There's been much talk about the popular heartburn medication, Zantac (ranitidine) causing cancer after independent laboratory testing found that one ranitidine 150 mg tablet produced 304,500 nanograms (ng) of a cancer-causing substance called N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), an amount that greatly exceeds the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) daily acceptable intake limit of 96 ng.
After learning this, the FDA, in April 2020, requested Zantac be removed from the market.
Zantac is manufactured by many pharmaceutical companies, several of whom have recalled it, citing "safety concerns."
The following types of cancers have developed in some people who took the Zantac:
Bladder cancer
Esophageal cancer
Gastric cancer / stomach cancer
Liver cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Prostate cancer
Breast cancer
Lung cancer
Colon cancer
On September 15, 2022 , Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, attorneys headquartered in Los Angeles, California, filed Zantac lawsuits on behalf of thousands of people throughout the country who allege exposure to ranitidine causes cancer. The filing of 88 complaints on behalf of 7,291 claimants is one of the largest on behalf of Zantac cancer victims in 2022.
Allegations against the defendants, namely, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Pfizer Inc, Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi, include:
Failure to Warn
Manufacturing Defect
Negligent Product Design
Negligent Manufacturing
Negligent Misrepresentation
Baum Hedlund's press release states, "...the defendants knew that Zantac (ranitidine) could degrade into a potent human carcinogen, NDMA, in the regular course of transport and storage, and within the human body, but failed to take any action to prevent consumers from being exposed." Furthermore, they add, "...lawsuits maintain that Zantac’s manufacturers made billions selling a product they knew posed an unreasonable risk to consumers. If the drug manufacturers had disclosed and disseminated the cancer risks associated with Zantac and OTC ranitidine products, the plaintiffs say they could have avoided the risk of developing cancer by instead using alternative medications that do not pose the same risk."
Baum Hedlund's Brent Wisner also said, he believes the defendants in the Zantac litigation “deliberately misled consumers because they knew that full disclosure of Zantac’s risks would limit the amount of money they could make selling the drugs.” Adding, "They knew that concealing the truth would protect profits. Their deception led to an epidemic of cancer in this country, and we intend to hold them accountable.”
History shows that, between them, the defendants, above, have made settlements for various violations over the years of more than 20 billion dollars. Pfizer top that list with fines/settlements of over 10 billion dollars whilst GSK run a close second with fines/settlements of over 8 billion dollars.
It remains to be seen if those figures will be increased during or after these Zantac lawsuits.
NEJM states: "Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes."
Effective mission statements are supposed to be succinct, I presume NEJM chose to omit the other relevant sentence readers would want to understand, which is: "We don't care where the data comes from as long as it supports our chosen narratives."
de·ceiver
a person who causes someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.
New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
Eric Rubin, NEJM editor-in-chief
There have been nine editors-in-chief from 1921 to the present at the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The current editor-in-chief is Eric Rubin, the former chair of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases. (Immunology is the study of the immune system.) Before Rubin, NEJM's editors-in-chief was Jeffrey M. Drazen, an asthma and lung disease expert. Aside from Rubin, no NEJM editor-in-chief has had a background in Immunology and Infectious Diseases.
The Boston Tea Party (Outsiders rarely invited)
Rubin was selected after a NEJM "international" committee conducted a global search. The committee was chaired by Dr. Lynda Young, past president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Dr. Beverly Woo, of the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, served as vice-chair. Other committee members were:
Dr. Alain Chaoui, FAAFP, President, Massachusetts Medical Society;
Dr. Karen Antman, Dean, Boston University School of Medicine;
Dr. Harris Berman, Dean, Tufts University School of Medicine;
Dr. Edward W. Campion, Executive Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine;
Dr. Lois Dehls Cornell, Executive Vice President, Massachusetts Medical Society;
Dr. George Q. Daley, Dean, Harvard Medical School;
Dr. Jack Evjy, Past-President, Massachusetts Medical Society;
Dr. Terence Flotte, Dean, School of Medicine, UMass Medical School;
Dr. Danny Jacobs, President, Oregon Health and Science University;
Dr. Thomas Lee, Chief Medical Officer, Press Ganey, and NEJM Catalyst Leadership Board Founder;
Dr. Joseph Loscalzo, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, and Physician-in-Chief, Brigham and Women's Hospital;
Dr. Graham McMahon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education;
Dr. Erika von Mutius, Professor of Pediatric Allergology, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital of the University of Munich, Institute for Asthma and Allergy Prevention, Germany;
Dr. John Noseworthy, Chief Executive Officer, Mayo Clinic;
Dr. Chana Sacks, Images Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and;
Dr. David Spriggs, Associate Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Director of the Gynecologic Oncology Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.
The vast majority of this "international" search committee works in the Boston area.
For historical reference, the first quarterly edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Collateral Branches of Medical Science (Boston) was published in January 1812. It was a result of a collaboration between John Collins Warren, a Boston physician, and his colleague James Jackson. In 1921, their journal merged with the Boston Medical Intelligencer to become the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal; it also began weekly publication that year and was purchased by the Massachusetts Medical Society.
Rubin became NEJM's editor-in-chief in September 2019, approximately three months before the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, China. On January 7, 2020, Chinese authorities identified coronavirus as the cause, and it was temporarily named "2019-nCoV." Rubin's September 2019 appointment as editor-in-chief at the NEJM was quite timely.
Not Long Before Controversy
Dressen is a preschool teacher from Saratoga Springs, Utah, who received the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine during a clinical trial in November 2020. She has since experienced extensive adverse effects from the vaccine
On November 2, 2021, Bri Dressen participated in a US Senate meeting at which issues were raised about coronavirus vaccine harms and related mandates. Dressen was a clinical trial participant for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
After having just one dose, Dressen experienced adverse effects. The effects were so severe and long-lasting that she had to quit her job as a preschool teacher and hire a nanny to care for her two young children. Here's her testimony.
In her initial email, Dressen pointed out the article's inaccuracies. Surprisingly, her email was directly answered by NEJM editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. Rubin told Dressen the NEJM would not publish her letter. He claimed, "The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received."
Dressen contacted NEJM because they published inaccurate information that the journal should correct. She did not contact NEJM to request that her letter be published. However, the email exchange between Dressen and Rubin shows Rubin would not address these inaccuracies. Their email exchange can be read here.
Dr. Fernando Polack is a Specialist in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. His work is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack ~ Mira Vos! Argentina
Polack was the lead author in another NEJM article entitled, 'Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine', the conclusion of which was "A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines." BioNTech and Pfizer funded the trial.
As Covid hit Argentina, Polack became involved in a trial of immune plasma taken from patients who had recovered from Covid. This plasma was then given to patients who had recently contracted Covid. In May 2020, Polack speculated that this would make Covid like an ordinary cold.
The trial's conclusions boasted a positive outcome, and the results were published in a February 2021 peer-reviewed article in--you've guessed it--the NEJM. NEJM reviewers concluded, "Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19."
BioNTech or Pfizer didn't fund this trial; The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded it.
A subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) didn't agree with Polack and the NEJM reviewers. They cited, "Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes."
Who is Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack?
Take a step into the unknown and read Fishy Business in the Rio de la Plata, an article by Prof.David Healy, Psychopharmacologist, Scientist and Author.
Who are NEJM's Reviewers?
This is a list of people who served as NEJM's reviewers between January and June 2021. Readers of medical journals should be aware that these reviewers, like most--if not all--reviewers, are reviewing ghostwritten material and have never seen the raw data from clinical trials. Many reviewers are probably still unaware that the material they review is written by pharmaceutical companies or PR companies hired by pharmaceutical companies. Further, if some reviewers are aware, or made aware, of these data sources, it's likely they do not care.
Are these NEJM reviewers data deceivers who refuse to reveal the truth about the source of the "data" they review? Are they disinterested in reviewing raw data? Are they dispassionate about ensuring the validity of the data they promote? Regardless of the reasons, I contend NEJM reviewers are likely data deceivers because they've been seduced by the financial and professional benefits that come from serving as "prestigious" NEJM reviewers.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of ghostwriting, I recommend the following introductions, 1, 2, 3
I've heard many stories over the years regarding the troubles people have experienced whilst taking brain pellets marketed as 'antidepressants.' Kerri's guest post (below) is yet another example of how patients are pushed from pillar to post, often having to find their own way to resolve matters relating to brain pellet adverse events because of a severe lack of knowledge from prescribing physicians.
The three pellets featured in Kerri's story were, at a point in time, blockbuster products raking in billions of dollars for the drug companies who marketed and manufactured them, namely Lilly (Prozac) and GlaxoSmithKline (Paxil) and Pfizer (Zoloft). Three apparent drugs that are supposed to help but, as is my experience, cause more problems than the original 'illness' they are prescribed for. They all, allegedly, work in pretty much the same way. Drug company reps will tell you that A is better than B and C because, well, because that's what they are paid to do. They have no scientific evidence that one is more tolerable and causes less side-effects than the other.
I find it difficult to believe that neither Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer knew nothing about the problems caused by the three products mentioned below, moreover, the journeys many millions face when taking them.
This is just a small part of Kerri's journey. She writes to warn others and to create an awareness that all is not lost if you, or someone you know, suffers the same fate as she.
Bob Fiddaman
--
I was taught to trust the doctors. I was taught to trust the prescriptions. I was taught to trust the assessments I received from hospitals. And I did…but, this trust of these medical recommendations nearly killed me.
My name is Kerri Lynn and I was born in Long Beach CA, but was raised in the upper Midwest. I grew up in a dysfunctional home and early on, I gravitated towards addictive tendencies. I strived to make good choices at this time, however, my best efforts to live life on life’s terms were mostly self-destructive.
"I was restless, irritable and discounted all the time being newly sober and I needed help facing life, or so I thought."
At 13, I discovered drinking. I partied all the time until my addiction stopped working for me. I chased other self-destructive behaviors and relationships. My out-of-control nature led to an ultimatum from loved ones: I had to find a solution how not to be self-destructive.
Pain and circumstances drove me to seek help from 12-Step Recovery. This was really a challenge and about 60 days into this sober journey, I sought help from my family doctor. I was restless, irritable and discounted all the time being newly sober and I needed help facing life, or so I thought. My first prescription was for 20 mg of Prozac. 3 Days into this first prescription, I was unable to walk or talk. I was severely anxious and my brain was racing and telling me to do delusional things like run outside naked. I experienced Homicidal and Suicidal Ideation (I have come to understand that these are the symptoms of Serotonin Syndrome/Akathisia). I was panicking due to my reaction to this prescription, though I had no awareness that it was the prescription that was causing these symptoms. I had to reach out to a former counselor to sorts things out.
I met with my former counselor the following Monday. I finally revealed I was taking Prozac, and he immediately called my prescribing physician to get me off this prescription. This was the beginning of a 13-year nightmare with prescribed medications.
40mg of Paxil was my next prescription. A year into taking this antidepressant, I woke up one morning and could not emotionally feel anything. I was terrified. I called my doctor again and he tried yet another substitute of Zoloft. At that point, all hell broke loose. My doctor tried Paxil one more time and this sent me to the hospital. Between 2000 and 2006, I was Hospitalized on 3 separate occasions due to drug toxicity or cold turkey drug withdrawal.
"I exhausted every potential care and specialty option locally."
During these nightmare days, I was entertained with my expanded medical vocabulary. I learned words like suicidal ideation, disassociation, delusion, hallucination, profuse night-sweats, rapid irregular heartbeats and agoraphobia. We must not forget the bladder loss or rectal haemorrhaging, nor the black outs that would last more than 24 hours, when they would randomly introduce new medications. And my favorite suffering were the overwhelming panic attacks.
Sadly, my entire investment in the “healing process” to this point only led to my condition becoming more and more dire. The medical assessments only were dealing with a random set of symptoms that were mostly caused by the prescription and I could not break the cycle, no matter what I did or took. Almost every diagnosis made things worse and added to my growing list of “untreatable symptoms.” I exhausted every potential care and specialty option locally. I even spent 2 weeks at the world renown Mayo Clinic only to achieve an inaccurate diagnosis once again of Visceral Extreme Hypersensitivity. When I return to my home, I felt defeated and my local hospital would no longer allow me to make appointments, unless first reviewed by management over the phone. These doctors thought I was crazy.
It is always darkest before the dawn. I was under the care of many physicians. Many were a significant part of the problem and few were graciously a part of what would be my life-changing solution. I was blessed to be introduced to the Cytochrome P-450 test which analyses DNA and genetic strengths and deficiencies. From this accurate genetic assessment, it was discovered that I have both fast and slow processes in my liver and kidneys. This finally expressed a causality between reception and rejection of various medications. It was also determined accurately that I am missing the GSTM-1/ Glutathione Gene. It was finally determined that my true ailment was Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and all previous diagnoses actually placed me in grave risk by triggering my symptoms. The synthetic nature of the drugs being prescribed to me were actually poisoning me and triggered my multiple chemical sensitivity. During the course of 13 years of prescriptions, my body has been damaged so that I will most likely be significantly chemically sensitive for the remainder of my days.
"It is my hope that my story can guide people to new strategies so that nobody ever has to suffer like I did."
My hope is that by sharing my story that we can come to a new responsibility about how we seek and receive diagnoses. The medical profession has a mission statement of seeking to do no harm. This is not always the case. From my experience, a measured suspicion is the best approach. I now take the responsibility of doing my own medical research. I trust my instincts and I am my own advocate. Through my difficult journey my local provider actually became the first hospital in the country to study the P-450 genetic test. I strongly recommend this assessment be the starting point. Don’t utilize the P-450 as a last resort.
I am now 11-years medication free and stable. I have to live the rest of my life being critically aware of my environment and surroundings due to my chemical sensitivity. However, today I have a strategy for living that works. It is my hope that my story can guide people to new strategies so that nobody ever has to suffer like I did.
~ Kerri Lynn
---
You can listen to Kerri's story in her own words here via the brilliant Akathisia Stories, a co-production of MISSD and Studio C.
You can read more about Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) tests here
Footnote:
Test limitations
Although they have potential, CYP450 tests have limitations:
Tests are available for only certain medications. Also, each test is specific to only one medication, so a change in medication may require another test.
Testing can't predict which medication will work best for you — it can only provide clues.
Not all insurance companies cover the costs of these tests.
If high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care had something to say about the vaccine clinical trials, would you be interested or would you much prefer to visit Facebook's COVID-19 Information Centre for vaccine resources? (Fig 1)
Fig 1
If this question would have been posed before the outbreak of COVID_19, most would have answered with, "It's a no-brainer." Today, however, sees a different position. Facebook's flagging of posts seems to convince many of those already jabbed that nobody but their fact-checkers could possibly be right. This is dangerous and no matter how much you try to convince the double-jabbed that there is something not quite right with what we are all being told, the wind grows stronger and blows the piss back in your face (pissin' in the wind)
I'm certain once this blog post is finished and shared on Facebook the standard (Fig 1) will accompany it within seconds. So, how to we tap in to those who take the Facebook flags as Gospel? Personally, I think many are way too far down the government and drug company driven hyperbole. It would take a severe adverse reaction or even death to a loved one to alter their opinion.
The following information is taken from the RxISK website, RxISK is owned and operated by Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd. (DBM), based in Toronto, Canada.
It is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.
The exact same group of people that the majority of the double-jabbed are choosing not to listen to, opting instead to believe and follow the 'science' of Facebook's COVID_19 Information Centre for vaccine information.
I've yet to see Facebook's flags take it's 'clickers' to any information regarding the vaccine clinical trials, moreover, how trials are run (historically)
The latest from the RxISK team, 'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', is educational for those who don't move in the same circles as I. It can either be ignored or can be used to educate - out of the two, I prefer education over ignorance, we all should.
Sure, it rehashes what the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated seem to dismiss on a whim but it drives home the seriousness of what we see unfolding in the world today, it shows how easy it is to hoodwink an apathetic public, despite evidence there is something drastically wrong with the narrative, of which the majority seem to have gobbled up from apparent government "scientists", mainstream media outlets and social media platforms whose spokespersons seem to be the red-sofa types, you know, the Piers Morgan's, Jeremy Vine's and Dr Hilary Jones' of this world.
Morning and daytime TV has a targeted audience. With COVID-19 impacting routines and consumers spending more time at home, daytime television viewing has increased significantly. What better way to spread a message, eh? It doesn't have to be the truth.
The aforementioned will, just like the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated, refuse to even read 'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', It goes against everything they believe in and have told their viewers - to do a U-turn at this stage would mean they'd lose face, something that Messrs Morgan, Vine, and Jones rarely do.
The high-profile medical experts on the RxISK website write:
"Governments are considering mandating, or already have mandated an unproven technology, against a background of vaccine approval and pharmacovigilance processes that leave a lot to be desired even in the case of proven technologies.
"The techniques used to evaluate these novel agents are not new but have been corrupted and no longer meet the norms of science."
If, by some strange twist of fate, a double/triple/quadruple vaccinated person is reading this blog post, it's at this point a switch is flicked in their heads and they choose to not read on, this is pretty much how Fig 1 works.
However, I'll persist.
The patient-centered care team at RxISK continue with:
"Icon is the CRO that co-ordinated the trial of a vaccine that is sometimes now called Comirnaty, and more generally called Pfizer. Icon subcontracted to other companies, at some point engaging Platinum Research Ltd, which includes Ventavia, the CRO with concerning trial practices that was the subject of Paul Thacker’s Nov 2 BMJ paper. Icon boast that the main trial was conducted with unprecedented speed and pitch for further business based on this.
"Icon staff wrote the papers reporting the results of these trials submitted with BioNTech as the sponsor. Of the 29 listed ‘authors’ on the main trial, there are 3 Americans, 4 who run for profit clinical trial centres overseas, and 19 company people of whom 17 are linked to Pfizer and 2 to BioNTech. There are few clinicians on these papers, and likely none have met any of the trial subjects, particularly those who have been harmed."
If this has not whet your appetite to read on then the lengthy post may not be your thing. However, you'll be missing out on something that can educate you, your children and your children's children.
The post from RxISK is split into many parts, I highly recommend reading it, if not all at once, then bookmark it and read it at your own leisure (maybe in-between listening to Dr Hilary Jones harp on about the importance of getting vaccines and booster 1,2,3,4 etc.
Learn about:
- Mandating Unproven Technologies
- Vaccine Efficacy
- Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence
- Vaccine Safety
- Pharmacovigilance
- Mandates
- Choking on the Lie
- Why Young Women?
Remember, and keep repeating to yourself, RxISK is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.
On Nov 1, Pfizer published a video featuring children on their Twitter page. The video (below) shows children who are thanking all the children who enrolled in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, the results of which saw authorisation given by the FDA, despite protestations from safety consumer groups. It's unknown if the children who appear in the short video are child actors.
Superheroes come in all sizes 🦸🏽♀️🦸🏻🦸🏿♂️🦸🏼♀️ Watch as real kids express thanks to their superheroes; the 5-11 year old #Covid19 vaccine clinical trial volunteers. We're incredibly grateful to the trial participants and their families 💙 #ScienceWillWinpic.twitter.com/A3I0ERr4TV
In the main, the reaction to the video was one of discontent from members of the public. One commentator wrote, "This is one the sickest things I’ve seen in a long time … but from the most fined company in human history I guess I shouldn’t expect any better."
I, myself, drew attention to Pfizer's past history regarding children, in particular a trial carried out in Africa in 1996.
"Pfizer was sued after 11 children died in a clinical trial when the northern state of Kano was hit by Africa's worst ever meningitis epidemic in 1996. A hundred children were given an experimental oral antibiotic called Trovan, while a further hundred received ceftriaxone, the "gold-standard" treatment of modern medicine.
"Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone. But later it was claimed that Pfizer did not have proper consent from parents to use an experimental drug on their children and questions were raised over the documentation of the trial."
The lawsuit took over 15 years for Pfizer to settle, surprising then that they would use children to promote the safety and efficacy of a relatively new product of theirs.
BMJ ARTICLE
Pfizer chiefs were left red-faced after an investigative piece appeared in the BMJ (2 November 2021) raising serious concerns about poor practices at a contract research company (Ventavia) helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial.
Armed with information from a whistleblower, investigative journalist, Paul D Thacker, highlighted:
Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
Protocol deviations not being reported
Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
Pfizer remained quiet after the BMJ article surfaced...but not for long.
On Nov 9, they tweeted out a meme accompanied with the following message, "It’s easy to get distracted by misinformation these days, but don’t worry…Science has got your back."
Because of the backlash received from their 'Superheroes' video, Pfizer blocked any public comments on this one.
It seems odd that Pfizer would engage in such a way. History shows that when any drug company comes under fire for falsifying clinical trial information (albeit by proxy) they usually remain quiet. Pfizer doubling-down here is a rare move.
It seems this is the way in which Pfizer are going to tackle critics of their vaccine.
'PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS'
On the same day they launched the meme via Twitter, CNBC published an interview with Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla. They eye-catching headline from CNBC reads:
Berkeley Lovelace Jr, the journalist who authored the piece, wrote:
People who spread misinformation on Covid-19 vaccines are “criminals” and have cost “millions of lives,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Tuesday.
Speaking with Washington D.C.-based think tank Atlantic Council, Bourla said there is a “very small” group of people that purposefully circulate misinformation on the shots, misleading those who are already hesitant about getting vaccinated.
“Those people are criminals,” he told Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe. “They’re not bad people. They’re criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.”
This, to me at least, is yet another rarity. Some would suggest that Bourla is concerned about the whistleblower findings published in the BMJ and is deflecting here.
It's a strange allegation to make given that Pfizer, in 2009, agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.
At the time, Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, had this to say:
"Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws."
With mainstream media outlets, seemingly, ignoring severe conflicts of interests between FDA Panel members with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer, it's no surprise that parents across the world will be soon telling their 5-11 year-old children to roll their sleeves up to be injected with a vaccine that, if government figures are to be believed, the majority of adults have already taken.
We can go one step further and quote the President of the United States, Joe Biden - president's don't lie, right, they never have, they never will.
“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Biden added, "This is a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."
These two statements by Biden will serve to put the US public at ease. Thanks' Joe. Nothing like reassurances from a world leader.
You'd have to be from the Planet Zog not to challenge Biden's claims, either that or be totally brainwashed by the leaning-left political media.
I shake my head at times, not at Biden, not even at CNN, my head shakes in disbelief at members of the general public whom have been so taken in by this absurd narrative.
Biden is wrong when he says ,“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Biden is also wrong when he claims, "This is a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."
Nonetheless, many of his voters will stand by these claims because, well, they elected him and he's much better than the other guy who was President.
I've seen nothing to suggest that he is, just a load of support on various social media outlets in the shape of various memes.
Biden has doubled-down and dangled a huge 'come gobble me carrot' in front of the FDA. Telling them, and the rest of the world, that the Administration has procured enough vaccine to support vaccination for the country’s 28 million children ages 5-11 years old, this before the FDA panel of 'experts' gave it the thumbs up. More about this decision below.
When something is wrong, say it's wrong. Biden isn't personally going to visit your home and condemn you for your lack of support. Trump isn't going to phone you up in the middle of the night and tell you, "I told you so."
This political allegiance baffles me. Just because you give someone your vote does not mean that you can never publicly chastise them for making such absurd claims as Biden has made regarding a virus and injections.
More people (that voted for him) need to call him out. They need to drop this false sense of loyalty they hold, they need to stop deflecting this misinformation by changing the subject to Biden's predecessor.
I don't care what you think about the opposition - it's history, let it go and focus on the bullshit staring you in the face. You're not being disloyal if you do this, you're part of the problem, however, if you don't.
Fast forward...
Last Friday (Oct 29) the FDA authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 to include children 5 through 11 years of age, despite protestations from an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorisation or licensure are transparent for the public.
The 8 hour meeting between interested parties can be viewed here.
Remarkably, we had one either side of the fence, a party representing reasons for and reasons against. Those in the reasons for camp, namely the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, have financial ties and/or relationships with Pfizer.
These include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a member who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a member who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children.
It's also important to note that the former FDA Commissioner ,Scott Gottlieb, is on Pfizer’s board of directors.
It was pretty obvious how they would vote in favour, imagine if they didn't, Pfizer would have asked some serious questions about their loyalty.
Any such 'deliberation' between consumer safety advocates and FDA panels is therefore, surely, compromised by such a conflict of interests.
Those safety advocates faced an uphill battle from the get go given Biden had already told the heavily influenced Pfizer/FDA Panel that his Administration had already procured enough vaccine to support vaccination for the country’s 28 million children ages 5-11 years old.
This incestuous relationship between regulators and drug/juice manufacturers is clearly there to be seen yet it's only independent journalists and safety advocates that seem to be highlighting this. For this, they are labelled 'anti-vax' or other anti-narrative slurs.
Panel members with clear financial ties to manufacturers. Hey, no problem, no bias to see, right?
One of the most insidious mutterings I've heard in a long time came from Infectious disease specialist, and current editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Eric Rubin, who said, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. And that’s just the way it goes."
Meantime, millions of parents will be telling their 5-11 year-olds to roll up their sleeves in one of the biggest child experiments the world has ever seen.
This is absurd and its only a small proportion of people speaking out about it.
Even if you've had the juice, this cannot sit right with you.
Coming full circle
As Biden supporters stand by idly and don't condemn his misinformation, we now have two other sides of the fence. Those who have been juiced and those who haven't. The juiced, in the main, won't see the conflict of interests as an issue, they won't see the fact there is no long-term safety data for 5-11 year-olds as an issue either. The won't see any problems with the FDA and, indeed the CDC, not having access to Pfizer's clinical trial case report forms (Raw data). Even if they did take issue with any of the above it would be highly unlikely that a majority would say what an utter disgrace this was. Thinking it is and uttering to oneself that kids need and should be protected from financial bias isn't good enough, it won't take you to those pearly gates as 'good people', quite the opposite if you believe in Heaven that is.
Weighing up benefits and risks should be about benefits and risks to the intended recipients and not about the benefit and risks of making a financially driven decision, which is clearly what has happened here. It's political, it's money-driven, it's utterly repugnant.
Finally, if none of the above stirs any kind of response other than a shrug of the shoulders, one should study the following slide. Correlation will never equal causation if we have data collecting agencies who don't follow up any adverse reaction reports.
Slide presentation from Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom. Nov 2, 2021
To date, I've not witnessed any person who is refusing Pfizer's vaccine publicly chastise anyone who has chosen to be vaccinated. I have, however, seen plenty of vaccinated people call those who are not vaccinated, "idiots", "stupid", "selfish", "antivaxxers". Many more negative connotations are used, often behind the backs of the unvaccinated.
Although there may be some examples of the unvaccinated targeting vaccinated people, I suspect it's because they are fed up of having the above negative connotations aimed in their directions - I may be wrong.
This post is, in essence, for those people who continue to claim that the unvaccinated are idiots, etc.
I pose a hypothetical question to those people, one, which I feel, should, at the very least, tap into their sense of logic when trying to persuade the unvaccinated to "GET VACCINATED!" (They often use CAPS and exclamation marks to drive their point home) - messages like these are rife on social media, such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc.
As yet, I've not had any answers to this question, apart from, "It's a silly rhetorical device.", this from someone who has publicly stated that he has been vaccinated. Do you see any negative connotations in his response?
Anyway, I digress.
Here's the hypothetical question:
If Pfizer were a caregiver, would you employ them to look after the welfare of your children, grandchildren, and/or elderly relatives?
Before you answer, it may be wise to check out Pfizer's CV.
Here it is (Sources provided at the end of this blog post)
Products
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed great concern about reports of dozens of fatalities linked to heart valves made by Pfizer’s Shiley division. In 1986, as the death toll reached 125, Pfizer ended production of all models of the valves. In 1991 an FDA task force charged that Pfizer’s Shiley division had withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves and that the company continued to keep the FDA in the dark. A November 7, 1991 investigation in the Wall Street Journal asserted that Pfizer’s Shiley division had been deliberately falsifying manufacturing records relating to valve fractures. Pfizer announced that it would spend up to $205 million to settle the tens of thousands of valve lawsuits that had been filed against it. Even so, Pfizer resisted complying with an FDA order that it notify patients of new findings that there was a greater risk of fatal fractures in those who had the valve installed before the age of 50
- In 2004, Pfizer agreed to suspend television advertising for a related medication called Celebrex. The following year, Pfizer admitted that a 1999 clinical trial found that elderly patients taking Celebrex had a greatly elevated risk of heart problems.
- In 2005, Pfizer withdrew another painkiller, Bextra, from the market after the FDA mandated a “black box” warning about the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks of the medication. In 2008, Pfizer announced that it was setting aside $894 million to settle the lawsuits that had been filed in connection with Bextra and Celebrex. The settlement included roughly 7,000 personal injury cases, mainly plaintiffs who took Bextra, The attorney represented 2000 claimants, about 10% of them relatives of people who died.
- In 2010, a federal jury awarded $1.37 million to a former Pfizer scientist who claimed she was sickened by a genetically engineered virus at a company lab and was then fired for raising safety concerns.
Children
- In 2000, the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001, Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs. Eleven of the children reportedly died, while the remaining 181 were said to have suffered from deafness, paralysis, brain damage and blindness.
- In 2006, a panel of Nigerian medical experts concluded that Pfizer had violated international law. In 2009, the company agreed to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts. The U.S. case was settled in 2011 for an undisclosed amount. A Pfizer spokesperson had previously claimed, "The study saved lives and was conducted ethically and responsibly."
Environment
- In 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency asked Pfizer to end its long-time practice of dumping industrial wastes from its plant in Groton, Connecticut in the Long Island Sound. The company was reported to be disposing of about 1 million gallons of waste each year by that method.
- In 1991, Pfizer agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle EPA charges that the company seriously damaged the Delaware River by failing to install pollution-control equipment at one of its plants in Pennsylvania.
- In 1994, Pfizer agreed to pay $1.5 million as part of a consent decree with the EPA in connection with its dumping at a toxic waste site in Rhode Island.
- Pfizer have also settled wrongful death cases of both adults and children regarding Zoloft's propensity to induce suicide. Despite settling these cases, Pfizer still deny that Zoloft can induce suicide.
Zoloft has generated over $30 billion in sales since its release in 1991, but research suggests that the drug is, at best, little more effective than a sugar pill.
To date, Pfizer has been fined a total of $4,660,896,333 for various violations
I suspect many who have chose not to be vaccinated don't quite trust this particular multi-billion dollar corporation and, more than likely, are completely cheesed off at individuals calling them out with their slanderous comments.
The question still remains. If Pfizer were a caregiver, would you employ them to look after the welfare of your children, grandchildren and/or elderly relatives?
Rarely does a video cause me as much anger as one I recently viewed via Twitter. Before reading on, please view it below or here:
After hearing Dr. Samuel White's story, I searched for an unedited version of the video and additional info about White, who has been a doctor in NHS for more than 17 years. White is now facing an interim orders tribunal regarding his fitness to practise. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) will carry out a tribunal to decide whether to:
1.Impose an interim order of conditions on White's medical registration.
2.Impose an interim order of suspension on White's medical registration.
3.Make no order.
As part of the ongoing process, White's licence to practise medicine within the NHS was suspended by a letter the NHS sent on 26 June 2021. His rebuttal, via his lawyers, can be seen here.
White has been temporarily suspended for telling his patients to review data provided by two government websites: the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Adverse Event Reporting website in the UK and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US.
As of 8 August 2021, MHRA states they have received 342,014 reports for all the combined vaccines and that this accounts for more than 1 million total reactions, 1,559 of which were fatal. (Fig 1)
This government-provided data is what Dr. White told his patients to read when deciding whether or not to have the COVID vaccine. The figures above change weekly and will increase as more people report their adverse reactions. It's also important to remember that because many adverse reactions and deaths are never reported to the MHRA, these figures above do not tell us the whole story.
The MHRA will argue that the reported reactions and deaths do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused them, often using the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." They have done this throughout history with medicines that cause adverse events and even deaths.
White was giving his patients as much information as he had at his disposal; he didn't have the weekly stats for the vaccines' adverse events; hence his common-sense suggestion that patients check the two websites is appropriate.
So what is Informed Consent?
It seems an easy question to answer, but no doctor can provide patients with all the information needed for fully informed consent because data from clinical drug trials is withheld from medical professionals and consumers.
1. You must have the capacity (or ability) to make the decision.
2. The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood (or probability) that the benefits and risks will occur.
3. You must understand the relevant information.
4. You must voluntarily grant consent, without coercion or duress.
Let's take a closer look at #2
For doctors to relay information about benefits and risks to their patients, they need all the information. But doctors and the MHRA do not receive all the data from the drug companies. Case Report Forms (CRFs) are individual patient data from clinical trials. These are all kept under lock and key--the only time one is ever granted access to CRFs is when a request for disclosure is made. Disclosure refers to a litigation procedure where each party in the suit must disclose any/all documents that may be considered relevant to the pending court case.
The likelihood of CRFs from COVID vaccine clinical trials ever seeing the light of day is slim given that AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna, have all been granted indemnity. In other words, consumers who suffer from taking these COVID-related products can never sue the company that made them. So, no litigation, no CRFs.
Having no access to CRFs is bad enough, yet we also have ghostwritten "medical literature."
Who You Gonna Call?
Most people who see the names of medical doctors or Ph.D.'s followed by affiliated academic institutions as authors of medical journal articles likely believe the drug data and product claims promoted. The pharmaceutical companies promote these erroneous assumptions using a scheme called ghostwriting.
The authors of ghostwritten articles have not written them or read all the clinical trial data. Instead, the drug companies hire PR firms to draft articles and send them to academics who lend their names as authors. A classic example of this was ghostwriting PR outfit, Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI), that worked for drug kingpins, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
In a nutshell, GSK's pediatric trials for Paxil returned abysmal results. However, GSK knew all was not lost. The company only needed child psychiatrists to promote Paxil for kids by claiming the drug was safe and effective. STI's ghostwritten article helped convince many doctors to convince many parents that Paxil was safe for children. Years later, we learned through litigation why GSK never shared the clinical trial data: Internal documents showed GSK was worried that their clinical trial data would reduce product sales.
You can read more about this case here, here, and here.
Doctors, including Samuel White, are not obliged to research drug company malfeasance; moreover, even if they did their own research, they are not obliged to inform patients of their findings.
The USA
An article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 20 August 2021 highlights how the American equivalent of the MHRA, the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), is preparing to grant full approval of the Pfizer vaccine without publicly discussing the data. Only a year ago, the FDA said it was "committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public."
So, why the sudden U-turn? Experts quoted in the BMJ article said politics drove the decision not to meet to discuss the data. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has also spoken at recent Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, said, "It's obvious that the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else's opinion. But if you make decisions behind closed doors it can feed into hesitancy. It's important to have a public discussion about what kind of data are there and what the limitations are. As we think about risk versus benefit, we need to know."
The FDA and MHRA don't want to discuss the data because, as I previously stated, they don't have all the data.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the publicly funded smoke-and-mirrors shit show being performed for us. The truth of the matter is, everything is being hidden in plain sight. Whether you have taken these COVID drugs or not, you should question all of the above. It is easy (and lazy) to post memes on Facebook or Twitter chastising those who choose not to take these vaccines. It's easy to label people who don't get in line for pharma's new COVID products and call them "anti-vaxxers" or "conspiracy theorists.' Similar labels were assigned to folks who spoke out about the dangers of promoting and prescribing Paxil to children. Yet years later, GSK's lies were exposed during wrongful death litigation.
Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm
I'd like to see the term 'informed consent' used less frequently. It is meaningless when a doctor or patient does not have access to all the data. Instead, I'd like to use the opposite term, 'Informed refusal'.
Informed refusal is where a person has refused a recommended medical treatment based upon an understanding of the facts and implications of not following the treatment. Individuals need to be in possession of the relevant facts, all of them.
This may stick in the teeth of those who have already had the vaccine, a lot of whom claim that people who refuse the vaccine don't have any rights, 'it's not about them', we hear, 'it's about others.'
So, my right to informed refusal is based on the lack of data coming from the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and now the FDA. Based on the information they are not giving me, I refuse to be treated and if that upsets those who have been treated and limits my freedoms, then so be it.
I'm on the side of truth, not suppression, be that in the form of access to raw data or the posting of infantile memes on social media by the 'monkey see, monkey do' individuals, all, of course, designed to silence those with the ability to think freely without fear.
Fearbook
I've never seen a divide happen so quickly. On both Facebook and Twitter I now see posts from people declaring that they are deleting friends from their list who speak out about the vaccine, all fuelled by the regular 'flags' we now see daily on Facebook anytime anyone posts something negative about treatment. Flags such as:
So, it's okay to click on the 'Get Vaccine Info' link but, seemingly, not okay to click on any information that may oppose this information.
When Facebook go a step further and actually remove opinion you have the right to ask why. Here's the standard reply you get:
As this blog of mine points out, Facebook moderators don't have access to the safety or side effect data of COVID vaccines, they couldn't possibly know what is true or false.
The best one I've seen so far is the following:
So, a post or link of yours may offer 99% truth but Facebook 'fact-checkers' flag it for containing 'partly false' information.
More Jabs
The United States will begin widely distributing Covid-19 booster shots next month as apparent new data shows that vaccine protection dwindles over time.
“We are starting to see evidence of reduced protection against mild and moderate disease,” according to the statement signed by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and other U.S. health leaders.
U.S. agencies are preparing to offer booster shots to all eligible Americans beginning the week of Sept. 20, starting eight months after their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines.
So, the freedoms given to those who have currently been double-jabbed, concerts, sporting events, travel, will, seemingly, be taken away unless they have the booster.
Viruses mutate over time, they can strengthen or weaken. The majority of vaccines are developed over time and not rushed to market. Just because a vaccine gets approval (albeit 'Emergency Approval') does not make it safe. Data is collected and supposed to be assessed. This is called Post-Marketing Surveillance, designed to collect all the adverse events from the public. Most people don't know that clinical trials do not end in the lab - Any drug or vaccine that comes to market is just another phase of a clinical trial.
Dr White's bosses and, it seems, Facebook 'Fact-Checkers' are doing everything in their power to deter you and I from checking out the Post-Marketing Surveillance data. This is real-world data and not the data of a clinical trial setting.
You have to ask yourself, why the suppression?
Those who oppose members of the public who question the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine will, no doubt, continue to post various memes supporting the use of vaccines in adults, children and expectant mothers. Their pious position will be supported with posts and links to celebrities, journalists and ghost-written articles that appear in academic journals. None of these will be flagged by Facebook.
As I said before, Monkey see, monkey do.
As a side-note, I first heard about COVID-19 on January 1st 2020 (Back then it was just known as the "Corona Virus"). I was in Central America at the time and a neighbour of mine invited me over to his place for afternoon drinks. He asked me if I'd heard about the outbreak, he had business in China so was more up-to-speed than I.
A month or so later, I was back in the UK visiting family and friends. Within weeks of me landing back in Blighty, the whole country was locked down. It was then that I wrote a series of predictions. You can see those predictions here. People back then rolled their eyes at me and no doubt those same people will be rolling their eyes at this blog post.
The is the sixth in the Homicide Files series (previous 5 are at the foot of this post)
Today I focus on Zoloft (sertraline), an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor family.
Zoloft is manufactured and marketed by Pfizer and is the subject of many lawsuits in the United States, alleging, amongst other things, that Zoloft is ineffective (doesn't work), that it causes birth defects and that it causes violence and suicide. It is known as Lustral in the UK.
The first file today is 99 pages in length and concerns a 27 year-old male. I'm not going to publish all the 99 pages, if you want to view the whole document then you can do so here.
AERS Case Number 4073159 27 year-old male, prescribed 100mg Zoloft per day between 1996-1998. Patient, according to the first page of the document, murdered an acquaintance of his. Moreover, the report says, "Either chronic use or sudden involuntary withdrawal caused a major psychotic event where "patient" murdered an acquaintance of his.
AERS Case Number 4088468 20 year-old male prescribed 50mg of Zoloft per day between Oct 24, 2003 - January 23, 2004. The report was sent to Medwatch by the parents of the 20 year-old who state that their son experienced an adverse reaction to Zoloft and killed a "friend of a young woman" in their home.
AERS Case Number 5838493 19 year-old male. Prescribed Zoloft between 2003-2004. The report was sent in by a psychologist who said, "The patient started taking Zoloft (50mg) for one week then 25mg daily for two weeks." The psychologist also states, "On day 13 of his Zoloft therapy he decided it was not working and stopped taking in for 3 days, then he restarted Zoloft at 25mg daily." Days later he killed someone. His parents said, he committed the murder because of persistent severe agitation and aggression from Zoloft.
AERS Case Number 6100809 Homicide by a 32 year-old female who was taking Zoloft (dosage unknown) because she was having 'mental problems' for 3 to 4 months.
37 year-old female. Prescribed 200mg of Zoloft per day. She killed her son then attempted to kill her daughter. You'll note in this document how the reporter makes claims that the female patient may have been taking another prescription drug at the time of the murder. This, according to the document, was never proven.
70 year old male. Was taking Zoloft (date unknown) - He killed his wife and them himself. The report was sent in by one of the children. It states, "He did not have a history of depression... we all knew it was the drug when this happened"
