Citizens News // 2022-03-01 Mastodon
Another article is too hot to handle; even vaccine critics won't run with it.
A few days ago — in my article The Test for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, I republished my proof that the medical cartel has been routinely killing millions of people, with its treatments, for at least the past 20 years. (Article by Jon Rappoport republished from Blog.NoMoreFakeNews.com)
And when I say proof, I’m talking about clear mainstream research. Virtually no one has taken those research citations and run with them, despite the fact that I’ve highlighted them for years. I’ve highlighted them in articles and interviews. What’s the problem? Apparently, even many “alternative” journalists and doctors are keeping a piece of their souls in the official prison of fake medicine and fake science. On purpose. They want to hedge their bets. They want to go halfway, but not all the way. They want to admit some things, but not other things. So today, I’m posting another one of my “too hot to handle” pieces.
I’ve published this article at least four times. Even doctors who oppose the COVID vaccines won’t pick up on it. Why? It’s too REAL because it proves the RNA injections were DESIGNED to fail, to be useless, from the get-go. That’s right. And if you expose THAT, you burn the whole house down. The vaccine establishment collapses. No one will believe anything the establishment says about vaccines. Nor should they. And many journalists and doctors of all stripes want to “protect the public” from THE TRUTH. I don’t want to bury the truth. I’m not settling for half.
Buckle up— I wrote and posted this piece while the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine were in progress. It reveals how and why those trials were constructed and designed to fail. They did fail. The vaccine makers DESIGNED a series of clinical trials that, even on their own terms (“the virus is real, fear the virus”) were destined to be a complete flop. PART ONE Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.
They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials. September 22, 2020, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know” (also, here): “If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the mildest form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?” “The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.” “But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”
“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”
BOOM. THE CLINICAL TRIALS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO SHOW THE VACCINE COULD PREVENT SERIOUS ILLNESS. OR HOSPITALIZATION. OR DEATH.
The Times: “To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.” BOOM. This means these clinical trials are dead in the water. And I could stop this article right here and walk away. Done. Finished. Nothing more needs to be said. And you the reader could walk away. OK, done. The clinical trials of the vaccine were never intended to prevent serious illness of any kind. Never intended to prevent hospitalizations or deaths. End of story. Goodbye. Forget the vaccine. Why would anyone want to take it? But if you want to know WHY the clinical trials were designed this way, HOW the con was played, and why it was actually necessary to design the clinical trials to be useless, read on.
The whole vaccine house is ALREADY burned down, but I’m going to say a lot more. I’m going to burn the ashes. First of all, make sure you understand the clinical trials of the RNA vaccines were only designed to show effectiveness in preventing “mild cases of COVID,” which nobody should care about because mild cases (cough, fever, chills) naturally run their course and cause no harm.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.
Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments. “The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…” Now pay close attention. Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 mild COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups— those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine.
How would that happen? The researchers believe “the coronavirus is spreading everywhere” and it will pounce on some of the volunteers during the clinical trial. Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19 (cough, chills, fever), and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID. The vaccine companies would say, “We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win emergency authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.” The outcomes for ONLY 150 people equal “let’s shoot up to seven billion people.” That’s staggering. But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined?
The authors of the Times piece have the answer: “In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.” But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by labs, is too sensitive. It registers “positive for COVID” when it shouldn’t. So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that “150 people developed COVID-19” is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical.
On the one hand, a positive PCR test is unreliable and means nothing. On the other hand, a cough and fever (“mild COVID”) is nothing to worry about, and don’t require a vaccine at all. We’re talking about 150 cases of “who cares.” That’s what the COVID vaccine is DESIGNED to prevent. “So, Doctor, the magic number is 150 ‘who cares’ mild cases? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?” “Of course.” “And these 150 people, who you say develop mild COVID-19…no one should care, because those symptoms cure themselves, and no vaccine is needed.” “Correct.” “And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from mild COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.” “Yes, that’s right.” “But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.” “Indeed.” “Why?” “I have to be confident.
If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit. And we’ll wind up in prison.” Read more at: Blog.NoMoreFakeNews.com
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified