Dr. David Wiseman: What point did we go from recklessness to vandalism?

Dr. David Wiseman: What point did we go from recklessness to vandalism?

Dr. David Wiseman has a PhD in experimental pathology. He is a UK pharmacist pharmacology and previously headed a research program as a top scientist at Johnson and Johnson.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on November 22, 2021. The full meeting can be viewed here.

[00:00:00]

[00:00:30] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: We’re blessed to have is Dr. David Wiseman, who is going to be giving us a perspective of our situation with regard to drug development and regulatory mechanisms.

[00:00:39] Yeah. It looks like he’s come in. Beautiful. Thanks David, for being here.

[00:00:43] Zoe Strickland: David, you’re on mute.

[00:00:45] David Wiseman: There we go. Some people prefer that way.

[00:00:48] In the preparation someone said, can we have a song? If you don’t mind, I’m going to give you the song. Is that okay? And people to make their own verses afterwards.

[00:01:01] I’ve got the COVID blues. Because this is what they say. Just take the bags, and it will go away. Take HCQ. And you’ll lose. That’s why I’ve got the COVID blues.

[00:01:15] Okay. All right. That’s it and goodbye!

[00:01:20] Dr. Jennifer Hibberd: No.

[00:01:21] David Wiseman: We need a mental health treatment here because I, yeah, I recognize a lot of the names on the list and I know everyone’s working without pay in most cases, crazy hours.

[00:01:34] And and I really appreciate this kind of opportunity to get a sanity check from everyone and the wonderful presentations. And also to acknowledge my direct collaborators, some of whom were on the call, Joss Getsgo and Hurley Seligman, and the wider circle of people that, that we interact with Tess Lauri and many other.

[00:01:54] Thank you. And I’m honored to speak to you today. My background is, I have a PhD in experimental pathology. I’m a UK pharmacist pharmacology. I worked for a little company called Johnson and Johnson. I headed up a research program there. I was one of the top scientists there. I was a research fellow great level.

[00:02:11] There was 66 of us at that time in the corporation. And I started my own business 25 years ago, doing R&D consulting, preclinical studies, FDA stuff for medical companies and dropped everything a year and a half ago because this is important and the, really the top five messages, I think that I want people to think about today.

[00:02:32] I’m mainly going to focus on the children’s vaccines but it will spill into the other areas as well. First of all, the vaccine data that have been used to justify the children’s vaccination for Pfizer are un-verified by FDA. And that’s just outstanding. And Mark, just ask, what point did we go from recklessness to vandalism.

[00:02:51] You might take that word even further than the word vandalism. Secondly, there is an un-changed untested formulation of the Pfizer vaccine, which has been authorized in the United States to everyone. And I’d be interested in, in, in people’s view on that in a moment. The floor, the risk benefit analysis that FDA presented for the children’s vaccination we believe conservatively is off by 26 times.

[00:03:14] There is an unevaluated radiation like risk of cancer, and I use that term in order to make it something that so the average person can understand. And lastly, what’s going with boosters again, trying to capsulate it into simple, very complicated concepts, such as what we just saw a moment ago into very easy to understand language that this I believe is the immunological equivalent of heroin addiction.

[00:03:39] Most people can understand what heroin addiction is. And I believe that, what we’re seeing with the boosters is the immunological equivalent of it. On top of that, and again, hearing from the south African legal department a moment ago and others, that there’s really a complete abandonment of regulatory standards and normal drug development strategies.

[00:03:58] And there’s little, really no support for continued vaccination and certainly none for mandates. So those are the top line messages, and I’ve given you my background here. I also want to acknowledge the generous support, Steve Kirsh and Metta prep, education and trial site news. And I can supply these support slides later.

[00:04:17] I’m going to go quickly. If anyone wants to jump on a call afterwards, I can go into more detail. This is the sort of stuff that we’re faced with. I’m sure everyone’s seen this type of thing in their own countries that the health departments and public officials are saying that things like that the Pfizer vaccine for five to 11 year olds has been carefully studied in children.

[00:04:36] And I’m sure you’ll realize that statement is, there’s little resemblance to reality. You will know the scale of the information that we’re being bombarded with just on pub med. As of two days ago, there were nearly 200,000 papers published in pub med or listed in pub med.

[00:04:52] That’s about 400 or so papers a day. And there’s about a 10th of that in med archive being probably the most prominent pre-print server. Part of my work has been looking at hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin co-authors Pierre Cory and others, where we’ve looked at key studies that we use to guide

[00:05:10] public policy, the bull west study and in the new journal medicine and the Lopez Medina study in JAMA, where we’ve looked at raw data, the raw data and found significant flaws. And once we’ve corrected them, we see actual reductions to statistically significant reductions in COVID. In those and other studies. This is the risk benefit analysis that FDA presented and in their most extreme scenario, what they call number six, they have a 6.6 times benefit of vaccinations in children over risk.

[00:05:41] And there are a number of places which are listed here. I’m not going to go through them in detail. But number of places where they’ve underestimate or they’ve miscalculated these various components so that if you recalculate it in our estimation, there are 26 times off. And in fact there is at least a 4 times

[00:05:59] risk over benefit. And I’m going to show you just a couple of examples of that. And this is a very conservative estimate. We haven’t even dealt with whether, even if the vaccine is efficacious or not on this particular analysis. One of the things that FDA actually got right, or partially, was it admission finally that the VAERS data that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is under reported.

[00:06:22] And that was a specific question and answer between an FDA and a CDC person to which the FDA person told the CDC person that the virus is under-reported and the FDA have another database that they use, which CDC didn’t seem to know about called Optum. Although Pfizer knew about it and on this slide, which is a Pfizer slide from an FDA meeting they show that if you compare the 1 0 6 number with the 22 number, you can see that at least with some myocarditis there’s under-reporting by 4.8 times.

[00:06:52] And of course it could be larger than that, but this is outstanding that finally, we have an admission that VAERS is underreported, that the database is not very good. And we’ve got at least a beginning of what those under-reporting factors could look like. One of the areas that

[00:07:04] completely ignored is seroprevalence and natural immunity. And this the background here is the CDC slide from showing in June 42% seroprevalence in children ages five to 11. The number could probably be higher. FDA did not account for any, they didn’t or not allow for any protection at all.

[00:07:21] Not even 1% of the 42%, they didn’t account for that in their risk benefit. So it’s not like they’re saying the vaccine is 42 times better than evolution or better than God. They’re saying it’s infinitely better than evolution and infinitely better than God. I find that completely amazing. CDC, as you probably know responded to an FOI request regarding natural immunity saying they don’t collect any information regarding recovered patients and whether they can transmit disease after they recovered. Again, this is outstanding, that they, that their mission, which is to conduct critical research.

[00:07:57] And this is certainly critical research that they’re not even doing that. So CDC on a number of levels have completely failed. And I just wrote a letter open letter to the chairperson of the advisory committee meeting that held a very hastily put together meeting last Friday. And the lawyer from South Africa mentioned, all the fun and games that they’re being faced with late term disclosures, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:08:21] This is in the same category here, but this is, you can read this lecture on Trial Site News. An FDA senior FDA official ex FDA official, Dr. Goldberg wrote recently that the FDA failed in its duty to ensure vaccines are safe for children. And certainly I agree with that.

[00:08:36] This and the next slide are probably two of the most important slides that anyone can have at this point. And I hope that you can see the very bottom of it. Can you see that it’s in the red box there Assay not validated? Is that visible on the screen? Only one. Yes.

[00:08:51] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes.

[00:08:52] David Wiseman: Okay.

[00:08:53] This is a slide the FDA slide. Other than that, the comments that I’ve overlaid onto it, this is one of the slides that the FDA. Discussing Pfizer’s evidence or claim of efficacy in children. This is an immuno bridging study looking at the antibody production effective against Delta.

[00:09:13] And first of all, you’ll note that it’s only with 34 patients. That’s one thing with four in the placebo. But astoundingly shockingly at the bottom, it says assay not validated, which means that the test method hasn’t been even invalidated. And secondly, that the analysis has not been verified by the FDA.

[00:09:33] That’s their job. That is their job. That is a fundamental job of FDA to check that the numbers just add up simply that the numbers add up and that’s before they’re supposed to even go and do alternate analysis, but they haven’t even done that. They’ve got absent without leave. And if you think this was a, this was really a secondary study.

[00:09:51] I’ll invite you to look at this slide, which is the efficacy data in children with 1300, five vaccinated children of whom three developed, COVID not serious COVID and 16 out of 663 developed not serious COVID and this number, these numbers were used to calculate a 90.7% efficacy of vaccine efficacy.

[00:10:16] And at the bottom of the slide, this is an FDA slide. These are not my words. These are FDA words. Make sure you really understand that it says analysis, not verified by the FDA. How can we even begin to discuss anything until we know that the numbers are even good? We can’t discuss anything. Any lawsuits, if someone asked the question earlier, do I bring 51 Metro analyses or 50 analyses?

[00:10:42] You just have to bring this one. You just have to show this slide. Okay. This one slide tells you everything. We don’t even know if the data is reliable. I don’t care if you bring me a million Metro analyses. Okay. If the data is, has not even been verified by the FDA, a public, supposedly the gold standard of regulation, how can we even begin the conversation that is beyond outstanding.

[00:11:09] And I would just tell you that this is not the first time the FDA had done this in the October 15th meeting of the advisory committee where they discuss the Janssen second dose booster, dose, whatever you want to call it in a similar series of slides to this one, but probably 20-30 slides perhaps.

[00:11:27] At the bottom of those slides were words similar to these that the analysis had not been verified by the FDA. 20 or 30 slides being used to support Janssen’s application. And one of the committee members, Dr. Chatterjee challenged, the FDA said, what do you mean you haven’t analyzed the data, verified the data, isn’t that your job and the answer that was given, and this is all in the public record.

[00:11:50] I’ve got it all queued up on YouTube. I can send you the link. It’s very easy. Anyone can look at it for themselves. The answers, but from the FDA world, we thought these people were just going to show up with 200 patients for us to look up. Johnson and Johnson had the absolute sincerity to show up with real data with 200 with 20 or 30,000 patients.

[00:12:09] How can you possibly expect us to analyze that data? And we, it would take us a month to do. Excuse me, FDA. That’s your job. That’s your job. You failed the American people. You failed the world because the world is looking at you as the gold standard. Okay. So this is not the first time incidentally, that same doctor who asked that question at the October the 15th meeting was not present at the October 26th meeting where these data that I’m showing you on this slide were presented.

[00:12:38] I don’t know why, what the reason for her absence was. This is combined with the fact that they’ve changed the formulation. This is no different from a label on a car seat, which says, that the car seat is for a child is 91% effective at reducing children’s automobile accident injuries.

[00:12:56] But the government have not checked our testing. The testing we did was with a different car seat from the one we’re selling and the government agree with us that the changes are minor, even though we did no crash dummy tests on the new car seats. If you wouldn’t put your children in this car seat, why would you give them a vaccine that essentially says the same thing?

[00:13:15] This is another way that the Risk benefit analysis is flawed in other aspects and basically using Pfizer’s own numbers at the bottom, which you’ve seen in an earlier slide, the three in the 16 numbers, we can calculate how many cases would be prevented using the vaccine in the five to 11 year olds and using those numbers, anyone can do the math.

[00:13:35] They’re not difficult, certainly for anyone on this call. I hope we calculate nearly 22,000 preventable cases, according to Pfizer’s own numbers, according to Pfizer’s own numbers. And when you look at FDA’s calculations in the left column, the blue ellipse, you can see other than scenario three, their estimate of the number of preventable COVID cases in the same population of children are between 45 and 58,000.

[00:14:05] A difference of between 2.1 and 2.7 times. In other words, using Pfizer’s own numbers, FDA have inflated that estimate by nearly three times. In fact, that CDC has had a slight update on the numbers. So the number could be up to 2.9 times. This is this beyond any sense of sanity.

[00:14:26] Now you’ve all heard the term, everyone on this call knows the term double blind randomized study. And you all know what it means, and you’ll know why. But it might shock you to learn, as it did me actually, because I missed this one until recently, that the administrator of the vaccine, the person giving the dose to the child, or in fact, even in the adult as well was not blinded. The person administering the dose,

[00:14:48] in fact, the people preparing the dose, throwing it out, diluting it, whatever they had to do. And then administering a dose was not blinded. I’m sure everyone here who’s been done any type of experiments, okay, understands that you have to make decisions because things happen in experiments. And you have to make a decision as to whether to include a particular animal, a particular patient in a study because things happen.

[00:15:11] And you have to do that as honestly as you can. Am I excluding, or including this person, because I’ve got some unknown bias that I don’t know about, and you have to build protections into the protocol to keep you honest, even if you’re not trying deliberately to manipulate the numbers. So this is an observant blinded study, and the three and the 60 number that I showed you

[00:15:32] that was driving the 90.7% efficacy estimate doesn’t have to change by very much to change 90% efficacy down to zero. And here’s one place where that could happen. You notice in the red circles that 47 subjects were excluded due to protocol violations in the vaccine group, only four excluded in the placebo group. Anyone who’s doing any kind of clinical trials would immediately recognize this is a huge red flag, neon lights, sirens, blazing as to what the hell’s going on over there.

[00:16:05] The sirens are deafening on this one. Okay. And if the person administering the dose was not blinded, okay. It could easily happen. Not even intentionally. Why there are more way more, by 10 or more times, way more exclusions in the control in the placebo, in the vaccine group than the placebo group.

[00:16:26] You don’t have to have many that are wrong to change those 16. And the three numbers down to numbers that are approximately equal. So this is a humongous problem. We don’t even know if this is efficacious. Of course, since the FDA didn’t verify anything that’s even worse. Number one. Number two, why was there no ITT analysis and intention to treat analysis?

[00:16:46] That’s a standard statistical procedure that is used in these types of instances. No intention to treat analysis. That’s another red flag. And so on this slide, we show that even though in the new England journal of medicine account of this study, you have to delve into the appended protocol to find the word observer blinded study.

[00:17:07] Okay. It’s it is there, but FDA in their documents still think that it’s double blind. No wonder they’re not checking for any bias. And then in the adult study, the one that everyone’s being vaccinated on for the Pfizer, again this was a observer blinded study, even though FDA thinks various documents

[00:17:27] it’s a double-blinded study. And again, here are the data. The red circles are the fundamental outcome events in the adult study. Eight COVID cases in the vaccine and 162 in the placebo that doesn’t have to change by very much, okay, to change the estimate from 95% efficacy to a lower number than that.

[00:17:48] And if you think where’s the source of that again boxes there, there are 311 exclusions in the vaccine group and 60 in the control group. They don’t have to change by very much. You don’t have to be wrong by very many to change the estimate or the efficacy. And make it worse,

[00:18:03] there are allegations published in the BMJ a couple of weeks ago of a serious errors in scientific misconduct, including unblinding related to the Pfizers of vaccine study adult vaccine study at one particular study center, we don’t know how widespread this is. So safety, that the study is small in children with small, with a short followup.

[00:18:23] There are missing data. Pfizer said that they were going to be collecting a blood sample, serum samples, to look at troponin levels for subclinical myocarditis. Where are they? Where is that study? Where is it? Where are the results? A paper or an abstract just came just a few days ago.

[00:18:40] Looking at this pulse a profile test, I guess you call it where they’re able to predict acute coronary syndrome, EEG, heart attack, and other things using these various markers. And they show in a group of people who are in a preventative cardiology program, that there was an increase from 11% in the sort of pulse positive people to 25% was showing an almost two and a half year risk.

[00:19:02] This is in a validated measure, two and a half, two and a half times the risk of acute coronary syndrome in five years. So there are all sorts of indications that, that there’s stuff going on here. FDA knew about the Moderna concerns early in October. And yet that was never brought up at the FDA meeting on October the 26th.

[00:19:21] And on the same day, the FDA authorized the children’s vaccine for Pfizer. They also told Moderna you’re on hold for your children’s program. And yet, sometimes they want to use Moderna together with Pfizer to bolster a particular point. But here they split the two. Why didn’t you bring this up FDA at the October the 26 meeting when you were supposed to be presenting what they call the totality of evidence.

[00:19:44] You may have seen this quotation. It goes from worse to worse here. Dr. Eric Rubin, who was a voting member of the FDA panel, said at the FDA panel, we are never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. And he is the editor of the new England journal.

[00:20:01] So this statement was made on October the 26th. We’re never going to learn and we’ve got to point out the word never until we stop giving it. How about Dr. Rubin looking at your journal the next morning in your journal, he must’ve woken up in absolute shock. Wow. My journal has this paper on adverse effects, according to age and sex.

[00:20:23] What a shame this wasn’t published two days ago and what a shame I could not have possibly known about it until I woke up and had my breakfast the day after the FDA meeting. Okay. And so when you go into that paper and you find what they’ve done here, again, this is off the station. Like you wouldn’t believe they’ve deemed granular the age bands for a risk difference for and other things.

[00:20:46] Okay. And so two, which appears to obscure what’s really going on. So what we did was we went back and compared those numbers with CDC numbers, and we’re able to back calculate what that really means. And what that really means is that based on that analysis, I’m not going to go into the details.

[00:21:04] It actually bolsters the number of points that we made in our challenge of FDA’s risk benefit analysis. So when Dr. Rubin says, we’re never going to learn you actually just learn something. If you just wake up the next morning, how disgusting is that? And to make it even more interesting the editors of the new England journal of medicine last October published this editorial called dying in a leadership vacuum.

[00:21:24] And I would suggest rewriting that and calling it dying in a medical leadership vacuum. And these are some of the quotes that they had in the blue that the CDC has suffered dramatic testing and policy failures. This is what the new England journal medicine said last year. And FDA has been shamefully politicized.

[00:21:41] The peers respond to pressure from the administration rather than scientific evidence. Wow. I don’t think things have changed very much. We see five causes of vaccine associated deaths based on various calculations. Herbie Seligman, and others have done these calculations based on the papers coming out of Israel and the ministry of health data.

[00:22:00] And we’ve seen these patterns of increased all cause mortality as well associated with vaccination. If I have time, I’ll go into that. Everyone knows about the best system. I’m not going to go into that. I’m sure people are well aware of these kinds of ratios. This is the work done by with Josh and others showing when you compare rates are normalized for a number of doses and compare with a similar number of doses given for flu vaccines.

[00:22:26] This is just for children now or adolescents, but the numbers are similar or even worse, actually. In some cases rates of between 20 and 60, 70 times more events of these kinds of categories than you do for flu vaccines. And again, drilling down on this slide when you go even to, into more granular types of events, in, in the hundreds of times, more than in flu vaccines the name that we’ve come up with is pCoVs, which is a post COVID vaccine syndrome.

[00:22:53] We’ve got to call it something we’ve got to capture the minds of people to say, there was a general problem here. Okay. And we’re going to call it something. Pregnancy, you want to talk about disgusting. It even gets worse than that. And the issue of informed consent was raised in the earlier presentations and the package insert for commonality says that the data is unavailable is insufficient to inform vaccine associated risks in pregnancy.

[00:23:15] And yet the CDC strongly recommends the vaccination during pregnancy. This is what they strongly recommend. So those two statements are in congruent, but here, this is even better. The CDC, a conducting study, I should say without the knowledge of participants, because, and this is the words of their protocols that are publicly available.

[00:23:33] There is an urgent need to monitor the safety of these vaccines in pregnancy. If there is an urgent need to monitor the safety, why CDC are you recommending its use in pregnancy? Not only that, they’ve requested to waive the requirements to obtain informed consent for these studies or parental permission.

[00:23:50] And so women who are in these studies don’t even know they’re in these studies and they are not only that because of mandates, they are being coerced in many cases to take the vaccine. Okay this is a medical experiment of the most disgusting type.

[00:24:05] Svetlana: Can I jump in here? Can I jump in here for a second?

[00:24:08] Hi, I’m I’m from Vancouver. I’m speaking to you from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. We were at an awareness campaign rally yesterday at the lions gate hospital. We’re bringing awareness to the community. 13 stillborns in one day. 13 stillborns in one day at the Vancouver Lionsgate hospital. This, we usually have one a month.

[00:24:33] We had 13 in one day we were bringing awareness. All pregnant mothers were vaccinated. So I want to just-

[00:24:41] David Wiseman: I don’t know what to do. What can I tell you?

[00:24:44] Svetlana: No, you can’t tell me. What I’m saying is I’m confirming what you just said that here in Canada, this is the result of vaccinated mothers. 13 stillborns in one day. So we had a family doctor of 50 years bringing awareness, and I was also the registered nurse bringing awareness. 13 stillborns in one day. The average historically is one a month.

[00:25:05] David Wiseman: There you go. Wow. Menstrual disorders we’re getting reports as it reports from gynecologists menstrual disorders all of many different kinds. And that’s another, we know that the lipid nanoparticles distributed around the body, but particularly to the ovaries. So that’s probably not so surprising but only on August the 30th after this was the komanoff he was approved in the United States only then did it, did NIH announced funding to, to look at this issue cancer, the issue of cancer has been raised today and no cancer studies, no genotoxicity studies.

[00:25:39] Why not? Why not? And they were done on, I think Moderna did them actually. Which is interesting. We were just finding that out today, but Pfizer have not, or at least, have not provided. Long-term safety and that’s something really stemming from the last presentation.

[00:25:53] In the United States, this is Moderna’s statement at the top here. Moderna made this statement in their second quarter financial report last year. The mRNA technology, their mRNA technology is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA, a gene therapy product. And why is that important?

[00:26:09] Because FDA has a guidance document as to what kind of studies need to be done for gene therapy products. And there is a, between a five and a 15 year guidance for long-term followup for auto immune diseases, cancers, the gene therapy products. That’s gone completely out of the window but no one’s mentioning this.

[00:26:27] Okay. And so certainly again with, especially with the evidence presented a moment ago, we need to combine that with the regulatory situation. That again, once again, a regulatory guideline has been completely discarded, and the bottom are two quotations for a paper published by Moderna founders a couple of years ago, where they’re discussing their technology and the last bullet there they say the first clinical application will likely not be a prophylactic vaccine because the tolerance for side effects is very low for a drug that is injected into healthy individuals.

[00:26:58] So this, these are Moderna’s own words, the scientists from Moderna’s own words in a publication in 2016. A number of studies coming out of Israel, because Israel is ahead of everyone else. Many countries in vaccination are being used to support different aspects of vaccines.

[00:27:14] Most of these studies are being done by the same group of people from the ministry of health and which there are a significant statistic of issues, testing bias being one of them but a censoring bias, which I’m not going to go into any detail here, but a censoring bias that was picked up by a reader in this pre-print here which was partially accounted for in a sensitivity analysis in the first study from the Israeli group.

[00:27:35] But he said, no, he didn’t go far enough in doing their sensitivity analysis. And so without the benefit of having the raw data to really do it again he made some calculations that suggested that when you account for this informational censoring you could reduce the efficacy of the vaccine down to zero, just on that alone.

[00:27:53] And subsequent papers have used the same methodology, but they don’t reference the same limitation. So that’s a huge problem. Herve Seligmann, who I believe is on the call noticed in that early in February, he was probably the first person to notice these sorts of problems. And I’m honored to have him as a collaborator.

[00:28:09] And he noticed in the Dugan paper, the blue line that there’s an imbalance to begin with of the number of death or cases, I think it was at the beginning but in the vaccinated group that shot up very quickly and pointing to some adverse consequence of perhaps of the vaccine and again, in another analysis, but which he did.

[00:28:28] And then the two of us tweaked it a little bit made some, made it more wider. He really calculated that in United States terms, this is equivalent to about 30 something thousand deaths in among vaccinated people. You’re a subsequent to the cut to being vaccinated.

[00:28:44] He tried to send this to new England journal of medicine. I’m sure. What happened to it. And then FDA authorized the booster doses on the same day they they put on hold the Moderna program. I don’t know why that slide is there, but this is going back to the Israeli study.

[00:28:57] This is again Herve’s work showing that after the booster dosing in the red there in Israel, after the rollout of the booster dosing, the number of cases started to skyrocket. And then you’ve look at the blue line. Those are the that’s a similar period last year, where there was a slight uptick in cases some small wave, but you can see it subsided.

[00:29:15] So the booster dosing was associated with a through the roof number of cases, and here is even more significant and we have dissect the Israeli data more detail here. This in the left side of severe cases, the right side of deaths.

[00:29:27] And there’s a dotted line there, which shows the number of cases of the number of vaccinations, either new primary series or booster vaccinations, most of the booster vaccinations and then the normalized by population. The black line shows the uptick in the non-vaccinated groups, but look at the red line of the vaccinated, people who received the vaccine more than six months ago.

[00:29:50] And if they had any sort of protection, then that line should have gone up later, and it should have gone up to a lower degree than the black line. And that you see that with both cases, severe cases and deaths. So clearly there that the old vaccination cases are, seem to be no better impact, probably even worse than the non-vaccinated people.

[00:30:08] There does appear to be some interim benefit of the booster doses, as you can see in the green line. But but I’ve got another slide, which I’m going to have to jump this one here. This is Herve’s analysis, again, looking at 23 European countries looking at correlations between time from vaccination starting all different time points and showing that in the blue lines is a different age groups, et cetera, the top left group there’s a benefit overall benefit of all cause mortality appears to be an overall benefit all cause mortality from about four to 24 weeks post vaccination, but in the early four week up to four week period, and then 24 weeks onwards, there appears to be a detriment.

[00:30:46] Meaning if the vaccine just waned to do nothing, that yellow area would be flat. It wouldn’t be there, but there’s a, there appears to be a detriment and this is an all cause mortality. Now, what is even more startling is on the left top left panel. This is children 14 years and below who were generally not vaccinated.

[00:31:04] And you can see the associated with vaccination in the whole population. There is a detriment. There appears to be detriment in all-cause mortality. That’s very frightening. The booster dosing data only came out on Friday FDA dodged having their own meetings. So we don’t even have the FDA slide that says we didn’t analyze the data, but these are the numbers from the slides that were presented.

[00:31:25] And when you compare the booster data, that Pfizer presented with their original data, this is in the adults now, even though, there’s obviously issues comparing across studies, but you see both in the boost, in the vaccinated, in the non-vaccinated group or boosted growth group, there is a three to three and a half times worsening of the outcome.

[00:31:44] Overall, when you compare that, when you compare the two we don’t have the raw data. We need the raw data. Because of all the reasons that have been mentioned boosting, against a waning immunity, evermore vaccine resistant virus, variants de-selection of natural immunity and an increased and evaluated risk of cumulative dosing.

[00:32:01] That’s why I’m calling this an immunological equivalent of heroin addiction. Lastly, I’m going to cover the new formula. And this, again, this was slipped under the rug under in the backdoor by Pfizer. And not just for children, but for adults. And all they got away with was showing analytical compatibility sort of bench, top basic tests of lipid nanoparticle and the mRNA characterization, which FDA accepted.

[00:32:24] And again, as someone in the drug development field this would have been a huge red flag. Anyone who’s done any drug development will know that even the smallest of formulation changes could have major biological consequences and no animal studies, no transfection in vitro studies. And certainly no clinical studies were done to show any sort of biological compatibility between the old and the new formulation.

[00:32:46] And that it was specifically stated by Pfizer that the, in the children’s vaccine, but the, all the studies were done using the old formulation, PBS buffer and not the TRIS buffer that they use, that they’ve now using, not just for children, but for adults. And so why is that important? The

[00:33:02] claimed reason for doing this is stability. And you can see that the stability requirements to the old vaccine are quite stringent and quite difficult to manage. You need a very low temperature and anyone who knows about anything like this, we know this is difficult to manage this sort of cold chain problem.

[00:33:17] And so what could have happened is that in some cases, people may have got actually a suboptimal dose and by improving the stability, you could either increase the amount of micrograms of mRNA that everyone would get, or people who might’ve got a lower dose because of stability problems. Now will get a higher dose.

[00:33:35] So you’re effectively increasing the effective dose in different ways to people who are going to be receiving this vaccine, which of course could have efficacy and safety consequences on a sort of more chemistry level. And I’d be interested to for for the previous speakers comments on this is that you have these ionizable lipids on the lipid nanoparticles and they have tertiary aiming groups and you have the TRIS molecule on the top left side there. The

[00:33:58] molecule and hydrogen bonding is well-known between, hydroxyl groups and tertiary aiming groups. And so you could change certainly if you can change pH characteristics at the injection site, you could change the ionization of the, even with hydrogen bonds, the electrical properties, chemical properties of the outer shell of the lipid nanoparticle, which could affect its uptake, its distribution, its entry into other parts of the body.

[00:34:22] Again, could certainly change the efficacy and safety protocol. This is a basic question that FDA should have asked if I was sitting in Pfizer or Johnson and Johnson, I would expect to have this question asked to me, and I would be prepared to answer it with animal studies and in vitro studies at the very minimum, and that does not seem to have happen.

[00:34:41] So that’s a huge red flag. Lastly, of course we want transparency. And this is a document that was given to me from trial site news from an FOI request from the European medical agency where a document was provided with an interim Pfizer report clinical report, and you can see page after page here of black tile tables, which which we speak to the disposition of adverse events and reactions and so on for 12 to 15 and 16 to 25 year olds.

[00:35:09] So again, we want transparency in and I’m sure you’ve seen now the the response from FDA asking a federal judge to grant an until the year 2076 to fully release Pfizer’s COVID vaccine data. I’m happy to take the vaccine. I’ll just wait until all the data’s in and and take it so 55 years, I’ll see you.

[00:35:28] There’s a day of prayer announced or something and there’s a verse from the book of Hosea that to kiss calves is like sacrificing humans. And you’ll know that the word vaccine comes through the word Vaca the Latin word cow related to the cowpox and the smallpox discovery by Dr.

[00:35:43] Jenna, 200 and something years ago. And so we are literally worshiping the cow by worshiping the vaccine and those who kiss calves is like sacrificing humans. So thank you very much for your attention. I’m honored to ask answer any questions and to be in this audience.

[00:35:57] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much, Dr. Wiseman. It is absolutely interesting. You’ve got tons and tons of requests for your slides and hopefully we can get those. Perfect. Thank you. And also for the attendees who are on, they were able to ask questions in the Q&A, there is one excellent question there. If you can please reply to that in the Q&A section.

[00:36:15] And then if you can please look at the questions that are coming through in the chat.

[00:36:19] Your presentation was excellent. I’m going to definitely need it for our court case here in South Africa as well. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[00:36:25] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thanks so much Naseeba. Dr. Wiseman, thank you for that exceptional work. The science and investigative work and really the shocking realities you’ve revealed. And in particularly when you talked about this being the equivalent of heroin, beyond the spike pathology, which explains a lot of what we’re seeing, these new concerns that we have about the destruction of the innate immune system, and really it’s a very concerning situation.

[00:36:48] And I hope that we’ll be seeing lots more of you. I look forward to combing over your slides, watching your presentation, at least a few more times, sharing it with our audiences. And I would really invite you to hopefully maintain a connection with all of our affiliates, but certainly with the legal committee who is combing through evidence and trying to disseminate the knowledge of how to give this truth, some importance in how things are being guided around the world in the courts.

[00:37:15] So thank you very much for your work, Dr. Wiseman Thank you.

[00:37:19]

4 Comments

      1. Thank you so much for the work and time you are investing in educating people. Hopefully it will open some minds. Many people have some sort of mental blinds on. Sad!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *