Covid Government Regulation Supply Chain

Dec. 5, 2021

This week we look at the first Pfizer document dump from FDA; the Omnicron panic; Australian Covid concentration camps; new warnings from the U.K. on the vaccines and heart problems; international human rights laws and vaccine mandates; the misdeeds of the “Uniparty”; our emerging 2-tiered justice system; and supply-chain deceptions.

Covid Updates:

The group Public Health and Medical Professionals  for Transparency (PHMP) sued the FDA for the release of all documentation used to evaluate and approve the Pfizer vaccine.  While FDA fought the release of any data, the court ruled that FDA had to comply with PHMP’s FOIA request.  For its’ part, FDA asked the judge to give them 55 years to release all of the data, stating they could only release 500 pages per month.  PHMP’s legal counsel countered with a motion to force the FDA to expedite the FOIA request and release all documents by March 3, 2022, stating in part:

This 108-day period is the same amount of time it took the FDA to review the responsive documents for the far more intricate task of licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine…It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse

After FDA released the first 500 pages (available for download on the PHMP’s website), several issues of concern were noted that are partially summarized in the table below (note pink are “serious” and blue “non-serious”):

Some highlights from just the first 90 days after EUA release:

  • 1,223 deaths
  • 158,893 adverse reactions
  • 25,957 nervous system issues
  • The possibility of “Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-associated Enhanced Respiratory Disease (VAERD)”

With respect to VAED/VAERD:

VAED may present as severe or unusual clinical manifestations of COVID-19. Overall, there were 37 subjects with suspected COVID-19 and 101 subjects with confirmed COVID-19 following one or both doses of the vaccine; 75 of the 101 cases were severe, resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences or death. None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED/VAERD.  In this review of subjects with COVID-19 following vaccination, based on the current evidence, VAED/VAERD remains a theoretical risk for the vaccine. Surveillance will continue.

What is VAED?

Vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) are modified presentations of clinical infections affecting individuals exposed to a wild-type pathogen after having received a prior vaccination for the same pathogen
Munoz et al, February 2022

In other words – in some individuals, receiving a vaccine may cause those vaccinated to become more seriously ill from exposure to the pathogen than they would have had they not been vaccinated.

The Omicron variant is with us, and although it is so far proving to produce mild cases with a low chance of reinfection, world leaders are reacting with new draconian lockdowns, testing requirements, and other overreaching restrictions.  Dr. Peter McCullough discusses Omicron and offers some advice on how to protect yourself from hospitalization and death:

The Biden Administration has threatened (but not yet implemented) to force travelers to the U.S. (including citizens) to quarantine for 7 days, even if they test negative.

Dr Aseem Malhotra, a consulting cardiologist with the U.K.’s NHS, is warning that he has been advised by doctors and researchers that they are seeing serious cardiovascular complications from the vaccines.  However, those doctors are afraid to publish their findings for fear of losing funding:

In Germany, news anchors are wantonly demonizing the unvaccinated and calling for their isolation from society:

German pathology professors, Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang, have performed autopsies on 10 people who died after taking the Covid vaccine.  Burkhardt and Lang found lymphocytic myocarditis (an autoimmune related cause of heart inflammation), as well as:

(a) reduction in immune capacity, acceleration of cancer growth, vascular damage ‘endothelitis’, vasculitis, perivasculitis and erythrocyte ‘clumping’


Presented below is a first-hand account of a young Australian woman who was forcibly interned in a “quarantine camp” for being “exposed” to someone with Covid (although she tested negative herself).  Unfortunately for her, this was not her first rodeo:

Do Mandates Violate Human Rights Laws?

There is a debate raging on social media and in the press about whether or not vaccine mandates violate the Nuremberg Code and/or the U.N.’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR).  Pro-mandate and “fact-checking” sources claim that the Nuremberg Code applies only to “experimental” medical procedures or treatments, and argue that the vaccines are not experimental in nature.  They also attack claimed violations of UDBHR using Article #27 of that document.

Vaccine-skeptics often mistakenly switch the two separate codes when making their case (citing UDBHR language as Nuremberg and vice versa), thereby giving their critics ammunition to discredit them.

First a couple of fundamental passages from both documents are necessary.  One of the most oft-cited portions of Nuremberg includes the following statement:

…the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision

— Nuremberg Code, Section #1

Next let’s look at the UDBHR:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice

— UDBHR, Article #6

Now let’s look at UDBHR Article #27:

If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law

— UDBHR, Article #27

Finally UDBHR Article #28

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity

— UDBHR, Article #28

I have attempted to sort this out, and I have arrived at an opinion.  From what I can determine, I believe that vaccine mandates in the U.S. constitute a violation of both Nuremberg and UDBHR.  Here’s why:

  • Contrary to popular belief, at the time the vaccine mandate was issued in the U.S. the Pfizer vaccine was legally NOT FDA approved.  The approval was in fact for another drug made by Pfizer called “Comirnaty”.  This is another hot topic for another post, but I am satisfied (after much work) that the original Pfizer shot was not legally approved by FDA.  There has been no shortage of double talk on this, from claims of “it’s just a brand name” to “there are no substantive differences”, but it’s all doublethink.
  •  If the Pfizer shot is not FDA approved, it is experimental, and thus, the mandate would be in clear violation of the Nuremberg Code until such time as the Comirnaty formulation is available.
  • The Moderna and J&J jabs are still operating under an EUA, and thus, are experimental.  Therefore including them in the mandate is a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
  • Apart from Nuremberg, the mandate would also seem to violate UDBHR Article #6, which is NOT limited “experimental” treatments.
  • Critics of my position might point to Article #27 above.  But I would point them back to Article #28. I think that denying a person the right to work in their chosen vocation; restricting their access to healthcare; and denying them statutory benefits such as unemployment, medicare, etc. due to their refusal to vax, does indeed violate Article #28 and certainly the “spirt” of Article #6.

I’m not a chicken, so here’s a link to what “bioethicists” think of this position.  Make up your own mind on this, but here are a couple of observations on the pro-mandate arguments against Nuremberg and UDBHR:

  • Notice in the link above, they quote Article #6, but truncate the quote.  Specifically this bit:  “The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice
  • Much time is spent parsing the meaning and types of “consent”. But I would point out that given the fact that FDA wants 55 years to release information on the “approved” Pfizer vaccine, it is impossible to have an independent and impartial evaluation of these data, thus, making the rendering of any sort of informed consent, impossible.
  • Another argument made by the “bioethicists” is that you don’t have the right to informed consent if you “pose a risk to others”.  I would first observe that the data clearly show that vaccinated individuals can spread Covid to others as easily as the unvaccinated. So vaccination does not change the risk profile for “spread”.  Moreover, they cite “principles of bioethics” – this is a philosophical, not a legal standard and has no legal standing on its’ own.

Consider the case of Bobby B0lin of Texas.  Bolin had recovered from Covid and needed a lung transplant because he suffered from COPA Syndrome.  Because government health authorities do not recognize naturally immunity, Bolin was forced into being double jabbed with Moderna, despite having serious lung issues.  He died after the second jab from a pulmonary embolism and heart issues.  Mr. Bolin was placed in an untenable position of having to choose between death by vax, or death by COPA.  Would “bioethicists” approve?  Probably.

Misdeeds of the Uniparty:

Are you an American who is upset with the policies of the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden?  Do you believe that the “opposition” Republicans will save you?  Well, consider that 80 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in favor of a bill that would establish a national vaccine database.  The Federal government will be able to track everyone’s vax status, including boosters.  What could possibly go wrong?

2-Tiered Justice:

First, let’s look at the definition of the Rule of Law:

Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

  • Publicly promulgated
  • Equally enforced
  • Independently adjudicated
  • And consistent with international human rights principles.

So you might be wondering how it is that the NIAD Director or a U.S. Attorney General can commit serious felonies, and yet not only escape punishment, but even a trial?  If any of us were to engage in arms trafficking with drug cartels, or create a deadly virus with taxpayer money and then lie to Congress about it, we would expect to be in a great deal of trouble, no?

This special “privilege” is now being extended to some ordinary folks on account of “systemic racism” and the need for “equity“.

The impact of being jailed before trial can be lasting and severe: in addition to job loss, disruption in benefits like health insurance, and debt creation from being unable to work, it also increases your chances of pleading guilty and receiving a harsher sentence. Because low-income people and people of color are arrested and jailed at disproportionate rates, the consequences are felt even more deeply in these communities

This may be why the Wauesha Christmas Parade massacrer, Darrell Brooks, was released on a paltry $1,000 cash bail after he beat and ran over his girlfriend with his SUV – the same SUV he would use in just a couple of weeks to mow-down dozens and kill 6. It’s worth noting that Brooks was already out on bail (when he was released on bail, again) for shooting two people.  He also had an outstanding warrant in Nevada for committing a sex crime.  But hey, we wouldn’t want him to be “impacted” by being kept out of civilized society.  So now 6 people are dead and dozens are injured but…equity!

Supply Chain Sleight of Hand:

The Biden Administration is crowing that they’ve “solved” the shipping backlog at the ports of L.A./Long Beach.  But it turns out, all they’ve actually done is move hundreds of ships out 150 miles from port – out of sight, out of mind.  My favorite mariner, Sal Mercogliano explains with maps!

Parting Thoughts:

The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.
–Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.