90 Miles From Tyranny

Saturday, October 30, 2021

‘If you get the Pfizer vax, you’re more likely to get COVID’: Industry analyst flags FDA study

'So, when they weren’t injected, their infection rate was 1.3% and when they got injected, it was 4.34%. It went up by over 300%,’ Pfizer ex-employee Karen Kingston stated. ‘They had less infection when they had no protection. So, that’s a problem.’

Updated October 4: The update affirms that Pfizer’s own study is consistent with outcomes around the globe showing a correlation between their COVID vaccine injections and increased incidents of infection, hospitalizations, and death.

A former Pfizer employee, now working as an industry analyst, has provided documentation indicating the pharmaceutical giant—whose gene-based COVID-19 vaccine has now been reportedly injected almost 225 million times into the arms of Americans—knows these shots cause recipients to become more susceptible to contracting COVID-19.

On Saturday Karen Kingston, the former Pfizer employee, a pharmaceutical marketing expert and biotech analyst, appeared beside medical freedom rights attorney Thomas Renz in a public meeting. The Ohio-based lawyer has been involved in several major cases brought against federal agencies relating to fraud and violations of medical freedom rights over the last 19 months.

After introducing Kingston, Renz presented the documents she had provided. (See from 17.40 in video.)

Of note is a “Briefing Document” used in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee meeting on September 17, 2021. Titled “Application for licensure of a booster dose for COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA),” it includes a report on a study conducted by Pfizer testing the longevity of immunity provided by their product over time.

Involving over 36K participants, the main study revealed that the group injected with the regimen earlier were more likely to be infected with the virus than those injected later, indicating a possible “waning of immunity” for the shots. The group injected earlier had a 7% chance of infection in the time period, and those injected later, only a 5.16% rate, equating to the former group having a 36% greater chance of infection than the latter.

In addition, since both groups were measured for the same time period, the latter involving a significant placebo period prior to injection (5.1 months on average), the placebo group was unusually untouched. As Kingston stated in a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews, “There should have been more people infected in the placebo group because they were going on longer without any protection.” She suggested this would therefore seem to indicate that those injected have an even higher chance of being infected with COVID-19 than the 36% difference indicated by this portion of the study.

Extending this conclusion a step further, the document reports, “An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2.”

In other words, Kingston said, “if you have two doses of Pfizer, your rate for getting infected...

You suck my blood like a leech

You break the law and you breach

Screw my brain 'til it hurts

You've taken all my money, and you want more

Misguided old mule

With your pigheaded rules

With your narrow-minded cronies

Who are fools of the first division

Death on two legs

You're tearing me apart

Death on two legs

You never had a heart

Of your own

Kill joy, bad guy

Big talking, small fry

You're just an old barrow boy

Have you found a new toy

To replace me?

Can you face me?

Big Tech Insists They’re Protecting Americans From China While Importing Chinese-Style Social Controls

Insisting that antitrust enforcers pull their punches or risk impairing our ability to face the threats from China is nothing short of a protection racket at a global scale.

If you need evidence that Big Tech firms are starting to worry about the growing movement to diffuse their immense market power, look no further than their newest scare tactic: using China as an excuse to avoid antitrust scrutiny.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and the nonprofit proxies they pay to defend them have put a lot of effort into trying to convince America that subjecting Big Tech to more stringent antitrust enforcement or regulation would have dire consequences. They’ve warned that innovation would suffer, but that rings hollow when so many of the new innovative companies are already being bought up (and then often shut down) by Big Tech.

They’ve suggested that antitrust action might result in the loss of the free services we’ve come to depend upon. But how do they call their services “free” when we pay for them by giving them all of our personal data, which they store and monetize, and when they rely on our content to make their platforms valuable in the first place?

Big Tech firms have told us we should be grateful for the superior quality of their services, which could suffer if they were broken up. But then again, one could argue that Google Search was better before it was filled with ads.

YouTube was better before its algorithms tried to corrupt our children and amplify the reach of terrorists. Facebook was better before it censored people of faith and conservatives, while protecting those who post revenge porn. Instagram was better before it drove our teenagers to anxiety and depression. Amazon was better before it silenced conservative authors and raised questions about its influence on a multibillion-dollar defense contract.

Having failed with each of those claims, Big Tech has turned to a new bogeyman: China. Antitrust enforcement actions against Big Tech—or legislation aimed at restoring and protecting competition in Big Tech markets—would risk crippling America’s ability to combat the growing threat from Communist China, or so the line goes. The cynicism would be offensive if the argument weren’t so...

Build Back Better...but don't expect any donuts at Dunkin Donuts

They've Gone A Cruller Too Far Now.

In a real-life supply chain issue that even the tragically late, great SNL comedian John Belushi couldn't improve, a Dunkin Donuts diner in Baltimore is informing its patrons, "No donuts for you. Muffins. Bagels." "Supply chain issues."

Hmm. Okay, maybe some other problems. Maybe. But this is just a foretaste of Building Back Better. More to come! Poverty for you!

Belgium: ‘Accidentally’ beheaded by an illegal migrant

Mohammed Dahmane must answer for having fatally stabbed Mégane, 22, on March 9 2020 in Droixhe. He allegedly stabbed her "in the throat", a euphemism for beheading a victim, as we have seen in the case of French teacher Samuel Paty. The system media has been defending the perpetrator.

The migrant is known by various aliases, most notably under the name of Youcef Bendhad. This whole affair began when Mégane’s lifeless body was found on a sidewalk in Droixhe, in the town of Liège. On the day of the incident, the young woman was in a squat with three men including Mohammed Dahmane and his companion.

Both the companion of the young woman and Mohammed Dahmane were staying illegally on Belgian territory. According to witnesses, an argument broke out between Mohammed Dahmane and Mégane’s companion. According to Mégane’s companion, the argument started because the young girl had refused Dahmane’s advances, which the latter refutes. The three were involved in a drug deal, according to sources.

After these facts, Mohammed Dahmane fled. He then went to another squat where he also assaulted a man “by stabbing him in the throat”. The latter was luckier than Mégane and managed to survive this assault, according to French daily DHnet. The suspect then fled to several European countries before being arrested in July 2020 in Spain.

But the mainstream media in Belgium reported on the beheading with the headline that the “theory of an accident could not be ruled out” in the case of...