quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Just saw an interesting ad on the tv touting a CDC sponsored oral treatment for covid made by Pfizer

Anyone else see this. They didn’t give the med a name. Just said to ask your doc.

Pfizermectin

You know, the stuff that costs 10 cents a pill and supposedly doesn’t work? Well once Pfizer could make their own copy of it at $1000 a dose, then it works just great.

Since they’re pushing paxlovid that probably means it doesn’t work. Particularly if they gave it an EUA. Remember the last EUA they gave out?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Just saw an interesting ad on the tv touting a CDC sponsored oral treatment for covid made by Pfizer

Anyone else see this. They didn’t give the med a name. Just said to ask your doc.

Pfizermectin

You know, the stuff that costs 10 cents a pill and supposedly doesn’t work? Well once Pfizer could make their own copy of it at $1000 a dose, then it works just great.

Except it seems it doesn’t work as well as it was hoped. Some testers were experiencing Covid resurgence after finishing their prescription Regimen of the next fleecing of the American people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna30311

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Since they’re pushing paxlovid that probably means it doesn’t work. Particularly if they gave it an EUA. Remember the last EUA they gave out?

Maybe answer a question for me. Why an EUA for this drug? The US is no longer in an emergency situation regarding Covid given all the metrics I've seen. So why should the FDA green light it when there is no crisis?

Exactly. Now that everyone has survived covid and variant #234124543 is so mild you need to take a test to see if you have it, they need to invent the next crisis.

Also the pharmacy companies haven’t finished fleecing us yet

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the emergency use of the unapproved product PAXLOVID ...

"It's the PAX."



"There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating.... They all just let themselves die."

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide

It's really true: they know they are killing the babies.
Naomi Wolf

https://www.frontpagemag.com/f...ocide-dr-naomi-wolf/

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:...

"It's the PAX."...

Is that 100% legit that all those branches of government were exempt from the vaccine mandates?

quote:

Originally posted by JohnCourage:
Is that 100% legit that all those branches of government were exempt from the vaccine mandates?

Yes. The only branch that was affected was the executive branch employees; to me it’s proof that the plandemic response was hokum from the start

The Jimmy Dore Show

Pfizer CEO & Klaus Schwab Cry Victim From “Conspiracy Theorists”

At this year’s seemingly never-ending World Economic Forum event in Davos, Switzerland, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla recently appeared on stage with WEF founder Klaus Schwab and the two lamented all the “conspiracy theorists” who had targeted them for online abuse. Sadly, Nina Jankowicz was not on hand to offer the two extraordinarily powerful elites relief from their suffering.

Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law

Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law

Paul Craig Roberts

Pfizer affirms that its agreement with Washington under “Other Transaction Authority” permits Pfizer to violate clinical trial regulations and federal laws protecting the public.

In other words, Pfizer has legal authority to commit fraud that kills people.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.o...normal-contract-law/

Pfizer Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit From COVID-19 Vaccine Trial, Citing ‘Prototype’ Agreement
By Zachary Stieber

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer stated that the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation “is simply wrong,” according to Pfizer.

Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer who is working on Jackson’s case, said in a recent interview that Pfizer has “clearly not followed federal procurement laws.”

“And now they’re saying, ‘Of course we didn’t follow federal procurement laws, we didn’t have to—this was just for a prototype,'” he said.

Mendenhall, who declined an interview request, said lawyers for Jackson are working on figuring out legal ways to counter Pfizer’s argument.

“We may lose on this issue because their contract imposes … none of the normal checks and balances on quality control and consumer protection that we fought for decades in this country,” he said.

The contract in question was outlined in a base agreement and a statement of work for the agreement, which was signed in the summer of 2020.

The government agreed to pay up to $1.9 billion for 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, pending U.S. regulatory clearance. That included the manufacturing of the vaccine on top of researching and developing it.

The contract was granted under the “prototype” provision, which falls under the OTA. The rules for prototypes state that just one of four conditions must be satisfied. The condition that was satisfied in the Pfizer contract was the involvement of a “nontraditional defense contractor.”

Federal law defines nontraditional defense contractors as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed” a contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense for at least one year preceding the solicitation of the OTA agreement. Pfizer has dozens of contracts with the military.

That means the government certified “an absurd fiction” to use an OTA to grant the contract, Kathryn Ardizzone, counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Department of Defense and other government agencies have increased the use of the OTA over time. Thirty-four such agreements were hammered out in fiscal year 2016; by fiscal year 2018, that number was 173, according to the Government Accountability Office (pdf).

Because the agreements shield contract holders from some regulations and laws, “the increasing use of OTAs, which includes in contexts where it’s inappropriate to do so, is undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing the public’s interests,” according to Ardizzone. The Pfizer contract is an example of an inappropriate context because the contract “was not about producing a prototype,” she said.

As far as Pfizer’s argument about the FAR not applying to the agreement, it’s not clear if that’s the case.

The base agreement only mentions the regulations pertaining to the handling of classified information. The statement of work doesn’t mention any.

“I’m not sure what it means when an OTA is silent on a regulation that appears in the FAR,” Ardizzone said. “That would be up for the judge to decide, and it might side with Pfizer since the prevailing view is that FAR regulations do not necessarily apply for an OTA.”

Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss, noted that the government didn’t join Jackson’s suit—it was filed on the government’s behalf—nor have regulators rescinded clearance of its vaccine, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2020, after Jackson revealed issues at sites managed by Ventavia Research Group, a Pfizer subcontractor.

“The agreement makes no mention of the FDA regulations and FAR provisions cited in relator’s complaint,” the motion reads. “The agreement instead conditions payment, more simply, on Pfizer’s delivery of an FDA authorized or approved product. Pfizer’s vaccine has satisfied that condition since December 2020, as the complaint acknowledges, and the vaccine continues to satisfy that condition today. The Court should reject Relator’s express certification claim for this reason alone.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...KULsk%2FUlv67A%3D%3D

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide

It's really true: they know they are killing the babies.
Naomi Wolf

https://www.frontpagemag.com/f...ocide-dr-naomi-wolf/

Holy Shit

Pure evil, there’s no other way to explain all of this. Satan is real.

And yet, yesterday I heard no fewer than 3 Pfizer sponsored ads for “vaccine” boosters for ages 5 and up. This is depopulation- there can be no question whatsoever. And the “vaccine” manufacturers STILL enjoy immunity from liability.

EuroWeekly ran an article this week headlined, “Many Questions Remain Over The False Covid-19 Vaccination Certificates Bought By Stars, Sports Personalities And Business Leaders.” Uh oh. The article reports on a Spanish sting operation that uncovered a ring of healthcare workers selling fake vaccine passports and entering unjabbed people into the digital vaccine database, for a price.

Lots of people, apparently. Thousands. In just the one operation.

According to EuroWeekly, more than 2,200 prominent Spaniards, including the CEO of one of Spain’s largest pharmaceutical companies, which was involved in covid research, plus “leading singers, musicians, football stars, business people, politicians and top medical personnel.”

In other words, the well-heeled.

Economics says you can tell how popular a product is (demand) by how much people are willing to pay for it (price). The jabs have a massively negative price. For some reason, all these smart, successful Spaniards wanted to avoid the jab so badly they were willing to pay a lot of money and risk legal problems to buy an expensive substitute for the shots, their fake vaccine passport. This story, however entertaining it may be because of the irony, is hard economic evidence that the jabs are NOT popular. Sort of the opposite of popular.

Who wants to bet that Spain isn’t the only country where this happened?

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...qTI2ed_-2KzPYOTQ&s=r

Among them was this guy:



CEO of large Spanish pharma company bought a fake vaccine card

Why would someone pay a huge fee and risk a long prison sentence to avoid taking a perfectly safe vaccine that will keep him from dying from COVID?
Answer: to avoid dying from the vaccine.

https://stevekirsch.substack.c...h-pharma-company?s=r

New study shows Paxlovid offers 'no significant benefit' to those under the age of 65

Data suggests younger people using the Pfizer drug may have increased COVID mortality.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/354306

A new study authored by researchers from the Clalit Health Fund and published in ResearchSquare contains worrying findings regarding the efficacy of Paxlovid, a drug combination developed by Pfizer to treat patients at high-risk of developing serious cases of COVID.

The study was based on 109,213 participants who were eligible for Paxlovid treatment (high-risk and with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection), 3,939 of whom chose to be treated with Paxlovid. While those over the age of 65 did appear to benefit from the course of treatment, those under 65 did not, and data regarding mortality even suggests that Paxlovid was detrimental to these people.

In the 65+ age group, researchers found a 67-percent reduction in hospitalization rates for those who took Paxlovid, and an 81-percent reduction in COVID mortality. These figures were notably lower than those reported by Pfizer, which claimed an 89 percent efficacy rate in its FDA submission.

In the 40-64 age bracket, a reduction of 22 percent in hospitalizations was noted, but an increase of 64 percent of mortality. The researchers described this as of “no significant benefit in avoidance of severe COVID-19 outcomes,” as “only a two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.”

The study’s authors also divided the data according to “immunity” status. Participants with no prior immunity (with one or less mRNA vaccine dose and no documented previous COVID infection) were compared with those considered immune (due to two or more vaccine doses, previous infection, or a combination).

Thus analyzed, the data revealed that all groups benefited from Paxlovid treatment, except for the 40-64 age group, where people who used Paxlovid were 18 percent more likely to be hospitalized than those who did not take the drug.

The researchers noted that Paxlovid was trialed by Pfizer during a period when the Delta strain was prevalent, and noted that the efficacy of Paxlovid against the currently prevalent Omicron variant “is unknown.”

They also noted that they were not able to monitor treatment adherence in those studied; it was thus possible that people listed as taking Paxlovid did not complete the five-day course of treatment. In addition, the analysis did not allow for treatment bias in that people with worse symptoms were presumably more likely to agree to take Paxlovid. However, they added, it is uncertain whether this factor would lead to an underestimation or overestimation of the efficacy of Paxlovid.

quote:

In the 40-64 age bracket, a reduction of 22 percent in hospitalizations was noted, but an increase of 64 percent of mortality.

Well, that's one way to keep you out of the hospital...

If you look at the CDC map of the Covid infection levels right now, you will see that the Northeast USA is all yellow and red and going more red while the rest of the country is green for the most part:

Their new levels system is:

GREEN/YELLOW/RED

The one thing about the Northeast states is they tend to be very liberal/Democrat and heavily vaccinated compared to much of the rest of the country. If this doesn’t tell you that these goddamn vaccines do not work and in fact are most likely causing even more infection and re-infection, I don’t know what will convince you.

These monsters aren’t done trying to poison our children. Sadly, many parents will willingly do just that, making their own offspring snake oil dependent as they themselves are.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...vaccine-children.amp

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said Thursday that COVID-19 vaccines may be available to children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old as soon as June 21.

"Our expectation is that within weeks, every parent who wants their child to get vaccinated will be able to get an appointment," Jha said.

"We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it's important to do this right," he added.

Pfizer and BioNTech requested that the FDA approve a three-dose regimen of its COVID-19 vaccine for children younger than 5 years old on Wednesday.

The companies originally studied two doses, but scrapped those plans earlier this year after it proved ineffective against the omicron variant.

The new three-dose regimen was 80.3% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children younger than 5, according to results of a study that Pfizer released last month. Children take just three microgram doses, a tenth of the shot that adults take.

Not all parents appear to be jumping at the opportunity to vaccinate their youngest kids.

Just 18% of parents with children younger than 5 said they would immediately get their kids vaccinated when the FDA grants approval, while 38% said they would wait and see how it works for others, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released last month.

The FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, an outside board that gives input on emergency use requests, will meet on June 15 to review Pfizer's application.