ESt-ce qu'un journaliste intègre osera-t-il poser la question à Trudeau, avez-vous ou des proches des libéraux des commission$ ou des intérêt$ dans la campagne massive de vaccination?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-acip-pfizer-pediatric-covid-vaccine-big...

14 ACIP Members Who Voted to Jab Your Young Children — and Their Big Ties to Big Pharma
''14 membres de l'ACIP qui ont voté pour piquer vos jeunes enfants - et leurs liens étroits avec les grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques''

On Nov. 2, members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee voted 14–0 to recommend Pfizer’s pediatric COVID shot for children 5 –11 years old. Were their decisions driven by science and conscience — or their ties to drugmakers?

les membres du comité consultatif sur les vaccins des Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ont voté 14 à 0 pour recommander le vaccin pédiatrique COVID de Pfizer pour les enfants de 5 à 11 ans. Leurs décisions étaient-elles motivées par la science et la conscience – ou leurs liens avec les fabricants de médicament?''

EDITOR’S NOTE: Following the Oct. 26 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Children’s Health Defense argued it is time to shun the individuals — and institutions — that are selling out America’s children without even a prick of conscience. At the close of this article about the members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), we reiterate our list of suggestions for shunning.

On Nov. 2, the members of ACIP voted 14–0 to recommend Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID shot for children 5 –11 years old.

Committee members readily voted “yes” despite many unknowns about long-term safety, including a complete lack of data on the risk of heart problems like the ones experienced by some adolescents who received COVID vaccines.

Neither the disgracefully unscientific vote nor CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s prompt endorsement came as a surprise. Though billed as “independent,” the 14 ACIP members — like the 17 members of FDA’s VRBPAC who voted the same way the previous week — have deep ties to pharma, with careers that hinge on promoting and rubber-stamping the United States’ destructive one-size-fits-all vaccination agenda.

Describing the VRBPAC and ACIP meetings as “a total sham,” Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland said, “Sadly, approval from these committees means nothing in terms of safety.”

Political scientist Toby Rogers agreed, stating the ACIP meeting “was not a scientific review. It was banal bureaucrats announcing plans for a Blitzkrieg and the bought white coats were cheering them on.”

With their vote to give young children the dangerous injections, ACIP members signaled that they, too, deserve to be shunned, along with the powerful institutions with which they are affiliated. The latter include the nation’s top universities and leading pediatric hospitals.

Without exception, all the universities at which ACIP members have appointments — Brown, Drexel, Harvard, Michigan State, Ohio State, Stanford, University of Maryland, University of Washington, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest — have mandated COVID vaccines.

Pediatric hospitals, meanwhile, are playing a frontline role as COVID vaccination sites. Promoting the injection for 5-year-olds, First Lady Jill Biden visited Texas Children’s Hospital straight away, applauding the hospital for the 39,000 pediatric vaccine appointments it had already scheduled.

Also worthy of shunning are the 20,000 individual vaccine providers who were pre-positioned to “hit the ground running” and “get shots in little arms.”

Within two days of ACIP’s and Walensky’s verdicts, these providers had administered the jab to thousands of 5- to 11-year-olds, and within the first week, according to the White House, 900,000 children had been injected.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'
New dangers emerging

Community vaccination sites such as pharmacies and pop-up clinics have attracted recent attention for egregious vaccine administration errors in young children:

In Texas, a pop-up clinic gave adult doses of the Pfizer jab to 6- and 7-year-old boys “two days before a proper dose of the vaccine was even approved for that age range.”
In Virginia, a pharmacy (subsequently ordered to stop administering the shots) gave 112 children in the 5–11 age group the wrong COVID vaccine formulation.
A pediatric practice in California also gave 14 children an incorrect dose of the Pfizer jab, not disclosing “whether the kids got too much or too little.”
In addition, pharmacies have “mistakenly” given adult COVID shots to children under age 5 whose parents had requested flu shots.
With censorship rampant, many parents may be unaware of these transgressions. They also may not know that the experimental product FDA and CDC are unleashing on children is coming under increasing fire from Pfizer whistleblowers.

The same day as the ACIP vote, The BMJ published a whistleblower’s hair-raising account of “data integrity issues” in Pfizer’s “helter-skelter” clinical trials. According to Brook Jackson — a trained clinical trial auditor — Ventavia Research Group (one of the contract research organizations engaged by Pfizer) “falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events.” Quality control staff, Jackson further reported, were “overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”

When Jackson shared her concerns with both Ventavia and FDA in September 2020, Ventavia fired her. FDA ignored her warnings and granted EUA status to Pfizer’s injection in December.

Melissa Strickler McAtee, until recently a quality control employee at Pfizer’s plant in McPherson, Kansas, described, in an interview with Project Veritas, Pfizer’s efforts to deceive the public about the use of fetal cell lines in creating the COVID shot.

Equally disturbingly, Strickler McAtee told other journalists that Pfizer’s vaccine exhibits an unusual fluorescent blue glow, stating she had “never once [previously] seen anything do that, not even close” during her 10-year career inspecting “hundreds of thousands of units” of vaccines. She also reports that her co-workers at the plant are being unprecedentedly kept in the dark about what the vaccine’s ingredients are.

Pfizer has a lengthy history of quality control problems in addition to a business model predicated on habitual fraud. The Kansas plant, which Pfizer acquired when it strategically purchased injectable drug company Hospira in 2015, has been repeatedly “dinged” by FDA for problems with quality, cleanliness and contamination.

In the three years leading up to its acquisition by Pfizer, Hospira had to issue more than 40 recalls, and Pfizer/Hospira has continued to be a frequent offender on FDA’s recall list since 2015, receiving another warning letter from FDA in 2017.

FDA’s tsk-tsking of Pfizer clearly represents a hollow rebuke, however, as this week’s FDA request to a federal judge made plain: FDA is asking for 55 years to make public the data and information it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

These and other clinical trial shenanigans strongly intimate that “the data that the FDA and CDC have been pretending to base their decisions on for the last year, are fiction.”

Below are the ACIP members who signed off on Pfizer’s pediatric vaccine, and their conflicts of interest.

ACIP Chair Grace Lee

Dr. Grace Lee (gmlee@stanford.edu) chaired the November ACIP deliberations. Lee has been associate chief medical officer for practice innovation at Stanford Children’s Health and a pediatrics professor at Stanford School of Medicine since 2017, after having spent two decades at Harvard and Boston-area hospitals.

In addition to policy work focusing on financial rewards and penalties to reshape hospital performance, Lee has built her reputation by shoring up the pretense that the nation has a functioning vaccine safety surveillance system.

Lee served as past principal investigator for the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a large database that includes comprehensive longitudinal medical and vaccination records for two million children and seven million adults. Although VSD analyses have the potential to permit enlightening vaccinated-unvaccinated comparisons of health outcomes, the CDC has sole access to the data.

In the words of CHD’s chief scientific officer Dr. Brian Hooker, CDC has “shut [VSD] up like a fortress, despite the fact that it’s taxpayer-funded.”

In VSD-based publications — some of which include fellow ACIP member Matthew Daly — Lee has made a habit of downplaying vaccine risks. For example, she encourages women to get Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) shots during pregnancy, even while data show an increased risk of placental and amniotic fluid infection in vaccinated pregnant women.

She also has whitewashed risks of flu shots in children under age 5 despite finding “an apparent dose-response for vaccine and allergic reactions in the 1- to 3-day risk window.” She dismisses post-vaccination anaphylaxis risks as “rare,” though the package inserts for most vaccines on the childhood schedule prominently list anaphylaxis as an adverse event.

Another VSD study co-authored by Lee documented a safety signal for febrile seizures linked to influenza vaccination of children in their first five years, particularly if administered along with pneumococcal vaccination; massaging the troubling conclusion with vaccine doublespeak, Lee and colleagues proposed placing their findings “in a benefit-risk framework to ensure that population health benefits are maximized.”

While in Boston, Lee served as associate director of the FDA-funded Mini-Sentinel Project, one of several newer vaccine safety surveillance mechanisms trotted out over the past decade.

As noted by CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a letter to Biden advisor David Kessler in December 2020, studies published using Sentinel data — all authored by the same small pool of insiders — focus on an extremely narrow subset of adverse outcomes and reflect methodological decisions “that could easily constrain researchers’ ability to detect outcomes of interest.”

When a Sentinel study of the two rotavirus vaccines routinely given to American children identified a “significant risk” of intussusception after dose 2 — a bowel complication that forced CDC to revoke its recommendation for an earlier rotavirus vaccine — Lee and co-authors deployed more doublespeak, once again advising the public to consider the risk “in light of the demonstrated benefits of rotavirus vaccination.”

Discussing myocarditis last June, Lee admitted, “clinical presentation of myocarditis cases following vaccination has been distinct, occurring most often within 1 week after dose two, with chest pain as the most common presentation.”

This did not stop Lee from joining with other public health officials in passing off myocarditis as “an extremely rare side effect” and claiming that young people are likely to “recover on their own or with minimal treatment.”

Many experienced health professionals, including Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Dr. Steven Pelech, fiercely dispute the notion of “mild” myocarditis.

Also of note:

In September of this year, Lee co-authored a paper in JAMA belatedly conceding that a large segment of the population (“women and those with a history of allergic reactions”) is at “elevated risk” of experiencing allergic reactions to mRNA COVID vaccines due to the presence in the injections of polyethylene glycol (PEG). CHD issued urgent warnings about PEG and its entirely predictable anaphylaxis risks a full year earlier, in September 2020.
Stanford receives extensive vaccine funding from the Gates Foundation, including for the development of 3D-printed vaccine microneedle patches (a strategy that would allow “vaccination without a shot”).
Stanford is the second-largest university beneficiary of funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, which is aggressively funding COVID vaccination of U.S. Latinos.
Not only does Stanford require all students to be COVID-vaccinated, but it also urges vaccination for students’ children.
Lynn Bahta

Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH (lynn.bahta@state.mn.us) is an immunization program clinical consultant for the Minnesota Department of Health, with a 25-year career focused on promoting vaccination.

During the pandemic, Bahta has been giving talks about “vaccine hesitancy in the time of COVID,” offering “key communication strategies to build confidence among those who are hesitant.”

Vaccine “hesitancy” appears to have been her bailiwick long before COVID, however, and her publications suggest a particular interest in coaxing Minnesota’s immigrant, migrant and refugee populations into higher vaccination rates.

Loyal to the fraudulent CDC party line that denies any link between MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccination and autism, Bahta has published articles dismissing the well-founded autism concerns of Minnesota’s Somali community as “misinformation.”

Somali children in Minneapolis suffer the highest known rate of severe autism in the world. Somali parents allege that the reaction of public health officials like Bahta has been one of indifference.

Discussing COVID vaccines, Bahta claims that the “great majority, usually over 90%” of adverse reactions “are not serious.”

In fact, while stating that she “never disagrees with people who believe they were injured by vaccines because it’s difficult to know,” she clearly sides with public health officials in viewing “unverified reports” to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as “misunderstood by the public and exploited by skeptics in a way that is undermining immunization efforts against COVID-19.”

Bahta disingenuously opines that “people naturally but incorrectly associate injuries with recent events.”

Also of note:

Bahta’s was one of the core “yes” votes in favor of recommending Moderna’s COVID shot last December.
When ACIP deliberated over COVID booster shots in September, Bahta was willing to recommend boosters for adults age 50 and up and individuals with underlying conditions but not for some groups of younger adults. At the time, Bahta argued for the need to “stay with the science,” stating, “I don’t think we have the data.”
By November, Bahta apparently was untroubled by the paucity of safety data available for the 5–11 age group, stating, “We know more than what we don’t know.”
Beth Bell

Beth Bell, M.D., MPH (bzb8@uw.edu) is a clinical professor in the Department of Global Health at the University of Washington (UW) School of Public Health. Until 2017, Bell spent most of her career at CDC, including as Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic [animal/insect-to-human] Infectious Diseases.

At UW, Bell is on faculty at the UW Alliance for Pandemic Preparedness (formerly called, until fall 2020, the MetaCenter for Pandemic Preparedness and Global Health Security), which “harness[es] big data and forward-thinking strategies to devise more unified approaches to current and future health security risks.”

“Health security” and biosecurity are the linchpin buzzwords that global technocrats are using to push for complete control over people’s “ability to work, to socialize, to travel, conduct business, access public services and to purchase essential goods and services.”

Like many of the individuals who make their way onto FDA and CDC committees, Bell started her CDC career as an officer in the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), a branch that journalist Jon Rappoport has dubbed the “medical CIA.”

As Rappoport notes, EIS graduates’ occupancy of “key positions in the overall medical cartel” furnishes an “unparalleled opportunity” to control information — and disseminate disinformation.

During COVID, Bell has positioned herself as a champion for vaccination “equity,” stating “If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early in the vaccination process.”

Bell’s comments about wanting to make sure “socially vulnerable” communities and people of color have access to COVID shots echo troubling racially oriented remarks made by Melinda Gates early on in the pandemic. Located in Gates’ backyard, UW not only benefits from close ties with and extensive funding from the Gates Foundation — an organization tainted by allegations of medical experimentation and an underlying eugenicist ideology — but also enjoys extensive support from Microsoft.

Also of note:

As co-author of a CDC paper summarizing ACIP’s May recommendation that 12- to 15-year-olds get the Pfizer shot, Bell and colleagues inaccurately argued that “COVID-19 in adolescents is a major public health problem” and that “desirable [vaccine] effects” outweigh “any undesirable effects in most settings.” The authors did not mention the teens who are dying of post-vaccination cardiac arrest.
Regarding COVID booster shots, Bell first stated, “I have my own concerns that we appear to be recommending vaccines for people who I don’t think need it”; she later agreed, however, that “moving forward with the recommendations makes sense for the sake of being clear.”
Regarding COVID jabs for young children, Bell claimed, after the November vote, “if she had a grandchild, she’d get the grandchild vaccinated as soon as possible.”
Oliver Brooks

Oliver Brooks, M.D. (oliver.brooks@wattshealth.org) is chief medical officer and a member of the executive team at Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles. Watts Healthcare provides primary care services under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and also receives federal funding for other services, including those related to HIV/AIDS.

Brooks is immediate past president of the National Medical Association (NMA), which he describes as “the oldest and largest organization representing African-America’s physicians and the guardians of the health of African-Americans.” As such, Brooks — like Beth Bell — made “health equity” his calling card, with vaccination of minority groups one of his signature goals as NMA president.

CDC celebrates Brooks’ “leadership roles focusing on disparities in vaccine coverage rates.”

Brooks speaks frequently “on the science and the implementation perspective of vaccine utilization,” is a board member and past president of the California Immunization Coalition, chairman of the Immunize LA Families Coalition and member of the national Leadership Panel for the Adolescent Immunization Initiative.

During the pandemic, Watts Healthcare has received millions in funding from Kaiser Permanente to promote COVID vaccination in L.A.’s Hispanic and African American communities.

In March 2021, Watts Healthcare also received $4.3 million via the American Rescue Plan to increase the federally qualified health center’s “ability to get more shots in arms.” The nonprofit is further beholden to the federal government for a $5.18 million coronavirus-related Paycheck Protection Loan approved in April 2020.

Brooks co-chaired California’s COVID-19 Vaccine Work Group, working to “get the vaccine out more rapidly” through “more points of distribution.” Early on in the vaccine rollout, one of those “points of distribution” in San Diego was forced to pause vaccine administration when numerous recipients suffered severe allergic reactions.

Since 2014, Brooks has received $118,439 (350 general payments primarily for consulting or speaking engagements) from biopharmaceutical companies that include Pfizer as well as Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis, Seqirus, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Meda, AbbVie and Theratechnologies.

Double your impact! When you make a donation to Children's Health Defense, your donation will be matched — up to $2 million! Donate Now!
Also of note:

At over $271,000, Brooks’ annual salary is second only to that of the Watts Healthcare CEO.
Watts Healthcare and another South LA nonprofit received $3 million in COVID-related funding from the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation in July 2020. The media tycoon — one-time member (along with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner and others) of an elite “club” of billionaire philanthropists — urges compliance with mask mandates and uses her influential platform to tell those who are not vaccinated to “reconsider.”
Wilbur Chen

Wilbur Chen, M.D. (wchen@som.umaryland.edu) is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, with research interests “in developing vaccines against pathogens which afflict low- and middle-income countries” as well as in vaccine development for the elderly. Chen has headed up vaccine trials for influenza viruses, enteric pathogens and “agents of bioterror.”

Chen is co-investigator for two entities funded by the Anthony-Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID): the Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit (composed of 10 academic centers throughout the U.S.) and the Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (a network of research centers developing “novel vaccine candidates and delivery platforms”).

In advance of the ACIP vote on the 5–11 age group, CHD joined numerous citizens in arguing (unsuccessfully) that Chen be removed from the committee for blatant financial conflicts of interest. In 2020 alone, Chen accepted $437,251 from vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Emergent BioSolutions — a fact “researched and exposed by average citizens” rather than disclosed by CDC. Chen’s payments since 2014 total over $476,880 and include monies from Janssen, Seqirus, MedImmune, Astellas Pharma, Valneva Austria and BioFire Diagnostics in addition to the two companies already mentioned.

Chen also receives research funding from the Gates Foundation and from the Seattle-based global health organization PATH. PATH’s former CEO, Christopher Elias, now serves as president of the Gates Foundation’s Global Development Division, leading efforts in areas such as vaccine delivery and family planning; Elias was a leading Event 201 participant.

Also of note:

In addition to serving as a voting member of ACIP, Chen is a core member of NIAID’s Data and Safety Advisory Board.
During COVID, Chen has been a staunch advocate of “aggressive nonpharmacologic intervention and control measures,” including “aggressive recognition and isolation and quarantine of cases and contacts.”
Despite the well-documented risks and failures of influenza vaccination, Chen continues to insist that “Vaccination is by far the best method to prevent and control influenza.”
Chen recently voted to make a highly reactogenic Ebola vaccine obligatory for healthcare personnel, lab workers and support staff at facilities that handle Ebola specimens, arguing against letting workers make their own risk-benefit decisions.
Sybil Cineas

Sybil Cineas, M.D. (sybil_cineas@brown.edu), a Harvard Medical School graduate, is an associate professor of medicine, pediatrics and medical science at Brown University, and, as associate program director of Brown’s combined residency program in internal medicine and pediatrics, is “highly involved in the training of residents and medical students.”

According to CDC, Cineas has “20+ years of experience teaching about and promoting vaccination.”

Like fellow ACIP members Beth Bell and Oliver Brooks, Cineas frequently cites health equity to justify her vaccine votes. For example, as a member of the ACIP Hepatitis Work Group, which recently recommended hepatitis B vaccines for everyone age 59 and younger while issuing a more qualified risk-based recommendation for adults age 60 and up, Cineas wanted to recommend universal hepatitis B vaccination for all ages. She argued, “A simplification of this recommendation [would] reach more individuals at risk … and promote health equity.”

Also of note:

CDC has given Brown researchers $4.9 million to study COVID vaccine effectiveness in seniors; the researchers state that “the urgently needed research will be used to inform recommendations about vaccine booster shots for nursing home residents.”
Matthew Daley

Matthew Daley, M.D. (matthew.f.daley@kp.org) is a senior investigator and practicing pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, described by CDC as having “extensive research experience in the areas of vaccine safety, parental vaccine hesitancy, and immunization services delivery.”

Daley’s published studies on vaccine “hesitancy” cover topics such as social media interventions to increase vaccine acceptance, barriers to adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, under vaccination patterns and parent-provider trust. (In one study, parents reported trusting pediatricians on topics such as nutrition but “did not believe their pediatrician provided ‘balanced’ information on both the benefits and risks of vaccination.”)

Daley also conducts Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) studies on a variety of topics, including safety of newly licensed vaccines, vaccine safety during pregnancy and, according to the CDC, safety of the childhood immunization schedule.

After the Institute of Medicine acknowledged that studies “to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted” — and identified the VSD as “an important resource for conducting this research” — Daley and CDC co-authors wrote a white paper to describe how this could be done but shrouded their remarks in so many caveats about potential studies’ “inherent complexity” as to make their feasibility seem highly doubtful.

Daley’s VSD studies, some co-authored with ACIP colleague Grace Lee, have identified potential safety signals, but in each case, Daley and co-authors have found reasons to reject or mask their own conclusions.

Examples include attributing a statistically significant association between hepatitis A vaccination during pregnancy and small-for-gestational-age infants to “unmeasured confounding”; putting forth “seasonality” as the likely contributor to a statistical signal for Bell’s palsy in adults age 25 and up following H1N1 influenza vaccination; and dismissing as “rare” two types of adverse events (anaphylaxis and fainting) significantly associated with live attenuated influenza vaccination in children 2 through 17 years of age.

Also of note:

After the vote recommending the COVID shots for younger children, Daly professed to not be surprised by parents’ hesitation, stating that parents “may be more risk-averse about their child.” However, though Pfizer’s clinical trial in children was too short and too small to assess the risk of myocarditis, Daley confidently asserted that “younger children are at a greater risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID infection than from the vaccine.”
A current VSD/CDC study by Daley is assessing “factors associated with COVID vaccination or non-vaccination” in the general population and among pregnant women.
Camille Kotton

Camille N. Kotton, M.D. (ckotton@partners.org) is clinical director for Transplant and Immunocompromised Host Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. CDC describes Kotton as a “national expert in vaccination and zoonotic infectious diseases in the immunocompromised,” including solid organ transplant recipients.

Since 2014, Kotton has received over $304,000 in general payments and associated research funding from companies like Merck, GSK, Roche, Quiagen Sciences, Oxford Immunotec, Astellas Pharma, Shire, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene and Biotest.

In voting to give younger children the COVID injections, Kotton stated, “the safety data in children looked very good” and added, “she would feel comfortable having her own children immunized if they were in that age group.”

Although few children suffer ill effects from COVID-19, Kotton argued that children should be vaccinated “both to prevent death as well as to prevent major long-term effects of having this devastating infection.”

Also of note:

Kotton promotes routine vaccination of individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) despite evidence of IBD’s association with some vaccines.
Kotton has co-authored papers on vaccine development with “Godfather of Vaccines” Stanley Plotkin.
In the past, Kotton has disclosed conflicts of interest due to her financial relationships with (and vaccine “adjudication” for) companies like Merck, Astellas, Roche and others.
James Loehr

James Loehr, M.D. (staff@cayugafamilymedicine.com) owns Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, New York. According to CDC, for 30 years Loehr has counseled patients “every day on the benefits of vaccines.” Loehr was a member of ACIP’s influenza working group for more than 10 years.

In 2015, Loehr authored an article with detailed instructions telling physicians how to “minimiz[e] costs and maximiz[e] reimbursement” to “make immunizations profitable.”

Describing how Cayuga Family Medicine “enjoys steady revenue from immunizations, with vaccine reimbursement sometimes exceeding that for the rest of the visit,” Loehr outlined a series of strategies to improve a practice’s financial viability through vaccination, including becoming a “savvy vaccine shopper,” taking advantage of manufacturer discounts and doing “a bit of additional work” when coding for the service to obtain extra reimbursement for “brief counseling” and multiple vaccine components.

At an October ACIP meeting focused on Moderna boosters that was, according to Stat, driven by a “sense of the inevitability of [the] outcome,” Loehr stated, “There are probably many people who are going to get a Moderna booster who don’t need it. However, given the situation that we’ve already approved a Pfizer [booster] and there are enough people who are looking for a booster, I am inclined, reluctantly, to just go ahead and recommend a similar pattern for the Moderna booster.”

Loehr was similarly wishy-washy the previous month when he stated, “I … feel that we’re getting too much ahead of ourselves and that we have too much hope on the line with these boosters.”

He then added, “However, having said that, we shouldn’t let the perfect be in the way of the good. And if we can do a little bit of good by giving boosters to people over 65 I’m in favor of that.”

Loehr is a past Vaccine Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Speaking for AAFP, Loehr has noted that the medical trade group “does not support nonmedical immunization exemption policies.” AAFP does support COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health and long-term care workers, and last August, it also started lobbying FDA to authorize the vaccines for children under age 12.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'
Also of note:

Like most of his ACIP peers, Loehr promotes himself as an expert on “strategies for addressing and overcoming vaccine hesitancy,” stating that “most patients…are not truly resistant to immunization” but just want “clarification and reassurance.”
Sarah Long

Sarah Long, M.D. is a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine and a physician at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. In addition to her role on ACIP, Long has served on VRBPAC and as a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Infectious Diseases.

Long was widely quoted in the press following her “yes” vote on COVID injections for children. Though she expressed several concerns and voted “no” in September regarding Pfizer boosters for healthcare workers, Long “threw her full support behind the pediatric recommendation.”

Fully aware that “CDC was not able to conduct a full benefit-risk analysis for myocarditis post-vaccination in this age group,” Long is nevertheless telling mothers that the shot’s risks are preferable to the myocarditis that could arise from COVID illness.

Without citing any evidence, Long states that “vaccine-related events are completely different, and much less dire, than typical myocarditis,” adding that “she’d rather treat many people with vaccine-associated myopericarditis than a single case of viral myocarditis.”

Claiming that “Nobody has died of myopericarditis, and children are dying of coronavirus,” Long has concluded that “of course it’s a benefit-risk ratio that comes out in the direction of vaccination.”

The hundreds of teens who have experienced post-vaccination myocarditis — some now dead — might beg to differ.

Ironically, Long’s bio includes numerous “awards and honors for her outstanding work to improve the health and well-being of children.” After the “yes” vote on COVID shots, she reportedly joked, “I, believe it or not, have no questions. I have just a comment: I am very supportive of this recommendation in its fullest extent, as a ‘should,’ not a ‘may,’ for all children in this age group.”

Long continued, “I think the data support that we have one more vaccine that saves lives of children, and that we should be very confident to employ it to the maximum to do what it is meant to do, without significant concerns of serious adverse events. So, I couldn’t be more supportive.”

Also of note:

Drexel University received half a million dollars from the Gates Foundation in June 2020 “to evaluate the use of a digital health platform to make care for COVID more accessible to marginalized populations.”
The Gates Foundation is also supporting the work of other Drexel researchers in areas such as diagnostic test development.
Veronica McNally

Veronica V. McNally, JD (valent29@law.msu.edu) is a law professor and an assistant dean at Michigan State University. McNally is ACIP’s “consumer representative.”

Having lost an infant to pertussis, McNally describes herself as a “public health advocate” in addition to being an attorney.

She is founder and president of the Franny Strong Foundation — framing a mission to “promote pertussis awareness and boost childhood immunization rates for all vaccine-preventable diseases” — and founded the I Vaccinate Campaign, which, on November 16, excitedly reported that “nearly 1 million kids ages 5-11 will have their first COVID shots by the end of today.”

McNally is seemingly unaware of the many failures of a pertussis vaccination program that is widely acknowledged to be making vaccinated children more rather than less susceptible to pertussis over their lifetimes.

Also of note:

McNally is a CDC darling, having been named “Childhood Immunization Champion” for Michigan in 2018 — the same year in which she was appointed to her four-year term on ACIP.
Katherine Poehling

Katherine A. Poehling, M.D., MPH (kpoehlin@wakehealth.edu) is a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at North Carolina’s Wake Forest University School of Medicine. CDC cites her expertise “on the community impact of vaccines, specifically pneumococcal and influenza vaccines.”

As an ACIP insider, Poehling has headed up past ACIP presentations on pneumococcal vaccines.

Poehling has published on “ethics and academic pediatrics” but apparently sees no conflict in sitting on ACIP while receiving, according to Open Payments, over $523,000 in general payments and associated research funding from MedImmune and AstraZeneca since 2014.

Poehling endorses CDC’s astonishingly fact-free claim that COVID has caused “substantially more misery than other childhood diseases,” stating, “that information helped convince her to strongly support COVID-19 vaccines for elementary school children.”

Poehling also buys into Long’s non-evidence-based assertion that COVID-19 disease is responsible for more heart problems than the vaccine. During a May review of Moderna data, Poehling enthusiastically favored making multiple vaccines available — to “increase access.”

Also of note:

When endorsing COVID boosters for the immunocompromised, Poehling stated, “the benefits are tremendous and the potential negative impacts are minimal and so I agree that we should recommend.”
Many of Poehling’s publications seem intended to address the burden of diseases such as influenza for which vaccine “solutions” can then be promoted. It seems likely that her published articles about respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) will be used to lay the groundwork for an mRNA vaccine for RSV.
Pablo Sanchez

Pablo J. Sanchez, M.D. (sanchez.940@osu.edu) has been a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University since 2013 and directs Clinical and Translational Research in Neonatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus. Sanchez previously held positions at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Sanchez’s 80-page self-congratulatory curriculum vitae reveals that he is a consummate insider fluidly bridging academia, public health agencies and private industry. Sanchez’s invited participation and lectures include appearances at public health agencies like CDC, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); COVID-vaccine-promoting trade groups like the AAP and March of Dimes; and biopharma companies like AbbVie, GSK (formerly Smithkline Beecham), ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inhibitex, MedImmune and Ross Laboratories.

Sanchez also lists hundreds of thousands in research monies received from these same entities.

Since the 1990s, Sanchez has been funded by Abbott Laboratories, American Lung Association, BioStar, Biosynexus, Burroughs Wellcome, CDC, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Gerber Foundation, MedImmune, NIAID, NICHD [National Institute of Child Health and Human Development], Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Ross Laboratories and Smithkline Beecham/Glaxo/GSK.

According to Open Payments, since 2014, Sanchez has pocketed roughly $221,000 in general payments and associated research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, MedImmune, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, Seqirus and Sobi.

The database lists AstraZeneca, MedImmune and Merck as the “top companies making associated payments,” with notable payments from Merck in Fall 2020.

In June, Sanchez hedged his bets on the topic of COVID vaccines and myocarditis. While declaring that the benefits of vaccination outweigh myocarditis risks, he also noted, “we need to be very upfront in terms of mentioning this as a potential risk of COVID messenger RNA vaccination. Hopefully, the parents and patients are aware of this before vaccination.”

Sanchez did not repeat these remarks at the November meeting when he okayed the jab for 5-year-olds.

Also of note:

In 2010, Sanchez served as a “Pfizer visiting professor.”
Sanchez served on VRBPAC from 2007–2010 as well as on FDA’s vaccine-focused Pediatric Advisory Committee from 2010–2012. In Texas, he chaired the Texas Pediatric Society’s Committee of Infectious Diseases and Immunizations from 2004–2009 and served on the committee from 1995–2013.
Many of Sanchez’s publications focus on amplifying concern about illnesses attributed to viruses— such as cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, RSV and Zika — for which Moderna and other companies now anticipate developing mRNA vaccines.
Helen Keipp Talbot

Helen Keipp Talbot, M.D., MPH (keipp.talbot@vumc.org) is associate professor of medicine at Nashville’s Vanderbilt University, where she has held various appointments since 2002. Talbot’s research and publications (sometimes co-authored with fellow ACIP member Poehling) center on adult vaccination, influenza vaccination, human coronaviruses and vaccine trials for respiratory illnesses such as RSV. The focus on coronaviruses pre-dates COVID; from 2007–2009, Talbot was principal investigator on an NIH-funded study on the “epidemiology of human coronaviruses.”

According to Talbot’s curriculum vitae, her recent research funding comes from both the federal government (CDC, National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and Sanofi Pasteur, primarily for the study of pandemic preparedness (in 2015) and influenza vaccination. Sanofi and MedImmune have been recurrent funders since 2009, along with AstraZeneca, Gilead, Protein Sciences, VaxInnate and Wyeth (since acquired by Pfizer).

Open Payments lists Talbot’s receipt of roughly $1.4 million in research payments and associated research funding since 2014 (417 total payments) from these companies, along with 29 general payments totaling $17,000.

In December 2020, Talbot was the “lone dissenter” objecting to ACIP’s recommendation that long-term care residents “be at the front of the line” for COVID vaccines. At the time, Talbot argued that vaccination of long-term care residents was “risky” because they “have a high rate of medical events that could be confused as side effects of vaccination and undermine confidence in the vaccines.”

Talbot stated, “And I think you’re going to have a very striking backlash of, ‘My grandmother got the vaccine and she passed away.’” Talbot elaborated: “I fear a loss of confidence in the vaccine…. [T]here will be temporally associated events and people will be scared to use the vaccine.”

Talbot exhibited no scruples in voting to administer COVID vaccines to young children. On the same day as the “yes” vote, Talbot told the press, “I have vaccinated my kids” (who, presumably, were at least 12 years of age at the time of injection).

Also of note:

In 2008, Talbot received a Sanofi Pasteur Advanced Vaccinology Course travel grant.
Talbot is on the editorial board of the journal Vaccine.
And … Rochelle Walensky

No overview of ACIP would be complete without noting the conflicts of interest surrounding CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who used ACIP’s vote to immediately green-light vaccination of younger children.

As reported by independent media outlet RedState (but not by the mainstream media), Walensky’s husband, Loren Walensky, became scientific co-founder and board member of early-stage biotech company Lytica Therapeutics in October 2019.

In December, the Biden administration announced Rochelle Walensky’s pending appointment as CDC director, and in February 2020, Lytica received the first installment ($5.3 million) of a $16.9 million grant from HHS, representing the “only funding this new company [had] received to date — nearly two years after its founding.”

Even before becoming CDC director, Walensky had been “directly associated with HHS for more than a decade,” including close participation on committees and panels with Anthony “Tony” Fauci. According to RedState’s exposé, “when ‘insiders’ were surprised that Walensky was picked [to head CDC], it was revealed that Fauci had a lot to do with her appointment.”

Loyal to Fauci, Walensky has written opinion pieces for leading media outlets “about how to fairly and effectively distribute Remdesivir,” the ineffective, expensive and dangerous drug promoted by NIAID and Fauci as virtually the sole treatment option for hospitalized COVID patients.

A former Boston colleague of Walensky’s stated the CDC director “has a lot of Tony in her,” including the “ability to take complex information and convey it in clear and concise messaging.”

Shunning and Nuremberg 2.0

As bad as the ACIP (and VRBPAC) decisions were, vaccine-risk-aware observers are even more shocked that CDC and FDA are “blithely” allowing Pfizer’s shot to be administered to children and adolescents with other vaccines at the same time.

As Informed Choice Washington put it last May regarding the authorization for kids ages 12 and up:

“As unethical as it is to expose children to investigational liability-free products that have seen unprecedented levels of vaccine adverse reactions and deaths reported … when ACIP opened up the shots to be co-administered with other vaccines, including those with adjuvants, they stepped fully into crimes against humanity. Not a single clinical trial has been done administering the COVID-19 shots with any other vaccine. There is zero safety data.”

Other observers agree with this assessment, arguing that “Every single person associated with the ACIP meeting today must be tried for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg 2.0.” Some are also calling for a second Nuremberg trial for “perpetration of COVID-response policies that led to forced shutdowns, destroyed businesses, impoverished families, broken lives and a spike in suicide rates.”

In the meantime, it is time to shun ACIP members. And because it is inconceivable that ACIP members would behave in such a corrupt manner without the approval and say-so of their institutions, shunning actions necessarily must also extend to the universities and other institutions that have these individuals’ backs.

Send a Notice of Liability to each ACIP member — see examples at the Doctors for Covid Ethics website.
Check the campaign contributions of ACIP members at OpenSecrets.org. If they are donating to a politician who represents your state or Congressional District, call or write your representative and ask why they are accepting donations from people who are seriously compromised by the pharmaceutical industry and harming our children.
Refrain from appointing ACIP members to the Boards of community organizations — or revoke their current Board appointments. These types of “good citizen” positions should not be offered to people who are not behaving as “good citizens.”
All universities benefit from state and local appropriations; contact your legislators, explain that academic operations at these universities are clearly supporting federal corruption and demand that the legislators revoke the appropriations.
Write to the board of trustees or person who manages the university endowment. Demand they disclose their investments in companies that are harming our children and explain how these investments support active participation in federal corruption by those affiliated with the university.
Stop donating to the universities and academic departments in question and let them know why. When asked for an update by your university alumni group, ask to be removed from the alumni email list and database, and explain you have stopped donating to the university as a result of its support of federal corruption.
Cancel your season tickets and other participation in sports and cultural events at the university. Explain why.
If you are involved in recruiting for your company, remove these universities from your recruiting lists. Write to the university’s placement office to explain why.
Ask local newspapers to publish copies of the letters you write to university officials. Organize to support members of the independent media in researching and publishing information regarding ACIP members’ conflicts of interest, as well as the university conflicts of interest that compromise the institutions’ intellectual resources and activities in science, medicine and technology.
Write to the university chaplain and ask for prayers for the university to be released from the spirit of corruption. Provide details.
Identify the banks involved in managing the university’s bank accounts, financial assets, endowment and pension funds; where applicable, demand to know why the university is doing business with banks that have compromised our federal government accounts and are financing policies at the federal level that are harming our children.
Do not buy or hold stocks in companies with which ACIP members are connected.
Do not buy products or drugs that ACIP members have developed or patented.
Make it clear — through letters to the editor and letters to the institutions — that you will not forget ACIP members’ decision to enable the needless harming of young children.

Ontario's top doctor casts doubt on vaccine mandate for kids age five-11 (CTV News 3 minutes)

Le meilleur médecin de l'Ontario met en doute le mandat du vaccin pour les enfants de 5 à 11 ans

Ontario's chief medical officer casts doubt on whether proof of COVID-19 vaccination requirement will be extended to kids aged five to 11.

Le médecin hygiéniste en chef de l'Ontario met en doute si la preuve de l'exigence de vaccination contre la COVID-19 sera étendue aux enfants âgés de cinq à 11 ans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9W1DKLngLs

Heart risk after vaccines

Does the risk of a heart attack increase from 11% up to 25%
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning (8th November)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEBGl8MVE-c

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
Steven R Gundry
Originally published8 Nov 2021Circulation. 2021;144:A10712
This article has an expression of concern
Abstract
Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

''Notre groupe utilise le test cardiaque PLUS (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA), une mesure cliniquement validée de plusieurs biomarqueurs protéiques qui génère un score prédisant le risque à 5 ans (pourcentage de chance) d'un nouveau syndrome coronarien aigu (SCA). Le score est basé sur les changements par rapport à la norme de plusieurs biomarqueurs protéiques, notamment l'IL-16, une cytokine pro-inflammatoire, le Fas soluble, un inducteur de l'apoptose et le facteur de croissance des hépatocytes (HGF) qui sert de marqueur pour la chimiotaxie des lymphocytes T dans l'épithélium et le tissu cardiaque, entre autres marqueurs. Une élévation au-dessus de la norme augmente le score PULS, tandis qu'une diminution en dessous de la norme abaisse le score PULS. Le score a été mesuré tous les 3 à 6 mois dans notre population de patients pendant 8 ans. Récemment, avec l'avènement des vaccins à ARNm COVID 19 (vac) par Moderna et Pfizer, des changements spectaculaires dans le score PULS sont devenus apparents chez la plupart des patients. Ce rapport résume ces résultats. Un total de 566 pts, âgés de 28 à 97 ans, rapport M:F 1:1 vu dans un cabinet de cardiologie préventive a eu un nouveau test PULS tiré de 2 à 10 semaines après le 2e tir COVID et a été comparé au score PULS précédent tiré 3 à 5 mois avant la pré-injection. L'IL-16 de base est passé de 35=/-20 au-dessus de la norme à 82 =/-75 au-dessus de la norme post-vac ; sFas est passé de 22+/-15 au-dessus de la norme à 46=/-24 au-dessus de la norme post-vac ; Le HGF est passé de 42+/-12 au-dessus de la norme à 86+/-31 au-dessus de la norme post-vac. Ces changements ont entraîné une augmentation du score PULS de 11 % du risque de SCA à 5 ans à 25 % du risque de SCA à 5 ans. Au moment de ce rapport, ces changements persistent pendant au moins 2,5 mois après la deuxième dose de vac. cardiomyopathie et autres événements vasculaires après la vaccination.''

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1841594/campagne-publicitaire-vaccination-enfants-...

Pédagogie et réconfort : la stratégie de Québec pour vacciner les 5 à 11 ans
La salle d'attente décorée de papillons et de parasols.
Publicités gouvernementales et décors ludiques; tout a été pensé pour convaincre un maximum de familles au port de Québec.

Véronique Prince
le 22 novembre 2021
Les centres de vaccination du Québec seront spécialement aménagés pour recevoir les enfants de 5 à 11 ans. Le gouvernement prévoit que le tiers seulement recevra la dose à l’école, puisque plusieurs parents préféreront probablement accompagner leurs plus petits. Publicités gouvernementales et décors ludiques; tout a été pensé pour convaincre un maximum de familles de prendre rendez-vous sur Clic Santé.

La fin de semaine dernière, au centre de vaccination du port de Québec, des équipes s’affairaient à compléter le décor; des papillons géants, d’immenses libellules et beaucoup de plantes tropicales, comme si on se retrouvait en pleine jungle.

On a décidé de faire faire un voyage aux enfants. Ils vont suivre un parcours comme à l’aéroport, nous explique Patricia McKinnon, la directrice de la vaccination du CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale. Le vaccin les mènera vers une destination réconfortante où ils pourront s'amuser tout en recevant leur dose.

Dans la salle d’attente, des écrans diffusent des images de forêts. Les jeunes recevront aussi la visite de véritables animaux antiallergènes. Ils pourront immortaliser ce moment grâce à des appareils Polaroïd offerts sur place. D’autres sites de la Capitale-Nationale leur donneront l’impression de se retrouver dans les Alpes ou dans les Rocheuses.

Durant la vaccination, des paravents séparent les jeunes pour éviter de voir les autres se faire piquer, de manière à réduire le plus possible leur anxiété et de préserver l'intimité de la bulle familiale. Plusieurs enfants d’une même famille pourront d'ailleurs recevoir leur dose en même temps, afin de faciliter la gestion des parents.

Des détails dès demain
Le premier ministre François Legault et le ministre de la Santé, Christian Dubé, annonceront mardi les modalités et le calendrier de vaccination des enfants de 5 à 11 ans.

Moins de vaccins à l’heure
On a demandé aux établissements de s’adapter, confirme Daniel Paré, le directeur national de la campagne de vaccination. Adapter le langage aux plus petits, jusqu’à la température du centre, pour que ce soit plus confortable quand ils vont relever leur manche.

Il veut que ce soit festif, avec l’embauche de clowns, par exemple. Québec a demandé aux responsables de la vaccination de chaque région de choisir l'ambiance désirée, pourvu que ce soit le plus créatif possible.

Un papillon géant en décoration.
Des papillons géants, d’immenses libellules et beaucoup de plantes tropicales décorent le centre de vaccination pour enfants du port de Québec.

PHOTO : RADIO-CANADA

En termes de productivité, vous savez comment on aime donner le nombre de vaccins à l’heure. On a prévu qu’il y ait beaucoup moins de vaccination par heure pour ce groupe d’âge là, ajoute-t-il. Des vaccinateurs vont donc réduire de moitié leur cadence.

Dans la Capitale-Nationale, par exemple, ils vaccineront 10 patients par heure au lieu de 20. On a modifié nos cibles pour diminuer la pression. Les parents vont avoir des questions. Notre personnel a été formé pour ça, ajoute Mme McKinnon.

Les sondages indiquent que seulement 60 % d’entre eux veulent faire vacciner leurs enfants, même s’ils sont eux-mêmes doublement vaccinés. Environ 20 % se disent totalement en désaccord.

Selon l’anthropologue et conseillère scientifique de l’INSPQ Ève Dubé, des parents craignent les effets secondaires. L’autre grand facteur, c’est la perception de l’utilité. Les gens se questionnent si c’est vraiment nécessaire puisque les risques de maladies graves sont quand même faibles pour eux. L’avantage ou la raison de cette vaccination-là n’est pas toujours clair pour les parents.

Campagne non culpabilisante
Le ton va être très important dans cette campagne-là, reconnaît Michel Léveillé, le secrétaire à la Communication gouvernementale. Depuis plusieurs semaines, son équipe conçoit des publicités s’adressant aux parents hésitants.

On veut éviter de les culpabiliser. On ne veut pas avoir une approche trop insistante. Au contraire, on veut bien camper les choses et expliquer les bénéfices. Dans un premier temps, il mise principalement sur la pédagogie pour répondre à leurs questions.

La première publicité qui sera lancée cette semaine est très sobre. Le vulgarisateur scientifique Martin Carli y fait notamment un parallèle avec la vaccination contre la poliomyélite, le tétanos, la rubéole et l’hépatite B, une maladie qui a pratiquement disparu chez les plus jeunes vaccinés en bas âge.

Il y aura dans un deuxième temps un volet [de publicités] axé un peu plus sur la motivation parce que, dans ces campagnes-là, on essaye d’avoir différents tons.

Dans les centres de vaccination, la campagne de promotion de Québec inclut également des personnages ludiques, imaginés pour rassurer les tout-petits. Ne t’en fais pas, compte jusqu’à cinq et c’est fini! peut-on lire sur une affiche. En attendant les quinze minutes réglementaires à la fin, ils pourront colorier ou rechercher les personnages suivant le concept des livres-jeux Où est Charlie?.

Pour en arriver à une campagne aussi massive de vaccination.. tout part des CHSLD (maisons de soins de durée au Québec) ça part d'une fraude statistiques de mortalité....

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1842659/chsld-rapport-inspection-christian-dube-pr...

Visites dans les CHSLD : Dubé refuse de dire s’il a tous les rapports en main

La Presse canadienne
2021-11-25 | Mis à jour hier à 17 h 52
Le ministre de la Santé, Christian Dubé, refuse de dire s'il a en main tous les rapports d'inspection réalisés à la suite de « visites de vigie » dans des CHSLD au printemps 2020.

La question lui a été posée à trois reprises, jeudi, par le député libéral Marc Tanguay. Le ministre s'est levé trois fois pour demander que l'on respecte le processus d'enquête de la coroner Géhane Kamel.

Toute la semaine à l'Assemblée nationale, l'opposition a maintenu la pression sur le gouvernement Legault afin qu'il s'explique sur sa gestion de la crise dans les CHSLD, qui a fait 4000 morts en quatre mois.

Jeudi, M. Tanguay a voulu savoir si le ministre avait en sa possession toutes les grilles d'inspection qui ont été remplies manuellement par les employés effectuant les visites de vigie.

Il a soutenu que les informations contenues dans ces grilles étaient névralgiques, car elles expliquaient les conditions d'hébergement des aînés lors de la crise.

Il est [...] inacceptable que le ministre ne daigne pas répondre à une question simple : les grilles de visites remplies manuellement au plus fort de la crise sont-elles disponibles oui ou non dans leur entièreté?, a-t-il demandé.

« Il noie le poisson et [...] ne fait qu'ajouter une couche d'opacité dans une recherche de vérité que l'on veut pour tous les Québécois et pour les familles endeuillées. »

— Une citation de Marc Tanguay, député libéral
Les visites de vigie dans les CHSLD n'ont commencé que le 14 avril 2020, après la découverte de la tragédie du CHSLD Herron.

Aucune consigne de conservation
La sous-ministre adjointe aux Aînés, Natalie Rosebush, a déclaré le 16 novembre dernier devant la coroner qu'il n'y avait pas de consigne à l'époque, selon laquelle il fallait conserver ce qui était rempli par les inspecteurs.

La haute fonctionnaire a expliqué que les inspecteurs consignaient des informations dans un fichier qui écrasait les constats notés lors de visites précédentes.

Aucun rapport n'a été détruit, a plutôt affirmé le premier ministre François Legault cette semaine, à l'Assemblée nationale. Des copies de secours permettraient l'accès aux données écrasées.

Le Bureau du coroner a depuis annoncé que Mme Rosebush serait de nouveau entendue le 1er décembre. Il n'était pas en mesure jeudi de dire si oui ou non il avait reçu tous les rapports d'inspection.

La ministre qui était responsable des aînés durant la pandémie, Marguerite Blais, est en arrêt de travail et ne répondra pas aux questions de la coroner. Le bureau de Mme Blais ignore quand elle sera de retour.

Legault reconnaît que des aînés ont manqué de soins
François Legault parle à l'Assemblée nationale du Québec.
Le premier ministre François Legault

PHOTO : LA PRESSE CANADIENNE / JACQUES BOISSINOT

Lors d'une période des questions forte en émotions, le premier ministre a reconnu qu'effectivement, il y a des aînés qui n'ont pas reçu les services qu'ils auraient dû recevoir.

« Et on est tous mal à l'aise face à ça, Monsieur le Président, mais on a vécu une pandémie historique. »

— Une citation de François Legault, premier ministre
M. Legault répondait aux questions de la cheffe de l'opposition officielle, Dominique Anglade, qui voulait savoir pourquoi, malgré tous les signes avant-coureurs, le gouvernement n'avait pas mieux protégé les CHSLD.

On n'a pas eu cette alerte-là, a insisté le premier ministre. Aujourd'hui, on se dit : "Bien, on aurait dû agir avant". Bien oui. Si on l'avait su, on l'aurait fait.

Le directeur national de santé publique, le Dr Horacio Arruda, a témoigné lors de son passage devant la coroner le 15 novembre qu'il était conscient du danger qui guettait les résidents des CHSLD dès janvier 2020.

L'ex-ministre de la Santé Danielle McCann avait également affirmé qu'elle le savait dès janvier, pour plus tard déclarer avoir réellement pris conscience du danger le 9 mars 2020.

La cellule de crise savait, s'inquiétait, mais n'a pas préparé les CHSLD. Ça, c'est l'abandon de sa responsabilité, a martelé le leader parlementaire du Parti libéral, André Fortin.

Sa collègue, la députée de Fabre, Monique Sauvé, a fondu en larmes au moment de questionner le gouvernement sur sa décision de bloquer l'accès des CHSLD aux proches aidants.''

Si les extraterrestres nous demandent de nous conduire à nos leaders... faudrait peut-être les prévenir du peu d'intégrité de ceux-ci...?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sharyl-attkisson-steven-gundry-pfizer-moder...

Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines ‘Dramatically Increase’ Heart Attack Risk, Renowned Cardiologist Warns

Pfizer et les vaccins Moderna « augmentent considérablement » le risque de crise cardiaque, prévient un cardiologue renommé

Dans une analyse présentée lors d'une réunion de l'American Heart Association, le Dr Steven Gundry, un pionnier de la chirurgie de transplantation cardiaque chez le nourrisson, a déclaré que les vaccins à ARNm contre le COVID exposent de nombreux patients à un risque plus élevé de nouveau syndrome coronarien aigu, tel qu'une crise cardiaque.

Par
Sharyl Attkisson

42

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sharyl-attkisson-steven-gundry-pfizer-moder...

Lien copié

Les vaccins à ARNm COVID-19 Pfizer et Moderna "augmentent considérablement" une mesure courante du risque cardiaque chez les humains.
Manquez un jour, manquez beaucoup. Abonnez-vous aux meilleures nouvelles du jour de The Defender. C'est gratuit.

Les vaccins à ARNm COVID-19 Pfizer et Moderna «augmentent considérablement» une mesure courante du risque cardiaque chez les humains.

C'est ce qu'indique un « avertissement » récemment publié dans la revue Circulation par le cardiologue Dr Steven Gundry, qui est considéré comme un pionnier de la chirurgie de transplantation cardiaque chez le nourrisson.

L'analyse a été présentée lors de la récente réunion de l'American Heart Association.

Les «changements spectaculaires chez la plupart des patients» signifient qu'ils sont plus à risque de développer un nouveau syndrome coronarien aigu, comme une crise cardiaque, selon Gundry.

En partie, l'analyse indique :

"Nous concluons que les aspirateurs d'ARNm augmentent considérablement l'inflammation de l'endothélium et l'infiltration des cellules T du muscle cardiaque et peuvent expliquer les observations d'une augmentation de la thrombose, de la cardiomyopathie et d'autres événements vasculaires après la vaccination."

Gundry a expliqué :

"Récemment, avec l'avènement des vaccins à ARNm COVID-19 (vac) par Moderna et Pfizer, des changements spectaculaires dans le score PULS sont devenus apparents chez la plupart des patients."

Des milliers de blessures cardiaques ont été signalées à la suite de vaccins à ARNm COVID. Ces blessures conduisent à la formation et à la progression de lésions cardiaques qui peuvent devenir instables et se rompre, entraînant des événements cardiaques.

ACHETER AUJOURD'HUI : le nouveau livre de Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — « Le vrai Anthony Fauci »
Le test PULS (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) mesure les biomarqueurs protéiques les plus cliniquement significatifs qui fuient des lésions cardiaques dans les parois des vaisseaux sanguins, fournissant une mesure de la réponse du système immunitaire du corps aux lésions artérielles.

Les scientifiques ont déjà établi une myriade d'effets cardiaques et sanguins des vaccins COVID-19 chez certains patients, y compris les jeunes. Parmi les événements indésirables liés aux vaccins figurent la thrombose des caillots sanguins et l'inflammation cardiaque connue sous le nom de myocardite et péricardite.

Les Centers for Disease Control and Prevention et la Food and Drug Administration des États-Unis affirment que les vaccins sont sûrs et efficaces pour toutes les personnes pour lesquelles ils sont recommandés, et que les avantages l'emportent sur les risques connus, qui apparaîtront pendant quelques années à mesure que de plus en plus de personnes se feront vacciner.''

L'original :

In an analysis presented during a meeting of the American Heart Association, Dr. Steven Gundry, a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery, said mRNA COVID vaccines put many patients at higher risk of a new acute coronary syndrome, such as a heart attack.

By
Sharyl Attkisson

42

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sharyl-attkisson-steven-gundry-pfizer-moder...

The COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines "dramatically increase" a common measure of heart risk in people.
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

The COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines “dramatically increase” a common measure of heart risk in people.

That’s according to a recently published “warning” in the journal Circulation by cardiologist Dr. Steven Gundry, who is called a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery.

The analysis was presented at the recent meeting of the American Heart Association.

The “dramatic changes in most patients” mean they are at higher risk of a new acute coronary syndrome, such as a heart attack, according to Gundry.

In part, the analysis states:

“We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

Gundry explained:

“Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.”

Thousands of heart-related injuries have been reported following COVID mRNA vaccines. These injuries lead to the formation and progression of cardiac lesions which may become unstable and rupture, leading to cardiac events.

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'
The PULS (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) test measures the most clinically significant protein biomarkers that leak from cardiac lesions in the blood vessel walls, providing a measure of the body’s immune system response to arterial injury.

Scientists have already established a myriad of heart- and blood-related effects of COVID-19 vaccines in some patients, including young people. Among the adverse events linked to the vaccines are thrombosis blood clots and heart inflammation known as myocarditis and pericarditis.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say the vaccines are safe and effective for everyone they are recommended for, and that the benefits outweigh the known risks, which will be emerging for some years as more people get vaccinated.''

Un article de l'UNIVERSITÉ DE HAVARD

Médicaments à risque : pourquoi on ne peut pas faire confiance à la FDA

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted

Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted
July 17, 2013

by Donald W. Light

A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.

All of them may be better than indirect measures or placebos, but most are no better for patients than previous drugs approved as better against these measures. The few superior drugs make important contributions to the growing medicine chest of effective drugs.

The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.

La barre pour « sûr » est tout aussi basse, et au cours des 30 dernières années, les médicaments approuvés ont provoqué une épidémie d'effets secondaires nocifs, même lorsqu'ils sont correctement prescrits. Chaque semaine, environ 53 000 hospitalisations en excès et environ 2 400 décès en excès se produisent aux États-Unis parmi les personnes prenant des médicaments correctement prescrits pour être en meilleure santé. Un médicament approuvé sur cinq finit par causer de graves dommages,1 tandis qu'un médicament sur dix procure des avantages substantiels par rapport aux médicaments existants et établis. C'est le contraire de ce que les gens veulent ou attendent de la FDA.

Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80 million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild dizziness.

''Les médicaments sur ordonnance sont la 4e cause de décès. Les décès et les hospitalisations dus à un surdosage, à des erreurs ou à la consommation de drogues à des fins récréatives augmenteraient ce total. Les patients américains souffrent également d'environ 80 millions d'effets secondaires bénins par an, tels que des courbatures, des malaises digestifs, de la somnolence ou de légers vertiges.''

The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.

This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA.2 Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information.34 The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge.5 6 Patients are the innocent victims.

Although it now embraces the industry rhetoric about “breakthrough” and “life-saving” innovation, the FDA in effect serves as the re-generator of patent-protected high prices for minor drugs in each disease group, as their therapeutic equivalents lose patent protection. The billions spent on promoting them results in the Inverse Benefit Law: the more widely most drugs are marketed, the more diluted become their benefits but more widespread become their risks of harm.

The FDA also legitimates industry efforts to lower and widen criteria prescribing drugs, known by critics as “the selling of sickness.” Regulations conveniently prohibit the FDA from comparing the effectiveness of new drugs or from assessing their cost-effectiveness. Only the United States allows companies to charge what they like and raise prices annually on last year’s drugs, without regard to their added value.7

A New Era?

Now the FDA is going even further. The New England Journal of Medicine has published, without comment, proposals by two senior figures from the FDA to loosen criteria drugs that allege to prevent Alzheimer’s disease by treating it at an early stage.8 The authors seem unaware of how their views about Alzheimer’s and the role of the FDA incorporate the language and rationale of marketing executives for the industry. First, they use the word “disease” to refer to a hypothetical “early-stage Alzheimer’s disease” that supposedly exists “before the earliest symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease are apparent.” Notice that phrasing assumes that the earliest symptoms will become apparent, when in fact it’s only a hypothetical model for claiming that cognitive lapses like not remembering where you put something or what you were going to say are signs of incipient Altzheimer’s disease. The proposed looser criteria would legitimate drugs as “safe and effective” that have little or no evidence of being effective and expose millions to risks of harmful side effects.

No proven biomarkers or clinical symptoms exist, the FDA officials note, but nevertheless they advocate accelerated approval to allow “drugs that address an unmet medical need.” What “unmet need"? None exists. This market-making language by officials who are charged with protecting the public from unsafe drugs moves us towards the 19-century hucksterism of peddling cures of questionable benefits and hidden risks of harm, only now fully certified by the modern FDA.9

The main reason for advocating approvals of drugs for an unproven need with unproven benefits, these FDA officials explain, is that companies cannot find effective drugs for overt Alzheimer’s. Their drug-candidates have failed again and again in trials. The core rationale of the proposed loosening of criteria is that “the focus of drug development has sifted to earlier stages of Alzheimer’s disease…and the regulatory framework under which such therapies are evaluated should evolve accordingly.” Yet they admit there are no “therapies” in this much larger market where (with the help of the industry-funded FDA) companies will not have to prove their drugs are effective. In fact, these FDA officers propose to approve the drugs without ever knowing if they are therapeutic or not. Their commercialized language presumes the outcome before starting. The job of the FDA, it seems, is to help drug companies open up new markets to increase profits for the FDA’s corporate paymasters.

These two FDA officials maintain that “the range of focus must extend to healthy people who are merely at risk for the disease but could benefit from preventive therapies.” Yet they admit we do not know who is “at risk,” nor whether there is a “disease,” nor whether anyone “could benefit,” nor whether the drugs constitute “preventive therapies.” Similar FDA-encouraged shifts have been made for drugs treating pre-diabetes, pre-psychosis, and pre-bone density loss, with few or no benefits to offset risks of harm. This week, based on policy research at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, a letter of concern was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors write that approval for drugs to treat “early stage Altzheimer’s disease” must meet “a much higher bar – evidence of slowed disease progression.” But without clinical manifestations or biomarkers for an alleged disease, how will such progression be measured?

Advice to readers: Experienced, independent physicians recommend not to take a new drug approved by the FDA until it is out for 7 years, unless you have to, so that evidence can accumulate about its real harms and benefits.10

----

Disclaimer: The assessment and views expressed here are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of persons or institutions to which he is associated. The comments and suggestions of Gordon Schiff, an expert in prescribing at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Robert Whitaker are gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Archives of Internal Medicine 2012 (Nov 26);172:1680-81.

2. Hilts PJ. Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business and One Hundred Years of Regulation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 2003.

3. Rodwin M. Conflicts of interest, institutional corruption, and Pharma: an agenda for reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2012;40:511-22.

4. Rodwin M. Reforming pharmaceutical industry-physician financial relationships: lessons from the United States, France, and Japan. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2011(Winter):2-10.

5. Sismondo S. Ghost management. PLoS Medicine 2007;4:1429-33.

6. Sismondo S, Doucet M. Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication. Bioethics 2010;24:273-83.

7. Schondelmeyer S, Purvis L. Rx Price Watch Report. Washington DC: American Association of Retired Persons 2012.

8. Kozauer N, Katz R. Regulatory innovation and drug development for early-stage Alzheimer's disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2013 (Mar 13);DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1302513

9. Young JH. The Toadstool Millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1961.

10. Schiff G, Galanter W, Duhig J, et al. Principles of conservative prescribing. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171:1433-30.

En Rappel.... le chanteur canadien le plus populaire de tous les temps...

https://www.iheartradio.ca/nouvelles/bryan-adams-teste-positif-a-la-covid-19-une-deuxie...

Bryan Adams testé positif à la COVID-19 une deuxième fois
Luc Weil-Brenner LUC WEIL-BRENNERjeudi 25 novembre 2021 - 16h00
bryan
Facebook@BryanAdams
Même s’il est pleinement vacciné, Bryan Adams est bien malchanceux quand il est question de COVID-19… Le chanteur canadien vient en effet d’être testé positif au coronavirus pour la seconde fois en moins d’un mois.

Le légendaire rockeur de 62 ans a appris cette nouvelle lors de son arrivée dans un aéroport de Milan, en Italie, où il se rendait pour assister au dévoilement du calendrier Pirelli 2022, dans lequel ses photos sont en vedette.

« Je viens juste d’arriver à Milan et j’ai été déclaré positif à la COVID pour la deuxième fois en un mois. Direction l’hôpital pour moi. Merci pour votre soutien », a annoncé Bryan Adams sur son compte Instagram, tout en publiant trois photos de lui, dont une le montrant à bord d’une ambulance.

Fin octobre, Bryan Adams avait dû être remplacé au dernier moment par Keith Urban pour son hommage à Tina Turner, lors de la cérémonie d’intronisation de la chanteuse au Rock & Roll Hall of Fame qui se tenait à Cleveland. Il avait été déclaré positif à la COVID-19 quelques instants auparavant mais n’avait ressenti aucun symptôme.

Ed Sheeran et Jon Bon Jovi ont aussi récemment été forcés d’annuler des engagements professionnels après avoir été testés positifs à la COVID-19.

Rappelons que Bryan Adams lancera en mars prochain son 15e album en carrière. Intitulé So Happy It Hurts, ce disque succédera à Shine a Light, paru en 2019..'

Bryan Adams Tests Positive For Covid Again, Goes To Hospital In Italy (4minutre)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ot_cSJg9fw

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1840032/lnh-protocole-covid-senateurs-ottawa-saiso...

La saison des Sénateurs d’Ottawa (doubleMENT vaccinés) sur pause en raison de l’éclosion de COVID-19
Des joueurs des Bruins, en noir et jaune, se félicitent après un but. Devant eux, deux joueurs des Sénateurs, en blanc, ont la mine basse.
Trois rencontres prévues pour cette semaine sont reportées (archives).

le 15 novembre 2021
L’éclosion de COVID-19 dans le vestiaire des Sénateurs d'Ottawa force la Ligue nationale de hockey (LNH) à mettre les activités de l’organisation sur pause. Trois rencontres prévues pour cette semaine sont reportées.''

---
L'ALERTE LAMBERT à Panthère
http://www.orandia.com/forum/index.php?id=206908

P(3)58

https://dailyhive.com/calgary/moderna-side-effect-alberta

Some Albertans asked to turn down Moderna vaccine over rare side effect

Le meilleur médecin de l'Alberta recommande aux personnes âgées de 12 à 29 ans d'éviter le vaccin Moderna COVID-19 en raison d'un effet secondaire rare.

Le Dr Deena Hinshaw a fait ces commentaires mardi après-midi lors d'un briefing régulier sur le COVID-19.

"À ce stade, il semble clair que, bien qu'encore faible, le risque de myocardite après le vaccin Moderna est plus élevé que celui après le vaccin Pfizer chez les personnes âgées de 12 à 29 ans", a déclaré Hinshaw.

"Comme je l'ai mentionné, ce risque de ce résultat est encore très faible", a-t-elle ajouté.

Environ un cas de myocardite est détecté pour 7 000 doses chez les hommes de 12 à 17 ans avec les vaccins Pfizer COVID-19, et un cas pour 2 000 secondes doses avec les vaccins Moderna COVID-19.

La myocardite est l'inflammation du muscle cardiaque, selon le CDC.

"Les risques après la vaccination sont encore plus faibles pour les personnes âgées de 18 à 29 ans, et il est également important de se rappeler que la myocardite après une infection au COVID-19 est plus fréquente qu'après n'importe quel vaccin", a ajouté Hinshaw.

Par mesure de précaution, la province conseillera désormais à toute personne âgée de 12 à 29 ans de recevoir le vaccin Pfizer plutôt que Moderna.

Hinshaw a ajouté que pour les personnes de ce groupe d'âge qui ont déjà reçu un vaccin Moderna, il n'y a pas de risque permanent, la myocardite survenant généralement dans les une à deux premières semaines et après cela, il n'y a plus de risque.

Hinshaw dit que vous pouvez toujours demander un vaccin Moderna, mais il est suggéré à toute personne de ce groupe d'âge de recevoir Pfizer.

Hinshw dit que le Comité consultatif de l'Alberta sur l'immunisation a fait la recommandation.''

Encore du verbiage pour rien dire

---
La loi cosmique s'accomplit!