Uuuuhhhh…… Daves not here man.So in the last week I've gotten 2 phone calls from the CDC.
I didn't answer either. The first one they didn't leave a message. The second (I just got it), the left a message for e to call back to take a survey about the covid Vax, and "other" vaxes.
FTCDC
The only one in the presidential race that would likely do anything about any of this likely won’t win. No hanging will ever occur and the people responsible will never be held accountable.Apparently in the UK(here likely as well,you just look at those sedated on vents officially 80+% died) it appears patients in hospitals with covid were euthanized.
‘Crime of the Century’: New Research Paper Raises Horrifying Possibility Covid Patients Were ‘Euthanized’
A new research paper in pre-print circulation at the open access journal Medical & Clinical Research raises the horrifying possibility that certain Covid-19 paten-volve.com
Too big to fail.‘Stunning Act of Scientific Censorship’: Journal Retracts Peer-Reviewed Study Critiquing COVID-19 Vaccine
The journal Cureus on Monday retracted the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries. The authors of the paper also called for a global moratorium on the vaccines.childrenshealthdefense.org
Cereus pulls a vaccine study, after publishing it. They put it through the wringer to. 9 peer reviews before they published it. It passed them all. So why did they pull it?
“Following publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in the article and an investigation by Cureus and Springer Nature’s Research Integrity team identified several issues with the article which warranted a retraction.”
published last month, detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind adverse events, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.
The authors concluded:
“Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”
They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule and for the boosters to be suspended.
The paper was read more than 350,000 times in the month after it was posted. An average Cureus paper has only approximately 2,700 views in an entire year.
McCullough told The Defender:
“I am suspicious that Kersjes and Springer Nature were pressured by the powerful Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex of coordinated public health organizations, vaccine manufacturers, and regulatory agencies to censor our paper to keep critical vaccine safety information from getting to the medical community.
“We rejected the retraction, fully appealed and will report this unethical action to all relevant authorities as we move on to publish elsewhere.”
M. Nathaniel Mead, the paper’s lead author, told The Defender he had been concerned from day one that the journal would be pressured to retract the article.
“I knew as soon as I hit the Cureus ‘publish’ button on January 24, following the extensive review process and multiple re-submissions, that we were dealing with a ticking time bomb,” Mead said.
“By citing solid evidence and exposing how the industry-sponsored trials misled the public, our evidence-informed paper was an all-out indictment of the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise.”
“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote.
Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies.
Mead added, “Once a major counter-narrative paper gets published and its findings begin to garner lots of attention, the Bio-Pharma stakeholders exert immense pressure on the publisher to retract the paper.”
The retraction has implications that extend beyond the article, Mead said. These kinds of “predatory retractions” benefit the Bio-Pharmaceutical enterprise, he said, by concealing information about vaccine risks, undermining the credibility of the research and of the authors themselves.
“This is going to force scientists who are interested in the truth to seek out alternate publishing venues and strategies, perhaps even alternate peer-review systems,” he added.
Springer Nature did not respond to a request for comment.
Too big to fail.