Supporting Evidence

The actions of the CDC call into question whether it is qualified or trustworthy enough to be steward of the nation’s epidemiological data.

Again, another statistical illusion of efficacy was manufactured by simple miscategorisation

How widespread is the (mal)practice of miscategorising vaccination status?

How to make a placebo look 95% effective and guarantee repeat business

HISTORY'S MOST INSIDIOUS STATISTICAL TRICK (LIE)Health authorities worldwide have been categorizing recipients of Covid-19 vaccine as "unvaccinated" until 14 days after final dose/booster (21 days in UK), ostensibly because the vaccine isn't immediately effective. (1/THREAD) pic.twitter.com/ythfhdOxXA— James Schouw (@JamesSchouw) July 29, 2023

🧵 THREAD: This might shake the world. The #1 chart used to promote the COVID vaccine is this one. It leads you to believe ‘Unvaccinated’ people are more likely to die from COVID-19. This is VERY misleading though, and not for the reasons you might think. Read on… pic.twitter.com/avSF25ZMtz— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 21, 2024

How it is now permissible to speak the truth in 2024

Were they a 'fair cop' or the work product of power-drunk police?

Buy A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic 1 by Dodsworth, Laura (ISBN: 9781780667201) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic, by Laura Dodsworth

Buy The Accountability Deficit: How ministers and officials evaded accountability, misled the public and violated democracy during the pandemic by Kingsley, Molly, Skinner, Arabella, Kingsley, Ben (ISBN: 9781916572447) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

Going back to where it all began for me...

Former TGA boss appointed to the board of Medicines Australia, hoping to advance "mRNA technology framework" in Australia.

After holding oversight roles for covid vaccines, two regulators from the US Food and Drug Administration went to work for Moderna. Peter Doshi reports The physician-scientist Doran Fink worked his way up at the Food and Drug Administration, with a focus on the regulation of vaccines. Starting as a clinical reviewer in 2010, he was promoted to lead medical officer in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, overseeing a small team of medical officers responsible for infectious diseases and related biological products. During the covid-19 pandemic Fink took on a public role, appearing in numerous FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee meetings to discuss covid vaccines and serving on the senior leadership team for covid vaccine review and policy activities. Part of his role was to engage vaccine manufacturers to advise on the development of vaccines during the pandemic. In mid-2020 Fink announced the FDA’s expectations for any covid vaccine that the agency would consider authorising, and he took part in the ultimate decision to license the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Fink’s LinkedIn profile states that he finished his role at the FDA in December 2022. Two months later he was working at Moderna, heading the translational medicine and early clinical development programme in infectious diseases. He is one of two regulators The BMJ has found to have recently moved to Moderna from the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review. Concerns about a “revolving door”—movement of people between the government and the private sector—have persisted for decades, with public confidence in the balance over the integrity of government decision making.1–3 Craig Holman, who serves as government affairs lobbyist for the consumer advocacy organisation Public Citizen, says that government service is fundamentally different from private sector work. Those in the public …

The cost to the health system of adverse drug and device reactions is substantial, and failure to act will only lead to more harm.

Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate? Maryanne Demasi investigates Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate. In 1992, the US Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), allowing industry to fund the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly through “user fees” intended to support the cost of swiftly reviewing drug applications. With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money. Net PDUFA fees collected have increased 30 fold—from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016.1 In Europe, industry fees funded 20% of the new EU-wide regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in 1995. By 2010 that had risen to 75%; today it is 89%.2 In 2005 in the UK, the House of Commons’ health committee evaluated the influence of the drug industry on health policy, including the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).3 The committee was concerned that industry funding could lead the agency to “lose sight of the need to protect and promote public health above all else as it seeks to win fee income from the companies.” But nearly two decades on, little has changed, and industry funding of drug regulators has become the international norm. The BMJ asked six leading regulators, in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, the UK, and US, a series of questions about their funding, transparency in their decision making (and of data), and the rate at which new drugs are approved. We found that industry money permeates the globe’s leading regulators, raising questions about …

Latest data on non-covid deaths in 15-19 year old males

Prof Angus Dalgleish says he has tried repeatedly to get mainstream media to report on his change of view on the dangers of the Covid vaccines and how they cause explosive cancer relapse, but none of them want to know.

Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown. In this study, we have assessed the influence of von Willebrand Factor (VWF) and P-selectin on the clearance of platelets f …

The media and health experts have long maintained that COVID vaccines are effective. Source. A study from Sweden (a Lancet journal pre-print) indicates that COVID vaccine effectiveness in terms of preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection wanes to 0% and even enters negative territory, and COVID vaccine effectiveness in terms of preventing severe COVID-19 infection wanes to near 0%, within a year, possibly even within a few months (0% effectiveness means that the vaccine is ineffective and negative effectiveness means it is doing precisely the opposite of what a vaccine should be doing, increasing one’s chances of contracting/transmitting/dying from the virus, such as through antibody dependent enhancement or the immune system being damaged).

Studies implying that COVID-19 vaccines are not as safe as claimed appear to now be coming thick and fast, so much so that we at OTN do not yet have the resources to report on them all. Our previous entry concerned a study finding a drastic increase in myocarditis (and pericarditis) risk after vaccination, and

No description

As COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out the accepted experts and authorities, aided by the mainstream media, told us that it would prevent infection and transmission. Dr Anthony Fauci: “And that’s the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere.”

On 4 December 2023 I (Norman) attended the Parliament meeting (arranged by Andrew Bridgen MP) where a number of short powerful presentations were made challenging the ‘official’ covid narrative and especially the safety of the vaccines. The presenters David Martin, Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Robert Malone, Angus Dalgleish and Steve Kirsch have been among the most prominent voices in the campaign to halt the continued rollout of the covid vaccines.

One reason why COVID-19 vaccines are avoided by some is uncertainty over the spike protein, presumably part of COVID-19’s attack on the body, particularly how long it persists in the body after vaccination. Authorities like the CDC assure us that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe” and that “the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks”.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge, in “collaboration with researchers at the Universities of Kent, Oxford and Liverpool”, decided to test “for evidence of the production of ‘off-target’ proteins in people who received the mRNA Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19”. They “found an unintended immune response occurred in one third of the 21 patients in the study who were vaccinated”, and the results were published (Mulroney et al.) in the prestigious Nature journal.

When certain doctors raised concerns about the spike proteins created in the body after injection with mRNA/DNA COVID-19 vaccines, mainstream news outlets quickly assured us that the spike proteins are not toxic, and that they tended to be short-lived and generally restricted to the injection site.

We earlier reported on the possibility that the spike protein created in the body by the DNA/RNA COVID-19 vaccines could be responsible for some of the vaccines’ adverse effects. Mainstream sources of information downplayed the potential danger of the spike proteins, assuring us that the “vaccines are cleared from your body in mere days or weeks” and that the spike proteins “are fully cleared from the body after a few weeks”.

Now months and even years from the grand claims of our leaders and mainstream media experts about the COVID-19 vaccines being “safe and effective”, we increasingly see ‘conspiracy theories’ becoming true or at least acceptable. One such ‘conspiracy theory’ was that the spike proteins made in the body due to vaccination could last longer than intended, travel to more places in the body than intended, and cause more damage than intended, all denied by the accepted experts, though increasingly confirmed by the actual science (see