The 75th World Health Assembly adopted amendments to 5 articles of the International Health Regulations on May 27, 2022 and practically NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IT FOR NEARLY 10 MONTHS.

Originally Published on the Author’s Substack

This is NOT about the proposed WHO CA+ (“Pandemic Treaty”).

This IS about the amendments to the International Health Regulations that WERE adopted on May 27, 2022, as well as the 307 proposed amendments that are currently being negotiated in secret.

Please realize that 194 unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown “delegates” to the yearly World Health Assembly have the power to agree to adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations and THEIR DECISION DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF 2/3 OF THE SENATE.

Please watch the videos below…

FOCUS ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS:

Over the past 12 months I have written dozens of articles in which I have attempted to inform people of the unique nature of the method by which the 194 unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown delegates to the World Health Assembly have amended, and are AGAIN proposing to amend the International Health Regulations, without any input whatsoever from “We the People.”

Please realize that 194 unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown “delegates” to the yearly World Health Assembly have the power to agree to adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations and THEIR DECISION DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF 2/3 OF THE SENATE.

This situation is not right, and it must be changed, but it is the current reality, so we must stand up, speak up and push back against it.

Despite my efforts, the global propaganda machine has mostly succeeded in diverting nearly everyone’s attention away from the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations by getting most people to focus on the proposed WHO CA+ (“Pandemic Treaty”).

Unfortunately, even the people who are opposed to the globalist’s efforts to empower the World Health Organization have been mostly silent regarding the fact that…

AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED ON MAY 27, 2022.

All that is required for any member nation to reject the amendments that were adopted last year is a simple letter from their president or prime minister to the WHO stating that their nation wishes to REJECT the amendments.

Every nation on earth still has until late November 2023 to stand up to the World Health Organization and REJECT the amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022, but first they have to be made aware that the International Health Regulations WERE CHANGED, and they also need to realize that THE AMENDMENTS CAN BE REJECTED!

WHY HAS EVERYONE BEEN SO SILENT ABOUT THIS!

NOTES:

Please do NOT confuse the 307 amendments that are currently being negotiated by the Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations with the amendments to 5 Articles that were adopted on May 27, 2022 (and can still be rejected by every member nation before late November, 2023).

The amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022 by the 75th World Health Assembly only applied to 5 Articles of the International Health Regulations. The most significant change that was made by the amendments was to alter the time period during which future amendments would come into effect (Article 59).

Please note that I only recommend rejecting the amendment to Article 59.

I recommend accepting the amendments to Articles 55, 61, 62 and 63.

CLICK HERE to download the amendments that were adopted by the 75th World health Assembly on May 27, 2022.

SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES TO ARTICLE 59:

The period of time after which future amendments would enter into force was shortened from 24 to 12 months.

There period of time during which a member nation could exercise its right of rejection under Article 61 was shortened from 18 to 10 months.

In my humble opinion, these amendments should be REJECTED.

307 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (2023)

I am NOT claiming that the 307 newly proposed amendments are going to be adopted during the 76th World Health Assembly this May 21-30, 2023. The WHO has consistently stated that they are merely negotiating and hope to vote on whether or not to adopt the amendments to the IHR at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024. I demand that they keep their word and NOT adopt any amendments during the 76th World Health Assembly.

CLICK HERE to download the 307 proposed amendments to the IHR – February 6, 2023 original nations’ submissions – 197 pages

ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL WHO DOCUMENTS:

CLICK HERE to download the existing International Health Regulations (2005) (84 pages)

CLICK HERE to download the initial compilation version of the proposed amendments to the IHR – December 14, 2022 (46 pages)

CLICK HERE to download the WGIHR compilation version of the proposed amendments to the IHR – February 6, 2023 (51 pages)

CLICK HERE to download the 307 proposed amendments to the IHR – December 14, 2022 (original nations’ submissions – 197 pages)

CLICK HERE to download the IHRRC final report (97 pages)

CLICK HERE to download the combined amendment compilation and IHRRC final report (105 pages)

CLICK HERE to watch 4 of the 10 meetings (6 were held in secret) of the Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations that were held from February 20-24, 2023.

Please read my previous articles on this topic:

If you are as concerned about this issue as I am, please feel free to contact me directly via phone, text, Signal, WhatsApp or Telegram at +1 310-619-3055

by James Roguski

The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.

If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

JamesRoguski.com

JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

310-619-3055

All content is free to all readers.

All support is deeply appreciated.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

-End-

Subscribe to James’ Newsletter

The Greatest Crime In Human History Ever Recorded Is Coming Soon in Paperback Form

The damning information that Pfizer, and as such, what the FDA knew, and wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, has been thoroughly documented and compiled into a paperback book.

These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects, contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.

All funds and proceeds raised go to the research project — and put food on the table for those devoting their time to this noble cause. So, please, show your support and get your (or a loved one’s) hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.

Pre-Order the Paperback Version

Pick Up Your Digital Copy on Amazon

Or our website.

The post The Top 6 Reasons to Speak Out Against the Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations appeared first on DailyClout.

Covid-19 Injection vials are full of stuff that’s not supposed to be there, such as DNA

Originally Published at Due Diligence and Art

Plasmidgate broke out a couple of weeks ago. I provided Pfizer manufacturing documentation that described the limits at which these impurities can be present to Kevin. Those limits are set arbitrarily, by the way, and one could argue that even the stated limits are too high. Nevertheless, from actual test results Kevin found that the limits for DNA were exceeded by over 100x!

Link to the above piece.

Here is a short explanation from Kevin on what he found in the vials – “all of Pfizer’s manufacturing”, meaning left-overs or process-related impurities, stuff that wasn’t removed properly from previous steps of the process floating around. I believe it is not possible to remove these impurities well, but Pfizer and Moderna have no real incentive to even try to.

Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan on Finding Pfizer’s Manufacturing ‘Blueprint’ in the Vials

Read More at Due Diligence and Art

The Greatest Crime In Human History Ever Recorded Is Coming Soon in Paperback Form

The damning information that Pfizer, and as such, what the FDA knew, and wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, has been thoroughly documented and compiled into a paperback book.

These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects, contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.

All funds and proceeds raised go to the research project — and put food on the table for those devoting their time to this noble cause. So, please, show your support and get your (or a loved one’s) hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.

Pre-Order the Paperback Version

Pick Up Your Digital Copy on Amazon

Or our website.

The post Kevin McKernan Reports on Plasmidgate appeared first on DailyClout.

Originally Published at Brownstone Institute

An enduring mystery for three years is how Donald Trump came to be the president who shut down American society for what turned out to be a manageable respiratory virus, setting off an unspeakable crisis with waves of destructive fallout that continue to this day.

Let’s review the timeline and offer some well-founded speculations about what happened.

On March 9, 2020, Trump was still of the opinion that the virus could be handled by normal means.

Two days later, he changed his tune. He was ready to use the full power of the federal government in a war on the virus.

What changed? Deborah Birx reports in her book that Trump had a friend die in a New York hospital and this is what shifted his opinion. Jared Kushner reports that he simply listened to reason. Mike Pence says he was persuaded that his staff would respect him more. No question (and based on all existing reports) that he found himself surrounded by “trusted advisors” amounting to about 5 or so people (including Mike Pence and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb)

It was only a week later when Trump issued the edict to close all “indoor and outdoor venues where people congregate,” initiating the biggest regime change in US history that flew in the face of all rights and liberties Americans had previously taken for granted. It was the ultimate in political triangulation: as John F. Kennedy cut taxes, Nixon opened China, and Clinton reformed welfare, Trump shut down the economy he promised to revive. This action confounded critics on all sides.

A month later, Trump said his decision to have “turned off” the economy saved millions of lives, later even claiming to have saved billions. He has yet to admit error.

Even as late as June 23rd of that year, Trump was demanding credit for having followed all of Fauci’s recommendations. Why do they love him and hate me, he wanted to know.

Something about this story has never really added up. How could one person have been so persuaded by a handful of others such as Fauci, Birx, Pence, and Kushner and his friends? He surely had other sources of information – some other scenario or intelligence – that fed into his disastrous decision.

In one version of events, his advisors simply pointed to the supposed success of Xi Jinping in enacting lockdowns in Wuhan, which the World Health Organization claimed had stopped infections and brought the virus under control. Perhaps his advisors flattered Trump with the observation that he is at least as great as the president of China so he should be bold and enact the same policies here.

One problem with this scenario is timing. The Oval Office meetings that preceded his March 16, 2020, edict took place the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Friday and Saturday. It was already clear by the 11th that Trump was ready for lockdowns. This was the same day as Fauci’s deliberately misleading testimony to the House Oversight Committee in which he rattled the room with predictions of Hollywood-style carnage.

On the 12th, Trump shut all travel from Europe, the UK, and Australia, causing huge human pile-ups at international airports. On the 13th, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document that transferred control of pandemic policy from the CDC to the National Security Council and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. By the time that Trump met with Fauci and Birx in that legendary weekend, the country was already under quasi-martial law.

Isolating the date in the trajectory here, it is apparent that whatever happened to change Trump occurred on March 10, 2020, the day after his Tweet saying there should be no shutdowns and one day before Fauci’s testimony.

That something very likely revolves around the most substantial discovery we’ve made in three years of investigations. It was Debbie Lerman who first cracked the code: Covid policy was forged not by the public-health bureaucracies but by the national-security sector of the administrative state. She has further explained that this occurred because of two critical features of the response: 1) the belief that this virus came from a lab leak, and 2) the vaccine was the biosecurity countermeasure pushed by the same people as the fix.

Knowing this, we gain greater insight into 1) why Trump changed his mind, 2) why he has never explained this momentous decision and otherwise completely avoids the topic, and 3) why it has been so unbearably difficult to find out any information about these mysterious few days other than the pablum served up in books designed to earn royalties for authors like Birx, Pence, and Kushner.

Based on a number of second-hand reports, all available clues we have assembled, and the context of the times, the following scenario seems most likely. On March 10, and in response to Trump’s dismissive tweet the day before, some trusted sources within and around the National Security Council (Matthew Pottinger and Michael Callahan, for example), and probably involving some from military command and others, came to Trump to let him know a highly classified secret.

Imagine a scene from Get Smart with the Cone of Silence, for example. These are the events in the life of statecraft that infuse powerful people with a sense of their personal awesomeness. The fate of all of society rests on their shoulders and the decisions they make at this point. Of course they are sworn to intense secrecy following the great reveal.

The revelation was that the virus was not a textbook virus but something far more threatening and terrible. It came from a research lab in Wuhan. It might in fact be a bioweapon. This is why Xi had to do extreme things to protect his people. The US should do the same, they said, and there is a fix available too and it is being carefully guarded by the military.

It seems that the virus had already been mapped in order to make a vaccine to protect the population. Thanks to 20 years of research on mRNA platforms, they told him,  this vaccine can be rolled out in months, not years. That means that Trump can lock down and distribute vaccines to save everyone from the China virus, all in time for the election. Doing this would not only assure his reelection but guarantee that he would go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents of all time.

This meeting might only have lasted an hour or two – and might have included a parade of people with the highest-level security clearances – but it was enough to convince Trump. After all, he had battled China for two previous years, imposing tariffs and making all sorts of threats. It was easy to believe at that point that China might have initiated biological warfare as retaliation. That’s why he made the decision to use all the power of the presidency to push a lockdown under emergency rule.

To be sure, the Constitution does not allow him to override the discretion of the states but with the weight of the office complete with enough funding and persuasion, he could make it happen. And thus did he make the fateful decision that not only wrecked his presidency but the country too, imposing harms that will last a generation.

It only took a few weeks for Trump to become suspicious about what happened. For weeks and months, he toggled between believing that he was tricked and believing that he did the right thing. He had already approved another 30 days of lockdowns and even inveighed against Georgia and later Florida for opening. He went so far as to claim that no state could open without his approval.

He did not fully change his mind until August, when Scott Atlas revealed the whole con to him.

There is another fascinating feature to this entirely plausible scenario. Even as Trump’s advisors were telling him that this could be a bioweapon leaked from the lab in China, we had Anthony Fauci and his cronies going to great lengths to deny it was a lab leak (even if they believed that it was). This created an interesting situation. The NIH and those surrounding Fauci were publicly insisting that the virus was of zoonotic origin, even as Trump’s circle was telling the president that it should be regarded as a bioweapon.

Fauci belonged to both camps, which suggests that Trump very likely knew of Fauci’s deception all along: the “noble lie” to protect the public from knowing the truth. Trump had to be fine with that.

Gradually following the lockdown edicts and the takeover by the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with a very hostile CDC, Trump lost power and influence over his own government, which is why his later Tweets urging a reopening fell on deaf ears. To top it off, the vaccine failed to arrive in time for the election. This is because Fauci himself delayed the rollout until after the election, claiming that the trials were not racially diverse enough. Thus Trump’s gambit completely failed, despite all the promises of those around him that it was a guaranteed way to win reelection.

To be sure, this scenario cannot be proven because the entire event – certainly the most dramatic political move in at least a generation and one with unspeakable costs for the country – remains cloaked in secrecy. Not even Senator Rand Paul can get the information he needs because it remains classified. If anyone thinks the Biden approval of releasing documents will show what we need, that person is naive. Still, the above scenario fits all available facts and it is confirmed by second-hand reports from inside the White House.

It’s enough for a great movie or a play of Shakespearean levels of tragedy. And to this day, none of the main players are speaking openly about it.

Subscribe to Brownstone Institute!

The Greatest Crime In Human History Ever Recorded Is Coming Soon in Paperback Form

The damning information that Pfizer, and as such, what the FDA knew, and wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, has been thoroughly documented and compiled into a paperback book.

These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects, contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.

All funds and proceeds raised go to the research project. So, please, show your support and get your (or a loved one’s) hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.

Pre-Order the Paperback Version

Pick Up Your Digital Copy on Amazon

Or our website.

The post How They Convinced Trump to Lock Down appeared first on DailyClout.

Dear DailyClout,

Thank you for your courage and telling the truth.
Many have been warning of a pandemic for years; some recently stressing that SARS-2 was just a warning shot and another opportunity to prepare. The warnings even included the perils of lab leaks in 2014.

1. “There Was a Pandemic Strategy and Plan” Domestic Preparedness, August 17, 2022. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/there-was-a-pandemic-strategy-and-plan/

2. “Another Opportunity to Prepare for Quarantines” Domestic Preparedness, November 10, 2021. https://www.domprepjournal.com/healthcare/another-opportunity-to-prepare-for-quarantines/

3. “Impact of Critical Biosecurity Reports – Uncertainty Remains” Domestic Preparedness, May 26, 2021. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/preparedness/impact-of-critical-biosecurity-reports-uncertainty-remains/

4. “The Next Black Swan – Bioterrorism” Domestic Preparedness, December 9, 2020. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/commentary/the-next-black-swan-bioterrorism/

5. “Public Health or Economic Health – Not a Binary Decision” Domestic Preparedness, June 4, 2020. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/site/assets/files/11220/acceptablelossreport.pdf

6. “Black Swans – Preparing for Pandemic and Biological Threats in 2020.” IAEM Bulletin, April 2020, (Vol. 37 No. 4). https://www.iaem.org/Portals/25/documents/202004bulletinonline.pdf

7. “Biothreats – Advocating Action Through Transition.” Domestic Preparedness, November 28, 2017. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/biothreats-advocating-action-through-transition/

8. “Pandemic Crossroads.” Homeland Security Today, March/April 2017, (Vol. 14, No. 2). http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=4e23f1cc-175a-4c83-b24a-ef50463f2dc3

9. “Preparing for a New Pandemic with an Old Plan.” Domestic Preparedness, December 7, 2016. www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/preparing-for-a-new-pandemic-with-an-old-plan/

10. “Threats Evolving Faster Than Preparedness.” Domestic Preparedness, July 1, 2016. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/threats-evolving-faster-than-preparedness/

11. “From Avian Flu to Zika: Preparedness Standards Matter.” IAEM Bulletin, March 2016, (Vol. 33 No. 3).

12. “Uncertain Impact of Critical Biosecurity Reports.” Domestic Preparedness, January 6, 2016. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/uncertain-impact-of-critical-biosecurity-reports/

13. “Quarantine Enforcement: Time to Work the Issue.” IAEM Bulletin, July 2015, (Vol. 32 No.7). https://disastersandfaith.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/iaem-newsletter-july2015.pdf

14. “Relying on Good Fortune – Not an Acceptable Preparedness Strategy.” Domestic Preparedness, April 1, 2015. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/commentary/relying-on-good-fortune-not-an-acceptable-preparedness-strategy/

15. “Ebola: Lessons Learned or Lost.” IAEM Bulletin, January 2015, (Vol. 32 No.1 ).

16. “Ebola – Another Opportunity to Plan and Prepare.” Domestic Preparedness, January 6, 2015. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/ebola-another-opportunity-to-plan-prepare/

17. “National Strategy for Biosecurity Threats.” Domestic Preparedness, August 20, 2014. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/resilience/national-strategy-for-biosecurity-threats/

18. “International Public Health Concerns – Not So Foreign.” Domestic Preparedness, July 16, 2014. https://www.domprep.com/healthcare/international-public-health-concerns-not-so-foreign/

19. “Foreign Pathogenic Threats: Closer Than We Think.” IAEM Bulletin, July 2014, (Vol. 31 No. 7). http://usfa.kohalibrary.com/app/work/39047

20. “Preparedness & Progress for Emerging Pathogenic Threats.” Domestic Preparedness, March 2014. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/preparedness-progress-for-emerging-pathogenic-threats/

21. “Pathogenic Threats: Progress and Perils in 2014.” IAEM Bulletin, March 2014, (Vol. 31 No. 3).

22. “Preparedness Training & Potential Liabilities.” Domestic Preparedness, December 2013. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/preparedness/preparedness-training-potential-liabilities/

23. “Black Swans – Preparing for Pandemic & Biological Threats.” Domestic Preparedness, November 2013. https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/healthcare/black-swans-preparing-for-pandemic-biological-threats/

24. “Are We Prepared for MERS or Another Pandemic?” Emergency Management, June 2013. http://www.emergencymgmt.com/health/Prepared-MERS-Pandemic.html and https://www.govtech.com/magazines/em/July-2013.html

25. “Are You Prepared for an Emerging Pandemic Threat?” IAEM Bulletin, June 2013, (Vol. 30 No. 6).

26. “Deliberate Indifference: Is there legal liability for the failure to train and prepare our personnel?” IAEM Bulletin, October 2011, (Vol. 28 No. 10).

Sincerely,

A Reader

The post A Letter to DailyClout: “The Warnings Even Included the Perils of Lab Leaks in 2014” appeared first on DailyClout.

To the Editor:

Dr. Naomi Wolf, who nobody would term as a right-wing zealot, admitted to being misled about the January 6 Capitol riot (“Dear conservatives, I’m sorry I believed so many media lies”), noting how the man with the face paint and Viking horns hat is revealed in never-seen footage inside the Capitol being tranquilly led around in the building by Capitol police; he’s not the violent insurrection leader the mainstream media portrayed him to be.

There’s more: namely, the basic question of why MSM reporters never asked how or why that man, previously seen in 2019 as a prominent climate strike march leader, switched his political viewpoints 180° just over a year. Surely they’d use that to illustrate how persuasive “right-wing propaganda” can be.

This lack of curiosity by the MSM doesn’t end there. Dr. Wolf’s realization that the MSM is less-than-forthcoming on particular information was quite abrupt. My distrust of the news media grew over years.

Ultimately, this is all about asking tough questions. During my youth in the ’70s through the ’90s, journalists could be counted on to question authority. These days, not so much.

Allow me to illustrate via my own questions concerning the ‘climate crisis’ issue.

In the summer of 1988, Al Gore and enviro-activists declared that human-induced global warming was a growing problem. I simply asked, “what happened to all the concern about runaway global cooling?” I grew up hearing reports of nothing but that. No need to trust me here, anyone subscribing to Ancestry.com / Newspapers.com can do searches for “global cooling” and for reports of calamitous weather events for themselves.

By 2000, I knew PhD-level climate scientists existed, so I asked why the PBS NewsHour had never interviewed them. I ask that to this day – they’ve had at least 112 scientists associated with the IPCC / NASA / NOAA speak about catastrophic man-caused global warming, but none questioning it. In 2011, I asked NewsHour news anchor Jim Lehrer directly about this exclusion problem. His 2-sentence reply was one of the most obtuse, non-informative responses I’ve ever received.

In 2009, an ex-Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter told me a journalist named Ross Gelbspan and others exposed how skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to deceive the public. I followed up to ask who the other reporters were. He never answered, so I searched on my own, and tried to learn more about Ross Gelbspan.

He’d written a 1997 book called The Heat is On, implying certain climate scientists operated under a specific strategy directive to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” in a disinformation campaign targeting “older less-educated men” and “younger, low-income women.” Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth” movie spelled out that odd strategy full screen in red letters, in comparison to a tobacco industry disinformation campaign memo titled “Doubt is our Product.” Gore’s movie described Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner who discovered the strategy memo. Gelbspan’s book jacket’s sleeve says he was a Pulitzer winner.

That sounded very damaging. But within a day, I found irreconcilable differences surrounding Gelbspan’s accusation.

What reporting won a Pulitzer for Ross Gelbspan, though? He never won a Pulitzer. Search for his name at the Pulitzer organization yourself.

Meanwhile, it took around 30 seconds to find the entire “Doubt is Our Product” Brown & Williamson tobacco company memo on the internet. It took me seven months, however, to find the “reposition global warming” memos buried deep out of public view in Greenpeace’s industry document scans archive. But the New York Times quoted from that memo set years before Gelbspan first mentioned them, as did Al Gore.

See the growing problem here?

The accusation about fossil fuel industry-led disinformation campaigns being proven by the existence of the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memos crumbles apart when anyone objectively examines it, exposing huge problems with the core people promulgating it.

Dig deep enough, and you discover the memo strategy and its audience targeting suggestions were an unsolicited proposal idea that was rejected by the public relations group it was sent to, and the entire proposal was never implemented anywhere in any form.

Yet this memo set has been the cornerstone evidence indicting skeptic climate scientists of colluding with fossil fuel executives from 1995 until the latest “Exxon Knew” global warming lawsuit filed just last November.

I detail all of this at huge depth at my GelbspanFiles.com blog.

Put simply, the MSM has completely abdicated on their jobs to tell the full story of almost every controversial political issue lately, the climate issue just happens to be the granddaddy of them all.

When they spread divisive disinformation, the people who once questioned authority and defended democracy now have the appearance of being the actual threat to democracy and free speech.

Sincerely,

Russell Cook

The post A Letter to the Editor: “When the MSM Misleads about January 6th, What Other Disinformation Do They Push?” appeared first on DailyClout.

Originally published at spectator.com.au

Image Credit: Getty Images

When did Pfizer accumulate the 94 cases which would have qualified for the primary endpoint (the evaluable efficacy population) for the pivotal Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine that resulted in the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) being granted?

In the EUA decision memorandum on page 17, it stated: ‘The date for data cut-off for the first interim analysis for efficacy was November 4, 2020, when a total of 94 confirmed COVID-19 cases were accrued.’

According to a press release from Pfizer on November 9, 2020, the first interim efficacy analysis was only conducted on November 8, 2020 by an external, independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC).

To put this in context, Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential race on November 7, 2020. We also have to remember that the EUA documentation was only published on Dec 11, 2020.

Publicly, all that we knew of the vaccine at the time was the contents of Pfizer’s announcement on November 9 that there were ‘promising results’ from its first interim analysis.

However, according to analysis done by plotting the accrual of the pivotal 170 primary endpoint population by date of diagnosis, it can be estimated that 95 cases of Covid were diagnosed by 31, October 2020. This analysis was done by charting the accrual of the 170 population by date of diagnosis. This is an estimate only because in a small number of patients, the date of diagnosis was not charted explicitly in the documentation provided, and the date the swab was taken was used instead.

The question becomes, what caused the delay in the announcement? Did anyone wonder why a trial that had started on July 27, and with first possible date for the primary endpoint population being from August 24, 2020, that the first interim analysis of cases was only done on November 8, and the final threshold for eligible cases was able to be reached on November 14, a mere 6 days later?

(To qualify in the primary endpoint of this trial, one had to receive two doses of the drug, 21 days apart, have no evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection from 7 days after dose 2 and have no major protocol deviation. The dosing interval however appeared to have been changed after the trial started to 19-42 days, though a formal protocol amendment to this effect was never filed.)

In a press release, Pfizer explicitly said it did not conduct the first interim analysis planned at 32 cases after discussion with the FDA, but would conduct the first interim analysis upon accrual of more than 62 cases. We show that this threshold of 62 cases would have been reached well into the last week of October 2020.

Why was no interim analysis performed well after 62 cases were accumulated?

Is it reasonable to ask if the approval of the Covid vaccine became politicised?

The New York Times floated the idea of an ‘October surprise’, raising concerns about the promise of a Covid vaccine becoming an election stunt in the middle of the US Presidential campaign. As Technology Review wrote:

‘…a heart expert and researcher with a huge Twitter following of his own, was already weeks into a personal campaign to make sure the administration could not rush a Covid-19 vaccine through regulatory authorisation before Election Day on November 3 … developing an effective vaccine against Covid-19 is “the biggest event in our generation” and one that should be evaluated on the basis of scientific data, not political implications.’

The idea was to delay the approval of the vaccine until after the November election and ensure that any approval was based upon science, not political convenience.

Individuals from the Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration penned an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 16, 2020, outlining a new requirement that data from phase 3 studies to support an EUA (which may result from a protocol-specified interim analysis) include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months of safety data after completion of the full vaccination regimen.

The milestone of 2 months of safety data for half of the clinical trial participants would be reached in the third week of November 2020. As this was now a requirement, in the EUA documentation, it had to be admitted that during the first interim analysis data cut-off, that this new requirement of 2 month safety data had not been reached.

As outlined in the previous article, the timing of the interim analysis was always key. This was outlined in the protocol, planned at the accrual of 32, 62, 92, 120 eligible cases with a final analysis at 164 cases.

When Pfizer’s CEO said on Sept 3, 2020, that there would be late-stage trial results October of that year, there were no eligible cases accrued, as far as we can tell. He pushed back on October 1 against politicisation of the vaccine development seen during the Presidential debate on September 29, pledging to submit a vaccine for approval only after it has gone through the appropriate trials.

Hence, when the data cutoff was announced for Nov 4, they had not fulfilled the new criteria the FDA had laid out. If allowed to circumvent this requirement, why not when more 62 cases had been accrued? This drug had been touted as the breakthrough tool to help end the global health crisis. If so, was there not a responsibility then to bring this out as soon as possible?

On July 24, President Trump had signed four executive orders aimed at lowering drug prices. Tellingly, the article cited claims they would have ‘minimal effect, if they are implemented at all’. I do find President Trump’s continued support of the Covid vaccine perplexing in light of the troubling safety data we have seen. I am willing to postulate that if he were still President, the media would not have imposed the terrible censorship we have seen on vaccine harms, and instead sought to tie every adverse event and death on him personally. The ‘new’ criteria of 2 month safety data for half the trial population was never adequate, and could possibly have been imposed to get past the November election date.

I hope that the House Coronavirus Committee examines some of the issues highlighted in this article. For me as a doctor, the politicisation of the pandemic response has injured the medical profession grievously. The saddest day for me was when I came to the realisation that some doctors were willing to deny patients lifesaving, cheap, safe effective medication seemingly over politics.

What role did politics play, if any, in the timing of the vaccine announcement?

Whatever one may feel about President Trump, this is about a bigger issue of what has been done to humanity. We have seen the influence of major corporations like Twitter and other social media companies in trying to influence the US election. Could the promise of a wonder drug to make Covid go away have played a similar political role?

Subscribe to The Spectator

The Greatest Crime In Human History Ever Recorded Is Coming Soon in Paperback Form

The damning information that Pfizer, and as such, what the FDA knew, and wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, has been thoroughly documented and compiled into a paperback book.

These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects, contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.

All funds and proceeds raised go to the research project — and put food on the table for those devoting their time to this noble cause. So, please, show your support and get your (or a loved one’s) hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.

Pre-Order the Paperback Version

Pick Up Your Digital Copy on Amazon

Or our website.

The post The Powerful Politics of COVID Vaccines appeared first on DailyClout.