They’ve been priming sheeple for scamdemics for ages, as we’ve shown before and we will show again

Huffpost article

American Journal of Public Health Study

British Medical Journal – “Are U.S. flu death figures more PR than science?” 

Huffpost also links to a very interesting piece that I want to save here, “just in case”:

Vaccine fevers

Americans are being told that a manufacturing problem in a U.K. pharmaceutical plant has led to the U.S. shortage of flu vaccines. Americans aren’t being told (and we aren’t either) that the real manufacturer at fault is a U.S. government agency, the Centers for Disease Control, along with the World Health Organization and other vaccinate-anything-that-moves ideologues that have fabricated a phony crisis over the flu vaccine.

October 24, 2004

“Epidemics of influenza typically occur during the winter months and are responsible for an average of approximately 20,000 deaths,” the CDC stated in 2002. That number mutated to “36,000 flu-related deaths” in November, 2003, and by December a gathering of public health officials warned that the toll could reach 70,000 this year.

In concert with the ramp-up in death statistics, the government-steered vaccination industry has run an elaborate bureaucracy designed to hype vaccine use, as seen in a slide show presentation last April by Glen Nowak, the CDC’s spokesman for the National Immunization Program, to the American Medical Association. Here is the “Recipe that fosters influenza vaccine interest and demand,” in the truncated language that appears on his slides: “Medical experts and public health authorities [should] publicly (e.g. via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) – and urge influenza vaccination.” This “recipe,” the slide show indicated, would result in “A. Significant media interest and attention [and] B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behaviour (e.g. as ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe than last or past years,’ ‘deadly’).” Other aspects of the CDC’s “Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination” includes “Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people – helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.” and “Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce).”

This motivational slide show was designed to push the bounds of the vaccinated. Where once only at-risk populations were targeted – chiefly the elderly – the vac-crats now aspire to vaccinate the healthy. In the 2002-2003 flu season, the last for which the CDC has reliable numbers, almost 21 million healthy Americans between the ages of two and 64 were vaccinated. The unabashed goal of the vaccination ideologues is universal vaccination, starting with the universal vaccination of children. Because vaccinations in the United States, as in Canada, are generally a pre-condition of admittance into the school system, children make easy prey for the vaccine totalitarians. The U.S. government, in fact, spends more than US$1-billion a year – 55% of the entire childhood vaccine market – to purchase childhood vaccines for poor and uninsured children.

But doesn’t all this vaccinating save countless lives at virtually no risk? In truth, no one knows, because the studies haven’t been done, even in the case of highly sensitive childhood vaccinations. During the last flu season, for example, the CDC received reports of 152 flu deaths among children. Is this high or is this low?

“The answer to this question is not known,” the CDC stated. “Because the number of influenza deaths in children has not been tracked before, it’s not possible to compare the number of deaths in children this year with previous years.”

As for evidence of the efficacy of flu vaccinations in the general population, again, the CDC is operating in the dark. When asked last year if annual follow-ups were performed to determine if the vaccine was effective, the CDC’s Nancy Cox, chief of its influenza branch, admitted, “There is no systematic follow-up to see, to document whether the general population who receives a flu vaccine is infected by a flu virus, because it’s an impossible task. I mean, we have 80 million doses or 70 million doses given and it would be impossible to follow up.” To add to the futility of even trying, Dr. Cox explained that most cases of flu-like illnesses – about 80% – in fact are caused by “many other pathogens.”

The bottom line on the medical benefit of flu shots for healthy people? No one knows. The benefit is entirely a matter of faith among the true believers in the vaccination bureaucracy. The bottom line on the medical harm caused by flu vaccines? Again, no one knows. Various studies do raise concerns, however. One year ago, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences found weak evidence that the flu vaccine triggers neurological disorders, and the IOM’s immunization safety review committee also found that other studies, based on poor data and poor methodologies, do not give vaccines a clean bill of health. Said the committee’s chairman: “The possibility that neurological disorders might be related to vaccines must be given serious consideration.”

New flu vaccines, such as those made from live viruses, pose new types of risks since the vaccines themselves could become unintended disseminators of the flu. Because some 80% of recipients of this type of vaccine shed it to the environment, doctors are advised to avoid prescribing it to those in close contact with at-risk populations, such as those who have compromised immune systems.

The biggest risk of all from flu vaccines, however, may come from weakening the human body’s natural defences. If children are inoculated against the flu as babies, they will never develop the strong, natural immunities they will need to fend off new strains, making them dependent on the vaccine industry’s ability to stay ahead of ever-mutating viruses. Last year’s experience with the dreaded A/Fujian flu provides a chilling scenario. When a vaccine for this flu proved difficult to mass-produce in time for the annual flu season, the World Health Organization, under pressure to do something, gave labs around the world the go-ahead to produce an alternate vaccine, for a different strain of flu, likely to be of little value. As expected, the vaccine proved to have almost no value, although the countless people around the world who lined up for it didn’t know that at the time. Fortunately, people had natural defenses, which are far more potent and longer-lived than vaccines, to protect them. In future, a population vaccinated from the cradle that had never fought off the flu on its own could be highly vulnerable.

Without the international medical bureaucracy that now controls the vaccine industry and annually whips up public fears, sometimes to the point of public panic, the demand for vaccines would fall to a fraction of current levels. Without other government intervention – everything from industry subsidies to an unhealthy bias in what research government will and will not fund – vaccine safety would be improved, the science would not be dominated by ideologues tilting toward universal vaccination and the demand for flu vaccines would fall further still, to more closely correspond to the real, not hyped, public needs. There would be no crisis.

Lawrence Solomon is research director at  Consumer Policy Institute. To contact, e-mail: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

FAST FORWARD TO 2020

I rest my case

BONUS:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We found a contractual clause between governments and Covid jabs manufacturers that may end the pandemic no later than this summer.

A question from Sky News, we know better because we can critically analyze their reports better than they do

We’ve just learned that AstraZeneca (and likely other vaccine manufacturers) can’t properly milk their new cash cow before the pandemic is over. Several of the biggest contracts closed so far between governments and vaccine manufacturers stipulate that profits won’t be paid before the pandemic is officially declared over.

AstraZeneca, which has promised not to profit from its Covid-19 vaccine “during the pandemic”, has the right to declare an end to the pandemic as soon as July next year, according to a document seen by the Financial Times.

An Oxford University press release confirms:
“A key element of Oxford’s partnership with AstraZeneca is the joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries. “

Also, according to Sky News Australia, “AstraZeneca has committed that the vaccine will be made on a not-for-profit basis as long as COVID-19 is classified as a pandemic, and will remain so when sold to developing nations.
Should the disease recede and the vaccine become an annual defence against COVID-19 sold at a profit, Professor Gilbert, her close colleagues, the university, and a range of private and corporate investors – including Google’s parent company Alphabet – all stand to benefit.”

Note that AstraZeneca is a member of the World Economic Forum (think The Great Reset), same as Pfizer, Moderna and J&J, and Google is a shareholder, so they have amassed more support than a country can raise.

These claims are also supported by their main partners in AstraZeneca, Oxford Science Innovation, who says:
“In the interest of accelerating global vaccine development, Vaccitech assigned its rights to the vaccine candidate to Oxford University Innovation, to facilitate the licence of those rights to AstraZeneca for the development and manufacture of the vaccine. None of the parties will profit from vaccine sales during the pandemic.
Vaccitech is backed by leading investment institutions, including GV (formerly Google Ventures), Sequoia Capital China, Liontrust (formerly Neptune), Korea Investment Partners and Oxford Sciences Innovation.”

So Google is a Pharmafia giant who also controls the media and can censor any inconvenient report on its services and products

The problem is that the propaganda and the fear porn didn’t work as they hoped (nothing does when you’re as deranged as they are) and the governments are way behind the schedule with inoculations and other related affairs, hence the prolonged lockdowns in some parts of the world. If they open in summer, they will lose even more customers and they can’t use the emergency situation excuse to inject people with hazardous untested chemicals like these mRNA jabs.


This is what obliges Google and the Gang to ramp up censorship and propaganda.
So now Pharmafia insiders (lower level salesmen) inform us that the powers behind these covid jabs are pressuring governments to end the pandemic and start the payments. But that’s hardly achievable and politicians find themselves between a rock and a hard place.


We’ve said before that this state of emergency has no end in sight because it’s a necessary condition for injecting experimental garbage into the gullible masses. It was mostly true but we’ve already corrected that statement because this new revelation might just bring that end.


Some governments may be able to win a few extra-months, but it’s very likely that many will not have that power and will do whatever stunt necessary to please their Pharmafia overlords.

This is how you may explain the unexplainable recent plunge in case stats too.
As we showed before, they have a knob that can control the stats: the PCR test cycle threshold. The higher, the more positive results.
As the pandemic was scheduled to ease and the covid business to normalize after Biden/WEF’s hostile takeover of US Government, WHO ordered lowering the threshold precisely on Biden’s inauguration day and these are the immediate results. Which also proves how they pumped up the numbers before.

Financial Times goes into details:
<<While some companies said from the outset they can only develop the vaccine for profit, others, such as AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, have agreed to provide doses on a cost basis for at least as long as the pandemic lasts.
The memorandum of understanding, seen by the FT, outlines the conditions of a deal signed in July between AstraZeneca and Fiocruz, a Brazilian public health institution, to produce at least 100m vaccine doses, worth more than $300m.The document states that for the purposes of the MoU and the “Definitive Agreements” the pandemic will be considered over on July 1, 2021. The so-called “Pandemic Period” could be extended but only if “AstraZeneca acting in good faith considers that the SARS-COV-2 pandemic is not over”, it says. 

Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca’s chief executive, has previously said that a number of factors would influence the company’s assessment of when the pandemic is over, including the World Health Organisation’s own analysis, but has not been more specific. He has also declined to disclose a post-pandemic price point.
The WHO declared the current outbreak a pandemic in March. More than 1m have died and cases globally show no sign of tapering. Even optimistic forecasts predict an approved vaccine is unlikely to be widely available for public vaccination campaigns before the middle of next year.
AstraZeneca declined to answer specific questions regarding its definition of the “Pandemic Period” or the Fiocruz agreement.
“From the outset, AstraZeneca’s approach has been to treat the development of the vaccine as a response to a global public health emergency, not a commercial opportunity,” the company said in a statement. “We continue to operate in that public spirit and we will seek expert guidance, including from global organizations, as to when we can say that the pandemic is behind us.”
Oxford university also declined to respond to specific questions. “The terms of our agreement are confidential but uphold Oxford’s commitment to fair and equitable access to the vaccine for the duration of the pandemic should it prove to be effective in our global phase 3 clinical trials,” the university said.
Public health experts say many of the vaccine deals, including those involving AstraZeneca, are shrouded in secrecy, offering little room for scrutiny.

Manuel Martin, medical innovation and access policy adviser at Médecins Sans Frontières, said the terms of the Fiocruz MoU gave AstraZeneca “an unacceptable level of control over a vaccine developed through public funds”. “Relying on voluntary measures by pharmaceutical corporations to ensure access is a mistake with fatal consequences,” he said.
AstraZeneca has received large amounts of public money to develop its vaccine and secure forward orders, including at least $1bn from the US. Supply deals to date indicate that the vaccine, which requires two doses, is priced at about $3 to $4 per dose, lower than the prices disclosed or reported for other potential vaccines.
Ellen Hoen, director of Medicines Law & Policy, a non-profit campaigning for greater access to medicines, said more transparency was needed.
“Despite all the talk about the Covid-19 vaccine needing to be a ‘global public good’ by political leaders who spend billions on Covid-19 R&D, it seems that it is the drug companies that determine, in secret deals, who will get access to the vaccine and when,” she said.>>

If this trend keeps going on a bit longer, it very likely means that they are staying on the course and many countries will officially end the pandemic starting June/July.

And that will force them do more stupid stunts we can’t wait to expose.
They already are stumbling at all levels, from production and distribution to research. Last minute news from Financial Times inform that “Scientists are demanding to know why AstraZeneca’s paused trial of its Covid-19 vaccine is still on hold in the US while it has been restarted elsewhere, worrying it could damage public trust there. The trial was originally halted because a UK participant developed a serious inflammatory condition. In the US, it has been on hold for almost two weeks, while trials in other countries including the UK have restarted.
Ashish Jha, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, said: “Normally, companies wouldn’t give out information in the middle of a trial, but this is an exceptional case and we need to have radical transparency. Otherwise, there is a risk the public will lose confidence in the whole process.”
AstraZeneca is telling participants in resumed trials that the “unexplained neurological symptoms” were either unlikely to be associated with the vaccine or that there was “insufficient evidence” to say whether they were or were not associated, and so independent reviewers had recommended that vaccinations continue. Clinical trials do not usually publish data before hitting pre-determined milestones.”

LAST MINUTE UPDATE: This came in hours after we published this. Ah, well…

Source

As a side note: watch the video from the above source and everything featuring Fauci this year and tell me he didn’t have better energy and mood during Trump’s mandate. I blame that on the fact that Trump was the best pro-vaccine campaigner they had and now that he’s gone from the screens, they’re in shambles. But that’s just me.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

CLICK

With one exception, everything YouTube banned from us was good and meaningful information that’s never been debunked, or legit skepticism and inquiry. This interview should be no exception.
Besides the shocking “coincidences” with current events.

They deleted it before I even had the chance to edit the title 😀

The full text of my appeal to YouTube’s ban:

We all know you have no competence, capability, grounds or rights to do what you are claiming to do, and, in fact, you’re deleting stuff because it exposes your own business. But an YouTube ban brings me more traffic than I lose on your crappy narrative-enforcement machine, so keep up the great work! 😉

Also available on our Odysee channel

January 2014 interview with Anthony Patch, founder of Entangled Magazine an insightful and revelatory digital publication focused on current advances and pronouncements in: Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cryptocurrencies/Blockchain, Quantum Mechanics, DNA/RNA Modification.

His YouTube channel has also been deleted, but he’s active on Bitchute.

I can’t vouch for some of the things he (or anyone) is saying on his channel, but smart people have a lot to learn from what he puts out.
Other than that, see our motto in the website header 😉

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

One of the most important truths that are obfuscated by Pharmafia’s propaganda machine: not only vaccine safety is very poorly studied, but there has been done precisely 0 (zero) research on the cumulative and synergetic effect of all the shots in the various vaccine schedules enforced by governments around the world.
Meaning that we know jack-shizzle about their combined effect.
Here’s an example of how that plays out against vaccines and serial dupes.

Serial Vaccination and the Antigenic Distance Hypothesis: Effects on Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness During A(H3N2) Epidemics in Canada, 2010–2011 to 2014–2015 

Danuta M. SkowronskiCatharine ChambersGaston De SerresSuzana SabaiducAnne-Luise WinterJames A. DickinsonJonathan B. GubbayKevin FonsecaSteven J. DrewsHugues CharestChristine MartineauMel KrajdenMartin PetricNathalie BastienYan LiDerek J. SmithAuthor NotesThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 215, Issue 7, 1 April 2017, Pages 1059–1099, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jix074

Published: 09 February 2017 Article history

Abstract

Background.

The antigenic distance hypothesis (ADH) predicts that negative interference from prior season’s influenza vaccine (v1) on the current season’s vaccine (v2) protection may occur when the antigenic distance is small between v1 and v2 (v1 ≈ v2) but large between v1 and the current epidemic (e) strain (v1 ≠ e).Methods.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3N2) illness was estimated by test-negative design during 3 A(H3N2) epidemics (2010–2011, 2012–2013, 2014–2015) in Canada. Vaccine effectiveness was derived with covariate adjustment across v2 and/or v1 categories relative to no vaccine receipt among outpatients aged ≥9 years. Prior vaccination effects were interpreted within the ADH framework.Results.

Prior vaccination effects varied significantly by season, consistent with the ADH. There was no interference by v1 in 2010–2011 when v1 ≠ v2 and v1 ≠ e, with comparable VE for v2 alone or v2 + v1: 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −51% to 71%) versus 34% (95% CI = −5% to 58%). Negative interference by v1 was suggested in 2012–2013 with nonsignificant reduction in VE when v1 ≈ v2 and v1 ≠ e: 49% (95% CI = −47% to 83%) versus 28% (95% CI = −12% to 54%). Negative effects of prior vaccination were pronounced and statistically significant in 2014–2015 when v1 ≡ v2 and v1 ≠ e: 65% (95% CI = 25% to 83%) versus −33% (95% CI = −78% to 1%).Conclusions.

Effects of repeat influenza vaccination were consistent with the ADH and may have contributed to findings of low VE across recent A(H3N2) epidemics since 2010 in Canada.

Read the body of the research on its site if you need, we’re jumping to the final discussion, with our emphasis added. It’s stuff that goes against the new terms and conditions set up by the sellout social media / Big Tech, who are cancelling the science that’s not fitting their narrative

DISCUSSION

Using databases of the Canadian SPSN, we explored the extent to which repeat vaccination effects may have contributed to suboptimal influenza vaccine performance during recent A(H3N2) epidemics in Canada. We interpret our findings within the framework of the ADH, comparing observed effects measured by the TND with predicted patterns based on the antigenic relatedness between prior season’s vaccine (v1), current season’s vaccine (v2), and the circulating epidemic strain (e). This is the first modern attempt to directly correlate AD metrics with epidemiological observations of v1 effects and their overall fit within the ADH paradigm since it was first formulated nearly 2 decades ago.

Across the 3 A(H3N2) epidemics since 2010–2011 in Canada, no adjusted seasonal VE estimate exceeded 40%, even among mostly healthy, working-age adults. Each of these epidemics was associated with a vaccine-mismatched strain (v2e), although variation in VE was not obviously correlated with the AD (or match) between v2 and e. Adjusted VE was highest in 2010–2011 (40%; 95% CI = 9% to 60%), similar in 2012–2013 (31%; 95% CI = −4% to 55%), but dramatically lower in 2014–2015 (−12%; 95% CI = −47% to 15%) despite comparable v2–e ADs ranging 4–6. In the original report of the ADH, Smith et al also highlighted a lack of correlation between VE and the v2e distance in first-time vaccines [15]. Because A(H3N2) epidemics are associated with the greatest influenza disease burden [21], understanding the agent–host factors that contribute to low VE is critical. Our findings suggest that prior vaccination may modify current VE and that this effect may vary by season according to the ADH. Given heterogeneity in the conditions of vaccine–virus relatedness, we should expect v1 effects on current season’s VE to vary by season. Pooling or averaging across seasons may enhance statistical power but at the risk of masking meaningful variation and insights to inform mechanisms and implications; further explorations of prior influenza vaccination effects should stratify results by season and subtype.

During the 3 A(H3N2) epidemics presented here, observed v1 effects included no modification, as well as significant negative interference; we did not observe positive interference (ie, enhanced protection), also possible within the ADH framework but under specific conditions not found during epidemics included here [15]. In 2010–2011, when v1 and v2 were antigenically distinct (v1 ≠ v2), minimal or no interaction was expected or observed. Conversely, with closer but nonhomologous v1 and v2 relatedness in 2012–2013 (v1 ≈ v2), the expected pattern of negative interference was apparent, although, with limited sample size, effect modification was not statistically significant. As anticipated based on the ADH, the negative effects of prior vaccination on the current season’s VE were most pronounced and statistically significant in 2014–2015 with homologous v1 and v2 antigens (v1 ≡ v2) and antigenically distinct circulating epidemic virus relative to v1 (v1 ≠ e).

Although antigenic drift has been widely emphasized to explain the historically low VE in 2014–2015, the AD between v2 and e was not estimated to be dramatically different from recent prior seasons [101122–24]. Conversely, prior vaccination had marked effects, negating the otherwise moderate VE observed among v2-only recipients despite vaccine mismatch. A similar pattern of moderate VE among v2-only recipients, substantially reduced with receipt of the prior season’s homologous vaccine, was also reported for 2014–2015 in multicountry analysis from Europe [11] but not from the United States, where VE against A(H3N2) was negligible in all categories of current and prior vaccine recipients [23]. In the Canadian data, a dramatic increase in the distribution of influenza A(H3N2) cases reporting prior vaccination was observed in 2014–2015 whereas controls showed the expected trajectory of gradual increase, reflecting vaccine coverage trends in the general source population [2526]. In all seasons, vaccination status was based on patient self-report and practitioner documentation before either knew the patient’s case versus control status (ie, influenza test positivity result), minimizing differential recall bias and heightening the plausibility of the observation particular to cases in 2014–2015.

In 2014–2015 in Canada, under the specific conditions of v0 ≈ v1 ≡ v2 ≠ e, serial vaccination was associated with a nearly 50% increased risk of medically attended A(H3N2) illness relative to participants who were consistently unvaccinated. Statistically significant increased risk (OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.17–2.90) of A(H3N2) illness in 2014–2015 was also reported from Italy, where vaccinated participants were also mostly repeat recipients [24]. The 2014–2015 epidemic is the first season in more than a decade of annual VE monitoring for which the Canadian SPSN reported vaccine-associated increased risk, and caution is warranted in its interpretation. However, increased risk was previously reported by multiple studies from Canada and elsewhere during the 2009 A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic in association with prior receipt of mismatched 2008–2009 seasonal vaccine, replicated also in at least 1 randomized controlled study in ferrets [27–31]. Influenza vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD) is a well-recognized phenomenon following heterologous challenge in vaccinated swine, most of whom recover [32]. Although animal experiments may not be directly relevant to human experience, elements of involved mechanistic pathways may overlap and inform biological plausibility.

The ADH is a useful conceptualization but is not amenable to exact extrapolation [15]. The originally published simulations were based on AD between v2 and e set at 2 with variability explored around v1v2 and v1e. Sensitivity analyses explored effects of homologous vaccination ranging up to a v2e distance of 3, but not greater. Emphasis was placed on the prior season’s vaccination; the effects of earlier or multiple prior virus or vaccine exposures were not considered. The ADH predicts relative, but not absolute, VE, and the possibility that serial vaccine receipt might be associated with increased risk under some conditions was not considered, although such signals may have already been evident in the studies by both Hoskins and Keitel under specific conditions of multiple repeat vaccinations and v1v2, and e relatedness [34] (Supplementary Figures 1 and 2). The ADH is predicated on the HI assay, but variability in HI results by assay conditions must be acknowledged [1620]. For example, in 2 of 3 epidemics analyzed here (2010–2011, 2012–2013), Canada’s national influenza reference laboratory characterized all viruses as well-matched to the WHO-recommended v2 reference strain (AD < 3) [893334]. Those characterizations, however, were in relation to the cell-passaged v2 referent (whereas manufacturers use an egg-adapted reassortant), included varying animal-source erythrocytes, and did not include oseltamivir to address neuraminidase (NA)-mediated effects [89]. We based our AD calculations on HI assays standardized for these conditions by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza (London) [19]. Even so, further variability in the mix of variants by setting, the representativeness of selected reference strains, and changes induced by laboratory passaging complicates AD derivation, interpretation, and generalization. Future evaluations and their extrapolation would benefit from the assembly of a standard and definitive library of HI characterizations and ADs between specific egg-passaged vaccine strains and circulating genetic variants each season. The incorporation of modern genomic, bioinformatic mapping and antibody landscape approaches could also improve resolution in the understanding of vaccine-virus relatedness and response [3536].

Vaccine effects beyond those involving the HA1 (ie, HA2 or NA) and other agent-host immunological influences beyond (or complementary to) the ADH likely also play a role, including possible heterosubtypic effects of trivalent vaccine not otherwise considered. Original priming (eg, imprinting) and prominent recall (eg, back-boosting) responses to historic influenza exposures can shape hierarchical antibody responses, with either positive or negative implications [37–42]. Annually repeated vaccination, compared with less frequent infection exposures, may accelerate antibody refocusing toward prior versus evolved epitopes, with selection for cross-reactive but non-neutralizing memory responses [43]. In the context of preexisting antibody, immune complex formation and Fc-receptor activation can suppress B-cell response to subsequent influenza vaccine doses [44]. Antibody-dependent mechanisms may also suppress innate cytokine signaling pathways required for proinflammatory T-cell responses [45], and in children, annual repeat vaccination has been reported to hamper development of virus-specific CD8+ T-cell immunity [46]. Repeat vaccination may also select for T-cell responses that are antagonistic, such as preferential activation and/or recruitment of regulatory cells upon reexposure [47]. Such mechanisms may also modify risk in previous but not current vaccine recipients. Ultimately, the mechanisms to explain the potential negative effects of repeat vaccination remain unknown but are likely multifactorial, requiring a more complex systems approach to resolve [48].

Random and systematic error, including residual confounding and behavioral differences, may also contribute to findings. Few A(H3N2) epidemics were analyzed here, and each season represented a unique set of specific vaccine–virus relatedness conditions. Sample size in our indicator-variable analyses was also limited. Additional seasons are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about correlation with the ADH. Population-based immunization registries are not available in Canada for the study period, but self-report is considered an accurate predictor of influenza vaccination status, as demonstrated in US analyses relative to registry data for both current [49] and prior season’s vaccination status (Ed Belongia Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, personal communication), especially among adults who comprise the majority (86%) of our participants. We have the greatest confidence in VE estimates for repeatedly vaccinated relative to consistently unvaccinated participants, both in terms of reliable personal recall of vaccine history and also statistical certainty owing to sample size, but less confidence in smaller subsets of participants reporting more erratic vaccination behaviors. Change in vaccination habit may be correlated with influenza risk, a bias that has been raised previously in deriving VE estimates in elderly adults based on administrative datasets but also potentially relevant in assessing current/prior vaccination effects using an observational design [50]. First-time vaccinees may have been newly motivated to receive influenza vaccine because of recent acute respiratory illness, possibly due to influenza. In the context of recent prior infection, vaccine responses may be enhanced [51] and/or VE may be overestimated through confounding by more durable and cross-protective infection-induced immunity. We did not have data available on prior infection history, but the proportion of newly vaccinated individuals with that recent history would have to be substantial to meaningfully influence VE estimates. Prior vaccination may have conversely blocked opportunity to acquire infection-induced immunity (ie, infection-block hypothesis), leading to underestimation of VE in the recurrently vaccinated—an indirect mechanism for repeat vaccination effects originally favored by Hoskins but insufficient to fully explain observed effects of vaccine-associated increased risk [32731].

In summary, serial vaccination may have contributed to poor influenza vaccine performance during recent A(H3N2) epidemics in Canada. The ADH remains a useful framework for reconciling variability in repeat vaccination effects but requires update to incorporate recent epidemiological findings, modern and standardized laboratory approaches for monitoring vaccine–virus relatedness and response, and a broader understanding of immunological context and consequences. Integrated immuno-epidemiological evaluation across an extended horizon is needed to understand the spectrum of repeat vaccination effects and to determine whether annual influenza vaccination is likely to provide long-term advantage at the individual or population levels—a return to the question first posed by Hoskins 40 years ago [3].

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Our nano-grand-jury has settled: best scamdemic videos of 2021 so far, and for a while, are:

YOUTUBE BANNED OUR VIDEO IN LIKE 30 MIN, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON ODYSEE / BITCHUTE / BRIGHTEON

Seems like Youtube hurried to prove our point lmao

UPDATE: WE’RE FIRING BACK AT YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP WITH THEIR WEAPONS, OUR STRATEGY AND BACK-UP CHANNEL. FOR THIS TO WORK, WE VERY MUCH NEED TO SEE SOME LOVE FOR THIS ARTICLE AND THE VIDEO BELOW, WHICH HAS TO BECOME POPULAR ON YOUTUBE, NOT ELSEWHERE, WE NEED TO SCORE ON THEIR FIELD IF WE ARE TO WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP! THANK YOU!

THE PART 2 OF OUR EULOGY SURVIVED THE YOUTUBE SCIENCE SLAUGHTER

Amen

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Anyone who has any remnants of humanity inside has asked this question.
One answer is no secret to anyone: poor countries. But that’s not always the case, and this is where it gets darker.

The ethics of deliberately infecting volunteers with Covid-19 to test vaccines are a complicated issue only if you value something more than human life, which is actually common, but not the case here. So I’m not making a secret that everything I know and feel made me conclude long ago that most medical tests that occurred on humans were abominations permitted only by a massive lack of empathy / humanity and usually driven by financial incentives. Everything that followed after that was but a confirmation. Point being: I’m long over that debate, there is absolutely no essential difference between the Bayer labs in Auschwitz and the Pfizer Labs in London (or wherever).
And I know a large slice of society, if not the majority, still has major moral, rational and ethical concerns about this, luckily, and it can’t be that easy to find these kids without leveraging finances on poorest people, and even then…
Proof to that, Moderna has just publicly admitted it has big difficulties in finding 3000 kids, and I hope they never sort it out. So much so that They appealed to all their presstitutes to make a roll call for them.
Funnily, only days after Moderna’s appeal, CBS lies that they were having “more than enough volunteers, so basically these two messages are now still being propagated simultaneously:
“Last fall, the Clinical Research Institute sent out letters to pediatricians’ offices and posted on Facebook looking for volunteers in the 12-year-old to 17-year-old age group. Though the study will run for 13 months, the researchers have more than enough volunteers for this trial.” – CBS


Since you can’t expect anyone involved to be honest and open about it, based on their past and present performance, and they’re not, where to find the answer? There’s about 50 vaccines being trialed right now, some are moving into babies as young as 6 months old, this IS urgent!
If you need another reminder why, go to Forbes and read “The Hideous Truths of Testing Vaccines on Humans”, or watch the videos below.

To get back to the headline question, remember wherever demand forms, a market forms and an industry develops.

A 2017 report in Gizmodo, entitled “How a Company You’ve Never Heard of Sends you Letters about your Medical Condition,” quotes a company called Acurian saying it purchases “public information” and “lifestyle data” to find candidates.

It does not access your doctor’s medical file. Here are some excerpts:

In the summer of 2015, Alexandra Franco got a letter in the mail from a company she had never heard of called AcurianHealth. The letter, addressed to Franco personally, invited her to participate in a study of people with psoriasis, a condition that causes dry, itchy patches on the skin.

Franco did not have psoriasis. But the year before, she remembered, she had searched for information about it online, when a friend was dealing with the condition. And a few months prior to getting the letter, she had also turned to the internet with a question about a skin fungus. It was the sort of browsing anyone might do, on the assumption it was private and anonymous.

Now there was a letter, with her name and home address on it, targeting her as a potential skin-disease patient. Acurian is in the business of recruiting people to take part in clinical trials for drug companies. How had it identified her? She had done nothing that would publicly associate her with having a skin condition.

When she Googled the company, she found lots of people who shared her bewilderment, complaining that they had been contacted by Acurian about their various medical conditions. Particularly troubling was a parent who said her young son had received a letter from Acurian accurately identifying his medical condition and soliciting him for a drug trial—the first piece of mail he’d had addressed to him besides birthday cards from family members.

Acurian has attributed its uncanny insights to powerful guesswork, based on sophisticated analysis of public information and “lifestyle data” purchased from data brokers. What may appear intrusive, by the company’s account, is merely testimony to the power of patterns revealed by big data.

“We are now at a point where, based on your credit-card history, and whether you drive an American automobile and several other lifestyle factors, we can get a very, very close bead on whether or not you have the disease state we’re looking at,” Acurian’s senior vice president of operations told the Wall Street Journal in 2013.

Yet there’s some medical information that Acurian doesn’t have to guess about: The company pays Walgreens, which uses a privacy exemption for research, to send recruitment letters to its pharmacy customers on Acurian’s behalf, based on the medications they’re using. Under this arrangement, Acurian notes that it doesn’t access the medical information directly; the customers’ identities remain private until they respond to the invitations.

And that is not the entire story. An investigation by the Special Projects Desk has found that Acurian may also be pursuing people’s medical information more directly, using the services of a startup that advertises its ability to unmask anonymous website visitors. This could allow it harvest the identities of people seeking information about particular conditions online, before they’ve consented to anything.

A letter sent out to a Walgreens customer in Connecticut on Acurian’s behalf. It invited her to visit a generic sounding website for people with pulmonary disease. At the time, she had a prescription from Walgreens for asthma.
A letter sent out to a Walgreens customer in Connecticut on Acurian’s behalf. It invited her to visit a generic sounding website for people with pulmonary disease. At the time, she had a prescription from Walgreens for asthma.

If you’re suddenly thinking back on all of the things you’ve browsed for online in your life and feeling horrified, you’re not alone.

AcurianHealth has created dozens and dozens of generic sounding websites for the trials they’re recruiting for: www.trialforCOPD.com, www.studiesforyourarthritis.com, and www.kidsdepressionstudy.com are a few examples of the many websites they own. The sites all feature stock images of people in distress, sometimes include AcurianHealth’s logo, and include promises of up to $1,000 for participating, depending on the study.

An example of one of the Acurian sites, www.sleepapneastudies.com
An example of one of the Acurian sites, http://www.sleepapneastudies.com

Out of view, some of these sites include something else: code from a company called NaviStone—which bills itself as a specialist in matching “anonymous website visitors to postal names and addresses.” So if a person is curious about one of those letters from Walgreens, or follows one of Acurian’s online ads, and visits one of Acurian’s generic disease-specific sites, their identity could be discovered and associated with the relevant condition.

NaviStone says it can send personalized mail to anonymous website visitors with a day or two of their visit.
NaviStone says it can send personalized mail to anonymous website visitors with a day or two of their visit.

This tracking function undermines what’s supposedly a formal separation between Walgreens customer data and Acurian’s recruitment. If Walgreens sends out a bunch of letters to customers taking certain medications, and those customers then visit the generic website controlled by Acurian provided in the letter, Acurian can infer its wave of new visitors are taking those medications—and, if NaviStone delivers on its promise to identify visitors, Acurian can see who they are.

Walgreens gives itself permission to use customers’ health information for “research” purposes, which would include clinical trials, in its privacy policy. It’s been working with Acurian since at least 2013, and in 2015, Walgreens announced it was “leveraging” its 100 million customer database to recruit patients directly for five major drug companies.

When asked about its partnership with Acurian, Walgreens spokesperson Scott Goldberg pointed me to a Walgreens FAQ page about clinical trials. It states that Walgreens doesn’t share health information with third parties without permission, but that a third party may “receive your information if you contact the web-site and/or toll-free number in the letter to seek more information about the clinical trial.”

The question is whether users will know that one of Acurian’s websites has received their information—even if they haven’t necessarily agreed to submit it. NaviStone, an Ohio-based business spun out from the marketing firm CohereOne last year, claims to be able to identify between 60 and 70 percent of anonymous visitors to the websites that use its services.

When we contacted the firm last month to ask how it does this, Allen Abbott, NaviStone’s chief operating officer, said by phone that talking about how its technology works is “problematic.”

“A lot of our competitors would love to know how we made it work,” Abbott said. “We have an advantage that we would be silly to reveal.”

We asked whether the company had thought about the privacy implications involved in identifying people visiting a website for sensitive reasons, and whether there were certain customers the company wouldn’t work with.

“Our business is almost entirely e-commerce, helping retailers sell to their customers,” he said. “There was one site that came into our radar that was adult-related material that we decided not to pursue.”

We then described what Acurian does.

“We don’t work with anyone like that,” he said.

We explained that the call was because we’d found NaviStone’s code on AcurianHealth sites.

“It’s possible,” he then said. “We have a lot of customers.”

But Abbott insisted that NaviStone had found a “privacy compliant way” to identify anonymous website visitors—again saying he couldn’t describe it because it was a proprietary technology.

When we analyzed the NaviStone code on Acurian’s sites, we found one way that NaviStone’s technology works: It collects information as soon as it is entered into the text boxes on forms, before the person actually agrees to submit it. When we typed a test email address in the “Join Us” page on Acurian’s site, it was immediately captured and sent to the company’s servers, even if we later chose to close the page without hitting the “Send” button on the form.

In fact, the information was collected before we got to the part of the form that said, “Your privacy is important to us. By selecting this box, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree that we contact you by phone using automated technology or other means using the information you provided above regarding research studies.” – Gizmodo

But that was long ago in terms of technological progress.

However, the methods persist in 2021, an US local tv station reveals that exactly the same scenario occurred in Cincinnati, with the same company at the center of the scandal. Here’s what they’ve just published:

<<Nancy Brashear opened her mail at her Campbell County, Kentucky, home to find an offer to earn money if she joined a COVID-19 vaccine test.

“I got a letter from Acurian Health looking for volunteers for a COVID vaccine study, promising up to $1,200 if you participate or volunteer,” she said.

It looked promising, but Brashear said she started to wonder how they knew she would be a good candidate for a vaccine trial. Did someone with a hospital, doctor’s office or pharmacy sell her health information?

“How do they get my information?” Brashear said. “That really bothers me.”

We called and emailed Acurian Health to find out how they got her name, but did not hear back.

Company is a data firm, not a testing center

Acurian is a legitimate company, according to the Better Business Bureau, and states it is a data firm that connects people with medical trials.

It does not do the actual testing.

“Where did they get this information?” Brashear asked. “HIPPA laws make your history private.”

The Protect Patients Blog has an in-depth article of how Acurian learns if you are a good candidate for a medical trial.

But Brashear found that if you decide to apply, you will then have to give much more medical information to see if you actually qualify. There is no guarantee you will be accepted for a trial, and no guarantee you will earn anything close to $1,200.

“If you go on the website, you have to go through steps to do that, so they are looking for information,” she said.

In the end, she said thanks, but no thanks, wondering if she would be sharing too much medical and personal information with a company she knew little about.

If you want to sign up for a COVID-19 trial, the NIH, National Institutes of Health, is a government site that lists all the authorized vaccine trials going on.

Many of them will pay money, typically a few hundred dollars. However, they may not cover treatment for any side effects.

So be sure to read all the fine print, so you don’t waste your money.>> – WCPO

Also let’s recall our October 2020 article: CONTACT-TRACING DATA HARVESTED FROM PUBS AND RESTAURANTS BEING SOLD ON

I don’t know about you, but what I’ve learned so far is:

  1. Pharmafia still does whatever it takes to get what it wants, even primitive hacking as described above.
  2. These methods are still too primitive for the biggest actors in Pharmafia who are well into artificial intelligence and cutting edge technologies

So what are these top cats doing then?
I’ve consulted some of my insider sources, put it together with my own digs and, as per usual with these creatures, the most obvious suspicions are also true.

If you’ve been around, you should be aware by now of three tendencies that are one, actually:


1. Big Tech and Big Pharma are merging

2. Healthcare and Big Data are merging

They’re not only after health data, don’t worry, all data helps a sale


3. The above are merging with media and the elected government

What are Google and Facebook selling, in fact?
Your data.
What for?
So you can be best manipulated by different interests, with custom-design ads and policies.

Oracle’s National Electronic Health Records Cloud dates back to the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, a couple of weeks after letting President Trump use his estate near Palm Springs for a $100,000-a-plate golfing fundraiser, Ellison placed a call to the White House. According to a Forbes cover story on Ellison, he “asked Trump if a clearinghouse existed for real-time data about treatment efficacies and outcomes.”

Within a week after the president asked “how much?” and Ellison said, “for free,” the tech titan had brought together a team of Oracle engineers “to build a database and website registering coronavirus cases” and work with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies.

The first public acknowledgment of Oracle’s progress came on July 3, 2020, when the NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci, launched the COVID-19 Prevention Trials Network (COVPN), aimed at enrolling thousands of volunteers in large-scale trials for a variety of investigational vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.

Fauci achieved this by merging four existing networks, all researching HIV/AIDS, something they would continue to do. “The network is expected to operate more than 100 clinical trial sites across the United States and internationally,” according to the NIAID press release which also stated “the COVPN website features a customized data collection platform, which Oracle (Redwood Shores, CA) built and donated, to securely identify potential trial participants.”

In August, a paper published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security proposed that the “passive reporting” systems managed by the CDC and FDA ought to be revamped to forge “an active safety surveillance system directed by the CDC that monitors all [COVID-19] vaccine recipients — perhaps by short message service or other electronic mechanisms.”

By September, Operation Warp Speed director Moncef Slaoui was telling the periodical Science: “We’re working super hard on a very active pharmacovigilance system, to make sure that when the vaccines are introduced that we’ll absolutely continue to assess their safety.

In October, Slaoui told the New York Times: “The FDA is proposing that at least 50% of the individuals in the study population have at least two months of follow-up on safety before the vaccines are approved. And secondly, we are working really hard with the FDA and the CDC to make sure we have a very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system to allow us to continue to assess the safety of the vaccines as they are being used in the high risk population.”

And the Wall Street Journal reported in a profile of Slaoui that he’d said “tracking systems will have to be ‘incredibly precise’ to ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects. Operation Warp Speed has selected the medical-distribution company McKesson and cloud operators Google and Oracle to collect and track vaccine data.”

“This marked the first time that Oracle’s role was revealed to have expanded to include Operation Warp Speed.

Oracle Chairman Ellison’s lucrative government arrangements trace back to the data software pioneer’s origins. In 1975, then in his early thirties, Ellison worked on a project for the electronics company Ampex in the Bay area, building a large terabit memory system for the CIA.

Ellison revealed in 2014 that the CIA not only became his firm’s first customer for a “relational database” two years later, but that he adopted the name from a CIA project called Oracle. “The news about our hot little database traveled around the intelligence community pretty quickly,” Ellison was quoted as saying in the 2003 book, “Softwar.” “In a little over six months’ time we had won several deals — the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and the NSA [National Security Agency].” – Technocracy News

From this industry’s perspective, you enrolling KFC’s Fidelity Club or a vaccine trial is the same technical challenge. One that they keep winning lately.

Remember when the sister of YouTube’s CEO and former wife of Google’s founder Sergey Brin, still a business partner, set up a DNA testing company and then sold the data for $300 million to pharma giant genocidal company GSK?

Source

Oh, it’s all about science and health, sure, but what science and whose health?
Because anyone who’s been in touch with reality lately knows a few more things:
– Pharmafia invests much more in the science of marketing than in medical sciences
– That data often comes from marketing experts such as Google and Facebook
– Marketing and propaganda sell and persuade much more efficiently than science when it comes to large masses of people. Or all of them. It’s way easier and cheaper to manipulate the low-IQ majority than to heal it. Especially with these tools Big Tech brought aboard.

What keeps them from finding and manipulating the feeble minds they need for these new atrocities they call “vaccines human trials” and, in fact, are neither vaccines or human, just deranged human abuse experimentation?
From what I’ve found out so far, the answer is: nothing.
Everything you type on your computer is collected and can be processed to obtain a method to target and determine people to subject their kids to this. It’s probably much easier to sell than some of their other products. This is already a massive industry that often breaks ethical and even legal barriers.

Source: The Guardian


What, you’ve never thought Cambridge Analytica can work for Pharmafia too?
Well then remember we’ve passed that, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft (recording my typing right now) and Alphabet (Google) are not distinguishable from Pharmafia at all. The concept that they wouldn’t take any and all advantage of their new powers and domination is comically delirious.
Moderna must be running out of money or love if Google won’t send them a mere 3000 kids, no joke.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Imagine Jewish company Ben&Jerry went like: “People who don’t eat our ice-cream are anti-food and anti-semitic”. That’s exactly what Pharmafia does, amplified by their presstitutes and mass-mediots

Btw. Times of Israel deleted its most popular post of 2012, last one in my collage, but not quite every trace of it.

Source

They replaced that truth with more truth, but we need all of it

Source

Who are the Jews behind the coronavirus vaccines?

World’s 50 most influential Jews – The Jerusalem Post’s first annual list of those who are shaping the future.

Argentine TV host fired over ‘Jews control the media’ tweet

COVID-19 Vaccines Have Jewish Links

Microsoft and Google invest in medical research platform

Want more? There’s tons out there.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

The receipts are on the table, look closer!

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Not a word from me, learn from experts and manufacturers. And Bill Gates.

IF YOUTUBE TAKES DOWN THE VIDEO, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE UPLOADS ON LBRY AND BRIGHTEON

Dr. David Martin quoted from a Weston A. Price podcast

Obviously, I’m never recommending anything from Pharmafia ever, I’m just highlighting their BS.

Source: BBC
Source: BBC

Also this:
WHY DID MODERNA UNLIST THIS VIDEO PRESENTATION OF THEIR COVID-19 “VACCINE”?! EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH IT

UPDATE:

I unearthed a 2017 Ted Talk featuring the current Moderna boss Tal Zaks, where he describes the mRNA technology that was first meant to treat cancer, he call it “information therapy”, see for yourselves:

Ah, and also this:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them