The fact is that women who receive the Pfizer mRNA vaccine may be putting their unborn babies at a very high risk of dying during the pregnancy. So why do Pfizer and the FDA continue to recommend that pregnant women receive the Pfizer mRNA vaccine?
To understand the increased risks, we need to understand first what is normal; that is, how often does a baby die during an unvaccinated woman’s pregnancy? Early in a pregnancy, miscarriage or spontaneous abortion (the death of a baby before 13 weeks gestation) happens in 1 of 10 (10%) pregnancies (https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/early-pregnancy-loss). Later in a pregnancy, the risk of a baby dying decreases dramatically: stillbirths (the death of a baby after 20 weeks gestation) occur in 1 in 160 (0.6%) pregnancies (https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/stillbirth.aspx).
These are the normal background rates of in utero death. Yet after mothers receive the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, in utero deaths appear to be much, much higher. The truth lies in Pfizer’s own documents submitted to the US Food and Drug Agency.
Following FDA’s initial emergency use authorization of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine on December 11, 2020, Pfizer was required to submit periodic reports of side effects (adverse events) from the vaccine. In its April 30, 2021, adverse event report to FDA, Pfizer analyzed the effects of the vaccine in patients around the world (https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf). Although the conclusion of this report states that “review of the available data . . . confirms a favorable benefit:risk balance” for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (p. 29, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf), the details of the report tell a different story for the babies of pregnant women who receive the vaccine.
Pfizer reported that pregnancy outcomes were available for only 32 of 270 pregnancies and 4 associated fetus/baby cases (p. 12, https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf). In these 36 cases, 28 babies (78%) died after their mothers received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Pfizer and the FDA knew by April 2021 that the babies’ mortality rate may have been much greater than normal. This is a serious claim, so it’s important to explain where this number comes from.
Pfizer’s Table 6 (excerpted in Fig. 1, below) notes that 124 of 270 vaccinated mothers (46%) experienced adverse or serious adverse events. A total of 75 of these mothers (28%) and 4 additional unborn babies or neonates were reported to have had serious adverse events after the mothers received the mRNA vaccine. Of the 36 babies for which Pfizer knew the outcome, 25 died before birth and 3 died at birth. The babies’ deaths are categorized as follows:
23 spontaneous abortions
2 spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death
2 premature births with neonatal death
1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
Thus 28 out of 36 babies with known outcomes died at or before birth—a crude mortality rate of 78%.This suggests a mortality rate much higher than normal (10% for early pregnancies; less than 1% for pregnancies that last longer than 20 weeks). But we must keep in mind that these data are incomplete; Pfizer reported no information on 238 babies. For a truly valid estimate of the mortality rate, one would need either the complete data set or a random sample. Pfizer collected neither.
Just the suggestion that more babies were dying during pregnancy should have raised alarms at Pfizer. Instead Pfizer concluded that the benefits of the mRNA vaccine were worth the risks of a pregnant woman losing her baby.
So the question remains: Why do Pfizer and the FDA continue to allow pregnant women to be vaccinated? They know that unborn babies may be at increased risk of death from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why aren’t pregnant women warned of these risks?
Our enemies are obsessed with jamming our OODA Loops. They do not want us to have even a moment to think. An OODA loop is a decision making process: observe–orient–decide–act. We take in information, and we make a decision on how to act to change things. Our enemies keep distracting us with constantly changing information, and we keep getting stuck in the OO stage, never making decisions, never acting to change things, because we are constantly trying to figure out the nature of the trap we are caught in. But that is the trap we are caught in! We end up stuck in endless puzzling debates, making no productive plans to achieve victory in even one small way.
When a fresh news story gets hyped up, and people say “oh oh they are just distracting us”, it is THINKING TIME they are distracting us from. A moment for the dust to settle, for even a minute of propaganda-free time, to be able to make a plan to counter our enemy’s plans. They cannot allow us this minute. We are allowed no firm place to stand. They have to bombard us with useless factoids and storylines 24/7, little rabbit holes and dead-ends and intrigue and drama, or else we might form together into something capable of defeating their psychological operations. Distraction and overload is their primary weapon against us. Unfortunately, we keep falling for this trick.
The OODA loop is the cycle observe–orient–decide–act, developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. Boyd applied the concept to the combat operations process, often at the operational level during military campaigns. It is now also often applied to understand commercial operations and learning processes. The approach explains how agility can overcome raw power in dealing with human opponents. It is especially applicable to cyber security and cyberwarfare.[1]
The OODA loop has become an important concept in litigation,[2] business,[3]law enforcement,[4] and military strategy. According to Boyd, decision-making occurs in a recurring cycle of observe–orient–decide–act. An entity (whether an individual or an organization) that can process this cycle quickly, observing and reacting to unfolding events more rapidly than an opponent, can thereby “get inside” the opponent’s decision cycle and gain the advantage.
As many as six million British households could be subjected to power cuts this winter if Russian gas supplies to Europe stop, The Times reported Sunday, citing a Whitehall document.
It said that imports of natural gas from Norway could halve next winter amid surging EU demand. Britain buys around half of its total supplies from the Nordic country.
Shipments of liquified natural gas from major producers such as the United States and Qatar could also halve this winter, the UK government warned, pointing to fierce global competition for supplies of the fuel.
Meanwhile, interconnectors from the Netherlands and Belgium could also be cut off in winter, as the two countries struggle meeting their own demand.
The UK, which has vowed to end the importation of Russian oil by the end of the year, is now seeking to bolster electricity supply by extending the life of its coal and aging nuclear power stations
You may have heard the disturbing story of Maddie de Garay, who in July 2020, aged 12, participated in Pfizer’s Covid vaccine trial of adolescents aged 12-15. Within 24 hours of receiving the second dose in early January 2021, Maddie experienced “zapping pain up and down her spine with severe abdominal pain… her toes and fingers turned white and were ice cold”. She now can barely see, suffers from tinnitus, mobility issues, vomiting, blood in her urine, numbness in her body and has at least 10-20 seizures a day. Yet her injury was recorded in the vaccine trial data as “abdominal pain” and it was asserted without investigation to be not related to the vaccine.
Another case, similarly disturbing, has now emerged of an adverse reaction during a Pfizer trial that was not recorded in the trial data, raising concerns about the integrity of the trial data and the possibility of fraud.
Augusto Roux is a 35-year old lawyer from Buenos Aires, Argentina who volunteered for Pfizer’s Covid vaccine phase 3 trial. He did so to protect his mother, who has emphysema.
On the way home after his second dose on September 9th 2020, he began feeling unwell, developed a high fever and felt very ill. He fainted on September 11th and went to the hospital on September 12th. The hospital ran tests, including a CAT scan of his chest, which showed an abnormal collection of fluid around the outside of the heart, indicating pericarditis (a form of heart inflammation).
On September 14th he was discharged, with the doctor writing in his discharge note that he had suffered an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Augusto was also told by hospital staff that there had been a considerable number of people from the clinical trial coming to the hospital – one nurse estimated staff had seen around 300 people – so his experience was not new to them. Around 3,000 trial participants had been enrolled before Augusto, so, if the nurse’s estimate is accurate, this would be a hospitalisation rate of 10%.
Following his adverse reaction, Augusto asked to see his trial clinical records, but those running the trial refused. Being a lawyer, Augusto went to law to get access to his records, which took over a year. Once he saw them, he could well imagine why someone might not want them to be released.
In hospital, Augusto had tested negative for Covid, and the doctor at the hospital had written that his condition was due to the vaccine. However, when Augusto contacted the trial site on September 14th to notify the investigators he had been in hospital, they wrote down in his clinical trial record that he had been admitted for a “bilateral pneumonia” that had nothing to do with the “investigational product” – the vaccine – even though that was not what he told them or what the doctor who examined him had stated.
For obvious reasons, Augusto was keen to know whether he’d had the vaccine or not. However, the principal investigator for the trial, Fernando Polack (pictured below), had inaccurately claimed that he could only be unblinded if his life were in danger. Augusto appealed to ANMAT, the Argentinian equivalent of the FDA, and following a formal hearing on October 9th 2020 it forced the trial investigators to tell Augusto that he had, indeed, received the vaccine.
The clinical trial notes reveal that two days prior to this hearing, on October 7th, “at the request of the sponsor” (Pfizer), the adverse event code was updated from pneumonia to “COVID-19 disease”. This is despite Augusto testing negative at the time of his admission. (Conveniently for Pfizer, the COVID-19 ‘diagnosis’ would not be included in the trial vaccine efficacy calculations due to the negative test.)
Even more disturbing, on October 8th, Polack wrote in Augusto’s clinical trial records that he had had an attack of “severe anxiety” starting on September 23rd (not caused by the vaccine, naturally). Polack added that Augusto suspected a conspiracy between the two hospitals, described his anxiety as “constitutional”, and noted that it was ongoing, evidenced by his pursuing his appeal to ANMAT. On October 11th, Polack had this mental health diagnosis added to his actual medical records.
Dr. David Healy, who has interviewed Augusto and seen the medical records in question, comments that “there is nothing in any record that indicates that Dr. Polack or any other doctor attempted on September 23rd to establish whether Augusto had a mental disorder”. He adds:
Augusto points to the notes of October 8th and 11th as evidence that this idea was invented just around the time the ANMAT hearing was about to happen. He states that it is in breach of Argentinian law for Dr. Polack to have diagnosed someone with a medical condition that the person does not have – and to have entered it into his medical record.
Note that Polack is a paediatrician so lacks the qualification to make mental health diagnoses, especially without any formal assessment.
Polack is a key player in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trials. He was the lead author on the December 2020 NEJM paper on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Israeli academic Josh Guetzkow notes that he is also one of the directors of i-trials, the site management organisation “paid handsomely by Pfizer to run the trial in Argentina (the largest site of the trial by far)”. Guetzkow adds:
If he raised an alarm about the vaccine safety, his company would have lost a ton of money and would be an unlikely choice by any company to run any trials in the future. So to say that he had an interest in achieving a positive trial outcome would be quite an understatement. There may be other conflicts we’re not aware of.
The evidence of malpractice and possible fraud in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trials is certainly stacking up now. But very few people are aware of it as it is mostly only being reported in alternative media. When will mainstream outlets start following up properly on this potentially massive story?
An Inquest, Likely due to the family not expecting an ‘unexplained’ death and pushing for answers, is further proof of the dangers of the Pfizer Vaccine. Another healthy young woman, daughter, mother and wife has lost her life from being coerced by our lying governments, global ‘health agencies’ and big Pharma.
She leaves behind her year old son… How many more will we lose, how many children?
‘A post-mortem examination on the body of Dawn Wooldridge had previously proved inconclusive but an inquest heard on Thursday that the unexpected death, which happened 11 days after Dawn’s first Covid jab, was likely caused as a result of the vaccination.
The 36-year-old was found dead in her home by her brother in June last year, after she failed to collect her five-year-old son from school that day.
In a statement to the Berkshire coroner by Dawn’s husband, Ashley, he said: “We met on holiday in Turkey and we have been married for seven years this year.’
t.me/FionaRoseDiamond
Davos Man, his World Economic Forum, and his Servants
The purpose of this essay and the accompanying spreadsheet is to provide you with information and transparency about who these people are, where they come from, what their ethics and policy positions are, where they work, what sectors they work in, and when they were trained to do the bidding of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”).
These people have been trained to believe in and support a globalist form of unelected government, in which business is at the centre of the management and decision-making process. They are fundamentally anti-democratic, and their views are both fundamentally corporatist and globalist, which is another way of saying that they are for totalitarian fascism – the fusion of the interests of business with the power of the state – on a global scale.
The Malone Institute, in collaboration with the Pharos Foundation and Pharos Media Productions in Sweden, has invested months of time and hundreds of labour hours to mine existing and historic publicly available data sources to develop a detailed summary of graduates from two WEF training programs; Global Leaders of Tomorrow (a one-year program that ran from 1993 to 2003) and Young Global Leaders (a five-year program started 2004/2005 and still running).
The current 100 WEF full members (“Strategic Partners”) are drawn from the largest corporations in the world, together with their owners and managers (referred to as “Davos Man”). The list of corporations, owners and managers who control the WEF is not disclosed and membership can only be inferred indirectly. However, the WEF members do not act alone, but have developed various groups of globally distributed trainees who generally act in accordance with the detailed policies and positions developed and distributed by WEF leadership. These training programs have been operating for over three decades, resulting in placement, distribution and rapid advancement of many thousands of WEF-trained operatives throughout the world. WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has famously claimed that these operatives have been strategically inserted into key positions in various governments, as well as influential spots in key industries such as media, finance, and technology.
“Davos Man” is a term coined by former Harvard University Director of the Centre for International Affairs Professor Dr. Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) to define an emerging group of economic elites who are members of a social caste which has “little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that are thankfully vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations.” The title of his prescient 2004 article published in The National Interest is telling: “Dead Souls: The Denationalisation of the American Elite”.
In a 2005 article published in The Guardian titled “Davos man’s death wish”, Timothy Garton Ash described Davos Man and the World Economic Forum:
“Davos Man is mainly white, middle-aged and European or Anglo-Saxon. Of course, some of the participants at this year’s five-day meeting of the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain resort were Indian, Chinese, African or/and women. But they continue to be a minority. The dominant culture of Davos remains that of white western man
“Davos man has a troublesome pre-history of combining brilliance and stupidity, of being blinded by national and ideological prejudice to his own long-term interest and destroying with one hand what he has built with the other.”
Wikipedia defines “megalomania” as “an obsession with power and wealth, and a passion for grand schemes.” It also relates this term to the following psychological terms: Narcissistic personality disorder, Grandiose delusions, and Omnipotence (psychoanalysis), a stage of child development. Davos Man fits the definition of megalomania and has acquired what he believes are the financial and political resources to try to force his obsession and grand schemes on the world, and to force you, your family, and the world to comply with his vision.
Regarding the WEF, Andrew Marshall developed a brief introductory summary which I strongly recommend reading, published in a 2015 article entitled “World Economic Forum: a history and analysis”. The membership of the WEF is divided into three categories: Regional Partners, Industry Partner Groups, and the most esteemed, the Strategic Partners. Membership fees from corporations and industry groups finance the Forum and provide the member company with extra access and to set the agenda. A full list of current Strategic Partners can be found HERE.
“Why should you care?”
The WEF is the organisation which has masterminded the globally harmonised planning, development and implementation of the lockdowns, mandates, authoritarian vaccine campaigns, suppression of early treatment options, global targeting of dissenting physicians, censorship, propaganda, information and thought control programs which we have all experienced since late 2019. This is the organisational structure used by the ones who have sought to control and manage the world to advance the economic and political interests of their members through the ongoing “Great Reset” (as named and described by their chairman Klaus Schwab) by exploiting and exacerbating the social and economic disruption which they have artificially and intentionally crafted since SARS-CoV-19 began spreading across the world.
The musings and plans of this trade organisation read and sound like the implausible sinister plot of an international spy novel concocted by a second-rate version of Ian Fleming, John Le Carre, or Robert Ludlum. Unfortunately, they are backed by the financial resources of many of the wealthiest people in the world. For examples of the muddled thinking and pseudo-science which these self-appointed masters of the universe proudly publish, I recommend that you do your best to read COVID-19: The Great Reset, The Great Narrative for a better future (both by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret), and How to Prevent the Next Pandemic (by Bill Gates). A detailed interactive summary of their policy positions and the interrelationships of those policies (“transformation map”) can be found HERE and for COVID-19, HERE.
“What can you do about it?”
After all you have seen and experienced since September 2019, please look in the mirror and ask yourself these two questions:
“Are these people I can trust with my future and that of my children?”
“Do they represent my interests, values, and what I believe in?”
If you decide that you cannot trust them, or that they do not share your interests and values, then it is high time to act to prevent them from taking control of all aspects of your life. Otherwise, the WEF seeks to take away everything you own, and to completely control all aspects of your life. One of the key predictions of their “Global Future Councils” is that by 2030, you (or your children) will own nothing, and will be happy. Here is a LINK to other aspects of their vision of tomorrow.
Whatever your answer, you deserve to know who these people are that wish to control the world, your daily life, what information you can access, what you are allowed to think, and what you are allowed to own. You deserve to know who they represent, and what are their names. The purpose of this essay and the accompanying spreadsheet is to provide you with information and transparency about who these people are, where they come from, what their ethics and policy positions are, where they work, what sectors they work in, and when they were trained to do the bidding of the WEF (there are often close bonds between members of the same class year).
These people have been trained to believe in and support a globalist form of unelected government, in which business is at the centre of the management and decision-making process. They have been trained to advance the interests of a global transnational government which represents a public-private partnership in which the business interests of the WEF members take precedence over the constitution of the United States. The WEF believes that the concept of independent nation-states is obsolete and must be replaced with a global government which controls all. They are fundamentally anti-democratic, and their views are both fundamentally corporatist and globalist, which is another way of saying that they are for totalitarian fascism – the fusion of the interests of business with the power of the state – on a global scale. These people do not represent the interests of the nation-state in which they reside, work, and may hold political office, but rather their allegiance appears to be to the WEF vision of a dominant world government which has dominion over nations and their constitutions. In my opinion, in the case of those trainees and WEF members who are in politics, and particularly those who have been used to “penetrate the global cabinets of countries”, these persons should be forced to register as foreign agents within their host countries.
Davos Man’s Servants are Foreign Agents. The full title of the US Foreign Principal Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) is “An Act to require the registration of certain persons employed by agencies to disseminate propaganda in the United States and for other purposes.” Citing Wikipedia,
“The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (2 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) is a United States law requiring persons engaged in domestic political or advocacy work on behalf of foreign interests to register with the Department of Justice and disclose their relationship, activities, and related financial compensation. Its purpose is to allow the government and general public to be informed of the identities of individuals representing the interests of foreign governments or entities. The law is administered and enforced (or not…) by the FARA Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD).”
The List of WEF Trainees
The Malone Institute (primarily Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone and Anita Hasbury-Snogles), in collaboration with the Pharos Foundation and Pharos Media Productions in Sweden, has invested months of time and hundreds of labour hours to mine existing and historic publicly available data sources to develop a detailed summary of graduates from two WEF training programs; the World Economic Forum’s Global Leaders of Tomorrow (a one-year program that ran from 1993 to 2003) and Young Global Leaders (a five-year program started 2004/2005 and still running). Pharos foundations’ summary can be found here. These people have been intentionally and internationally deployed as foreign agents representing the interests of the WEF members to “penetrate the global cabinets of countries” as well as a wide range of key business sectors including banking/finance, other business sectors (including health and biotechnology), academia and health, media, technology, logistics, arts and culture, sports, politics and government, think tanks, telecommunications, real estate, financial investment/holding companies, a variety of non-governmental organisations, energy, aerospace and military, food and agriculture.
This list can be found and downloaded at the following link:
The list contains a summary of the graduates of the World Economic Forum’s Global Leaders of Tomorrow (a one-year program that ran from 1993 to 2003) as well as the Young Global Leaders (a five-year program started 2004/2005 and still running).
To create this list, the Malone Institute and the Pharos Foundation have used World Economic Forum search engines and cross-checked published lists, Wayback Machine archives, Wikispooks, and other complementary sources. It may not be 100% accurate, but we have done our best to make it as correct and updated as possible. Some people have been removed from the WEF website, and some were never listed but have been identified by Klaus Schwab himself as members of his young global agents of change. We have done extensive manual research in order to identify and verify those for whom very little information has been provided. When missing, there has been an attempt to find and add relevant countries, positions etc. When identified, links have been provided to existing biographies, primarily those included in World Economic Forum webpages, or else Wikipedia, LinkedIn, company pages, or articles. In some cases (when available) we have also provided links to organisations they have worked at. When possible, positions and organisations in many cases have been updated to the most recent identifiable.
The Sector designations chosen by WEF have changed over the years, so the spreadsheet uses the most descriptive term for their updated sector and position, but in some cases we have added our own – especially in the Business sector where we have added Sub-sectors for more detailed information. The Region designations used by WEF have also changed over the years, so we have used simpler geographical regions. We have added extra columns in the spreadsheet for Sex, Political position, Health connection, and finally Notes for additional or relevant information.
This list is open to corrections and additions, should anyone spot an error or have more information. Please write to us at info@MaloneInstitute.org if you have additional information, details, or corrections.
So that you can cross-check for yourself, below are provided hyperlinked sources for this summary, which includes only the listed groups (GLT = Global Leaders of Tomorrow, YGL = Young Global Leaders). There are additional WEF trainee groups including “Young Scientists”, and these will be the focus of future similar summary spreadsheets. The lists below do not contain the full documentation of the members found on our master list above.
According to economist Richard Werner, who was selected for the GLT program in 2003, the Global Leaders of Tomorrow program (GLT) was closed down and rebooted as a more controllable group called the “Young Global Leaders” (YGL) because too many people were asking difficult questions in the forum (see “Last American Vagabond” podcast titled “COVID Measures And The Central Controls Over The Economy” here). Many of the more recently graduate classes are explicitly identified as revolutionaries who are “Driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution” on behalf of the WEF.
Ok, before we go on to the CDC, let me just say this.
A few years ago on a prepper site, someone posted about the CDC planning for a zombie apocalypse. They made out it was because it was so popular and ultimately “ You never know “ except they did.
Now you think a zombie is a dead person roaming around, but it’s not.
A zombie can be a living person with the frontal cortex turned off. That would make them seem lobotomised and bitey.
IP36 Gene.
This is the gene that will be turned off in the vaccinated. That gene when turned off will turn off the frontal cortex. You can check this out, it’s been verified. So, in around 18 months 5G will emit a burst which will activate the lipid particle inside the vaccinated and it will explode inside the body turning off the IP36 gene.
Sounds far fetched, doesn’t it? Well, it’s up to you whether you believe this or not, but you have nothing to lose by preparing.
If zombies were to start roaming the streets – yes, we said zombies – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants you to be prepared.
In the midst of providing guidelines on an unprecedented pandemic, the Center for Disease Control updated its tips to prepare for another extreme occurrence: A zombie apocalypse.
While the CDC says it began as a “tongue-in-cheek campaign,” it actually is a practical guide for any emergency, like hurricanes, earthquakes or floods.
“You may laugh now, but when it happens you’ll be happy you read this,” the CDC wrote on its website. “And hey, maybe you’ll even learn a thing or two about how to prepare for a real emergency.”
So, what would happen if zombies were to start roaming the streets?
The CDC says it would conduct an investigation, as it would for any disease outbreak, and provide assistance to states. Until it could determine the cause of the outbreak and how it could be treated and stopped, the CDC listed guidelines to follow to be “safe than sorry.”
The first step is to prepare for zombies – or any disaster: Create an emergency kit with essentials to last a few days.
The kit should include a gallon of water per day for each person; nonperishable food items; medications; tools and supplies; sanitation and hygiene products; clothing and bedding; important documents and first aid supplies, the CDC says.
Next, you should create an emergency plan when a zombie, or a hurricane, is outside your door.
This includes identifying the types of emergencies possible in your area – such as a tornado or an earthquake – to prepare for that situation and make a list of your emergency contacts. You should also pick a place to evacuate to and make an evacuation plan, which includes a designated meeting place for you and those you live with to regroup.
This blog is especially relevant given the pandemic and last month’s extreme winter weather in Texas that caused 4 million people to go without power for days. Texans – and its power grid – were unprepared for freezing temperatures and heavy snowfall, leaving many stranded and helpless without power and water.
The CDC blog, which was originally posted in 2011, received 1,450 comments, most of which praised the agency for its creative approach to disaster preparedness.
“It presents a disaster in a manner that I can actually entice my family into discussion; and it will provide some assistance for any potential disaster as well,” wrote commenter Shelabella.
While I have yet to meet a zombie, I have been through a couple of power outages,” another comment read.
Disaster experts seem to agree about the effectiveness of this campaign.
“I think it’s great,” John Sellick, a professor in the Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, told Yahoo Life. “As we’ve seen with coronavirus, disaster preparedness is crucial.”
“Following the release of the Pfizer documents, it’s now confirmed that 1,223 people died within the first 28 days after being inoculated with the BioNTech Pfizer vaccine during trials — and it was still approved for use … If you want to read the documents yourself, you can do so by clicking here.
Far from being ‘safe and effective,’ Pfizer’s documents prove otherwise: the BioNTech Pfizer vaccine is perhaps the most ineffectual, dangerous ‘vaccine’ ever brought to market.
Besides slaughtering over 1,000 people in under a month, trials also produced hundreds of potentially fatal side effects, created fertility issues, and were only 12-15 per cent effective at preventing infection overall and subsequently dropped to less than 1 per cent — despite health officials claiming it would be over 90 per cent effective. They were lying … However, this should come as no surprise as Project Veritas previously caught Pfizer scientists admitting that natural immunity is ‘probably better than vaccination.’
The following is a condensed list of side effects found during Pfizer’s vaccine trials:
Myocarditis and other serious heart problems; liver failure; blood clotting; acute interstitial pneumonitis; a whole host of auto-immune disorders; various musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders; gastrointestinal disorders; diabetes; herpes; thyroid disorders; several neurological conditions, including multiple sclerosis; blindness; seizures; epilepsy; narcolepsy; eczema; blisters; asthma; fertility problems; inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn’s disease; and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.”
The Truth Hurts News Share blog 