Replies

Pfizer’s primary focus was to create a shot that minimized the symptoms of infection, but aside from that, there was no time to assess side effects or long-term drawbacks of the technology, such as antibody-dependent enhancement, myocarditis, or spontaneous abortions.

This is probably why Pfizer and the other COVID jab makers all decided to eliminate the control groups long before the studies were even over. This way, side effects could be hidden, and we see the effects of that decision now.

Myocarditis, blood clots, lethal heart attacks, strokes, cancer and sudden death are all skyrocketing, but since there’s no official control group to compare with, those trends are written off as either normal or coincidental. You’ve probably seen that heart attacks are now blamed on everything from hot weather and cold showers to soil microbes in your garden, climate change and loud noises.

So, a more accurate statement would be that Pfizer did everything “at your risk.” They risk nothing. They get paid whether the shots work or not, and they have zero liability for injuries and deaths, financial or otherwise. The person who takes on all the risk is the one who takes the shot. They could lose their health, their career, everything they own and their very life.

Jansen admits “the mRNA platform wasn’t ready for prime time” when they decided to use it, and that there were stability and formulation issues, all of which were literally decided on the fly, often based on little or no data.

To her credit, Jansen stresses that this is “not a model for the future,” because “it’s not sustainable” to be working at warp speed all the time. Unfortunately, those who are continuing this work apparently disagree, because warp speed rollout with minimal or no testing is, in fact, the new norm already.

Warp Speed Is the New Norm
We know warp speed is the new norm because of a decision made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this past summer. During its June 28, 2022, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, they approved a bivalent COVID shot for fall 2022.3

With that vote, they sneaked in a whole new policy, a new framework, under which reformulated COVID shots will be treated as biologically similar to existing shots and therefore be allowed to skip clinical trials.

During that meeting, they were originally scheduled to vote on the Future Framework policy question of whether reformulated shots should be treated as new molecular entities subject to formal review. They never addressed that policy question and instead skipped right to the vote on a bivalent COVID shot for the fall.

By approving it, knowing there would be no time for testing and data gathering, they replaced the old evidence-based system through a sleight of hand. The bivalent shots received emergency use authorization (EUA) at the end of August 2022, based on the antibody levels in eight mice.

Moderna, which received EUA for its bivalent booster at the same time as Pfizer, also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but has not disclosed the number of mice used.

So, clearly, we are still moving at warp speed, without regard for risk. And already, vaccine makers are readying to release other mRNA shots, many of which are being fast-tracked and predicted to receive authorization in months rather than years.

Other mRNA Approvals Expected With Little or No Data
For example, Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to fully expect releasing it before clinical trials are finished. As reported by CBC News:4

“Moderna is actively promoting a combined COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccine … But while a safe and effective vaccine would be welcome as Canada faces a surge in pediatric RSV cases, stubbornly high COVID hospitalizations and deaths and steeply rising flu cases, the pharmaceutical company hasn’t released data to support the vaccine’s safety or efficacy …

Moderna’s decision to promote its vaccine before completing Phase 3 clinical trials — in which the vaccine would be tested on a larger group as part of a randomized, double-blind study — is controversial. It’s also raised concerns from vaccine researchers and infectious diseases experts about the motivations behind prematurely marketing the shot.

‘There’s still more questions than answers, obviously, with releases like this that come from companies without accompanying data,’ said Matthew Miller, a vaccine researcher and associate professor of infectious diseases and immunology at McMaster University.

‘I think we need to be really cautious. We have no data on safety, no data on effectiveness or efficacy or age groups. How would you handle updating various components of that vaccine? Lots and lots of questions’ …

Banking on a Shot in the Dark. Big Pharma is Fast Tracking mRNA Vaccine Boosters, Ignoring all Scientific Protocols

https://www.globalresearch.ca/banking-shot-dark/5800949