likely to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19).

Subsequently, a whistleblower, Brook Jackson, who helped run one of Pfizer’s clinical trials, came forward and testified to the following:

  • The COVID-19 vaccine trial she participated in was run in a much more haphazard way than any others she had worked on throughout her career.

  • The trial was not blinded, and protocols that should have been followed to ensure blinding were flagrantly violated.

  • Vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 were not being tested for COVID-19.

  • Adverse reactions in vaccinated individuals were not adequately recorded.

Due to a concern that this conduct would violate the FDA’s requirements for clinical trial sites, Brook alerted her superiors about what was happening so that these issues could be addressed. After her pleas repeatedly fell on deaf ears, she eventually notified the FDA directly. Although the FDA did not investigate her concerns, they appear to have informed her employer, as Brook was terminated the same day.

Note: As detailed by Doshi, there has been a longstanding issue with the FDA providing insufficient oversight for clinical trial sites, and as a separate investigation into FDA biologics (e.g., vaccines) oversight revealed, it was suspected that their laxity in oversight would dramatically worsen during Operation Warp Speed, which was the partnership between the Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense, aimed at helping to accelerate the development of a COVID-19 vaccine.

After these events transpired, Brook submitted her story to the BMJ who corroborated her allegations through documents she provided, and through other employees at the trial site. I would strongly recommend reading the BMJ’s investigation to understand exactly what happened there. Since her termination, Brook filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer, which is presently in the federal courts.

Note: Although you can conceal most things by manipulating clinical trials, the one thing that is very difficult to hide is the total number of deaths (as they cannot be reclassified to something else). When Pfizer prematurely ended their trial at 6 months, more people had died in the vaccine group than the placebo group (and I suspect that this would have further worsened with time).

The report disclosing this inconvenient fact (which destroyed the entire remaining rationale for vaccine mandates) was released over a year ago.

Later, when I reviewed the events with Brook, one of the most interesting things I learned is that most of the data collected at clinical trial sites never even makes it to the FDA. Instead, the FDA only receives a very small sample of it that is trusted to be representative of everything that occurred.

I suspect that this is one of the many reasons why the FDA could truthfully claim that they had no knowledge that most of this happened, although as this article shows, they are clearly also culpable since they did not choose to pursue getting the reports for adverse events (like Maddie’s), which they were directly informed were happening.

Fraud frequently occurs in clinical trials and is then is swept under the rug. However, due to the global attention brought to the COVID-19 vaccines, we also had a unique opportunity. Numerous whistleblowers came forward to disclose what happened during the clinical trials. Before we discuss what the trial participants experienced, I would like to share a brief video that I feel accurately encapsulates what whistleblowers must endure.

Pfizer and Moderna knew quite early on (although exactly how early is a matter of speculation) that there were serious risks involved in using the mRNA spike protein platform for vaccination (this was also most likely the case for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson with their spike protein vaccine).

This left them in a bit of a bind; how could the vaccines they were committed to making for Operation Warp Speed be “safe” enough to win the vaccine race and get the market share they wanted?

As far as I can tell from reading the preclinical documents (e.g., this one), this was initially accomplished by opting out of much of the safety testing on non-human subjects, which would normally be required before proceeding to human studies (e.g., Pfizer was allowed by regulators to exempt itself from testing for autoimmunity or cancer risks).

I took this as a tacit admission that it was known that there were serious issues here (given that there were major concerns with autoimmunity and cancers, and they have since become some of the most well-known complications of the vaccines).

In turn, Pfizer concluded that their best option was to never formally test for these problems, so that Pfizer could plausibly deny knowing that they existed (this is a common industry tactic) and claim that there was no evidence that the issue existed.

Once the human trials began, the goal shifted to doing everything possible to minimize the number of inevitable adverse events which occurred. This was essentially accomplished by:

  • Making it very difficult for trial subjects to actually report any complications from the vaccines except for a very narrow subset of symptoms that were not a major publicity issue for the vaccine manufacturers.

    This characterizes both the limited V-safe data (which was still incriminating enough that a lawsuit was needed to obtain it from the CDC), and the brief list of adverse reactions found within the main section of Pfizer’s clinical trial report [fever, headache, fatigue, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle pain, joint pain, or use of a fever medication along with pain, redness, or swelling at the vaccination site].

    Furthermore, all of these symptoms were only monitored for 7 days post- vaccination (many vaccine injuries do not occur within this brief window, which was a well known fact prior to the COVID-19 vaccines).

    Note: the more severe injuries in Pfizer’s study were reported in an extremely vague manner (see page 9), which effectively made it impossible to determine anything.

  • Aggressively reclassifying each serious complication as unrelated to the vaccines (typically by claiming it was in fact due to a pre-existing psychiatric condition or COVID-19).

  • Avoiding any type of long-term followup on patients which could provide incriminating safety data, regardless of prior commitments to do so.

Because of these strategies, any complications that research participants experienced could not be acknowledged by the vaccine manufacturers as being related to the vaccines. Instead, all they did was gaslight the patients into believing that the injury was unrelated to the vaccine, and collude with healthcare providers to create the narrative that the injury was not related to vaccination.

One of the cruel complications of this approach was that it required reneging on the promises that were given to the trial subjects at the start of the research study — any medical complications they received would be covered (because providing any type of help would require acknowledging that there were potential complications from the vaccine).

The one, possibly unanticipated, downside of choosing not to help with medical expenses accrued in the vaccine trial is that it could solicit the outrage necessary for trial participants to speak out publicly about what happened to them, and more importantly for the public to listen.

All of these potential issues were why the BMJ has repeatedly called for the raw data for the COVID-19 vaccine trials to be released. It is almost certain that the scant clinical trial data we have been provided by the pharmaceutical companies is highly misleading, and that lack of information makes it completely unethical to mandate the vaccines on the population.

This is especially true because the lack of data acknowledging the injuries makes it impossible for those who are injured to receive any type of medical care or support (hence, why many health care providers are now labeling vaccine injuries as long-covid — this diagnosis represents the best shot many of those patients have of getting help).

When you review each of these cases, it does appear that they were all coordinated, since a very similar tactic was used on each participant. However, I believe that this was more of an emergent phenomenon because very similar things to the approaches used here have occurred in the past.

Much of what follows is déjà vu from Merck’s HPV vaccine trials, and to a lesser extent these examples also match what many people I know have experienced following injuries from other pharmaceuticals that were already FDA approved (doctors are often very resistant to believing that drugs they prescribed could have caused harm).

Many of the adverse events shown below were reclassified as being a complication of pre-existing psychiatric conditions, and this has been the default strategy for gaslighting patients throughout the history of medicine.

I believe the new emphasis on reclassifying injuries as COVID-19 resulted from a climate of hysteria, where anything could be labeled as COVID-19, and there is enough of an overlap between spike protein injuries from COVID-19 to the vaccine itself, that it could be rationalized that many vaccine injuries were actually due to the virus.

To expand the market for the COVID-19 vaccines, a case needed to be made that they were safe and effective for children (who had for all practical purposes a 0% chance of dying from COVID-19). For this reason, we saw a variety of predatory advertisements such as this one from Pfizer:

5-11 year old covid-19 vaccine clinical trial volunteers

As you might expect, severe injury (and the inevitable gaslighting) also occurred in these trials. One young participant, Maddie de Garay had an extremely compelling story which touches on almost every issue with the COVID-19 vaccines. Recently she provided a remarkable account of her experiences on the Highwire, which I then edited into a shorter version that focused on the most compelling parts (so that more people would be interested in viewing it).

Because of how important I felt this story was for the world to see, I emailed it to Pierre Kory for him to share with his platform. If you want to fully understand what actually happened in the clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines for children, you need to watch this video (it is the most important part of the article):

Most of what is in this video should speak for itself. There are also a few additional things I’d add though:

  • Maddie’s attitude is remarkable. I am genuinely amazed that she is not more bitter about her situation, especially given how healthy and active she was before her injury (it is incredibly difficult for people who have serious injuries to come to terms with what has happened to them, and accept that they can no longer do what they had previously been able to do).

    Instead, she is almost entirely focused on sharing her story and preventing others from also experiencing her nightmare.

  • One of the issues highlighted in the Real Anthony Fauci was that Fauci has developed a network of principal investigators (PIs) to conduct questionable research trials for his drugs.

  • There is absolutely no question that Maddie’s PI, Dr. Frenck, knew what her injury was the moment it started (as it had previously been reported in many adults), knew what it meant for Pfizer if the injury was acknowledged by the trial (given how few children were in his trial), and that he had enough influence to shape the medical care which Maddie received so that her injury would not be something that had to go in the clinical trial report.

    His choice to initiate this coverup resulted in a delay of critical medical care, which could have prevented her paralysis. He is directly responsible for what happened to Maddie.

  • The allergist, Amal H. Assa’ad, who worked with Maddie, diagnosed her with a faux condition, Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) to conceal the adverse event. According to Open Payments (a required database for pharmaceutical payments to physicians), from 2015-2021, Assa’ad had received $652,650.65 for associated research funding (with the amount increasing year by year).

  • FND is an extremely disingenuous disease that is frequently used to gaslight patients who have received severe neurological injuries. I wrote more about it here, including how neurologists lack the insight to recognize what they are doing when they authoritatively throw this diagnosis around.

  • The experience Maddie had at the hospital was awful, and to some extent surreal, but for length considerations, I cut it from the presentation. Amongst other things, Maddie became much worse after she was at the hospital (e.g., she lost her ability to walk), and believes it was due to her MRI. I periodically encounter people with complex issues who get much worse from MRIs (especially the COVID-19 vaccine injuries).

    I’ve seen a few explanations for this, and of those, the most likely (but not only) explanation is it being due to the MRI’s contrast agent. Gadolinium is quite toxic for some, but this toxicity is rarely considered in medicine.

  • Maddie was very fortunate to have a parent who was a nurse. Similar situations are even worse for those who have no direct experience in health care.

  • Maddie’s lifefunder can be accessed here.

Many of the key points that needed to be made are contained within the above clip which combines two different presentations. The additional important aspects of Brianne’s story that were not shown in this clip were:

  • Brianne was actively communicating with the National Institute of Health (NIH) as part of a study for treating COVID-19 neurological injuries, which were repeatedly delayed by the NIH for political reasons (but was eventually published).

    In that study, they eventually settled on using intravenous immunoglobulin to treat the injury (which interestingly, also sometimes helps HPV vaccine injuries, but is also an expensive treatment requiring a large donor pool, and thus has limits to its scalability). I wrote more about Brianne’s experience with the NIH and their study here.

  • Brianne founded an organization dedicated to helping COVID-19 vaccine injury victims including those featured in this article who participated within the vaccine trials (and had their injuries be reclassified spuriously — e.g., Maddie’s permanent disability was functional abdominal pain and Olivia’s diagnosed cancer was just moderate lymphadenopathy). According to their organization (in response to Maddie’s story):

Since medicine is a very visual endeavor, when an unusual condition emerges which can clearly be seen (e.g., on an MRI or on the skin), doctors are much more open to believing it is real and not just the result of some pre-existing psychiatric issue. Olivia’s (severe and progressive) injuries were just that, but nonetheless, this is how Moderna’s PI treated her when confronted with that evidence (clipped from the above video):

Despite it being unambiguous that her injuries were due to the vaccine, Moderna did not pay for her medical care as contractually promised, and of course did not report her injuries.

Additionally, the clinical trial site director said she would only be able to acknowledge that the cancer Olivia had was linked to the vaccine if “more research emerged in the future linking it” even though this happened at the trial that was supposed to determine if this could happen (this circular logic illustrates a common deficit in critical thinking that exists throughout my profession).

Although her shoulder injury is alarming (and like Maddie, the physical therapy that Olivia was forced to go through to “address” it should never have been conducted), the cancer she developed is much worse.

Based on Olivia’s history, there is a very strong case that it was linked to her vaccination, and had this been presented in Moderna’s trial report, would have had huge implications for the many patients now developing cancers who are told they cannot possibly be related to the vaccine (after all “it wasn’t detected in the trial report”), and thus are denied the support they need.

A while back, I was requested to review 865 vaccine injuries that were submitted in a survey to assess the plausibility that the deaths described were due to the vaccine. One of the reports caught my eye since it represented a critical incident that was not reported within Moderna’s trial report (see page 40), so I reached out to the doctor (who will remain unnamed) who submitted the report and had good reason to be knowledgeable of this patient’s history.

According to the doctor, the gentleman who passed away was part of the clinical trial at Research Atlanta that was paid for by Moderna. He developed atrial fibrillation after the vaccine, and approximately 3 months after vaccination, he was hospitalized (but never vented or sent to the ICU) at Grady Memorial Hospital (which is very close to the CDC).

At the hospital, he received a CT scan, which revealed blood clots in his lungs. At the time, no one was aware that the vaccine could cause blood clots (both Moderna and the CDC had insisted that the vaccine was safe, and had not revealed it was associated with blood clots).

The blood clots were then assessed to have been due to metastatic cancer, as there was no other explanation for them, despite the fact that a full cancer workup was conducted which could not detect any signs of cancer in the patient. The doctor I corresponded with (who I deemed competent to assess this question) is certain that the patient did not have metastatic cancer.

The patient was then assessed to be terminally ill, discharged to hospice, and then died in hospice care (which may have been partly due to respiratory difficulties resulting from the opioids he was given for hospice). As you might expect, the clinical trial contacts were notified of what happened to this patient, but they ignored the report.

Argentina was one of Pfizer’s primary test sites for their vaccine. Augusto Roux, a participant there, sadly, was also abused by Pfizer. Fortunately, Augusto is also a lawyer and is doing everything he can to hold Pfizer accountable at a federal level (e.g., recently he obtained documents showing the COVID-19 vaccine program was an Argentinian military operation). In this interview, Augusto shares what happened to him (an article was also written documenting his experience here):

Augusto Roux's Clinical Trial Experience

Although Augusto had the same experience as everyone else (e.g., they tried to say his issues were due to psychological problems and his adverse event never ended up in Pfizer’s final clinical trial report), there were also some remarkable aspects of his case:

  • His hospitalization was initially documented by a senior specialist as an adverse reaction to a coronavirus vaccine (although, as the previous examples like Olivia’s have shown, this did not ultimately change the course of things).

  • In addition to the team erroneously reporting the hospitalization which Augusto had directly told them about, the PI who was supervising his case fabricated a medical record to claim Augusto had an anxiety disorder. His injury (a pericardial effusion suggestive of pericarditis) was attributed to COVID-19 (even though Augusto tested negative for COVID) and anxiety (even though anxiety, cannot, to my knowledge cause a pericardial effusion).

    Interestingly, a news anchor recently reported the identical complication Augusto experienced and briefly became a meme due to her inability to connect it to the vaccine (which further helps to illustrate the consequences of gaslighting the public into believing these injuries don’t exist after they are kicked out of the clinical trials):

Recently Augusto’s story of the clinical trial irregularities in Argentina was corroborated by Die Welt, the fourth largest newspaper in Germany. It mentioned that 53 participants were dismissed from Pfizer’s trial in one fell swoop on August 31, 2020 (in violation of the trial protocol), and of the total 302 vaccinated subjects who were dismissed from Pfizer’s vaccine trial, 200 were from Buenos Aires (the capital of Argentina).

The report also discussed the case of a trial participant (allegedly in the placebo group) who died shortly after entering the study, whose death was concealed from the Argentinian health authority. Additionally, Augusto obtained the record of another test subject who died from a heart attack at the same hospital to which he was admitted, but was not registered in the final Pfizer clinical trial report. As Die Welt noted, numerous parties realized something was amiss:

“The Argentine health authority ANMAT had apparently also noticed that things were not going as they should in the military hospital: their inspectors stopped by twice to check. This has not been the case in any other place of study in the world.”

Finally the report reviewed 21 cases of vaccinated patients in the study who died, but who had deaths “unrelated to the vaccines.” For two of those cases, records are available. One death was from a suspected stroke at home three days after vaccination, and the other died from a fatal cardiac arrest twenty days after vaccination.

Had these specific adverse reactions been acknowledged within the clinical trials, we most likely would not have had to spend over two years convincing the medical establishment that the vaccines can, in fact, cause you to die suddenly (fortunately about half of the American population now recognizes the COVID-19 vaccines can cause sudden death).

Similarly, given how small the benefit from the vaccine was, each of these examples of data manipulation I’ve detailed could have easily been enough to negate the “safe and effective” aspect of the vaccine in the final report (likewise, I can only imagine what happened to the 200 vaccinated test subjects removed from Pfizer PI Fernando Polack’s trial site in Argentina).

Before the whistleblowers even came forward, individuals like Peter Doshi astutely recognized something was amiss from looking at the data that was presented. At this point in time, it is also important to note that we only have access to a small sample of what occurred within the COVID-19 trials, and there are likely many other similar stories to those detailed within this article that we will never hear of.

Augusto’s clinical trial site was riddled with many other irregularities indicative of research fraud like those mentioned above, or the large number of patients impossibly recruited at the last minute for the trial. Fernando Polack, the PI who supervised that site (the same one who doctored Augusto’s medical records) was also the lead author of Pfizer’s New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study.

Augusto’s experience and the documentation he has collected that proves the lead author’s misconduct is most likely the strongest argument for NEJM retracting Pfizer’s pivotal vaccine study.

Note: In addition to the erroneous COVID-19 studies mentioned here, the NEJM also previously published Merck’s highly questionable HPV vaccine study.

As part of Die Welt’s investigation, they asked Pfizer to comment on the cases of Maddie de Garay, Augusto Roux, the events in Buenos Aires and the role of Fernando Polack. Pfizer promptly replied:

“Regulatory authorities around the world have approved our COVID-19 vaccine. These approvals are based on a robust and independent assessment of quality, safety and efficacy scientific data, including the Phase 3 clinical trial.”

This stonewalling again illustrate the circular logic that sustains fraudulent research.

Although many things could be said about these cases (which I suspect also holds true for the other ones I am not yet familiar with), one of the things that stands out to me from these reports is the differences in how Pfizer and Moderna conducted their trials.

In Pfizer’s case, they had a robust system in place to activate a team of physicians to immediately neutralize any claims that the vaccine could be harmful. However, in Moderna’s case, they just told the doctors involved that the events could not be related to the vaccine, and most doctors took those claims at face value (as they did not want to believe the vaccine could be harmful).

Moderna, in effect, succeeded through inaction (by not documenting injuries or paying compensation for medical care they were obligated to) rather than systematically orchestrated gaslighting.

I suspect this difference in strategies was due to Moderna being a fledging pharmaceutical company without an apparatus in place like the one Pfizer had developed over decades. Fortunately for Moderna, their laid-back approach ended up working out just as well since the FDA just rubber-stamped both of their vaccines.

Regardless of the approach that was followed though, I hope that this examination into their mutual research misconduct helps to explain how these “impossible to predict” side effects that were never detected in the “robust” clinical trials could have suddenly emerged once the vaccines entered the market.

Each of the individuals mentioned in this piece has not had their immense medical expenses (e.g., Dressen has spent over $300,000.00) reimbursed by the vaccine manufacturer for whom they agreed to be a trial participant.

This abuse is possible because the contracts which each participant signs suggest that any injury they receive will be taken care of, but the loophole for the pharmaceutical companies is that the support is conditional upon the company deeming that the injury is related to the vaccine (and as this article shows, they will do everything they can to make sure it is not).

Sadly, this specific violation of informed consent has a been a long standing issue in clinical trials.

The medical field, in turn, has observed numerous issues with attracting sufficient participants to take part in clinical trials, which I believe stems from a variety of issues such as those outlined here (e.g., anyone who learns of what the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital did to Maddie De Garay would never enroll their child in a study there).

Prior to COVID-19, the medical community, through the American Medical Association’s Journal of Medical Ethics proposed an interesting solution to this dilemma:

“Few would argue with Bill Gates when he describes vaccination as “the most effective and cost effective health tool ever invented.” To date vaccination has saved many lives and has the potential to save millions more …

In recent decades there has been a distressing decline in the numbers of healthy volunteers who participate in clinical trials, a decline that has the potential to become a key rate-limiting factor in vaccine development.”

Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration.

Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon.

In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries.

In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.”

As this position paper illustrates, the modern construct of medical ethics (discussed here) has been shifted to focusing on finding a way to get what someone wants, rather than doing what is ethical.

This is why in so many areas of medicine, completely inconsistent ethical positions are held (e.g., a mother has the right to abort her child as she deems fit, but a mother cannot refuse to vaccinate her child as that might put its life at risk — positions at odds with each other until you realize both generate profitable medical services).

To some extent, it can also be argued the above position has since become policy, because much of the world was forced to participate in an experimental “emergency use” vaccination program initiated by Bill Gates. I, however, believe there is a better solution than what JAMA proposed for this dilemma — ensure clinical trials are run in an ethical manner so that individuals will feel comfortable enrolling in them.

Fraudulent clinical trials not only hurt the participants, they also hurt the general public. However, since that industry is rarely exposed to scrutiny, few become aware of what often goes on inside them. Consider for example the experience of this mother whose child was disabled by the HPV vaccine:

In many ways, the situation of this mother’s child and the news anchor in the previous section are nearly the same. In both cases they had a severe reaction to a novel vaccine they thought was safe, but the data to prove that the reaction was related to the vaccine simply wasn’t available, even though it had been unearthed in the clinical trials.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Mild Obesity Can Double Your Risk for COVID Complications

obesity cause respiratory failure

  • Even mild obesity may raise the risk of COVID-19 severity, calling into question current United Kingdom guidelines that only classify severe obesity as a risk factor

  • Patients with mild obesity had a 2.5 times greater risk of respiratory failure and a five times greater risk of being admitted to an ICU compared to non-obese patients

  • Those with a BMI of 35 and over were also 12 times more likely to die from COVID-19

  • Inflammation triggered by obesity may be responsible for a threefold greater risk of pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) in COVID-19 patients who are obese

  • Dysregulated lipid synthesis triggered by obesity may aggravate inflammation in the lungs, contributing to increased disease severity during respiratory viral infections

  • Processed foods, junk foods and soft drinks are key culprits in the rise of obesity and chronic diseases that have a key role to play in COVID-19 deaths

Visit Mercola Market

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media are key players and have been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

Originally published: August 7, 2020

Obesity and overweight have been called out as risk factors for COVID-19 since the early days of the pandemic, and research continues to suggest that carrying excess weight could raise your risk of COVID complications and death. Even mild obesity may raise the risk of COVID-19 severity, calling into question current United Kingdom guidelines that only classify severe obesity as a risk factor.

The new finding was revealed by researchers from the Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna in Italy, who analyzed 482 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

“Obesity is a strong, independent risk factor for respiratory failure, admission to the ICU and death among COVID-19 patients,” they wrote, and the extent of risk was tied to a person’s level of obesity.

The researchers used body mass index (BMI) to define obesity in the study, and although BMI can be misleading in determining whether or not you’re at a healthy body weight, in part because it does not take muscle mass into account. It’s the most commonly used measurement for defining obesity.

If your BMI is between 25 and 29.9, you are considered overweight and anything over 30 is considered obese. However, obesity is often divided into categories, with class 1 defined as a BMI of 30 to < 35, class 2 as a BMI of 35 to < 40 and class 3 defined as a BMI of 40 or higher, and considered "extreme" or "severe" obesity.

The U.K.’s National Health Service states that you may be at moderate risk from coronavirus if you are “very obese” with a BMI of 40 or above,

but the featured study found increased risks started at a BMI of 30, or “mild” obesity.

“Health care practitioners should be aware that people with any grade of obesity, not just the severely obese, are a population at risk,” lead study author Dr. Matteo Rottoli said in a news release. “Extra caution should be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with obesity, as they are likely to experience a quick deterioration towards respiratory failure, and to require intensive care admission.”

Specifically, patients with mild obesity had a 2.5 times greater risk of respiratory failure and a five times greater risk of being admitted to an ICU compared to nonobese patients. Those with a BMI of 35 and over were also 12 times more likely to die from COVID-19.

“Whereas a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 identifies a population of patients at high risk for severe illness, a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 dramatically increases the risk of death,” the researchers explained.

A July 2020 report

by Public Health England also describes the results of two systematic reviews,

one of which showed that excess weight worsened COVID-19 severity, and the other that obese patients were more likely to die from the disease compared to non-obese patients.

Compared to healthy weight patients, patients with a BMI above 25 kg/m2 were 3.68 times more likely to die, 6.98 times more likely to need respiratory support and 2.03 times more likely to suffer critical illness. The report also highlights data showing the risk of hospitalization, intensive care treatment and death progressively increases as your BMI goes up.

Additional research has also tied obesity and metabolic syndrome — a cluster of conditions including excess abdominal fat, high blood pressure, insulin resistance and lipid abnormalities that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes — with more severe viral infections.

Obesity is known to double the risk of influenza,

for instance, and increases the duration of stay in the ICU along with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation during such infections.

And obesity is one of the primary causes of metabolic syndrome. According to an article published in the Journal of Virology:

“Viruses can metabolically engineer host cells by manipulating gene expression and lipid metabolism to enhance viral replication and progeny release while enabling the virus to evade host immune responses. Because metabolic disorders impair immune responses at homeostasis, viral infection further compromises these responses and potentiates metabolic disease severity.”

As for how obesity raises risks during viral infections, the chronic, low-grade inflammation it causes is a likely factor. In fact, inflammation triggered by obesity may be responsible for a threefold greater risk of pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) in COVID-19 patients who are obese,

according to separate research.

The Journal of Virology researchers also suggested that dysregulated lipid synthesis triggered by obesity may aggravate inflammation in the lungs, contributing to increased disease severity during respiratory viral infections.

As for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they cited one study that found nearly 50% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients were obese and admitted into ICU in need of mechanical ventilation.

“This is not surprising because excess body weight and fat deposition apply pressure to the diaphragm, which further increases the difficulty of breathing during a viral infection,” they wrote.

Additional mechanisms are also suggested for how obesity increases COVID-19 severity, including:

  • Increasing leptin resistance and lipotoxicity, as the accumulation of lipids may be exploited by viruses to enhance viral entry and replication

  • A combined effect of chronic systemic inflammation and the induction of a cytokine storm

After spending time in the hospital due to COVID-19, prime minister Boris Johnson announced a new strategy to target obesity in the fight against coronavirus.

Johnson believes that his weight made his COVID-19 infection more severe, and reportedly plans to implement bans on TV junk food advertising before 9 p.m., as well as targeting junk food ads online and in stores.

Indeed, processed foods, junk foods and soft drinks are key culprits in the rise of obesity and chronic diseases that have a key role to play in COVID-19 deaths. London-based cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra is among those warning that poor diet can increase your risk of dying from COVID-19.

He tweeted, “The government and Public Health England are ignorant and grossly negligent for not telling the public they need to change their diet now.”

He told BBC that ultraprocessed foods make up more than half of the calories consumed by the British, and if you suffer from obesity, Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure — all of which are linked to poor diet — your risk of mortality from COVID-19 increases 10fold. The Journal of Virology researchers agreed, writing:

“Over the years, humans have adopted sedentary lifestyles and dietary patterns have shifted to excessive food consumption and poor nutrition. Overnutrition has led to the constellation of metabolic abnormalities that not only contributes to metabolic reprogramming but also limits host innate and adaptive immunity.

Impaired immune responses and chronic inflammation in metabolically diseased microenvironments provide the ideal conditions for viral exploitation of host cells and enhanced viral pathogenesis.”

In an editorial published in the BMJ,

three researchers cited the role of the food industry in driving up rates of obesity and ultimately causing more COVID-19 deaths:

“It is now clear that the food industry shares the blame not only for the obesity pandemic but also for the severity of covid-19 disease and its devastating consequences.

During the COVID-19 pandemic an increase in food poverty, disruptions to supply chains, and panic buying may have limited access to fresh foods, thus tilting the balance towards a greater consumption of highly processed foods and those with long shelf lives that are usually high in salt, sugar, and saturated fat.

Moreover, since the start of the COVID–19 pandemic the food industry has launched campaigns and corporate social responsibility initiatives, often with thinly veiled tactics using the outbreak as a marketing opportunity (for example, by offering half a million “smiles” in the form of doughnuts to NHS staff).”

They not only called on the food industry to stop promoting unhealthy food and drinks immediately, but also called on governments to force reformulation of junk foods to better support health.

With research showing that being obese doubles the risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19,

researchers noted, “These findings suggest that modification of lifestyle may help to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and could be a useful adjunct to other interventions, such as social distancing and shielding of high risk.”

Johns Hopkins University researchers suggested obesity could also shift the burden of COVID-19 onto younger patients, finding in a dataset of 265 COVID-19 patients that younger individuals admitted to the hospital were more likely to be obese.

If you’re obese, focusing on healthy weight loss may help to ward off viral illnesses, including COVID-19. “In the mid- and long-term, weight loss is the definitive answer to reduce the risks in people with obesity,” Rottoli said.

Losing weight will also help you avoid obesity-related health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.

According to a study by The Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy’s national health authority,

more than 99% of fatalities from COVID-19 occurred among people who had underlying medical conditions. Among the fatalities, 76.1% had high blood pressure, 35.5% had diabetes and 33% had heart disease.

One of the most powerful strategies to optimize your weight is simply restrict your eating window to 6 to 8 hours with not eating at least three hours before bedtime. This is known as time-restricted eating and a powerful intervention to reduce insulin resistance and restore metabolic flexibility.

Nutrition-wise, I recommend adopting a cyclical ketogenic diet, which involves radically limiting carbs (replacing them with healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein) until you’re close to or at your ideal weight, ultimately allowing your body to burn fat — not carbohydrates — as its primary fuel.

Once you have regained your ideal body weight than you can cycle carbs back in a few times a week.

It will also be wise to avoid all processed foods and also limit added sugars to a maximum of 25 grams per day (15 grams a day if you’re insulin resistant or diabetic). KetoFasting, the program I developed and detail in my book, “KetoFast: A Step-By-Step Guide to Timing Your Ketogenic Meals,” combines a cyclical ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting with cyclical partial fasting to optimize weight, health and longevity.

In addition, get regular exercise each week and increase physical movement throughout your waking hours, with the goal of sitting down less than three hours a day, while also getting sufficient sleep and tending to your emotional health.

Chronic stress, for instance, may increase your risk for visceral fat gain over time,

which means addressing your stress levels is imperative for maintaining your ideal weight. Taking steps to lead a healthy lifestyle overall will have a snowball effect, helping you to reach a healthy weight while also bolstering your resilience against infection and disease.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.