78 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

      1. Long ago, I sent the following to the CPSS:
        >Sent: June 5, 2021 2:02 PM
        >To: CPSS Info
        >Subject: covid treatment in early stages
        >
        >Does your organization have any restrictions on the prescribing by doctors of ivermectin for use as a >prophylactic or for early treatment in the event of contracting covid?

        I received the following reply:

        On 2021-06-07 2:04 p.m., Frey, Leslie CPSS wrote:
        > CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: The content of this transmission is confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. All other recipients are prohibited from disclosing, copying, using, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email and/or any related attachments.
        >
        > Good afternoon:
        >
        > The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has no mandate over which drugs are approved for the treatment of any disease.
        >
        > Kind regards,
        >
        >
        > Leslie Frey
        > Regulatory Services Advisor
        > QUALITY OF CARE DEPARTMENT
        > College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan
        > 101-2174 Airport Drive, Saskatoon, SK Canada S7L 6M6
        > T: 306-244-7355 || F: 306-244-0090 || complaints@cps.sk.ca

        It would appear that I was lied to by the CPSS.

  2. Excellent to at last have someone courageous enough to go after the perpetrators of this fiasco.

    1. linda
      The drug companies were just along for the $$$$$$ ride. Not the ones who need to be hung for crimes against humanity. But they should also be hung for killing people for $$$$$$.

    2. I thought Pfizer and other international drug dealers received immunity from law suits as they rolled out their venomous vaccines back in the alleged, pandemic period.

      1. My layman’s understanding is that their immunity has limits. If the company is found guilty of committing fraud, for instance, then they lose immunity.

        “Standing in the way of a case for potential liability, however, is the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), which stipulates that an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine will exempt all these parties from liability for vaccine injuries or deaths, “except for willful misconduct.”…The standard definition of “willful misconduct” states that it is “the intentional doing of an act with knowledge that harm might result.” The plaintiff under this definition need not establish (as they could not) that any of these defendants intended harm. But by the same token, it would be difficult for the defendants to deny that they improperly marketed and promoted the vaccine when they were flooded with public information about dangerous side effects.”

        https://www.hoover.org/research/vaccines-and-liability-0

        1. A important thing to remember is that this is the first time that coercion, segregation and discrimination and other human rights abuses were used by governments to coerce the civilian population to take a “vaccine”. The reference case in the US is the small pox vaccine in 1901 where the supreme court in 1905 ruled:

          “One of those holdouts, a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson, took his anti-vaccine crusade to the Supreme Court. The nation’s top justices issued their landmark ruling in 1905. By a clear majority, they legitimized the authority of states to “reasonably” infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to those who refused vaccination…But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn’t a “(f…ced)” vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today.”
          https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court

          A $150 fine in today’s dollars might be reasonable but job losses, kicking people out of post secondary education and other rights abuses where certainly not reasonable. And, the small pox vaccine actually was an effective vaccine, unlike the covid injections.

          1. Some people had their careers ruined, for example in the military. They had to be sidelined, became unemployable and put on a shelf for a while. In some trades that will just ruin a career.

          2. Yes, the way unvaccinated people were treated was, at best, appalling. At worst, I think there’s a case to be made that unvaccinated people’s human rights were violated. As an unvaccinated person, I am admittedly biased.

            The amount of vitriol and discrimination fomented by government and their agencies against people like myself, my husband and my kids was abusive and, imo, legally unjust. The same goes for all other unvaccinated people, like soldiers in the military…their rights were violated.

        2. Over the past 2+ years, Naomi Wolf has updated the War Room audience about her Pfizer/FDA document review and summary teams. The teams include virologists, physicians, chemists and not a few personal injury lawyers and/or researchers from personal injury law firms nationwide. If there’s a motherload to exploit, it will be found IMO.

  3. If it’s like most big companies they might get a small fine compared with what they made on the product. For example if the drug company made a billion dollars on the vaccine for Covid they will be fined a million for the harm it caused. That doesn’t even take into account all the money that the drug manufacturers makes treating the people not killed by the side effects but are looking for relief from severe side effect.

    The more a person sees of our modern world, the more you see it’s built against what was the middle class and those that tried to join it. The world sees us as cattle to be used and consumed for the rich and special interests.

    1. They need to not just be bankrupted, they need to be in jail and a few top perpetrators, especially among those who approved the regulators this poison, convicted and executed in capital punishment states.

      1. ‘should this should that’
        uhuh. and who are the ones doing the shoulds except the boyz in control?
        its like senate reform. parliament needs the green lite from the senate to reform the senate.
        some similarity to cops investigating cops.
        or we could wait for some whacko win a $500,000,000 lottery and for some strange reason suddenly all manner of assassinations of CEOs. . . . . . .

      2. Justin Burch:

        That oughta be but ain’t. And ain’t ever gonna be.
        I try to reduce my anxiety by scrubbing oughtas from my mind.
        I am still a libertarian but a highly pragmatic one.
        I had a life-changing epiphany a few years ago whilst re-reading Ludwig von Mises’ magisterial Human Action.
        At one point he wrote that if politicians realized that what they were aiming for could not be achieved via their chosen methods they would choose his economic prescriptions.
        I went bolt upright. GEEBUS, they ain’t trying to help their captured prols; they’re out to make out like bandits.
        I no longer read libertarian literature.

    1. Every last doctor or journalist who was quoted in CBC pushing the jab should be investigated to determine if they took money from Pfizer to push the poison. If they did, they should be fined ten times more than what they were paid.

      1. Justin, nope.
        Not just the docs, but the “public health” officials, professional associations, premiers, PM, et al. makes the CRIME way to universal to go after the docs. They were told “do what we say or kiss your licence and career good bye.

  5. The real criminals here are the government regulators who ignored the experts. I watched the expert advisory committee to the FDA going on and on and on about how potentially dangerous the mRNA jab was. The presentations went on all day long, over and over again, warning the FDA it was not safe.

    The FDA ignored their own independent expert advisors. When it was time to debate the jab for little kids, they just cancelled the testimony of outside experts.

    We can expert Pfizer to be crooked and to kill people. The government regulators were supposed to be protecting us, putting our safety first. AND THEY FAILED US! As for Canada our politicians not only just rubber stamped the damn poison, they then coerced Canadians to take it WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT. And the media, especially CBC, silenced any dissent. They are the worst criminals of all because they were supposed to know better.

  6. These days, I treat all conventionally trained Medical Doctors as junior G-Men in an organized crime syndicate.

    Hans Gruber, Myocarditis Free

  8. The Attorney General is focusing on the risk of miscarriages. Pfizer will undoubtedly pull out scientific reports such as this one:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10152171/

    This is a meta analysis of 21 studies (5 randomized, 16 observational) that found there was no increased risk of miscarriages due to the COVID vaccines, including Pfizers, although they did admit the amount and quality of those studies wasn’t were it should be.

    But will the jury be impressed by scientific studies, or by individual witnesses who testify that they had miscarriages after taking a vaccines? Thelatter has far greater emotional impact.

    2. For a “mathematician”, you seem awfully fuzzy on the notion of the null hypothesis. Pfizer can show all the studies they like that fail to reject the null hypothesis; that doesn’t mean anything. The burden of proof is on the Kansas AG, and a single robust, repeatable analysis will do it.

      You really, really need to get over this obsession with studies and their presumed accuracy and integrity. You’re like that kid who insists that pro wrestling is totally real.

      1. First, I suggest you focus on my arguments, not on me. It doesn’t actually add anything.

        Second, you’re basically saying that even if there were 100 studies that detected no statistically significant extra risk of miscarriage due to COVID vaccines, a single solid study showing otherwise should be enough to find the defendent liable. Interesting legal theory, but I’m not sure it’s true. If so, it would put almost every pharmaceutical company out of business in short order. At any rate, jurists are not typically experts in the “null hypothesis”, and they would likely be driven by entirely different concerns.

        Third, what would this “single robust repeatable analysis” be, exactly? Can you cite it?

        Fourth, I’m not clear what you mean by “analysis”. Do you mean study or meta-analysis? A meta-analysis should not require repeating because it should show all of its work for everyone to see.

        1. So km 30 years of development for use in animals appears to have produced zero success. But let’s give it humans. Especially those that bear little to near zero risk ( children) .And let’s continue to promote it while covid has mutated into basically a cold. And let’s continue to subvert any questioning of the narrative. And fund lots of studies that tell everyone how safe and effective it is. And if the ignorant quit submitting, hide in another vaccine. I wish this wasn’t true, but it is.
          https://utbeef.tennessee.edu/livestock-health-mrna-vaccine-vs-conventional-vaccines/

        2. I think it adds a great deal when he goes after you. It gets those fuzzy little feet stompin’! You and the muskrats provide much of the colour around here.

    3. Pfizer is essentially a criminal organization. It will be most amusing when the corruption of Pfizer, the FDA and others finally bubbles to the surface. Lots of pockets being filled.

    4. The court document quite specifically mentions things other than miscarriage. They talk about myocarditis, pericarditis, lack of prevention of transmission, and sudden death. It also tackles how Pfizer deliberately censored contrary opinions. It also covers lack of informed consent.

      Dr. John Campbell is covering it in his latest vlog for those of you who don’t care to slog through the legalese..

      You are either wrong or knowingly gas lighting us.

  9. The Attorney General is demonstrating how one can manipulate a numerically illiterate public by sharing only SOME of the data. He states 10% of the vaccinated women had miscarriages, which sounds shocking.

    But a quick internet search shows that the natural rate of miscarriage is at least 10 to 15%. I say “at least” because some miscarriages occur very early in the pregnancy before the woman isn’t aware she’s pregnant.

    Cue the abusive replies at 5, 4, 3, ….

    1. A “quick Internet search”? According to “quick Internet searches” the COVID vaccines are deadly poison and aliens built Macchu Picchu.

        1. This has zero content on injections and miscarriages. The rest of your links are anywhere from 1 1/2 – 2 years old – ergo worthless garbage. Float away you fairy.

          1. SDA really has turned into an open sewer.

            But I must ask. Why are links that are 1 1/2 to 2 years old “worthless garbage”? Too new? Too old? Too … expressing the wrong result?

          2. Allow me to explain why the fact that it has “zero content on injections” still makes it relevant.

            The Attorney General stated that 10% of pregnant women getting COVID vaccines suffered miscarriages. He obviously wants us to believe that the vaccines caused the miscarriages.

            But if 10% of pregnant women suffer miscarriages in the normal course of things (e.g., in the years before the pandemic) there’s no particular reason to think there is cause and effect.

          3. They might be able to establish temporal correlation between the covid injections and miscarriage. For instance: 10% of women may have a miscarriage at some point during their pregnancy but if there’s a 10% miscarriage rate clustered around a short time period after a pharmaceutical product being adminstered then that drug might be the cause.

            If, after temporal correlation, researchers identify possible causal relationships then the pharmaceutical companies will be in for a rough ride. I don’t know the outcome but I do believe many aspects of the covid injections have not been properly researched by truly independent scientists.

          4. Sure, but if there is no body of papers that have done that and found strong evidence of a causal relation (and I don’t know of such a collection of papers), what is the complainant (the AG) going to do? Rely on anecdotal evidence? Maybe. A woman who has suffered a miscarriage would have a strong emotional impact.

          5. I think the research into the covid injections is a work in progress. When you look into the history of medical mistakes, you find that it can take many years to figure out correlation and causation. Thalidomide, for instance, didnt cause fetal malformations in every baby of pregnant women who took the drug…it depended on what stage of development the baby in the womb was at when Thalidomide was taken.

            The science is certainly not yet settled on the effects of the covid injections. This court case could take years before getting in front of a judge and jury. Plenty of time for researchers to take a closer look at adverse effects.

          6. I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine that the complainants will have to show two things:

            1. The Pfizer vaccine induced miscarriages.
            2. Pfizer knew or should have known it would. In short, they were lying or negligent.

            Even if future studies show that point 1 is true, it may not be enough. How can Pfizer be expected to know the results of future research?

          7. I am also not a lawyer but convincing a jury will probably not require that they are 100% convinced. The circumstances surrounding the rollout of the covid injections was highly unusual : 1) the speed of development and approval, 2) the consequences for refusing, 3) the fact they were approved for pregnant women at all, 4) the unwavering certainty by authorities abd pharmaceutical companies of the safety of the injections.

            Point number 3 is particularly important in this case because after shocking incidents like Thalidomide extra vigilance was required before approving drugs for pregnant women. This directly adresses your second point. Pfizer should have known that pregnant women are given special protection and consideration with new pharmaceutical products because of the fragility of fetal development and the horrific consequences of fetal development gone wrong. The warnings for pregnant women to stay away from everything from many foods and beverages, herbal supplements, cat litter, *novel and not so new pharamaceutical products* etc. is well known.

            Given the historical pharamaceutical issues around pregnancy, I’m pretty sure a “how could we possibly know that injecting novel products into pregnant women might be unwise?” will pass the smell test with jurors.

          8. “convincing a jury will probably not require that they are 100% convinced.”

            In civil cases, the evidential hurdle is “more likely than not”. In short, if the jury is 50.001% convinced that the defendents were negligent or fraudulent and thus caused harm, they will find in favour of the plaintiff. When you combine this low bar with the public’s general ignorance of scientific or medical matters, it presents a problem for Pfizer. It’s difficult to predict what a jury might do in the face of women describing their miscarriages.

            But Pfizer did study the effects of their vaccine on pregnant women before it was recommended for all pregnant women.

            https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-launches-covid-19-vaccine-trial-pregnant-women/story?id=75975999

          9. It’s obvious we will not agree on much about this issue, KM.

            I think it was, at best, unwise of Pfizer to ask for approval to inject pregnant women. Pregnant women and babies are a highly protected class in our society. Past pharmaceutical mistakes that have caused harm to pregnant women and babies are well known and this knowledge should have prevented them from getting into this predicament.

          11. That wasn’t authorities decision to make unilaterally without full disclosure of possible risks and the free, informed consent of pregnant women. Coercion is not consent. Pfizer and the authorities better hope that “the benefits outweighs the risks” mantra convinces jurors. The discovery phase of the case might make pharmaceutical companies and government authorities reveal more aspects of the science that they originally wanted to hide for 75 years.

          12. @Killer Marmot

            “Thus the authorities had a difficult decision to make.”

            Authorities don’t get to decide, the patient does. It’s called the Nuremberg Code — a.k.a. my body my choice.

            Capische.

          13. You’re not a lawyer. You’ve never seen a trial. In a roomful of people, especially when they’re conscientiously focussed, truth and honesty are palpable. Put a bullshitting expert in front of a competent lawyer and watch him crumble. Put up an incompetent executive and watch him completely discredit his company.

            Clearly you’ll go to your grave believing that it’s just those damn shitkicking jurors being grossly dumb again. It will never occur to you that maybe they saw something serious that needed to be punished, and punished it.

            Hey, and maybe they didn’t. I wasn’t there either. I just have some idea of what’s actually possible. You don’t.

        2. Is that the same Cleveland Clinic that last month agreed to pay $7.6 million to settle allegations that it lied on federal grant applications?.

      1. Troll: Someone who makes calm reasoned arguments, providing links to scientific papers in support.

        Not Troll: Someone who spouts insults at others for having different opinions than them.

    3. There is pages and pages and pages more than just miscarriage. To claim it’s about miscarriages is a straw man argument.

      1. Yes, but that’s what the Attorney General chose to emphasize in his public statement.

        If the rest of the complaint is of similar quality, he’s got a tough row to hoe.

    1. It hurts when someone has a viewpoint different that yours, doesn’t it?

      2. Sewer rat
        “It hurts when someone has a viewpoint different that yours, doesn’t it?”
        How many DEAD people should a different viewpoint be allowed?

        1. What is happening here is a social contagion. People have convinced themselves that the vaccines are inordinately dangerous, supported and fueled by the fact that many other people seem to believe the same thing.

          But the science does not back them up. You say vaccinated people are dropping like flies? Present the evidence for that.

          In my (extensive) experience they can not, so they are left with denouncing all of science as essentially corrupted, as you can see from the posts below.

          But where does that leave them? In putting all of their faith in anecdotal evidence, much of which is unverified, and would be dodgy even if the accounts were true.

  11. But, but, but ….. science.

    There are these airy statistics.
    How many would have died if they did not take the vax?
    How many lived because they took it?

    Well, you can create hundreds of outcomes just manipulating the wordings of things regardless of actual facts.
    The airy ‘scientific’ studies actually don’t know one way or another.
    You can quote and refer to internet all day long.
    Yeah …. you are against ‘science’, the wise guys will say.
    They don’t bloody know.
    Though it helps the massive paid for propaganda.

  12. It’s not just injectable poisons. Food is covered in poison.

    “According to a new study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, nearly 60% of sperm samples from a French infertility clinic contained high levels of glyphosate.

    Glyphosate is the world’s most common weedkiller.

    “The new research also found evidence of impacts on DNA and a correlation between glyphosate levels and oxidative stress on seminal plasma, suggesting significant impacts on fertility and reproductive health,” The Guardian reports.”

    https://100percentfedup.com/study-high-levels-glyphosate-found-nearly-60-sperm/

  13. “Safe and effective”
    OK .
    Those who insist shall demonstrate their faith.
    One jab for every injured person.
    Two for every death.
    Why not?
    We have a whole bunch of paid for “Experimental vaccine” laying around.
    Think of this as cost effective justice..
    Even better than “Social Justice”.
    Right from the beginning of Dread Covid Theatre,the lies and vested interests were obvious.
    Our Gullible Government Experts are either not experts,or they are guilty of intentional harm.
    There is no way around this.
    Either they knew or they should have known (that the path they have chosen was wrong).
    Expert or idiot?
    Does it matter?
    Some would say yes,that intent is important.
    I disagree,all have been revealed to be liars,thus only the result of their actions can be used to judge them.

    As a fitting reward for the State of Thuggery,created by these actors,jab them til they ooze,then jabby,jabby some more.
    Payback is a bitch.
    For where these Dear Leaders chose to take us,is a place no sane human would dare to go.
    All the masks are off.
    Do you like who you see?

    1. This is what disappoints the Dead Rat, that we didn’t die of Covid, or were mortally wounded. We survived and thrived.
      Meanwhile, that sewer rat still has that toxic garbage circulating in its veins, causing untold damage.
      And one day, it will #DiedSuddenly. And good riddance. MAIDED itself.

      1. 1. When 10% to 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, some people will know many instances of miscarriages simply out of (bad) luck.

        2. With no way of verifying, It’s possible conned is lying, or at least being loose with the facts. Some anti-vaxxers are so rabid that they may feel justified in “exaggerating for a good cause.”

  15. As I understand it (and I accept arguments to show that I may be wrong), a covid mRNA “vaccine” works by invading the body cells and making the cell produce some benign representation of the covid virus. Those benign products are then released into the bloodstream for the body to see and build up a resistance to the virus……but just how does the cell release those products out to the bloodstream???? I expect that the cell has to rupture, dying in the process…this may not be a problem for general purpose body cells which easily replicate to fill the loss, but it may prove troublesome for more specialized cells in vital body organs such as the heart.

    1. Yeadon retired from Pfizer in 2011, and thus had nothing to do with the development of COVID vaccines, or — so far as I can tell — of any vaccines. He principally worked on asthma treatments at Pfizer.

      That does not stop him, of course, of publicizing his ties to Pfizer as if it gives him some special insight into their vaccines.

      He also famously claimed in October 2020 that the COVID pandemic was over.

      In my considered professional opinion as a world-leading psychologist, he’s cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

  17. “In my considered professional opinion as a world-leading psychologist, he’s cuckoo for Coco Puffs.”
    Wrap yourself in authority,unknown pseudonym of zee internet.
    Given the content of your posts,I would almost believe the above.

  18. As of 2:08, Killer Marmot: SCORE 17 comments.

    Might help people continue the count.

    1. Maybe he should convert to Islam.

      Praying only 5 times a day will give him a break. His current pharma religion seems pretty demanding.

    2. 18. But they’re mostly replies to constructive criticisms. I can’t help if people want to engage with my posts.

  19. It sure would be nice if the jab didn’t hurt people. It does. It doesn’t stop transmission. The jabbed catch colds again and again. Heart attacks in athletes and young people. Why would any body argue that this should not be investigated? A Canucks hockey player has a blood clot and can’t play the rest of the play offs. Best athlete around gets a blood clot? Don’t tell me it just happens. Is it because he goes up and down in a plane regularly? That is the reason given for this sudden blood clot. Right. Why didn’t he have this problem 5 years ago?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation