Connect with us

Government

“Your Injections Are Killing Our Young People” – Pfizer, Moderna Reps Slammed During Heated Aussie Senate Hearing

"Your Injections Are Killing Our Young People" – Pfizer, Moderna Reps Slammed During Heated Aussie Senate Hearing

Authored by Debra Heine…

Published

7 months ago

on

"Your Injections Are Killing Our Young People" - Pfizer, Moderna Reps Slammed During Heated Aussie Senate Hearing

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

Sparks flew during a contentious public hearing in the Australian Parliament earlier this week as Representatives from Pfizer and Moderna gave unsatisfactory answers to multiple lawmakers’ questions.

The Australian Senate’s ‘Education and Employment Legislation Committee’  held a hearing Wednesday regarding the status of the COVID-19 vaccines, which included witnesses from Pfizer Australia, Moderna, and the Australia’s Theraputic Goods Administration (TGA).

Conservative lawmakers were outraged that at least half of all Australians got COVID after the country imposed some of the most draconian lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the world.

During the hearing, a Pfizer representative insisted that no one was forced to get the risky COVID-19 jabs in Australia, despite the county’s strict mandates.

Senator Pauline Hanson confronted Dr. Brian Hewitt, Pfizer Australia’s Head of Regulatory Sciences, about a comment he had made earlier in the hearing regarding the country’s vaccine mandates.

“You actually made a comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination,” Hanson said,  after initially attributing the comment to his colleague Dr. Krishan Thiru, Pfizer Australia’s Country Medical Director.

“You were in Australia during COVID-19 … you must have been fully aware that people—nurses, doctors, people—to keep their jobs, were forced to have the vaccination,” she said.

“Now, do you retract your statement that they were not forced?”

“Senator, no, I believe firmly that no one was forced to have a vaccine,” Hewitt responded.

“Mandates and vaccine requirements are determined by governments and health authorities. I believe everyone was offered an opportunity to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine and I don’t believe that anybody was forced to take the vaccine.”

“A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one,” Hanson shot back.

Senator Alex Antic had cited statistics showing that cases of Myocarditis spiked precipitously in South Australia following introduction of the COVID injections.

“Now, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are two heart inflammation conditions well associated with the COVID mRNA injections—even the Theraputic Goods Administration admits to that, Antic began.

“Yet despite this well-established fact, the injections were mandated to thousands of Australians and speaking out about these incursions on freedom got one labeled an anti-vaxxer or a peddler of dangerous disinformation,” the senator continued.

Antic cited data he obtained through a Freedom of Information request from the South Australia Health Department that tracked cardiac related presentations in 15-year-olds to 44-year-olds going back to 2018.

The senator showed a chart indicating that the numbers remained steady at 1,100 a month from January 2018 until July of 2021 when it “drastically spiked.” By November of 2021, he said, the number of cases peaked at  2,172 per month, almost double the norm. The rise in cases, he noted, took place “just as these injections were rolled out.”

Antic noted that there was another spike in cardiac related presentations in February of 2023, “just when the boosters were being mandated.”

“These injections are harming, and in many cases, killing our young people,” Antic declared. “So what does SA Health have to say about this? Nothing. They continue to roll out the injections. They continue to push the injection narrative. This injection campaign is going to go down as the greatest scandal in medical history and none of you said a single thing.”

During the hearing, one of the Pfizer representatives admitted that during the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer employees received a different shot than the general public.

“Your vaccine mandate was using your own batch of vaccine especially imported for Pfizer and not tested by the TGA?” conservative Senator Malcolm Roberts asked Dr. Hewitt.

“Pfizer undertook to import Pfizer vaccines specifically for the employee vaccination program and that was so that no vaccine would be taken from government stocks that were being delivered to clinics as needed,”  Dr. Hewitt replied,  in answer to a senator’s question.

“What we’ve seen during the COVID mismanagement and malfeasance was the largest transfer of wealth in our nation’s history from We the People to Big Pharma via Big Government that lied repeatedly during the COVID mismanagement,” Roberts said.

Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick,  a member of the Liberal National Party, on Wednesday as asked the doctors whether they could explain how Pfizer’s mRNA COVID injections were causing heart disease.

As Antic had noted, even Australia’s Theraputic Goods Administration had confirmed the link between COVID vaccines and heart diseases such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

“Can you explain the process, why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis?” Sen. Rennick asked.

Dr. Thiru began by expressing his “confidence in the safety profile” of the vaccine, but was cut off by Sen. Rennick when it became apparent that the doctor was filibustering.

Calling for a point of order, he again asked the Pfizer doctors, “Do you understand why [Pfizer’s vaccine] causes myocarditis? I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis.”

Dr. Thiru said that Pfizer is “aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with the vaccine,” before being interrupted again by Rennick to answer the question.

In response, Thiru again referred to the “small” number of reports around the world linking myocarditis to the Pfizer jab, before being interrupted for a third time by Rennick.

“I’m not referring to the number of reports,” the Queensland senator pressed.

“I want you to explain to me the mechanism of how the vaccine causes myocarditis. Do you or do you not understand the mechanism of why the vaccine causes myocarditis?”

“It looks to me like you don’t. And if you don’t understand it, why are you saying the vaccine is safe without qualifying the risks?” he asked.

The committee chair directed Dr. Thiru to “get to” Sen. Rennick’s question, but the Pfizer doctor insisted on talking about the mRNA product’s benefit-risk ratio, which he indicated was excellent.

Rennick tried one last time to get a straight answer from the Pfizer doc.

“The question that I asked was can you explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis. Yes or no?” he asked.

After Thiru tried to deflect one more time by citing the jabs’ allegedly  justifiable benefit-risk ratio, Rennick gave up.

“You clearly don’t understand the pathway, do you? Because you can’t explain it,” the senator said.

Thiru said he would have to “come back” to the committee with “whatever information we can provide” on the mechanism of how the vaccine causes myocarditis.

Sen. Antic was similarly frustrated when he asked the doctors from Moderna to provide data on the rates of serious adverse events, which a recent medical journal report showed was occurring in one of 800 vax recipients.

He asked the Moderna representatives how their own internal adverse reaction numbers compared with that study.

Dr. Chris Clarke, Moderna’s Director, Scientific Leadership, told Antic that he had not seen the report.

“Do you think you should be aware of that?” Antic pressed. “This has been widely reported. You are a manufacturer of vaccines. I find it difficult to think that you wouldn’t be aware of this report.”

“You can’t tell me the rates of serious adverse events. You realize you’ve come to a Senate hearing today for the purposes of exactly that question. And you can’t tell me the rates of serious adverse reactions to your product, which I find extraordinary,” he said.

When Antic asked Clarke what Moderna’s overall rate of serious vaccine injury was for its COVID product, the doctor admitted that he doesn’t know “the actual rates of adverse events.”

“You don’t have the rates of adverse events in front of you?” Antic asked incredulously.

“What I can tell you is that the rates of serious adverse events in our very large, randomized control trial was actually in a similar range to what was observed in the placebo.”

“But you can’t tell me the rates of serious adverse events. You realize you came to a Senate hearing today for the purposes of exactly that question. And you can’t tell me the rates of serious adverse reactions to your product—which I find extraordinary,” Antic said.

What I can tell you is this: On the TGA website, it reports um that there are 1.2 reports that err..”

“That’s the TGA. I’m not asking about the TGA, I’m asking about Moderna,” Antic interjected.

“You must have information. You are a multi-national company. You are before a senate enquiry and you cannot tell me the rates the serious adverse.. I mean, it’s quite extraordinary what you’re telling me.”

Clarke again claimed that Moderna’s trials showed no safety concerns and “no imbalance of serious adverse events of special interest or deaths between the vaccine group and the placebo group.”

“I think we’re wasting our time here,” Antic responded in disgust.

Dr. Thiru also refused to give a straight answer to Sen. Matthew Canavan, when he was asked if Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine prior to the rollout to see if it stopped or reduced transmission of the disease.

The Republican-led U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has not yet called any witnesses from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, the CDC, FDA, Anthony Fauci, or Francis Collins to appear before the committee and has shown no interest in investigating the fraud that allegedly took place in the COVID vax clinical trials.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/05/2023 - 18:30

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 10, 2024

By

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 9, 2024

By

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 9, 2024

By

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

“The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

“By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

“This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending