How to make billions of $$$ from useless junk.
In the comments section of my previous article, fellow Substacker and resident of this here sunburned country, Elizabeth Hart, linked to a 2014 letter she wrote to Peter Gøtzsche (who is mentioned in the article).
Gøtzsche is co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration and Director of The Nordic Cochrane Centre. While positioning himself as a pharma skeptic, he clearly is a fan of vaccines.
Elizabeth urged Gøtzsche to reconsider a 2004 Cochrane review titled “Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.”
Elizabeth was prompted to pen her request after reading the review’s absurd conclusion: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”
What the … ?!?
If a topic has been researched six ways ‘til Sunday under stringent, tightly-controlled conditions by reputable and unrelated research groups and the same result found every time, then, yes, it would be best for future research funding and manpower to be diverted to other more pressing topics.
But here we have a group of Cochrane researchers admitting the quality of research into an extremely important topic - i.e, the effects of injecting a known neurotoxin like aluminum directly into children - is of unanimously low quality.
Yet, instead of asking the research community to get its act together and begin performing high quality studies, they recommend no further research into the matter!
The study was published in Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004. The dubious Lancet publications are staunch propaganda outlets for globalist agendas - witness the Lancet’s 2020 Politburo-style ‘statement of solidarity’ which included the signature of hopelessly-conflicted Peter Daszak, and its 2022 article absurdly claiming the demonstrably toxic COVID ‘vaccines’ saved up to 19·8 million lives (this farcical claim was subsequently dismantled by Denis Rancourt and Joseph Hickey).
Elizabeth’s plea, as you might expect, fell on deaf ears. The 2004 article remains online, its original and absurd conclusion intact.
In her letter to Gøtzsche, Elizabeth notes the extreme profitability of vaccines.
I’ve read commentary by pro-pharma types, absurdly claiming there is little money in vaccines and therefore what possible nefarious motive could drug companies have in their production and promotion? These drugs are clearly something the eminently wholesome and benevolent Big Pharma are producing out of the goodness of its heart!
Excuse me while I puke.
The reality?
“These drugs cost very little to manufacture and people are being charged 100 times what it costs to make the drugs and often these are drugs that are no longer on patent, so itʼs pure profit,” said Dr Gerard Anderson, a public health professor at Johns Hopkinsʼ Bloomberg School of Public Health.
One of the articles Elizabeth linked to was a 2009 Columbus Dispatch piece (since removed from the masthead website but still available via archive sites).
The article is revealing.
“Vaccines now are viewed as a crucial path to growth, as drug companies look for ways to offset a slowing of prescription-medicine sales amid intensifying generic competition and government pressure to restrain prices under the federal health-care overhaul.”
“While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That's nearly five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.”
Rest assured, Big Pharma does absolutely nothing from the goodness of its heart - and vaccine production is no exception.
The article then states:
“The past decade brought breakthrough vaccines against pneumococcal disease and rotavirus -- two of the world's top killers -- plus meningitis, cervical cancer and other diseases.”
So I thought it would be instructive to see what impact these “breakthrough vaccines” had on the aforementioned “top killers”.
The answer, it turns out, is bugger all.
Let’s start with pneumococcal disease.
The CDC, a corrupt and dishonest vaccine business masquerading as a public health agency, claims invasive pneumococcal disease “rates dramatically declined in children and adults after the United States began using pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in 2000.”
Now here’s what really happened:
As you can see, there’s no coherent and meaningful correlation between the trajectory of invasive pneumococcal cases and the introduction/CDC recommendation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.
The chart shows that, by the time the first PCV was released, infection rates were already on a downward decline.
Ditto for the 2010 recommendation.
The 2021 recommendations, meanwhile, have been followed by an upward spike in IPV cases.
IPV cases are also spiking upwards in Australia.
Hardly what I’d call a vaccine success story.
What about the ‘rotavirus vaccine’? Any better luck there?
Nope.
Let’s start with this graph from the CDC website, which depicts positive test results for rotavirus (more on that in a moment).
We immediately know something is amiss here because the graph only goes back to 2000.
Furthermore, that graph depicts the rate of positive stool samples - not nationwide cases or deaths - from “75 to 90” US laboratories that report rotavirus testing data to CDC's National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS).
Run a web search for historical trajectories of diseases like measles, and results for cases and deaths dating back long before 2000 can be found fairly quickly.
The CDC and its ilk, for some strange reason, seem reluctant to post such trajectories for other ‘viral’ diseases like rotavirus.
Not to worry - Glass et al 1996 contains US hospitalization and death rates for rotavirus for the years 1979-1992. Still not as long as I’d like, but long enough to show that both rotavirus hospitalizations (graph A) and deaths (B) were on a downward trajectory long before introduction of the rotavirus vaccine in 2006.
Try as they might, in a 2018 paper CDC researchers had to admit they could find no consistent evidence that rotavirus vaccination was driving changes in rotavirus hospitalization rates.
They write “Rotavirus and AGE hospitalization rates have decreased steadily decreased following rotavirus vaccine introduction”, but we know that can easily be explained by a simple continuation in the preexisting trend.
They grudgingly admit “annual changes in the age and vaccination coverage in children hospitalized for rotavirus and AGE are less convincing, and at times inconsistent with the changes in hospitalization rates.”
Vaccines are a wildly profitable scam. Not to mention a great way for globalist parasites, who proved quite conclusively in 2020 that they hate you, to inject you and your children with harmful “adjuvants”.
Don’t buy into it.
Leave a Reply