Take Me Out to the Shell Game! Keep Me Away from the Crowd!
Breakthrough Cases: Remember the "Change of Life" Baby

Parents Questioned & Labeled For Using Critical Thinking Skills

WhyWhy aren't they anti-vaccine? They are worried about the safety and effect on their kids. We learned the hard way, many of us. And we are worried about the safety and effect of all vaccines because of what happened to our own children. So why are we anti-vaccine?

From The New York Times. 

They’re Not Anti-Vaccine, but These Parents Are Hesitant

More often than not, Dr. Talib said, the parents had already had the Covid-19 vaccine themselves, and would preface their message with: “I’m not an anti-vaxxer or an anti-masker. I’m just worried.” According to recently released polls, parents across the country share those concerns, with only about 30 percent saying they would get their children vaccinated right away. Parents of infants and preschoolers expressed more anxiety about the vaccine than parents of teenagers did



A timely video from Amazing Polly:

Scientist Discover Anti-Maskers Do Great Science! UH-OH.
"MIT did a study on Covid Skeptics and guess what? They found out we're better at science, data analytics and communication than they are! Unfortunately this means we have to be stopped. I read from the study and give my commentary."

Get ready for Stalinesque tactics.


Thanks, Susan. I was listening anyway, so I figured, Why not? It is good to have a record of what was said.

During my days in retail, I helped out at the cosmetics counter during promotions. The regular cosmetics salespeople had a book they used to upsell customers from the minimum price for the gift to a higher-priced item. If you had to spend $19 to get the gift, and you wanted to buy a $21 foundation, the employee was supposed to try to sell you the $35 bottle of foundation instead. I think stockbrokers have a "rebuttal book" for when people try to sell. At least the joke is that they do.

I have been wondering whether Marks et al have a similar book. Reporter asks how they could EUA something with *very little data,* and then Marks says they have *great data.* Who cares if you only have 190 data points, if they're YUGE and REALLY GREAT, right? Reporter asks about why EUA is a good idea, given that very, very few people younger than 18 have died, and then Woodcock or Marks says that MIS-C is really bad. Who cares that very few children got it? It's unpleasant and has a scary name! It is a mind-bending experience to listen to these folks.

susan welch

TOB. Thank you so much for transcribing the 'virtual press conference'

What a huge amount of work!



Who gets to be the level one trial Guinea pigs? What parent would willingly submit their child to be potentially harmed or killed with the EUA Covid gene therapy? Just where are they getting these young children? If they don't go to Africa (as usual), will the American Guinea pigs all get placebos so they can claim success? Remember, we are dealing with Pharma companies that have previously lied. I'm sure they could give the newborns in New York the real deal because their law allows for post birth abortion. Convenient.


I went ahead and typed up the rest of the teen "press conference." The fancy footwork is impressive. Kid asks how can we trust Pfizer after they've lied; Marks says FDA typically checks 10 to 20 percent of submitted clinical trial data. No mention, of course, of what FDA did in the Pfizer EUA scenario.

Marks is the master of referring to typical FDA policy (for licensed vaccines) and eliding it with what FDA did (the specifics of which are *never* mentioned) with respect to the EUA'd products.

It's also interesting how often these policymakers use "hope" and "lucky." Hashtag-science!

Marks: Right now, the good news is that, for the current generation of vaccines, both for Pfizer and Moderna, the immune responses are so good that they appear to get all of the variants that are currently moving around in the US, so hopefully---it would be nice if it’ll turn out if it’ll be a year before anyone will need a booster, it could be more, or it could be a little less. This is something we’re going to have to figure out as we go.
Eva Pate: I have a question about Pfizer and their history of fraud. [reads guilty plea for misbranding products as described here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history] How can we trust the efficiency of such a vaccine when the company has lied in the past?
Marks: Companies do things that are sometimes not good. Our job as regulators is to make sure that we have methods in place to make sure that the right thing happens. Our center has been regulating vaccines since 1903 [in snide tone], so we’ve seen everything! Um, and that means we actually, we do a number of things to make sure that things check out. That includes going and looking at the clinical trial data that’s submitted to us, and that includes making sure that the actual test results match up with what’s submitted to us, you know, it includes going to the factories where these vaccines are made, and making sure they are made with high quality, and that includes reviewing all that information to make sure it all makes sense when it gets put together. And then as a check on that, we have something called post-market surveillance, where after the vaccine is out there in the real world, we’re able to look and make sure that it remains safe, and that it remains effective, so let’s just specifically for the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19, we can say that we checked out, um, all of the data [laughs]—we don’t check out every last piece, but we generally check out somewhere on the order of 10 percent, up to 20 percent of the data in a clinical trials, and that checked out. The manufacturing process checked out. And so that trial in close to 44,000 people almost, things checked out there, but what we also now have are data from very large studies conducted in, for example, in Israel in 5 million people, using the Pfizer vaccine, that seem to show that what was seen in the clinical trial is happening in real life in those countries.
The totality of the evidence, when everything comes together to look right like that, we feel reasonably confident that things are working. That means that we’re still going to be vigilant [laughs again] and I’m not saying that they weren’t wrong at some point. I’m just saying that our job, in front of us at FDA, is to make sure that these tremendously important public health products, that people can trust them.
Woodcock: I agree. That was probably, those violations and prosecutions you cited, they were probably from the drug center when I was head of it. We prosecuted quite a few people, I mean companies, for what we considered improper advertising practices over the years, so that doesn’t mean necessarily that their medicines developed by their scientists were bad. It means that when they were commercially marketing them, they did improper marketing activities, and we go after those people, the pharmaceutical market is very competitive, and there has been a lot of improper advertising and so forth, but on the scientific side, we have very rigorous systems as Peter said, to prevent any kind of fraud from getting through the system. It’s a little harder for us to police all the different detail people out there promoting to doctors. But we do it also.
Nathan Seelig: While these COVID vaccines are being made free to the public, what is the estimated cost, and what is the long-term plan for the US to pay for them.
[Both laugh]
Marks: As part of the initial investment that the government put into these vaccines, there was about close to I believe it was close to $18 billion spread around in vaccine development to ensure that we had vaccines to distribute to people, free of any cost of the vaccine. Now eventually, at some point, these vaccines will move from being EUA vaccines, which is a special pathway to make them available, to being conventional licensed vaccines, and this public health emergency may be over. At that point, it may be that these vaccines will be paid for by the traditional insurance methods that people’s insurance pay for them. In the meantime, I think part of your question is, I think the US government is probably going to help out other countries by making large amounts of vaccine to be made and given away, because I think that the government understands that unless—as many governments understand—that unless we bring this infectious disease under control, that it’s going to continue to create problems, because so many people go from place to place, that you can’t just wall off your country. So it is a lot of money that’s been spent on this, but when you think about the loss of life, the loss of livelihood, um, and what it actually costs in terms of the amount to the economy, for instance, the shutdowns a year ago were estimated to be a trillion dollars’ worth of costs to the economy—the cost of making the vaccine [laughs] is actually quite small, despite the fact that it’s a very large number.
Woodcock: What was so surprising is that we were so lucky. Typical pharmaceuticals, not necessarily vaccines, maybe only 1 out of 10 that get into people and are tested, are actually safe enough and work well enough to get approved, or EUA’d in this case. So we were very lucky that we got some vaccines that have really startling effectiveness. I think everyone was surprised at how well that turned out.
Marks: I’m just going to pick up on that, because it’s something that really we shouldn’t let go: The fact that this particular vaccine for 12 to 15, the Pfizer vaccine, basically had, in the trial of 2200 adolescents, 12- to 15-year-olds, 1005 who got the vaccine, none of them got COVID-19, whereas 16 of 978 adolescents aged 12 to 15 who got the saline placebo, got COVID-19. So that means you have essentially 100 percent effectiveness there. You don’t see that often with vaccines. There are few vaccines that are really, really good. For instance, the vaccine that you probably got, that we all probably got, for measles, mumps, and rubella, is pretty good. It’s not 100 percent, but it’s pretty close, particularly for measles. But to get so lucky to have this type of highly effective vaccine, we’re very grateful that that was very good luck.
Woodcock: My point was that it was worth the investment. The government invested in more of the candidates, because it was most likely that only one would make it through, so the fact that we already have three with an EUA and they’re highly effective, is terrific.


This "virtual press conference" with whichever teens somehow found out about it is rather surreal:


I've taken notes through 17:36 so far. The beginning is non-stop propaganda from Woodcock and Marks. Then the kids ask the questions:

Austin McClellan: Across the US, in many schools, many students would like to get vaccines, but sometimes their parents will now allow them. What would you recommend them to do?
Woodcock: Talk to your pediatrician or family doctor make sure they straighten out any misunderstandings your parents have.
Alexander Steil: Should students who have received both doses and have waited 2 weeks, be allowed to have the privilege to de-mask in school settings?
Woodcock: Masking rules are going to be up to local jurisdictions, and the reasons for that are how much virus is circulating around in the community, what kind of virus, also how many people generally have been vaccinated in the community. As we’ve heard, there’s a lot of variability there. We think response to this vaccine is very robust in the children who received it, and it seemed to protect them very well, but we don’t know for a large variety of people, and there are individuals who may be immunocompromised or some other condition who may not react so well, so each jurisdiction will look to CDC guidance, to what their state is saying, and what their local community, what the prevalence of the virus is, circulating around, and what kind of variants [laughs] are circulating, and they’ll put all that together.
Zoe Qian: According to CDC, in mid-March, hospitalization rates increased in all pediatric age groups, so why was EUA only for 12 to 15?
Marks: The easiest group to test were 12 to 15, because it was very easy to bridge down, to bootstrap our way down, because we knew we could use the same dose of vaccine that’s used in older individuals, so they were able to be enrolled in trials very early on.
When it gets to younger children, first you have to figure out what dose you’re going to use.
Also, in children younger than 10, there has been [MIS-C]. Now, we don’t know that the vaccine would cause anything like that, but we have to make sure that we follow that group a little longer. As much as we’d like to move down to that group as soon as possible, we need to [follow them for longer].
Woodcock: It’s easy to forget that generally speaking, a vaccine development program might take 7 years in the clinic [nervous laugh], 7 years of tests, and they work their way down with volunteers, and they’re very careful at every step, and we’ve been very careful; however, you can only compress this so much.
And basically I agree—I’m a rheumatologist, and we deal with odd autoimmune disorders and everything—we have to be careful as we step down into younger children, because they appear to have a different immune response when they get infected with this virus.
Brennan Eberwine: I’ve been hearing reports that like the Moderna vaccine will need a booster shot? Will the Pfizer vaccine need a booster for the variants of concern that are rising in the US, and could it be included in the flu shot?
Woodcock: As far as the flu shot, we have to study that. Because it’s seasonal, it’s not available all the time. [lots of nervous laughter] As far as boosters, that’s sort of the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, if you understand such a dated metaphor, would be our very older population, who got the vaccine first, we need to look at how their immunity is waning, and are they starting to get infected at some point, or is there immunity dropping down to the level where they might not be able to fight against the virus. They were the people, if you recall, who were immunized first, so we have the longest follow-up on them.
As far as variants go, we’re just going to have to determine that currently, the immune response to these vaccines is being tested against all these variants, to see how strong it is, and we just hope a variant doesn’t arise that can elude our vaccines.



Do a search using the words, sassoon opium india hsbc bank. Opium trade (along with slave trade) were the economic founders of both the British Empire as well as America. Merck's foray into the American market coincided with the Civil War and their patented opioid pain killer product, morphine.

Jeanne J


Please site your references for:
1. most of us catching SARS Cov-2 twice or three times.
2. getting sicker than the first time.
3. studies that indicate when natural immunity will wear off.

Anything other than science on those topics feels more like the fearmonger that the MSM has been doing since last March.


It's about the opioid crisis rather than vaccines, but it will be of interest to everybody here (and elsewhere). It explores the interplay among pharmaceutical companies, doctors, regulatory agencies, government and the justice system: HBO's "The Crime of the Century."

Highly recommended.


“Planned Obsolescence”: The Push for Big Pharma’s Booster Covid Shots and Annual Vaccinations

This is what I had already warned about. It might even get combined with a flu shot.
Permanent population control. A Vaccine Passport will guarantee sales......



"CDC: Death Toll Following Experimental COVID Injections Now at 4,434 – More than 21 Years of Recorded Vaccine Deaths from VAERS"

The vaccines have only been in use for less than 6 months! VAERS captures about 1%!


"...most of us will catch SARS Cov-2 twice or even three times and may get sicker than their first time after the natural immunity wares off"

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer would disagree with that statement.


"Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, fears the combination of vaccine passports and booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants may be part of a mass depopulation agenda

Asymptomatic spread is a fallacy capitalized upon to spread fear and induce compliance. Only people who have discernible symptoms of a respiratory infection pose any health risk to others, because to be an efficient source of infection, you need a high viral load. If you have a high viral load, your immune system will fight back, which always induces symptoms

The myth of asymptomatic spread was used to justify lockdowns, which in turn were a tool get you used to giving up your freedoms and go along with the intentional decimation of the global economy and old way of life, thereby justifying the Great Reset

The Great Reset is about transferring global wealth and ownership rights to the technocratic elite, and giving them the power to control the world’s nations

Digital vaccine passports will form the foundation of an unprecedented surveillance and control platform into which your entire life will be tied, from health records to biometric ID, to an all-digital centralized banking system and a social credit system, all of which can be turned off in order to coerce you into a particular behavior"


Cigarettes and their additives are the danger the tobacco by itself is a smaller health and safety risk. You can still get cancer or cause a fire by smoking pure tobacco but is is at an older age and the risk of sparking a fire is smaller. I am waiting for a safer vaccine as most of us will catch SARS Cov-2 twice or even three times and may get sicker than their first time after the natural immunity wares off

susan welch


This may not be the most appropriate article to post this video, but it is not inappropriate. It is possibly the best video I have watched since the start of the 'situation'. Dr Yeadon is eminently qualified and not anti V and, therefore, for many people would be more acceptable.

His fears for the future, if the v passport comes to pass, is very sobering.

Time appears to be short for waking people up. This video could convince many who are on the fence.


Why shouldn’t we be anti vaccine?

There is no such thing as a “safe” vaccine.

A so-called “safer and smaller” vaccine schedule will still destroy our nations youth, and their health + fertility + abilities.

Imagine a “safer and smaller” cigarette schedule.

Bob Moffit

It should surprise no one that many parents are "hesitant" to get their children vaccinated .. considering a Harvard study that found 54% of today's generation have some type of chronic autoimmune disorder … autism, juvenile type 1 diabetes, peanut allergies, asthma, on and on.

It defies common sense that a ONE SIZE VACCINE FITS ALL .. WITH BENEFITS OF VACCINE ALWAYS OUTWEIGHING THE RISKS …. a parent of a child suffering one or more of these chronic autoimmune disorders would be failing their child if they did not be HESITANT to vaccinate their already injured child with a vaccine developed at WARP SPEED .. to prevent a disease that is less threatening to children than having them struck by lightening.

Instead of call of calling such parents HESITANT … how about we call them PARENTS .. doing exactly what PARENTS are meant to do for their children .. PROTECT THEM FROM UNNCESSARY RISKS TO THEIR HEALTH.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)