https://rumble.com/ve9nen-the-so-called-covid-19-vaccine.html
Please post links to any articles you find that are data based that supports this video. I want articles that are that the vaccines are unnecessary at best or harmful at worst.
AM THINKER just published this:
How safe are the COVID vaccines?
@ Ted Belman:
I didn’t know this, it’s a damned power based bullying. It wouldbe prudent to hve another platdorm lived up, there are severaal smaller ones out there.
Although your whole operation may be too entangled with Google to make such drasic changes.
I’m sure the word count has been exceeded several times, expecially with highlights of whole articles, plus poster remarks. Perhaps my definitely NON political correctness has something to do with the missing Digest. If so neer mind it , I can get the site another way, asI’ve said.
@ keelie:
If you could get people to hear one fact it is about these PCR tests and what they don’t tell you. Unfortunately, no one in authority wants to admit the truth that the testing that we have been utilizing for a year is useless. Also, no one in the public want to hear that there is really no diagnostic test to help protect them against the boogey man virus that isn’t killing everyone. It is unfortunate that Kary Mullins died just prior to this nonsense. His advocacy against using the PCR amplification technique as a diagnostic tool would have been quite useful as push back against the madness that has taken hold of the whole world.
@ Ted Belman:
Sorry about that, Ted
We are getting FAR too far ahead of ourselves with respect to the so-called Covid Pandemic. Let me insert a few paragraphs from a far larger paper that could perhaps illustrate this point. The reader is at liberty to scoff at this, but there are situations that have been magnified for specific political purposes so that the entire world has been “scared shitless” (in the words of one of the leading investigators of this phenomenon). It’s working!!! But it’s based on the assumption that the PCR (“Drosten”) test upholded by many or most of our governmently attached “experts” is highly inaccurate to say the least, and is fundamentally worthless:
“Not only are PCR tests expressly not approved for diagnostic purposes, as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests, and as the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasized.
Instead, they are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease.
That is:
Contrary to the assertions of Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, which they have been making since the pro0clamation oft he pandemic, a positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone is tested positive, it does not mean that they are infected with anything, let alone with a contagious Sars Cov 2 virus. Even the US CDC itself says this, and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the Corona virus and PCR tests, dated July 13, 2020 •Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
•The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
•This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
@ Edgar G.:
I think the word count is under 400.
Israpundit is u7nder attack by google. At the beginning of the month the bounce rate for the newsletter went up 10 fold. You are probably included.
Also, Their search engine have drastically reduced the Israpundit rating.
We are working on it.
@ Ted Belman:
What is the word count allowed. I didn’t know this. Also, I still don’t get the “Daily Digest”… quite while now. However I can type in the blog name and get it as well as the whole column of articles being covered, aome of which are NOT on the Daily Digest.
@ peloni1986:
Your posting was held because it exceeded the allowed word count by far.
@ peloni1986:
If you cared to notice, I did put a disclaimer in my post.
There was never a “free market economy” anywhere, that’s why I put “free” in quotation marks.
You need to take your reasoning one level higher.
The special interests you are talking about are, very specifically, the big business interests.
These big business interests have been taking over the US government and political life for decades, and it looks like they have finally completed the takeover.
This phenomenon is not unique in history but it is always very destructive to the country where it takes place.
One of the reasons it happened so easily in the US is because of the American worship of business and marketing which are equated with freedom, liberty. and all the good things in life, or as one college professor said (he wishes, of course, the people’s ideals to remain intact while they worship money and business):
https://www.northeastern.edu/sei/2017/02/the-business-of-america-is-business/
However, the “business” part has become THE IDEAL and it took over and killed the “people’s ideals” part.
In other words, the reason all these bad things that you are describing keep happening is because MONEY in the US has become GOD and the BIG BUSINESS is its PROPHET.
People truly think that this is KEY to everything else.
Business has nothing inherently ethical about it – its aim is always short-term profit, therefore, it has to be actively balanced by ethics, religion, spirituality, law, government bureaucracy, etc.
When business BECOMES all these things, this spells the death of them and the triumph of the naked profit motive.
My personal opinion is that it is deeply unethical to set up health care as a profit-driven enterprise because it will logically end up in eugenics, human experimentation, fake global health crises, etc, all driven by cost/benefit analysis and profit motive.
This is why we are now living through the “New Normal”, etc.
We must stop worshiping The Golden Calf and get a little more respect for ourselves.
@ Reader:
I don’t think that is a fair inference to the corruption on full display here. By that same rule of reference, one might conjecture that fair elections could not be trusted to a free society because of the obvious fraud that was permitted and sanctioned by all of our broken institutions. The premise is flawed from the assumption that libertarians would condone the permissibility of such thuggery tactics – which they do not. Society is no longer free when influence peddling is allowed to pick winners and losers. And that is the problem here, both in our election system and our healthcare system. The “unrestrained free market” did not prevent our oath-takers, our institutions, or our elites from fulfilling their duties and providing for the public good. In a free society, steps that are enacted by corrupted officials against the public good for graft or blackmail should be investigated by the FBI, prosecuted by the DOJ and judged by our courts to set an example for what should not be condoned. Instead what we have is a system whereby at almost all steps these investigation, prosecution and judgement are replaced by institutional corruption that manifests the reinforcement of the crime rather than what is stated previously.
The “unrestrained free market” as you put it, has not existed in the US since the 1986 sellout to Big Pharma made them immune to any form of consequence of a poor work product. It began prior to this, but 1986 is when legislation was adopted such that the Pharmaceutical companies could, and has, produced vaccines that violate the very basic principle of our healthcare system. “Nil nocere”—do no harm. This was the basis of healthcare and many still believe it to be the case. And yet, euthanasia, abortions, and eugenics are freely discussed without consequence. They have become part of the “modern” political discussion. The use of extensive informed consent forms is now being used to bury and hide the very things for which their use was originally intended. We could discuss the Nuremberg Code at some length and it’s absolute requirement that the involved persons not only be told of the role that they play in experimentation but that they exhibit a comprehension of all hazards and consequences of their consent. This is not a spot of laissez-faire gone astride, but rather a case of laissez-faire not employed. The doctrine of laissez-faire(“let go”) in a nutshell calls for an unrestrained market that will not be subjected to the influences of special interests(originally described as the “malignant hearts” by René-Louis de Voyer de Paulmy) that hamper, dilute and disuade business. Big Pharma is the epitome of special interest and black hearts discussed in this doctrine. The problem is not the “for profit” enterprises in pharmaceuticals, rather, it is the “for special interests” and their truly black hearts who have undermine our society and it’s institutions to defend the public from harm. So, with all due respect, I think your statement should, rather, read as follows:
“Goes to show that a health care system cannot be special interest-based, no matter how attractive graft and bribing sounds to the “fools” and other proponents of unrestrained special interest markets.”
When employed competently, a free market society would not tolerate, but would instead harshly punish the China Class and their fellow special interest groups for all that they have employed to the extreme detriment of the American public. .
Hi Ted, I have a posting stuck in moderation. Thanks
Goes to show that a health care system cannot be profit-based, no matter how attractive profit making sounds to the “libertarians” and other proponents of unrestrained “free” markets.
Although the politicians will find creative ways to harm their constituents under any circumstances.
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID?19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
By Timothy Cardozo Ronald Veazey
First published: 28 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13795Citations: 1
Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID?19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.
Methods used to conduct the study
Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID?19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID?19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.
Results of the study
COVID?19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID?19 disease via antibody? Dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID?19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications
The specific and significant COVID?19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
1 THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID?19 VACCINES IS NON?THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING
Vaccine?elicited enhancement of disease was previously observed in human subjects with vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), dengue virus and measles.1 Vaccine?elicited enhancement of disease was also observed with the SARS and MERS viruses and with feline coronavirus, which are closely related to SARS?CoV?2, the causative pathogen of COVID?19 disease. The immune mechanisms of this enhancement have invariably involved antibodies, from direct antibody?dependent enhancement, to immune complex formation by antibodies, albeit accompanied by various coordinated cellular responses, such as Th2 T?cell skewing.2-7 Notably, both neutralising and non?neutralising antibodies have been implicated. A recent study revealed IgG?mediated acute lung injury in vivo in macaques infected with SARS that correlated with a vaccine?elicited, neutralising antibody response.8 Inflammation and tissue damage in the lung in this animal model recapitulated the inflammation and tissue damage in the lungs of SARS?infected patients who succumbed to the disease. The time course was also similar, with the worst damage occurring in delayed fashion in synchrony with ramping up of the immune response. Remarkably, neutralising antibodies controlled the virus in the animal, but then would precipitate a severe, tissue?damaging, inflammatory response in the lung. This is a similar profile to immune complex?mediated disease seen with RSV vaccines in the past, wherein vaccines succumbed to fatal enhanced RSV disease because of the formation of antibody?virus immune complexes that precipitated harmful, inflammatory immune responses. It is also similar to the clinical course of COVID?19 patients, in whom severe COVID?19 disease is associated with the development of anti?SARS?CoV?2 serum antibodies,9 with titres correlating directly with the severity of disease.10 Conversely, subjects who recover quickly may have low or no anti?SARS?CoV?2 serum antibodies.11
The elicitation of antibodies, specifically neutralising antibodies, is the goal of nearly every current SARS?CoV?2 vaccine candidate. The prior evidence that vaccine?elicited, antibody?dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is likely to occur to some degree with COVID?19 vaccines is vertically consistent from controlled SARS studies in primates to clinical observations in SARS and COVID?19. Thus, a finite, non?theoretical risk is evident in the medical literature that vaccine candidates composed of the SARS?CoV?2 viral spike and eliciting anti?SARS?CoV?2 antibodies, be they neutralising or not, place vaccinees at higher risk for more severe COVID?19 disease when they encounter circulating viruses. Indeed, studies in mice of prior SARS vaccines revealed this exact phenotype, with four human vaccine candidates eliciting neutralising antibodies and protecting against SARS challenge, but viral re?challenge of thus vaccinated animals resulting in immunopathologic lung disease.5 Independently, SARS/MERS vaccine candidates, commonly exhibited ADE associated with high inflammatory morbidity in preclinical models, obstructing their advancement to the clinic.4, 12 SARS ADE of both disease in non?human primates and viral infection of cells in vitro was clearly mapped to specific antibody?targeted SARS viral spike epitopes.6 This phenomenon was consistent across a variety of vaccine platforms, including DNA, vector primes and virus?like particles (VLP), irrespective of inoculation method (oral, intramuscular, subcutaneous, etc). An unknown variable is how long this tissue damage lasts, possibly resulting in permanent morbidity (eg, diabetes from pancreatic damage7).
Current data on COVID?19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE of disease. Non?human primate studies of Moderna’s mRNA?1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology.13 Phase 1 trials of several vaccines have not reported any immunopathology in subjects administered the candidate vaccines. However, these subjects were unlikely to have yet encountered circulating virus.14 Nevertheless, all preclinical studies to date have been performed with the Wuhan or closely related strains of the virus, while a mutant D614G virus is now the most prevalent circulating form. Several observations suggest that this alternative form may be antigenically distinct from the Wuhan derived strain, not so much in composition, but in conformation of the viral spike and exposure of neutralisation epitopes.15-18 Similarly, Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of vaccine candidates have only been designed around immunogenicity as an efficacy end point and have not been designed to capture exposure of subjects to circulating virus after vaccination, which is when ADE/immunopathology is designed to occur. Thus, the absence of ADE evidence in COVID?19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non?theoretical risk to the subjects.
2 CHALLENGES TO INFORMED CONSENT FOR COVID?19 VACCINE STUDIES
Informed consent procedures for vaccine trials commonly include disclosure of very minor risks such as injection site reactions, rare risks from past, unrelated vaccines/viruses, such as Guillain?Barre syndrome for swine flu (interest in which is likely behind the interest in Astra Zeneca’s recent vaccine transverse myelitis event) and generic statements about the risk of idiosyncratic systemic adverse events and death. Specific risks to research participants derived from biological mechanism are rarely included, often because of ambiguity about their applicability.19
Signed consent forms from the COVID?19 vaccine trials are not publicly available because of privacy concerns. They also vary from clinical site to clinical site, and sample consent forms on which they are based are not required to be disclosed until after the trial is over, if at all. However, these consent forms are usually very similar in content to the “Risks to participants” section of the trial protocols, which have been released publicly by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson for their COVID?19 vaccine trials (20 & Supplement). As these three vaccines are representative of the diversity of vaccines being tested, it is very likely that the consent form inferred from these protocols is similar or identical to those from any and all of the vaccine trials currently underway. All three protocols mention the risk of disease enhancement by the vaccine, but all three list this risk last or next to last in the list of risks, after risks from the Ad26?Cov2 vector, adenovirus vectors in general, risks of vaccination in general, risks for pregnancy and birth control (which are said to be “unknown”), risks of blood draws and risks from collection of nasal swab samples (for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine), after allergy, fainting, local site injection reaction, general systemic adverse reactions and laboratory abnormalities for the Moderna vaccine and after local site injection reactions and general systemic adverse events for the Pfizer vaccine. In addition, both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson term the risk of vaccine?elicited disease enhancement as “theoretical.” Finally, in citing the risk, Pfizer and Moderna note prior evidence of vaccine?elicited disease enhancement with RSV and dengue, as well as feline coronavirus (Pfizer) and measles (Moderna), however, SARS and MERS are not mentioned. Johnson and Johnson discusses SARS and MERS, but make an unusual scientific argument that vaccine?elicited disease enhancement is because of non?neutralising antibodies and Th2?skewed cellular responses and that Ad26 vaccination does not exhibit this profile.Blank consent forms for AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson are also available online at https://restoringtrials.org/2020/09/18/covid19trialprotocolandstudydocs/, and while the AstraZeneca form clearly discloses the specific risk of ADE, the disclosure is listed last among risks only in an attached information sheet. In all, the evidence from the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson protocols for their COVID?19 vaccine trials and the sample consent forms, when contrasted with the evidence for antibody?dependent enhancement of disease presented by this report and widely available to any skilled practitioner in the field, establishes that patient comprehension of the specific risk that receiving the COVID?19 vaccine could convert a subject from someone who experiences mild disease to someone who experiences severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death is unlikely to be achieved by the informed consent procedures planned for these clinical trials.
Medical ethics standards required that, given the extent of evidence in the medical literature reviewed above, the risk of ADE should be clearly and emphatically distinguished in the informed consent from risks observed rarely as well as the more obvious risk of lack of efficacy, which is unrelated to the specific risk of ADE. Based on the published literature, it should have been obvious to any skilled medical practitioner in 2019 that there is a significant risk to vaccine research subjects that they may experience severe disease once vaccinated, while they might only have experienced a mild, self?limited disease if not vaccinated. The consent should also clearly distinguish the specific risk of worsened COVID?19 disease from generic statements about risk of death and generic risk of lack of efficacy of the vaccine.
3 CONCLUSION
Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non?theoretical and compelling risk for COVID?19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID?19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards. The informed consent process for ongoing COVID?19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard. While the COVID?19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID?19 vaccine risks.
For those whose attention span is as long as my brother’s, let’s jump to the concluding remarks. Remember that ADE is antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease. Here is the conclusion stated in the study – note the bold for the takeaway message:
Not only is there still no separate section discussing ADE, but there is no mention of ADE is present in either the patient or clinician versions of the “laundry list” informed consents.
The informed consents for patients is found here:
http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14472&format=pdf
and the informed consent for clinicians is found here:
http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471&format=pdf
A research paper in the Science DIgest says that taking asperin daily for cardio vascular disease inhibits the chance of catching COVID-19.
I take it daily, have done for many years, (along with Omega 3, Vit E, and other vitamins), just as a precaution as a blood thinner, not for any heart disease, so this makes me feel better. My daughter just sent me the link, in return for my sending her our article about the COVID “Vaccine” we are reading about on Israpundit.
None of us has taken any vaccine yet, nor her whole family of husband and 2 daughters.
I’ve just watched the video by the Dr. (I wrote my previous comments without watching it first).
It is even worse than I thought.
Thanks for posting it.
From the Washington Examiner
To me, at any rate, this article from the Jerusalem Post suggests that the vaccine is not 100% safe.
This doctor’s presentation of the actual nature of the “vaccines” is really scary. It sounds to me that he knows what he is talking about it. I’m glad I have avoided getting vaccinated.
@ peloni1986:
You may be right about their access to HCQ.
But I still think that COVID-19 is NOT the real plague.
@ Reader:
I totally agree with you, Reader, except on this point:
They were not bundled in their bunkers because they and their loved ones were(and probably still are) all on hydroxychloroquine.
@ leanmarc@ii.net:
“why do so many bury their heads in the sand?”
Who knows?
First of all, this is in the hands of incredibly skilled marketers, psychologists, etc. who know their audience.
You can be an independent thinker but who is willing to prove the “experts” wrong at the cost of possibly hurting oneself? What if it is really true?
Most people are eager (unconscious) consumers of marketing and brainwashing. especially from television.
It hurts to have to abandon one’s illusions and it must hurt even more to realize that one has been conned, and was being conned since early childhood by the people who you have always trusted?
So people try to avoid the pain at all costs.
I agree
@ Reader:
I don’t trust the so called ‘results’ in Israel
That they banned HCQ in so many countries based on a fake study in Lancet that was later retracted (look it up) is all we need to know. If you’ve taken the vaccine – of course we do hope it’s safe and effective. Question – why do so many bury their heads in the sand?
@ Ted Belman:
The proof that the politicians don’t care about anybody’s health:
When you care about someone’s health, you don’t deny them existing, especially inexpensive, medications or regimens to heal them or cure their condition in order to make them wait (while drastically curtailing their lives and liberties) for a practically untested experimental vaccine (which vaccine represents an experiment in genetic engineering) for months and months (at least).
THIS DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER ON ITS FACE.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, especially on practically the whole population of the planet!
THIS IS UNETHICAL TO PUT IT MILDLY, if not outright CRIMINAL.
@ Ted Belman:
This is all fake, just like everywhere else.
It is impossible to make conclusions with the fake data.
This was done EXCLUSIVELY TO MAKE MONEY AND ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.
I am not saying there is no virus but there is no disease that someone haven’t died from, and they have been completely ignoring other disease statistics.
If this were a real plague, all the politicians would be hiding in their sterile bunkers quiet as a mouse and shaking like a leaf from fear and would let the REAL experts handle it (cures – 1st and foremost, then vaccines, etc.)., instead of strutting around manipulating the media, canceling gatherings, imposing muzzles, lockdowns, Green Passports, etc.
They are already threatening a worse pandemic.
Thanks to both of you. I want empirically driven results.
So far Israel has had 6000 deaths out of a population of 9,000,000 which is 0.06% I think.
So I wonder if the vaccine was necessary. How has it affected the death rate?
@ Reader:
@ Reader:
Correction: “genetically engineered ones”
@ Reader:
In addition, NOTHING CAN STOP INFECTION!
Pfizer is clearly lying in the article from the Arutz7 below.
Every human has around 50 different viruses (not necessarily identical in every person) inside at any given time and more than 3 POUNDS of bacteria (sorry, OCD sufferers).
This is what our IMMUNE SYSTEM is for – to keep us in a healthy state because there is NO PERSON ON THE PLANET who is NOT infected with something at any given time.
A virus is a piece of a molecule.
Is there ANYONE who can protect his body from a speck of dust, much less from a molecule?!
Vaccines teach our immune systems to deal with dangerous infections in some way, they don’t directly prevent infection or transmission.
However, all of them have side effects, and a few of them may be discovered only in the long term, if not in a generation or two, especially the genetically ones, like mRNA, or the antiviral ones.
None of these vaccines have been tested properly or long enough, and I suspect that most of the bad outcomes are not being reported and are being attributed to other causes while the number of “cases” is equated to the number of the positive PCR tests (so-called), and any sneeze is attributed to “corona”.
This whole Israeli vaccine thing sounds really fishy, in the end there may be a huge scandal with the top politicians being found to have been hugely invested in the vaccine or having gotten kickbacks from Pfizer.
One of the comments here claims that all the therapeutics against COVID have been BANNED in Israel:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/298333
Ted, seems like you want your philosophy driven results.
The 600K person study of vaccinated people in Israel by Clait shows the Pfizer vaccine is effective and safe.
Macabbi did a 500K person study which also shows the vaccine (Pfizer is effective and safe).
Moderna is a very similar mRNA vaccine has proven in the USA that it is safe and effective.
There are other vaccines out there (e.g. AstraZeneca) it has not proven as effective. The Medical people in Europe have demanded they get the Pfzier or Moderna vaccines.