COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »



After reviewing images of elements contained in the COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Daniel Nagase told the Western Standard the vaccines “strangely” show no signs of biological material.

READ MORE: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/w ... e441b.html
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

PFIZER FIGURES SHOW 31% OF JABBED EITHER DIE OR SUFFER LONG TERM DAMAGE

https://brandnewtube.com/v/FoJkBV

Earlier video from December 2021 between Dr. Daniel Nagase and Western Standard.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

Canadian Researchers Find Carbon Nanotech and Thulium in Moderna and Pfizer Covid Injections
https://expose-news.com/2022/05/27/carb ... njections/

Article related to first video.
After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr. Daniel Nagase revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA.

Dr. Nagase is a Canadian emergency room doctor who was put on involuntary leave for successfully treating Covid patients with ivermectin in a central-Alberta hospital in 2021. He has since been touring through Alberta and British Columbia (“BC”) speaking at rallies on treatment options for Covid. Nagase said he has also been “learning a lot about the legal system” while reviewing the medical records of people whose family members believe have died as a result of the “vaccines.”

In the video below Dr. Nagase discusses his findings with Melanie Risdon, a reporter with the Western Standard.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

URGENT: The actual Pfizer data for kids under 5
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urg ... mments?s=r
That 80 percent figure for efficacy you’ve seen reported is worse than a joke, it’s essentially a fabrication.

Here’s what the Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer did; they only counted cases after the THIRD mRNA dose.

But of the 375 Sars-Cov-2 infections in the trial, 365 occurred before the third dose. Only 10 occurred after the third dose.

Yes, you are reading that right. The efficacy figure is based on 3 PERCENT OF ALL THE INFECTIONS IN THE TRIAL. (Which is why the confidence intervals are so large.)

Breaking: 58 babies who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines suffered life-threatening adverse events
https://rtmag.co.il/english/breaking-58 ... rse-events
  • While the FDA is preparing to approve the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for infants and toddlers aged 6 months to four years, and claims in its' VRBPAC Briefing Document released today that the majority of adverse events found in Pfizers' trial were non-serious - Real-Time magazine analysis reveals at least 58 life-threatening adverse events in infants and toddlers aged under 3 years old reported to VAERS.
  • The most common serious adverse events were life-threatening bleeding, anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, encephalitis, hypoglycemia and neuroleptic syndrome. In most of the reported cases, these are multi-system injuries.
  • In some cases it is not clear what happened to the babies - did they survive? And if so, have they recovered?
  • Most reports do not specify under what circumstances the infants were vaccinated, and if they participated in the clinical trials.
  • While the FDA claims in its' briefing document that the vaccine efficacy in infants is 80.4%, the document reveals that the claim is based on a total of 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19 identified in the trial among 1415 participants – 7 of them in the placebo group vs. 3 in the vaccine group.
User avatar
Nesrality
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by Nesrality »

Very important and interesting update here Rachel ! Thanks a lot for sharing this. I watched together with my partner this morning and we learned/got confirmation of stuff that I've looked into before. This nanobot stuff is really scary... If Wes Penre (CO?) was right in only part of what we are about to get, then OMG.... :evil:
My Reality is Nesrality... :D
My Music: https://pixabay.com/accounts/media/?typ ... reated&qs=
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by Unreal »

" After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr. Daniel Nagase revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA"
Canadian Researchers Find Carbon Nanotech
-
Seems ironic that we rely on the electron microscope to "confirm" the existence of biological material and nanotech in Vaxines as electron microscopy is the technology that has allowed questionable concepts such as double stranded DNA to "exist" in the first place.
-
Electron microscopes do however produce images, but difficult to know what manipaulations are possible or not, and why there are so few images of important elements of a theory such as genes and its contended double stranded helix of DNA.
-
Hereunder the first actual picture with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of DNA structure:
Image
Image
Images: Enzo di Fabrizio 2012 - tightrope of DNA between two silicon nanopillars
-
User avatar
Nesrality
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by Nesrality »

-
Seems ironic that we rely on the electron microscope to "confirm" the existence of biological material and nanotech in Vaxines as electron microscopy is the technology that has allowed questionable concepts such as double stranded DNA to "exist" in the first place.
Good point Unreal...
Even forbes admit:"After 66 Years, We're Still Learning More." Meaning they don't know... :D
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evaamsen/2 ... a127b3536b
My Reality is Nesrality... :D
My Music: https://pixabay.com/accounts/media/?typ ... reated&qs=
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vaccine content

Unread post by rachel »

The Publication of Fraudulent Ivermectin Trials by the High Impact Medical Journals
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-p ... ivermectin
Ok, so where were we? Oh yeah, I recently covered the rejections and retractions of positive ivermectin studies by the Editorial Mafia that control the high-impact medical journals. Now let’s go over the trials that they did publish on ivermectin. Note the very first play from the Disinformation Playbook, a tactic created and perfected by the Tobacco Industry over decades:...

...The “negative” studies they published are what fueled the massive media and health agency Disinformation campaigns (false narratives) against ivermectin. Make a special note of how to identify “narratives,” i.e propaganda campaigns. A friend of mine has a rule he calls the “2 by 4.” If the story runs for 2 weeks on 4 different media or TV channels, not only is it a narrative (not always a false one but rarely if ever totally accurate) but more importantly, it is what takes hold of the minds of the majority of the country and becomes “mainstream” thinking. 2 by 4. Remember that. Although not every one of these trials triggered a 2 by 4, each time the papers and television stations across the world trumpeted the “negative” study results over at least the next several days after publication. The real “2 x4” propaganda campaign was the “horse dewormer” one which was triggered, not by a publication, but by a massive rise in U.S ivermectin prescriptions in mid-August of 2021. More on that soon...

...The publication of the numerous fraudulent or severely flawed studies supposedly “proving” ivermectin ineffective in COVID then launched massive negative PR campaigns using almost every communication medium possible - social media, newspapers, radio, televisions news programs, late night talk shows etc. They all told identical “stories” or “narratives.” The average American citizen (and physician) reading or listening to these stories found their thoughts directed as follows;
  1. Ivermectin is a dangerous medication suitable only for deworming horses.
  2. Positive studies of ivermectin were all low quality, poorly designed, or outright fraudulent and thus cannot be trusted.
  3. The only positive ivermectin studies occurred in areas where parasitic infections were endemic.
  4. Physicians claiming ivermectin is effective do not know how to interpret studies correctly and rely on “bad science.”
  5. Physicians cannot tell if a drug they gave to a patient with an acute viral syndrome is effective unless an RCT is done to “prove it.”
  6. Ivermectin “advocates” are igno
  7. rant of the “real Science” and thus have a religious or political belief in the medicine rather than a scientific one.
  8. Those who interpret ivermectin studies as supporting its use in COVID are misguided, not credible, ignorant, or are “anti-vax” conspiracy theorists.
  9. In contrast to the low quality studies showing ivermectin to be effective, the “real” studies, i.e. “well-designed,” “rigorous,” “large,” “properly done” trials instead proved it is ineffective in the treatment of COVID.
  10. That studies of its use in prevention should be ignored since the vaccines have already been proven to be “safe and effective.”
All of the above engendered “thoughts” quickly directed people’s actions in the following ways;
  1. Made health care providers refrain from treating COVID patients with ivermectin.
  2. Made patients avoid seeking an ivermectin prescription from a health care provider.
  3. Made patients refuse a prescription for ivermectin if offerred one by a health care provider.
  4. Made pharmacists unwilling to fill a prescription for such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
  5. Made hospital and pharmacy administrators remove the dangerous, ineffective drug from hospital formularies.
  6. Made health care leaders propose policies and/or legislation to disallow providers from treating patients with such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
  7. Made U.S Customs willing to search for and confiscate incoming shipments of such a dangerous, ineffective medicine.
  8. Supported health agencies in formulating recommendations against use of such a dangerous, ineffective drug.
  9. Made medical boards investigate and de-license physicians who prescribed ivermectin to their patients.
Again, although many societal forces participated in censoring data and disseminating propaganda on ivermectin, none of their actions would have been defensible or possible without the supporting “science.” The problem is that the only “science” that society seems to pay attention to or be guided by is that which appears in high-impact medical journals.

Thus, if you control the high-impact journals, you control the “science.” The Pharmaceutical Industry figured this out long ago, and is a reality that has been written about extensively, often by previous high-impact journal Editors like Dr. Marcia Angell and others. Despite their efforts in exposing this truth, the implicit faith and trust in the wisdom and quality of the science in those journals has still not been shaken. Not by the media, the doctors, or the laypeople. Especially the doctors. They revere those journals and do exactly what those journals tell them to do.

Remember that the worlds highest-impact medical journals are the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), NEJM, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the Annals of Internal Medicine (Cochrane Library is the top journal of systematic reviews/meta-analyses). Although the definition of “high-impact” is a scientific one, i.e. that the papers in those journals are the most cited among all scientific manuscripts, I interpret the term differently. High-impact to me means that when a study is published in those journals, it can immediately drive news headlines. The press is alerted prior to publication of any new important study finding, whether positive or negative. Science reporters (which technically do NOT exist anymore) get to ask the study investigators questions about the study design, conduct, or conclusions and thus they can write up newsworthy headlines and articles which appear on the same day as the study’s publication. Since the world’s eyes were on ivermectin as a possible treatment, the studies appearing in those journals made big headlines. It should go without saying that the positive studies published outside the high-impact journals, no matter how large or high quality, never generated any headlines in major media outlets...
Post Reply