Maybe we should check to see if Pfizer has anything in its vaccine arsenal to prevent being gaslighted? The makers of Viagra are coming to the rescue because we can't breathe. Did you vote for Trump because you want to wear a mask part of the time, or did you vote for Biden because you want to wear a mask all of the time? Does voting make you feel better? We certainly hope so. To end the COVID torture just take the vaccine. Don't you see? That's the "only way" to stop the pandemic. You are living in a world controlled by a death cult (bankers plans).
In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before they fade.
Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications—if anyone stops to think about them—are powerful. Then…nothing.
"Wait, aren't you going to follow up on that? Don't you see what that MEANS?"
Apparently not, because…dead silence. "In other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer…"
One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get more.
Over the years, I've tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of standard replies: "We didn't get much feedback." "We covered it." "It's now old news." "There wasn’t anything else to find out."
Oh, but there WAS.
A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.
Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus task force, and vaccine researchers.
And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.
So…here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:
COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials. [2]
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
September 22, the Times: "These Coronavirus Trials Don't Answer the One Question We Need to Know" [1]:
"If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?"
"The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases."
"But that's not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem."
"According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies' benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death."
"To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That's not what these trials will determine."
This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.
The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
Happy Vaccine Day! pic.twitter.com/DrlIHIvOao
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) November 10, 2020
________
Source: RemarkBoard
Pfizer's CEO Dumps 62% Of His Stock On COVID Vaccine Announcement
November 11, 2020
On Monday, Pfizer shares soared 16% following a bullish statement on the company's experimental COVID-19 vaccine showed 90% effectiveness in preliminary results. Then on Tuesday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold 62% of his stock.
The SEC Form 4 filing showed Bourla sold 132,508 shares at an average price of $41.94 per share, equivalent to $5.6 million - nearly top-ticking the 52-week-high.
Bourla's sale was conducted under Rule 10b5-1, established by the SEC, allowing the corporate insider to sell a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time. A Pfizer spokesperson told Axios that the CEO's predetermined trading plan was formed in August.
Despite the sale being perfectly legal under Rule 10b5-1 to avoid accusations of insider trading, the optics aren't great for Bourla, who still managed to top-tick the 52-week-high on the sale on news day. One can argue that he couldn't have known the results of the vaccine trial months ahead of time. And while all this is coming out just days after a critical US election, though it's not clear if that was a trigger.
Other pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna, also producing a COVID-19 vaccine, experienced similar insider selling over the summer around vaccine news - where insiders dumped tens of millions of dollars of stock.
Under the cover of Rule 10b5-1, corporate insiders at some pharmaceutical companies are already running for the exits by dumping their stock, of course, it's easier to commit to pre-plan sales of stock when you know you can pump the price by simply publishing a press release.
Pfizer's CEO Dumps 62% Of His Stock On COVID Vaccine Announcement
November 11, 2020
On Monday, Pfizer shares soared 16% following a bullish statement on the company's experimental COVID-19 vaccine showed 90% effectiveness in preliminary results. Then on Tuesday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold 62% of his stock.
The SEC Form 4 filing showed Bourla sold 132,508 shares at an average price of $41.94 per share, equivalent to $5.6 million - nearly top-ticking the 52-week-high.
Bourla's sale was conducted under Rule 10b5-1, established by the SEC, allowing the corporate insider to sell a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time. A Pfizer spokesperson told Axios that the CEO's predetermined trading plan was formed in August.
Despite the sale being perfectly legal under Rule 10b5-1 to avoid accusations of insider trading, the optics aren't great for Bourla, who still managed to top-tick the 52-week-high on the sale on news day. One can argue that he couldn't have known the results of the vaccine trial months ahead of time. And while all this is coming out just days after a critical US election, though it's not clear if that was a trigger.
Other pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna, also producing a COVID-19 vaccine, experienced similar insider selling over the summer around vaccine news - where insiders dumped tens of millions of dollars of stock.
Under the cover of Rule 10b5-1, corporate insiders at some pharmaceutical companies are already running for the exits by dumping their stock, of course, it's easier to commit to pre-plan sales of stock when you know you can pump the price by simply publishing a press release.
________
COVID vaccine revelation sinks like a stone; disappears
In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before they fade.
Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications—if anyone stops to think about them—are powerful. Then…nothing.
"Wait, aren't you going to follow up on that? Don't you see what that MEANS?"
Apparently not, because…dead silence. "In other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer…"
One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get more.
Over the years, I've tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of standard replies: "We didn't get much feedback." "We covered it." "It's now old news." "There wasn’t anything else to find out."
Oh, but there WAS.
A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.
Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus task force, and vaccine researchers.
And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.
So…here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:
COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials. [2]
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.
September 22, the Times: "These Coronavirus Trials Don't Answer the One Question We Need to Know" [1]:
"If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?"
"The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases."
"But that's not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem."
"According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies' benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death."
"To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That's not what these trials will determine."
This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.
The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
There. That's the NY Times one-off. My piece analyzing it went on much longer, but you get the main thrust:
The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.
But now, it gets much worse. Because Pfizer has just announced their vaccine is almost ready. CNBC headline, November 9: "Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90% effective—'great day for science and humanity'" [3].
Please go to Jon Rappoport's blog to read the entire article.
________
Related:
Fauci Versus Frontline Doctors and Science: Pandemic Malpractice
'Get ready': Biden Covid-19 adviser pitches national lockdown, warns US will be hitting 200,000 cases a day
Medical tyranny: UK 'nudge unit' proposes wristbands for those who test Covid negative
How Ticketmaster Plans to Check Your Vaccine Status for Concerts: Exclusive
Related:
Fauci Versus Frontline Doctors and Science: Pandemic Malpractice
'Get ready': Biden Covid-19 adviser pitches national lockdown, warns US will be hitting 200,000 cases a day
Medical tyranny: UK 'nudge unit' proposes wristbands for those who test Covid negative
How Ticketmaster Plans to Check Your Vaccine Status for Concerts: Exclusive
Where in the hell did the flu go?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.