Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
infinite scrolling
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Pfizer Partnered With Wuhan-Linked Chinese Company Supplying ‘Military Combat’ Efforts.
To broaden its market access in China, Pfizer Inc. partnered with a military-linked Chinese pharmaceutical firm, The National Pulse can reveal.
Pfizer signed a memorandum of understanding with Shanghai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. in April of 2011, which set up “for the companies to jointly pursue potential business opportunities in China.”
“The potential partnership is intended to leverage both companies’ strengths,” explained a company press release, adding the deal would be “matching Pfizer’s global capabilities in developing innovative medicines with Shanghai Pharmaceutical’s capabilities and reach in the China market.”
“The companies plan to explore future cooperation opportunities, including further distribution and commercialization, research and development activities, manufacturing and equity investment opportunities.”
Shanghai Pharmaceuticals, however, has supported the “military combat” efforts of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and partnered with universities funded by the PLA.
These unearthed links exacerbate the fact that the company is subject to Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law, which mandates that “any [Chinese] organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work.”
An unearthed “Corporate Social Responsibility Report” from 2020 reveals the Chinese pharmaceutical firm’s longstanding collaborations with the regime’s PLA. As early as 2007, Shanghai Pharmaceuticals had “organize[d] and implement[ed] drug storage on behalf of the military combat” worth roughly $2.4 million:
In addition, since 2007, the Company has begun to organize and implement drug storage on behalf of the military combat. The amount was more than RMB15 million, and Shanghai Pharma was the storage enterprise while other subsidiaries acted as emergency units. It is now the East China region (shanghai) drug security mobilization center.
SHANGHAI PHARMACEUTICAL REPORT.
In addition to its agreement with Pfizer, Shanghai Pharmaceuticals has also partnered with China’s Secondary Military Medical University (SMMU), also known as the People’s Liberation Army Naval Medical University.
“Pursuant to the agreement, Shanghai Pharmaceutical will provide a certain amount of R&D fund input annually for the establishment of advance of “SMMU – Shanghai Pharmaceutical Translational Medicine Alliance” to carry out R&D cooperation in fields of new medicine and medical devices development and so forth,” explained a press release.
SMMU also has ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, believed by many to be the source of COVID-19.
The Deputy Director of the Wuhan Institue of Virology’s Academic Committee, Hongyang Wang, listed affiliation with the school before the webpage was wiped in the middle of 2020.
Pfizer’s newfound partnership with the Chinese military-linked entity follows the...
In addition to its agreement with Pfizer, Shanghai Pharmaceuticals has also partnered with China’s Secondary Military Medical University (SMMU), also known as the People’s Liberation Army Naval Medical University.
“Pursuant to the agreement, Shanghai Pharmaceutical will provide a certain amount of R&D fund input annually for the establishment of advance of “SMMU – Shanghai Pharmaceutical Translational Medicine Alliance” to carry out R&D cooperation in fields of new medicine and medical devices development and so forth,” explained a press release.
SMMU also has ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, believed by many to be the source of COVID-19.
The Deputy Director of the Wuhan Institue of Virology’s Academic Committee, Hongyang Wang, listed affiliation with the school before the webpage was wiped in the middle of 2020.
Pfizer’s newfound partnership with the Chinese military-linked entity follows the...
Twoesday 2/22/22
Two Girls In TuTu's:
I could have put two ugly girls in tutu's and called it:
Two 2's in Tutu's,
But I wouldn't do that to you guys....
The Centers For Disease Control’s Lies Have Destroyed Its Legitimacy
By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control has brought everlasting shame to itself.
On August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed “Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection.” This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul’s home state.
Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: “Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.”
The CDC’s reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.
Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.”
Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country, and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.
Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country, and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.
A Positive Test Doesn’t Always Mean Infectiousness
A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.
The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group’s second positive test as a “reinfection.” This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call “reinfected.”
To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill.
However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it’s unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people’s likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.
By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, “This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”
This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky’s guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.
As a physician, it’s frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.
Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC
This isn’t the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC’s mask guidance for schools. This study defined a “covid outbreak” as “two or more” positive lab tests among students or staff. So if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you’ve got a “covid outbreak” on your hands.
Even worse, the study weighted such an “outbreak” equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for “covid outbreaks.”
In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They’ve also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.
Why This Matters So Much
How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.
First, many hospitals following the CDC’s guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they’ve used to demonize the unvaccinated.
Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from...
In the early morning hours there's a din in the air; mayhem's on the loose...
In the early morning hours there's a din in the air;
mayhem's on the loose.
Stormtroopers comin', and you better be prepared.
Got no time to choose.
Get ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
Comin' up that street, jackboots steppin' high.
Got to make a stand.
Looking in your windows and listen to your phone.
Keep a gun in your hand.
Get ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
Get ready. Stormtroopers comin' around.
Two hundred down, and it's comin' 'round again.
Got no second choice.
Where's the justice and where's that law.
Raise your healthy voice.
Get ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
We'll be ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
Getting ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
Get ready. Stormtroopers comin'.
The Beginning Of The End Of Biological Women's Soccer: US women’s soccer secures equal pay, $24 million after six-year legal battle
With This Kind Of Payday, Transgender "Women" Lesbians will Replace Biological Women Lesbians And Will Soon Dominate The Sport, Jock Strap Companies Celebrate...
U.S. women soccer players reached a landmark agreement with the sport’s American governing body to end a six-year legal battle over equal pay, a deal in which they are promised $24 million plus bonuses that match those of the men.
The U.S. Soccer Federation and the women announced a deal Tuesday that will have players split $22 million, about one-third of what they had sought in damages. The USSF also agreed to establish a fund with $2 million to benefit the players in their post-soccer careers and charitable efforts aimed at growing the sport for women.
The USSF committed to providing an equal rate of pay for the women’s and men’s national teams — including World Cup bonuses — subject to collective bargaining agreements with the unions that separately represent the women and men.
“For our generation, knowing that we’re going to leave the game in an exponentially better place than when we found it is everything,” 36-year-old midfielder Megan Rapinoe said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “That’s what it’s all about because, to be honest, there is no justice in all of this if we don’t make sure it never happens again.”
The settlement was a victory for the players, who sparked fans to chant “Equal Pay!” when they won their second straight title in France in 2019. And it was a success for USSF President Cindy Parlow Cone, a former player who became head of the federation in March 2020.
Cone replaced Carlos Cordeiro, who quit after the federation made a legal filing that claimed women had less physical ability and responsibility than male counterparts.
“This is just one step towards rebuilding the relationship with the women’s team. I think this is a great accomplishment and I’m excited about the future and working together with them,” Cone said. “Now we can shift the focus to other things, most importantly, growing the game at all levels and increasing opportunities for girls and women.”
U.S. women have won four World Cups since the program’s start in 1985, while the men haven’t reached a semifinal since 1930.
Five American stars led by Morgan and Rapinoe began the challenge with a complaint to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2016. Women sued three years later, seeking damages under the federal Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The sides settled the working conditions portion in December 2020, dealing...
U.S. women have won four World Cups since the program’s start in 1985, while the men haven’t reached a semifinal since 1930.
Five American stars led by Morgan and Rapinoe began the challenge with a complaint to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2016. Women sued three years later, seeking damages under the federal Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The sides settled the working conditions portion in December 2020, dealing...
Visage à trois #64
Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
Visage à trois #63
Blogs With Rule 5 Links
The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Return From Reno Double-Scoop Edition
Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around
The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style
EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA
The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama
The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup
Report: CDC Has Withheld COVID Data From Americans To ‘Prevent Vaccine Hesitency’
The data are “not yet ready for prime time.”
The New York Times reported this past weekend that the CDC has chosen not to publish huge amounts of COVID data, instead keeping it secret, because it fears that the information would cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among the American public.
The report notes that the withheld data includes information on boosters, hospitalizations, wastewater analyses, as well as critical information on COVID infections and deaths broken down by age, race, and vaccination status.
The justification for holding the information back? Fears that the data would be “misinterpreted” and lead to “vaccine hesitancy,” according to the report.
In other words, it didn’t fit into the narrative that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted no matter who they are and what their situation is.
The report notes:
“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”Ahhh, the plebs are not ready to know the truth.
Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”
The data has been withheld for more than a year, the report notes:
…the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.As we have previously reported, CDC director Rochelle Walensky admits that...
Psst… The Covid-19 Vaccines cause AIDS… Pass it on…
Official data published by the UK Health Security Agency is beginning to look terrible for those who have succumbed to three doses of the Covid-19 vaccine, with statistics showing the triple vaccinated are now up to three times more likely to be infected with Covid-19 than the unvaccinated population.
But a look back at previous statistics shows that this risk is increasing by the week, indicating the Covid-19 injections are damaging the natural immune system, and an analysis of the official UKHSA data strongly suggests most of the triple vaccinated population are just weeks away from developing full blown Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
This article is a repost due to Twitter censoring the original link
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) publishes a weekly Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report that contains figures on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.
In their Week 3 – 2022 Report, the UKHSA changed tack and only included Covid-19 case/hospitalisation/death rates per 100k among the triple vaccinated population, after previously including the rates for both the double and triple vaccinated.
As we recently revealed this is clearly because the rates are showing that the double vaccinated are more likely to be infected, more likely to be hospitalised, and more likely to die of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated population, indicating Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
However, it has only taken a matter of weeks for the rates among the triple vaccinated to increase drastically compared to the rates among the triple vaccinated population, and analysis shows the triple vaccinated may now develop full blown Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome as soon as March 13th 2022.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 26th Dec 21 and 16th Jan 22. The data has been extracted from Table 12 found on page 38 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 3 – 2022.
But a look back at previous statistics shows that this risk is increasing by the week, indicating the Covid-19 injections are damaging the natural immune system, and an analysis of the official UKHSA data strongly suggests most of the triple vaccinated population are just weeks away from developing full blown Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
This article is a repost due to Twitter censoring the original link
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) publishes a weekly Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report that contains figures on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.
In their Week 3 – 2022 Report, the UKHSA changed tack and only included Covid-19 case/hospitalisation/death rates per 100k among the triple vaccinated population, after previously including the rates for both the double and triple vaccinated.
As we recently revealed this is clearly because the rates are showing that the double vaccinated are more likely to be infected, more likely to be hospitalised, and more likely to die of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated population, indicating Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
However, it has only taken a matter of weeks for the rates among the triple vaccinated to increase drastically compared to the rates among the triple vaccinated population, and analysis shows the triple vaccinated may now develop full blown Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome as soon as March 13th 2022.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 26th Dec 21 and 16th Jan 22. The data has been extracted from Table 12 found on page 38 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 3 – 2022.
Source Data
Between 26th Dec 21 and 16th Jan 22, it was only triple vaccinated people between the age of 18 and 29 who had a lower case-rate per 100k than the not vaccinated population. However, this would soon change by the end of January 2022.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 9th Jan 22 and 30th Jan 22 The data has been extracted from Table 13 found on page 47 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 5 – 2022.
Between 26th Dec 21 and 16th Jan 22, it was only triple vaccinated people between the age of 18 and 29 who had a lower case-rate per 100k than the not vaccinated population. However, this would soon change by the end of January 2022.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 9th Jan 22 and 30th Jan 22 The data has been extracted from Table 13 found on page 47 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 5 – 2022.
Source Data
The Covid-19 case-rate per 100k was highest among every age group in the triple vaccinated population between 9th Jan and 30th Jan 22. But unfortunately, by the time 13th Feb rolled around the gap between the triple vaccinated and unvaccinated had grown even bigger.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 23rd Jan 22 and 13th Feb 22. The data has been extracted from Table 13 found on page 44 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 7 – 2022.
The Covid-19 case-rate per 100k was highest among every age group in the triple vaccinated population between 9th Jan and 30th Jan 22. But unfortunately, by the time 13th Feb rolled around the gap between the triple vaccinated and unvaccinated had grown even bigger.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100k population among the triple vaccinated and not-vaccinated in England between 23rd Jan 22 and 13th Feb 22. The data has been extracted from Table 13 found on page 44 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 7 – 2022.
Source Data
By the middle of February 2022, things were looking terrible for anyone who was triple vaccinated and between the age of 18 and 59, but things weren’t much better for anyone triple vaccinated and between the age of 60 and 80+.
The following chart shows the average Covid-19 case rate among all adults by vaccination status between 26th Dec 21 and 13th Feb 22:
By the middle of February 2022, things were looking terrible for anyone who was triple vaccinated and between the age of 18 and 59, but things weren’t much better for anyone triple vaccinated and between the age of 60 and 80+.
The following chart shows the average Covid-19 case rate among all adults by vaccination status between 26th Dec 21 and 13th Feb 22:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)