The vaccinated are DROPPING DEAD in plain view as Fauci and the media admit total vax FAILURE... while pimping more booster shots for the gullible

It's now official: Tony Fauci has admitted that vaccines aren't working and that vaccinated people of every age are getting sick and dying. His exact quote from a New York Times podcast on Nov. 12th, as reported by Yahoo News: They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly... It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital. This is after months of claiming vaccines had "95% effectiveness" and that they were so safe and effective, everyone should be jabbed multiple times. Suddenly that false narrative has collapsed, along with a growing list of soccer players and young sports professionals who are literally dying on sports fields across the globe. So what's Fauci's answer to all this? More booster shots, he says. As if a third injection will magically make the vaccine work when the first two injections have already been proven disastrous. For the record, the "booster" shot is just another full dose of the exact same poison that's loaded into the first two vaccines. "I think … that the boosting is gonna be an absolutely essential component of our response, not a bonus, not a luxury, but an absolute essential part of the program," Fauci said during the podcast, doubling down on a failed vaccine that's killing people.

People who took the first two shots may be brain damaged enough to keep taking "boosters" until they're dead

Of course, anyone gullible enough to go along with a third shot after being told the first two shots no longer work will probably also go along with a fourth shot once they're told the third shot has stopped working. At this point, no rational person should believe any claims whatsoever about vaccines actually working, and anyone who continues to believe these vaccines are offering them "protection" from a pandemic is obviously cognitively retarded or operating under a mind control spell of some kind. It's rather obvious that Fauci wants people to keep taking bioweapons injections until they die. In order to do that, they have to keep tricking people into taking newer spike protein shots by invalidating the ones they previously agreed to take. In France, vaccine passports are now being deactivated for citizens who took the first two shots, all in an effort to coerce them into a third shot (which will soon be a fourth shot). From ReclaimTheNet.org: French residents over the age of 65 will have their vaccine passports deactivated if they do not take the booster shot when they are eligible... The government said seniors above the age of 65 who do not get their booster shot when they become eligible will have their vaccine passport deactivated and so they will be locked out of much of society. Got that? If you refuse to take the never-ending parade of deadly spike protein injections, you will be cut off from society. It begs the question: What was the pointing of taking the first two shots in the first place? Many people took the shots because they just wanted the government to leave them alone. Now, they're being told that their initial wave of obedience no longer counts. Humans are being trained like dogs to bow down to ever-increasing obedience demands levied by evil government. Yet that very same government is trying to murder us all, and they're using vaccines -- and food scarcity, food inflation, energy disruptions, etc. -- to achieve that end game goal. Covid vaccine "booster" shots are merely compliance steps required for the completion of vaccine suicide. Those who continue to take booster shots are only accelerating their biological destruction, playing right into the hands of the depopulation globalists who seek to end the viability of the human race on planet Earth. Get full details in today's Situation Update podcast: Brighteon.com/1a1cf896-c4dc-4015-9c60-ffd90b99249eFind new podcasts and amazing interviews all week at the HR Report channel on Brighteon.com: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport Follow me on Brighteon.Social at username @HealthRanger See my daily broadcast on Brighteon.TV at 3 pm Eastern, where we usually broadcast new interviews.

Mountain Bike Racer Shares COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Story

Kyle Jameson is a 29-year-old professional mountain bike racing champion from Boise, Idaho, who was vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine in May 2021 for COVID-19. On June 10th, he had his second dose of the vaccine, and about two weeks later, he didn’t feel well. He began experiencing a fast heart rate and lost his ability to do strenuous exercise. He also noticed that he had a metallic taste in his mouth a few seconds after his second vaccine. 

Kyle, who is not an anti-vaxxer, discusses his adverse vaccine reactions and complications from the vaccine and his efforts to get help with Dr. John Campbell, a U. K. medical teacher and author on his YouTube channel.

Kyle told Dr. Campbell that after going to various doctors, he was finally diagnosed with pericarditis, which Dr. Campbell explains is the inflammation of the layer around the heart. Kyle added that he has also been diagnosed with POTS or postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Another symptom he experienced was breaking out in a sweat. “I’ll be cold one night, and then I’ll be hot one night. It’s just hard to regulate my temperature.” 

He also talked about allergies, which include environmental ones as well as to food. After taking the allergy test, he found that he was allergic to every tree, pollen, cats, and dogs. I never had to take allergy shots or anything he said, and now I’m just so hyper-allergic. After testing for food allergies, he added that he is allergic to peanut butter, beef, wheat, and most things that cause inflammation. “I’ve generally gotten to the point where if I eat them, my body just reacts.” My allergist thinks I have something called mast cell activation syndrome.  

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

Mast cell activation syndrome is a condition that causes mast cells to release an inappropriate amount of chemicals into your body. This causes allergy symptoms and a wide range of other symptoms.

“I got vaccinated because I wanted to do my part and help out. I was in the ER for three and a half hours, and they told me that I had anxiety and just kicked me to the curb. Later, I ended up in the hospital for four days with even worse symptoms. So, I’m grateful that there are platforms like this to talk about this stuff in a measured manner, and hopefully, people can learn from this.” He noted that many people are often initially diagnosed with anxiety when seeking treatment for adverse reactions to the vaccines.

He commented on his recent participation on a panel in Washington, D.C., hosted by Senator Ron Johnson R-WI. He said that although 20 people testified, high-ranking government officials were noticeably absent. He added that Dr. Anthony Fauci head of the National Institutes of Health, and heads of the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration was not in attendance. He said that there were no attendees from either Pfizer or Moderna and no mainstream news outlets.

“The only news outlets that showed up were the independent outlets which are more conservative based,” he said. 

“We’re told that the vaccines are safe and effective,” said Kyle. “We’re trying to do our part, then this happens. Where do you go from there? How do you get treatment?” he asked. “If there was complete openness and people had full data, I think a lot more people would opt for the vaccine. So, by bringing these issues to light, I think we are promoting vaccination by encouraging people to share data when it appears. This is not being done,” he said. 

Although Kyle has heard naysayers when it comes to vaccine injury, he said, “If I weren’t living it, I wouldn’t understand what’s happening, and how many people’s lives are being affected.”

He described one victim of vaccine injury who testified at Senator Johnson’s hearing; a man named Doug from Idaho had a severe reaction to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine which resulted in transverse myelitis and ultimately a spinal cord rupture which left him paralyzed.  

Kyle said, “he spent 30 days in the hospital, which cost him 1.2 million dollars. There’s no funding available to him or his family, so he was speaking out. And here I am, just a guy who had a heart issue. But when I started to see this unfold, I’m like, okay, I have to advocate for these people because we all need to advocate for each other.”

During their conversation, Dr. Campbell suggests that doctors in the U.S. are being censored and inhibited from expressing any concerns about the vaccines. 

Kyle said that one thing he did learn while in Washington, D.C. is that the National Institutes of Health has strict guidelines for diagnosing vaccine injury. He added that many doctors are afraid to make the diagnosis for fear of repercussions.

He also commented on aspiration noting that Pfizer and Moderna state that you must aspirate when administering the vaccine. However, the CDC says do not aspirate. One of them is wrong, he said. A definition of aspiration can be found here.

Doctors Targeted for Punishment? Be Careful with Discussing Ivermectin or Critiquing the COVID-19 Vaccines

Doctors a heads up—if you express your own opinion and if that deviates from a federally established party line then you will lose your license and ability to practice medicine and earn an income.  That is just what happened to Dr. Mary Bowden who was employed with the Houston Methodist Hospital.  Because she repeatedly defended ivermectin on Twitter the Houston-based hospital has suspended the doctor’s privileges.  She is just the latest physician to face punishment for deviating from an established script.

Doctors should understand that if they do not follow what is established by groups such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and of course the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FD) they may just lose their license, at least temporarily. 

As reported initially in Business Insider Dr. Bowden found herself under scrutiny when she was repeatedly posting tweets showcasing the positive data points with the anti-parasite drug.  Bowden also went on the record criticizing COVID-19 mandates as “wrong.”

Recently published on CNN, A Texas hospital suspends a doctor’s privileges for spreading ‘misinformation’ about Covid-19 – CNN  Steven Mitby, Dr. Bowden’s attorney, shared that the doctor isn’t against vaccinations at all and that “People should have a choice.”  Meanwhile Houston Methodist Hospital declared in a tweet (20) Twitter that the doctor used her account to “express her personal and political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.”

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

Recently Sue McIntosh, a retired physician, voluntarily surrendered  Doctor Who Gave Out Fake COVID Exemption Forms Surrendered Medical License (businessinsider.com)  her medical license as she was giving patients “blank, signed COVID-19 exemption waivers.”

Cancer And Birth Defects: Potential Risks Of Molnupiravir?

Scientists continue to share their concerns over the potential mutagenic side effects of the candidate COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, as Merck apply for Emergency Use Authorization for the drug. As part of the efficacy and safety research on molnupiravir, Merck has set criteria for both male and female participants related to reproduction, fueling questions about the drug’s safety in patients of reproductive age. However, despite the potential risks, Merck has continued to ink deals worldwide.

Concerns for Impact on New Life?

Participants in Merck’s molnupiravir trials must agree to stringent criteria related to reproduction both during and up to 4 days after the end of the trial. Males must abstain from heterosexual intercourse or use contraception. Women of childbearing potential (WOCBP) must either use a highly effective contraceptive method or abstain from sexual intercourse, and should have a negative pregnancy test result within 24 hours before taking the first dose. Female participants should not be breastfeeding while taking the drug.

The detailed criteria have resurrected queries over the safety of molnupiravir. As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prepare to consider the application for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for molnupiravir at the end of November, TrialSite takes a closer look at the science surrounding this pharmaceutical.

Mutagenic By Design

Molnupiravir disrupts the viral replication by introducing mutations during viral RNA replication. William A. Haseltine, an American scientist, Harvard Medical School professor, and businessman discussed how the drug halts SARS-COV-2 through lethal mutagenesis.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

1. The drug tricks the virus into replicating.

2. When replicating, errors are inserted into the genetic code assuming the nucleotide uracil and cytosine

3. Once re-replicated, mutations are developed (changing of nucleotides from U to C and C to U)

4. Once more faulty codes are copied, the virus is killed, shortening replication and infection period, and transmission.

However, there are two potential negative consequences of this method of action: one to the virus, and one to the patient.

Firstly, it is imperative that the optimal dose is delivered. Use of a suboptimal dose would increase the mutations occurring during viral replication, without ensuring the virus is killed. The result would not only be ineffective treatment, but the potential to produce new variants of the virus itself. These new variants could potentially be more virulent than the original strain.

The second issue of concern is the potential for host DNA to be subject to the same mutagenesis as the viral DNA.

Abandoned Trials

As reported previously on Trialsite, Dr. Raymond Schinazi, an organic medicinal chemist specializing in antiviral agents, pharmacology, and biotechnology, and his scientist colleagues states that NHC, the initial metabolite of molnupiravir, may result in ‘animal cell culture mutations’.  Research into the drug was abandoned in 2003 when they found out about its mutagenic properties.

A study published in August 2021 found that NHC is mutagenic to mammalian cells as well as to the COVID virus. Their research on SARS-CoV-2 showed antiviral and mutagenic effects at concentrations as low as 0.3 μM. Using a cell line that allows detection of mutation in a single gene, the scientists reported that doses of rNHC did not inhibit cell growth, but induced mutagenesis in a dose-dependent fashion.

The paper clarified that the experiment involved exposing the cells to the drug for 32 days. The doses of NHC tested were between 0.3 μM up to 3 μM. While all tests involving NHC had greater levels of mutations than the negative control, the values were not statistically significant when NHC concentrations were below 3 μM. The authors specified that these changes would be limited to dividing cells where synthesis of DNA precursors is ongoing.

Merck scientists responded to the publication stating that because the mutation observations were based on lab cell culture, they were “not relevant to how the drug would affect an entire animal.”

However, the scientific community is not convinced. Dr. Rafael R. Castillo, a member of the Board of Medicine in the Philippines, discussed the ability of mutagenic drugs to cause cancer or congenital defects. He stated that although a five-day course should not cause lasting side effects, it should not be recommended for longer courses. He also suggested that the FDA issue precautions and warnings to patients, especially those of reproductive age.

Scientists also raise concerns that the effects of mutations at the molecular level, including cancer and birth defects, may present later in life, meaning it may be hard to prove the causal link with molnupiravir.

Profit Over Safety?

Dr. Haseltine wrote in a Forbes article that two prices are going to be paid: when taking molnupiravir: the cost of the drug and its side effects.

Merck secured funding to conduct research on molnupiravir as a potential drug against the COVID-19 virus. Of course the $356 million was thanks to the taxpayer.  Rick Arthur Bright, an immunologist, vaccine researcher, and former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), raised his concerns about funding the research of the drug using taxpayers’ money given its mutagenic property. Mr. Bright states that an unauthorized $20 million fund for molnupiravir was given from BARDA’s money.

Despite the questionable funding and questions raised concerning the side effects of the drug, Merck conducted a Phase 3 trial, finding positive results.

Trialsite reported on Merck’s planned tiered-pricing approach for molnupiravir after closing a deal with the US government. Research on molnupiravir pricing showed a calculated cost of about $18-$20 per course of treatment, while it will be sold for 35 times more at about $700 per course. Merck also applied to the FDA on October 11, 2021 for molnupiravir’s emergency use based on their unfinished trial results.

Up to old tricks?

This is not the first time Merck have pushed a drug to the front lines despite evidence for its dangerous side effects. Vioxx (rofecoxib) was a pain relief drug targeting arthritic patients, which was approved by the FDA in May 1999 but had to be withdrawn in 2004 for fatal cardiac side effects.

That may sound simply unfortunate, but the facts point to a more sinister unfolding of events. In November 1999, just six months after the FDA’s approval of the drug, interim results of Merck’s clinical trial drew attention to the fact that twice as many recipients of Vioxx had experienced serious heart problems or died, compared with the control group taking naproxen. The data and safety monitoring board voted to continue the study, named Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research study (VIGOR), re-evaluated the data the following month and requested that Merck make a plan to analyze the cardiovascular effects of the drug.

However, when the results of the VIGOR study were published in November 2000, no such analysis was included. Not only that, but several scientists involved in the study raised warnings about data related to cardiovascular adverse events that had been left out of the publication. Even when cardiologists published a re-analysis of the complete dataset in August 2001, raising “a cautionary flag about the risk of cardiovascular events”, Merck did not move to withdraw its drug.

Only in September 2004, after another study highlighted an increased risk of heart attacks with long-term use, did Merck finally withdraw Vioxx from the market. By this time, it had been taken by an estimated 20 million Americans, of whom 88,000 were estimated to have had heart attacks because of the drug and 38,000 died.

In the court cases that followed, it emerged that Merck had drawn up a list of doctors and scientists that it “wanted to neutralize and discredit” during its marketing of Vioxx.

In light of this history of disinformation strategies, Merck’s apparent confidence in the safety profile of molnupiravir should be scrutinized. The fact that they are loudly discrediting the safety profile of their own ivermectin, has led to speculation that they are clearing the way for their profitable, patented alternative.

On November 4, TrialSite reported on the UK’s decision to authorize molnupiravir. This follows its use in parts of Vietnam, and other deals being struck around the world. TrialSite will be watching the FDA’s evaluation of molnupiravir with interest, and will continue to report on these unfolding events.

Prominent Journalist Calls Out Australian TGA for removing Ivermectin

Rebecca Weisser, a well-respected journalist, recently criticized the Therapeutic Goods Administration for removing the so-called miracle drug ivermectin, asserting that the ban was based on insufficient evaluations. On October 22, Weisser was a guest on the Asia Pacific Today Show expressing her disapproval of the ban TrialSite first covered. https://trialsitenews.com/australias-tga-bans-gps-from-prescribing-ivermectin-cites-interruption-with-vaccination-as-clear-factor/ Weisser shared that there were no safety risks that could lead to life-threatening effects. The ban was apparently a rushed, improper decision.

Rebecca Weisser was a career diplomat in the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade in 1990. She earned a First Class Honors degree in Arts at Australian National University. Weisser’s recent interview with Mike Ryan addressed the decision by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ban ivermectin –that is, as TrialSite explained in September, https://trialsitenews.com/australias-tga-bans-gps-from-prescribing-ivermectin-cites-interruption-with-vaccination-as-clear-factor/ general practitioners (GPs) could not access the drug to treat COVID-19 patients, due to apparent “safety risk” concerns. This prompted Weisser’s outspoken disapproval of the decision, leading her to express concerns about what the TGA is doing.

A Rushed Decision

According to Rebecca, the monitoring of the response to not only ivermectin but also other COVID-19 interventions, such as the new mRNA vaccine technology, was inadequate. Rebecca explicitly stated that the TGA is not doing its job properly and effectively.

Rebecca Weisser went on to say that the TGA had not done due diligence to thoroughly analyze ivermectin’s substantial studies, epidemiological evidence, in-vitro evidence, and in silico evidence.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "Ivermectin" Channel

No spam - we promise

Weisser asserted that the entire process of the ban was unacceptable, as a delegate of the Secretary from the Commonwealth’s Department of Health had allegedly changed the restrictions of ivermectin without proper consultation. The delegate’s reasoning behind the improper process was due to said emergency which Weisser declares was a statement without evidence.

Poor Arguments Behind the Ban

The TGA declared the ban was partly due to safety issues from the drug’s use. However, their reason contrasted with reports that show there are no life-threatening adverse effects related to ivermectin’s use in treating COVID-19. According to Dr. Carlos Chaccour, when it is used in the approved doses, ivermectin is a very safe drug.  

In light of this, Weisser concluded that the delegate’s reasoning behind the drug’s safety issues was simply not sufficient grounds on which to base their decision. Weisser also claimed that the decision was not grounded in a good understanding of the drug: “The delegate of the secretary … consulted, apparently, with the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and they consulted with the relevant committee … which was comprised of people who had no knowledge of ivermectin and its uses in relation to COVID-19,” she explained.

Weisser also shared that when she spoke with the TGA, there appeared to be no means of reviewing the drug, which she described as ‘appalling’. She went on to say that ivermectin’s ban had gone through an absurd process, which was baseless and needed appealing.

Weisser also expressed frustration that general practitioners can still legally prescribe ivermectin, but for only approved indications, while specialists can prescribe for off-label (but undoubtedly, they must go through enhanced bureaucratic scrutiny) and pharmacists refuse to fill the prescription if it is not for specified indications of river blindness, threadworm, or scabies. Doctors are said to be held back from thoroughly treating their patients. While ivermectin can be prescribed for certain conditions, the process required to get the prescription from a specialist makes accessing the drug very difficult. This of course sounds like a policy that helps the industry.

Government Bureaucrat Involvement

The Head of TGA, Professor John Skerrit, previously told TrialSite that there would be no issues lifting the ban as long as there is enough high-quality evidence to support the drug. He stated that they were willing to consider evidence coming from well-conducted trials that were unbiased.

However, in the recent interview with Rebecca Weisser, she emphasized that the role of the TGA does not include intervention of patient-doctor relationships. That specific role is said to be within the scope of duties of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). According to Weisser, the AHPRA has said that they are prohibited to go against the government’s decision. She asserted that behind the ban was a government bureaucrat with minimal knowledge of saving lives.

Weisser stated that currently, healthcare workers who go against the government will face penalties. Two doctors have been suspended from practicing medicine for posting statements on social media about controversial issues such as mask efficacy, despite these posts being backed up by science. She went on to express that doctors should not be suspended for making science-based statements, calling the practice ‘appalling’ and something that should change.

According to her statements, Weisser believes there is an agenda behind the ivermectin ban which benefits the government and vaccine manufacturers more than the general public. With high levels of censorship of certain issues in mainstream media, and the absence of transparent evidence-based approaches, trust in the government begins to evaporate. Many viewers echoed Weisser’s sentiments in the comments below the video.

TrialSite continues to follow the issue of ivermectin’s role in treating COVID around the globe, including the political implications related to its use.

Indian Experts Also Omit Key Risk Factors Associated with Mass Child COVID-19 Vaccination

Why is there such a big push to vaccine every child around the world? Is it because the underlying premise in the war against COVID-19 is that the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 will only happen via mass vaccination—that the children along with the “unvaccinated” represent the last “reservoirs” of the pathogen—SARS-CoV-2? Addressing that question was Bill Gates himself, one of the biggest mass vaccine proponents, recently challenging the premise that the current crop of vaccines on the market can stop transmission. If this is the case, then the only reason to vaccinate young children would be to protect them against serious infection leading to hospitalization.  But then the risk-benefit profile must strongly lean in favor of vaccination—that is the risks of side effects and adverse events must be materially trumped by the risks of SARS-CoV-2 severe infection in children aged 5 to 11 years of age.  Recently in India’s Sunday Guardian Live, a couple Indian physician-researchers shared their optimistic opinions as to the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines as used in children.  Experts ranged from Dr. Rajeev Kaul, Professor and microbiologist from University of Delhi to Dr. Debayan Mallik, head of the Rural Health Training Center, Jagannath Gupta Institute of Medical Sciences as well as Hospital Calcutta shared their upbeat opinions on the COVID-19 vaccines for the young.  But are their answers any better than experts we tracked recently in America?

Study Data Seems Positive. But…

The experts in India appear to base most of their opinion on the clinical trials coming out of India.  Even though these studies haven’t yet tracked long term outcomes, nonetheless that is what they have to go with. For example, Dr. Kaul shared “Bharat Biotech has recently submitted data to Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) regarding Covaxin trial in children of 2 years age and above. This data shows positive recommendations indicating that Covaxin is safe in children. Both Pfizer and Moderna have also declared that their vaccine is safe in children aged 6 to 11. These trials have shown that fatigue, headache, fever and pain at the site of injection were common side effects of the vaccine in children, as has been the case in adults. Therefore, it can be concluded that the safety profile of these vaccines in children is favourable.”

Moreover, Dr. Mallik shared the same optimistic view for the same underlying reasons—that the pharmaceutical company’s clinical trials shared positive results with an acceptable safety risk declaring “The vaccines are safe to be used on children.”

Mallik also slipped “Whether there will be any serious aftereffects in vaccinated children, however rare they may be, it can only be determined after data from large scale trials will be analysed,”

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "Vaccine" Channel

No spam - we promise

Critique of this POV

Note that the Indian microbiologist and key opinion leader qualifies his state by declaring that the pharmaceutical companies of Pfizer and Moderna made a declaration that the vaccine is safe in children aged 5 to 11. But as TrialSite has chronicled recently the FDA failed to review the Pfizer data prior to the the last Oct 26 VRBPAC meeting. This means that the regulators just assumed that everything that the pharmaceutical company declared was accurate, was in fact, accurate.

And despite the fact that the FDA delayed emergency use for Moderna for the aged 5 to 11 cohort—due to concerns of myocarditis—the Indian physician declared that the vaccine should be good because Moderna said so. 

TrialSite reminds all that all of the Scandinavian nations have either temporarily or permanently halted the use of the Moderna vaccine called mRNA-1273 on young people due to safety concerns.

Children are society’s most vulnerable, and any mass vaccination program must ensure all risks are commonly understood.

TrialSite raised concerns for children aged 5 to 11 based on the October 26 FDA VBRPAC and subsequent CDC ACIP  meetings including:

• Vaccines were produced with unprecedented speed. This isn’t a bad thing in and of itself—in fact, it is good for the progress of medicines development, but we shouldn’t be in a rush to inoculate an entire young generation until there is more safety data and an improved risk profile. For example, the amount of safety that accumulated for other vaccines required for school should be comparable to the current ones. It’s also worth noting that most of the vaccines approved for child vaccine-preventable illnesses are for diseases that target children with more severe symptoms. COVID remains significantly deadlier in the elderly.

• The risk-benefit analysis isn’t what the CDC claims. Children have a very low serious illness and death rate. Nearly all of the children that have been severely ill or have died, which is a very small amount to begin with, have had underlying comorbidities. See slide #19. The FDA analysis led to the conclusion that the vaccine represented a 6.6x benefit. However, after a review by expert David Wiseman, the risk-benefit ratio becomes negative 1.8, meaning the risk is higher than the benefit. This is because of several factors, including waning effectiveness to non-myocarditis serious adverse events.

• We should be focused on specific risk cohorts among the young, and not focus on a one-size-fits-all vaccination approach. This includes no mandates for such young children, until we have at least years of hard data.

• The FDA acknowledged that they didn’t thoroughly review the data at the VRBPAC meeting on October 26. See slides #18-19. Critical questions remain.

• On hesitancy about safety, Dr. Eric Rubin declared that we are “never going to learn how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.” Note PolitiFact provides content for review but the point is that there is no long-term data in a very vulnerable and low-risk group. Shouldn’t we be as careful as possible with our children and ensure more data is available?

Whistleblowers reveal stark data quality problems with the Pfizer-BioNTech study as reported in the BMJ. Even when Pfizer was made aware of quality issues with one managing research company, they handed them four more vaccine contracts, including one for vaccines in children.

Disclosures that some of the manufacturing inputs changed should be associated with revalidation of production systems and outputs. Specifically, Pfizer changed the children’s formula to produce the product. This is a deviation from the study protocol. Under any normal conditions this change would need to be validated.

Call to Action:  Why would all of these doctors go on record making claims of safety when sophisticated nations such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland are stopping the use of at least one of the mRNA-based vaccines by young people? Why aren’t these doctors raising a more holistic perspective? 

Austria Chancellor Moves to Isolate & Lockdown the Unvaccinated as Punishment? Germany & Austria Cases Surge—Leaky Vaccines Involved?

TrialSite reported recently that Austrian Chancellor, Alexander Schallenberg, was threatening to identify and isolate unvaccinated persons in their homes should the latest surge worsen—leading to ICU utilization above a certain threshold. Now, that is a reality as the Central European, German-speaking nation is placing millions of people not fully vaccinated in lockdown to address the latest surge declared by the Chancellor today. TrialSite emphasized that the nation that is already 65% vaccinated is undeniably dealing with the results of leaky vaccines, as there is growing evidence of viral transmission regardless of vaccination or not. Bill Gates, one of the world’s biggest investors and proponents of mass COVID-19 vaccination, declared this recently. Regardless, this kind of targeted policy most certainly worries civil libertarian-minded people—especially in this part of the world given historical precedent in the 1930s.

Going on record, Chancellor Schallenberg told a news conference that he recently shared the news with governors of Austria’s nine provinces. He declared, “We must raise the vaccination rate. It is shamefully low.” At 65%, this is one of the lowest rates in Western Europe, reported Thomson Reuters Foundation today.

Schallenberg positioned the problem as a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, declaring, “I don’t see why two-thirds should lose their freedoms because one third is dithering.”  But given that viral transmission occurs even with the vaccinated, albeit more than likely at a lower rate at least a few months after vaccination, why would such a policy be initiated? 

“The data is increasingly apparent that even if all unvaccinated people somehow, somewhat vanished, the vaccinated would still transmit the disease—this is clear from the science as we have tracked several studies indicating this reality,” declared Daniel O’Connor, founder of TrialSite. And we are not alone at TrialSite in stating this. Again, Bill Gates declared this fact in a recent interview.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

O’Connor continued, “So what do you do, isolate a whole class of person, take away their fundamental rights even though the underlying science for your premise is not correct? That just doesn’t seem right nor the right direction, at least not in a Western Democracy.”

On October 23rd, TrialSite News reported that Austria was considering a lockdown of the unvaccinated. In this report, Schallenberg was pointing to the vaccine policies of New York or Los Angeles as a way to combat the covid surge.

It appears that because of Austria’s close proximity to Germany, Schallenberg believes these measures are justified. According to a recent New York Times piece, Germany is now going through a new covid wave which the Germans are calling “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Both countries do have a history of lockdowns and plagues. But in Europe, it seems, everything old is new again, and that concerns civil libertarian-minded people.

Central European Surge

SARS-CoV-2 cases in Germany have skyrocketed as a historical number of infections are reported on a daily basis. A record seven-day new daily average of 36,766 cases was reported yesterday in Germany. This is despite the fact that nearly 70% of the nation is vaccinated—almost all adults are immunized against COVID-19.

Deaths are on the rise in Germany as well, with 164 reported as the seven-day new average yesterday. 

Austrian cases have skyrocketed as well—shattering records. As of yesterday, the seven-day average for new cases was 10,395, with over 13,000 cases reported on Saturday, November 13. Deaths are also on the rise in Austria.