My daughter had a reaction to AstraZeneca- the symptoms were those of GBS. Unfortunately her GP was of no help, just called it a reaction to Covid (she didn’t get Covid until after the jab). She was sent to hospital where she received no treatment at all, there were no doctors available! She discharged herself after 4 days. Also, sadly, our daughter had swallowed the Kool Aid so we couldn’t discuss it with her. We were beside ourselves with worry but luckily the symptoms subsided after a week or so.
Thanks again for pointing out the ominous omission of tests in pregnant women!
I suggest - tongue firmly in cheek! - the reason for that omission can be found in this latest statement by Ms Pritchard:
“Ms Pritchard insisted that women’s health was a “priority” for the health service but said that the health service had been “built by men and doesn’t always have the needs of women at its heart”."
Sadly, I'm not aware of her or any other women's health advocates pushing for tests in pregnant women before the vaccine was rolled out, but then, being an old geezerette, my memory is probably failing ....
Ive just read minutes pdf 28. They strike me as vague and repetitive. What for example (2.6 regarding AZ vaccine) is ‘fairly limited data’? Is this a statistical term for not enough data or does it mean fairly limited in scope? How was this framed? And why wasn’t it explained (or at least put in a footnote) to the EWG.
And monitoring seizures - who would be doing the monitoring & how would this be reported back at the next meeting? Who is responsible for collating this?
My brother developed GBS many years ago & mostly is fine but it’s a horrid & serious illness. So are all the related myocarditis impacts so often mentioned in passing.
At what point - context I suppose - do enough Adverse Events have to occur before the vaccine needs pausing & re-considering?
Why do I feel that (reading the minutes) this was never going to happen until everyone had received it whether or not it was ‘safe & effective’?
“Pfizer have announced a trial in pregnant women to compare the data to that from their pivotal trial, but as yet this will not involve the UK.”
"Pregnant women were and continue to be exposed to vaccination without a shred of evidence, as pregnancy was an exclusion criteria in all the trials. "
he was quoted as saying "told the COVID Inquiry that there is ’too much caution' around expectant mothers and they ought to be routinely involved in drug studies." really; really
"UK or not, as we have already reported, the trial results are still unavailable. Pregnant women were and continue to be exposed to vaccination without a shred of evidence, as pregnancy was an exclusion criteria in all the trials. So, the discussion must have been one of the shortest on record"
Pegylated NP's carry their own problems as was found out in 2011....
My question would be what screening requirement would be necessary for a pregnant woman with a TLR agonist as well as a potential IGG spiking vax being introduced?
Everyone knows that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. What is not well known is that the committee originally charged with designing an improved horse consisted of a dozen experts chosen by the government's Minister for Transport on the advice of his friend in the North African Cartage Corporation. When the completed design was presented at a gala media event, the Minister was quick to assure the public that the new horse had all the properties of the old one (four legs, for example) but drank less water. Apparent drawbacks, such as its bad temper and an inability to jump hurdles, were nothing compared to its advantages - in view of which a great deal had just been signed by the government with North Aftrican Cartage.....
as they talk of actually now at this point, doing studies to see what has happened to pregnant women; who had already been jabbed; and who they had advocated it for, with seemingly no prior data; one wonders if any of them at these meetings had a "Hans, are the baddies?" moment .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
I count 71 people claiming to be present at meeting 28: surely that is a lot; most still redacted; if they were just "observers", pray why cannot they be identified? (four years on: were they doing something dreadful back then?) Four on the right-hand column were identified; eg Julian? Bonnerjea was brave enough to be identified; seemingly Head of Biologicals and Biotech unit, Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); also described on Linkedin as "MHRA vaccine project lead"; all just doing their bit
My daughter had a reaction to AstraZeneca- the symptoms were those of GBS. Unfortunately her GP was of no help, just called it a reaction to Covid (she didn’t get Covid until after the jab). She was sent to hospital where she received no treatment at all, there were no doctors available! She discharged herself after 4 days. Also, sadly, our daughter had swallowed the Kool Aid so we couldn’t discuss it with her. We were beside ourselves with worry but luckily the symptoms subsided after a week or so.
Thanks again for pointing out the ominous omission of tests in pregnant women!
I suggest - tongue firmly in cheek! - the reason for that omission can be found in this latest statement by Ms Pritchard:
“Ms Pritchard insisted that women’s health was a “priority” for the health service but said that the health service had been “built by men and doesn’t always have the needs of women at its heart”."
Sadly, I'm not aware of her or any other women's health advocates pushing for tests in pregnant women before the vaccine was rolled out, but then, being an old geezerette, my memory is probably failing ....
Ive just read minutes pdf 28. They strike me as vague and repetitive. What for example (2.6 regarding AZ vaccine) is ‘fairly limited data’? Is this a statistical term for not enough data or does it mean fairly limited in scope? How was this framed? And why wasn’t it explained (or at least put in a footnote) to the EWG.
And monitoring seizures - who would be doing the monitoring & how would this be reported back at the next meeting? Who is responsible for collating this?
My brother developed GBS many years ago & mostly is fine but it’s a horrid & serious illness. So are all the related myocarditis impacts so often mentioned in passing.
At what point - context I suppose - do enough Adverse Events have to occur before the vaccine needs pausing & re-considering?
Why do I feel that (reading the minutes) this was never going to happen until everyone had received it whether or not it was ‘safe & effective’?
And it wasn’t.
Let’ quietly all say a prayer Robert F Kennedy is confirmed HHS Secretary💕🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
We need him more now than ever.
Mary Ann,
More than prayers are being said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20BUza4QSfs&t=7s 5 mins video, the sting is at the end.
Same tactics as pharma I suggest
Thank you.
“Pfizer have announced a trial in pregnant women to compare the data to that from their pivotal trial, but as yet this will not involve the UK.”
"Pregnant women were and continue to be exposed to vaccination without a shred of evidence, as pregnancy was an exclusion criteria in all the trials. "
and Whitty (CMO of UK) now advocating testing new experimental agents on pregnant women https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/whitty-says-vaccine-trials-should-have-included-pregnant-women-5796204?whilst has taken no action for 4 yrs on showing what data they have;
he was quoted as saying "told the COVID Inquiry that there is ’too much caution' around expectant mothers and they ought to be routinely involved in drug studies." really; really
"UK or not, as we have already reported, the trial results are still unavailable. Pregnant women were and continue to be exposed to vaccination without a shred of evidence, as pregnancy was an exclusion criteria in all the trials. So, the discussion must have been one of the shortest on record"
Pegylated NP's carry their own problems as was found out in 2011....
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/225/4/225_4_225/_pdf
But then you get this in 2011...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3251916/
My question would be what screening requirement would be necessary for a pregnant woman with a TLR agonist as well as a potential IGG spiking vax being introduced?
Everyone knows that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. What is not well known is that the committee originally charged with designing an improved horse consisted of a dozen experts chosen by the government's Minister for Transport on the advice of his friend in the North African Cartage Corporation. When the completed design was presented at a gala media event, the Minister was quick to assure the public that the new horse had all the properties of the old one (four legs, for example) but drank less water. Apparent drawbacks, such as its bad temper and an inability to jump hurdles, were nothing compared to its advantages - in view of which a great deal had just been signed by the government with North Aftrican Cartage.....
If they are using PCR tests. Please ask these questions, if you can.
0. How is human rna separated from viral in the sample?
1.How many targets or amplicons (i.e. nucleotide sequences) are they using?
2.How were they picked?
3. What are the positive and negative control samples - and others if there are any?
4. Are they using nested primers to verify the result?
5. Are they sequencing to absolutely verify the result?
6. What is the cycle-threshold?
See Couey from about 25:20 https://stream.gigaohm.bio/w/3442q71n6uzwMckdXtxa7N - All the ways they lied about PCR (26 June 2024.) I am a fan of his, as you might guess.
one of those whose name appeared on all these minutes; unredacted; was to his credit Dr Philip Bryan; sadly MHRA lost his expertise one year after these minutes in 2022? https://www.linkedin.com/posts/philip-bryan-78293885_after-23-years-in-pharmacovigilance-at-the-activity-6793841544014123008-aUmU when he left to join P95 https://p-95.com/ whose mission statement is "pioneering excellence in vaccines and infectious diseases"; next year, they merged with OnQ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/p95-a-leading-vaccine-focused-cro-merges-with-south-africa-based-cro-onq-research-301955670.html; OnQ is described as "a portfolio company of Ampersand Capital Partners and leading provider of clinical and observational services to vaccine developers,"
as they talk of actually now at this point, doing studies to see what has happened to pregnant women; who had already been jabbed; and who they had advocated it for, with seemingly no prior data; one wonders if any of them at these meetings had a "Hans, are the baddies?" moment .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
I count 71 people claiming to be present at meeting 28: surely that is a lot; most still redacted; if they were just "observers", pray why cannot they be identified? (four years on: were they doing something dreadful back then?) Four on the right-hand column were identified; eg Julian? Bonnerjea was brave enough to be identified; seemingly Head of Biologicals and Biotech unit, Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); also described on Linkedin as "MHRA vaccine project lead"; all just doing their bit