The fate of this blog The Searchlight [Fearless Blog] is now hanging in the balance. The subscription ends on August 9. The Blog is sure to rest for a while.
Reason:
The inept government in Nigeria has, for whatever reason, pegged every transaction in USD at not more than $2O per person. The Business Plan subscription for this blog is close to $3OO. Subscription is not done in bits. The implication is that the Blog may go off until the Nigerian governments lifts the peg.
The only alternative to keep us on is for any of our friends who can, to subscribe for us while we make plans to refund the sum when our government’s monetary policy is reviewed.
We appreciate always your time and follow. Rest assure our love and prayers. We are sure to bounce back when the time is right.
Scrabble, Wordle, Spelling Bee—if you’ve played any of these games, then you’re already familiar with anagrams. An anagram is a literary device where the letters that make up a word, phrase, or name are rearranged to create new ones. The original word or phrase is the subject of the anagram, the anagram is what is created by repurposing those letters.
What is an anagram?
Anagrams are a form of wordplay in which the letters of a word or phrase are rearranged to create a new word or phrase. For example, if you take the letters from the words “a gentleman,” you can rearrange them to spell “elegant man.” By rearranging “Clint Eastwood,” you can spell “old west action.” “William Shakespeare” can be rearranged to spell “I’ll make a wise phrase.” Anagrams are used in writing for a variety of purposes, including to provide humor, embed mystery, and create a new identity.
How do anagrams work?
Anagrams are conceptually straightforward. There are only two rules to determine if something is an anagram: The new arrangement must spell something comprehensible (otherwise it’s just gibberish), and all of the letters from the original text must be used in the new one.
Despite their simple construction, anagrams can generate a wide array of effects on a reader.
They can be used for comedy:
dormitory→dirty room
debit card→bad credit
To rephrase the obvious:
Eleven plus two→Twelve plus one
A decimal point→I’m a dot in place
Vacation time→I am not active
And to embed mystery:
Tom Marvolo Riddle→I am Lord Voldemort
Are there different types of anagrams?
We can broadly categorize anagrams by their intended function:
Commentary: A satirical or critical take on the subject of the anagram.
Example: The American fast-food giant McDonald’s→Digest a ton of fat and random chemicals
Synonyms: A new word with a similar meaning. These are called “synanagrams,” which is an incredibly fun word to say.
Example: angered→enraged
Antonyms: Arrangements that mean the opposite of their subject. These are called “antigrams,” and they’re often created with a hint of sarcasm.
Example: funeral→real fun
Full phrases: Anagrams that rearrange the first half of the phrase to create a complete sentence.
Example: For the evil that men do→doth live on after them
Names: Sometimes an author or artist rearranges the letters in their own name to create a pseudonym. “Mr. Mojo Risin” is a famous anagram of “Jim Morrison.”
Is it similar to any other literary devices?
There are other literary devices that use letters but differ from anagrams, such as these:
Acronym: An acronym is formed by using the first initial of a set of words to create a new word. NASA is an acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (while “moon starer” is an anagram of “astronomer”).
Palindrome: A palindrome is a word that can be read forward or backward and spells the same thing. “Step on no pets” spelled backward is “step on no pets.” It’s a new look at the same word or words, but in the case of palindromes, there’s no scrambling involved.
Homophones and homonyms: Homophones are words that sound the same but are spelled differently, and the English language is chock-full of them. Homonyms are words that are spelled the same but mean different things depending on their context (for example, “rose” can either mean a flower or something you did this morning).
When would a writer use an anagram?
One way a writer can use anagrams is to tuck themselves into their own stories. Vladimir Nabokov famously injected himself into his novel Lolita as the anagrammatic Vivian Darkbloom. Other times, authors use anagrams to remove themselves entirely from a work by creating a pseudonym (or a “pen name”) generated by an anagram. Edward Gorey, for example, published as Ogdred Weary, Dogear Wryde, and Ms. Regera Dowdy, all clever rearrangements of his own name.
In literature, anagrams tap into a reader’s sense of surprise by presenting what is already in front of them in a new way. This sense of discovery can be useful for writers trying to embed a mystery or solve a riddle.
Examples of anagrams in literature
In The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, the main character decodes a series of anagrams (written in the blood of a murdered curator, because it’s a thriller) to discover the next clues:
“O, Draconian devil!”→Leonardo da Vinci
“Oh, lame saint!”→The Mona Lisa
“So dark the con of Man”→Madonna of the Rocks
In the Harry Potter series, it’s revealed that the name “Tom Marvolo Riddle,” a character trapped in a mysterious limbo, is an anagram of the phrase “I am Lord Voldemort.” Unless they are especially astute with anagrams, most readers reach the revelation at the same time as Harry, creating an experience of satisfaction and disbelief: It was right in front of you all along.
Not all anagrams are riddles to be solved. Writers also use anagrams as allusion, like in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, where the titular character’s name is an anagram of Amleth, the historical Danish prince whose legend the play is based on.
How do you create an anagram?
There isn’t a singular “way” to write an anagram, any more than there’s one single way to write. But like with writing, there are strategies that will help you get started.
Break the word up. It’s hard for our brains to rearrange something that’s already cohesive, so pick the letters apart and lay them out differently. Some people lay the letters out in a circle so they can rotate the paper and notice new combinations.
Create groups. Arrange the letters into known groups. You can create columns to separate vowels from consonants, or group together letters in common pairings. “QU” is a quick one, and the letter “H” is frequently found with “P,” “T,” “S,” “W,” and “G.”
Look for prefixes and suffixes. Cordoning off common prefixes like “un-,” “sub-,” and “re-” will leave you fewer letters to have to arrange.
And finally, start small! Anagrams are a good way to exercise creativity, expand your vocabulary, and warm your brain up for a writing exercise.
Creating an anagram is like thrift shopping, you can only use what’s already available. And just like with thrifting, a little bit of time and cleverness will yield some surprising results.
Anagram FAQs
How do anagrams work?
Anagrams work by rearranging the letters in a word or phrase to create a new word or phrase.
What is an anagram in literature?
In literature, anagrams are commonly used to convey humor, sarcasm, or mystery. Authors also use anagrams of their own names to create pseudonyms and new characters.
What’s the purpose of an anagram in literature?
Anagrams are a fun literary device because they tap into a reader’s sense of surprise by presenting available information in a new way.
America’s far left has taken control of the Democratic Party, becoming an “enemy within” that has transformed the United States into an unrecognizable country, said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida on Friday. “Today we face the greatest danger we have ever faced,” said Scott in a speech at the Dallas, Texas, meeting of the…
A “systemic catastrophe” is senior researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s verdict on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, warning that the chemical is a slow kill for humans and other lifeforms.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff (supplied by Stephanie Seneff)
She believes that the pervasive use of glyphosate in the United States and around the world in agriculture is the reason behind the dramatic increase in autism, diabetes, cancer, allergies, as well as many other chronic conditions.
Glyphosate was first used in Roundup, a herbicide developed by Monsanto in 1974.
Roundup weed killer is shown in Chicago, Ill., on May 14, 2019. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Upon its release, Monsanto marketed glyphosate as harmless to humans and other mammals. The company reasoned that glyphosate kills weed by disrupting the shikimate pathway, which is not present in animals and therefore would not be harmful.
Recent research has revealed that human bodies have more bacteria than human cells, and our gut microorganisms play very important roles in maintaining our health.
“In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesizes vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics (foreign biotics),” maintains balance in the immune system, and prevents harmful bacteria from crossing into the gut, Seneff wrote.
Conversely, the food we eat also directly acts on gut microorganisms. Dietary fiber has been shown to promote the growth of healthy gut bacteria, while a diet high in sugar and processed fats promote bacteria involved in inflammation.
Knowing that glyphosate may be able to influence pathways in the gut bacteria and cause disturbances, Seneff reasoned that the yearly increase in bowel disorders, autism (which is highly correlated with impaired gut bacteria), allergies, and many other diseases may all be due to the diet we eat; a diet containing foods high in glyphosate.
She found yearly increases in disease cases, such as diabetes and various cancers, can be directly correlated with an increase in glyphosate use.
A slide from one of Dr. Seneff’s presentations.
Glyphosate and Cancer
Over 60 years after Roundup first rolled onto the shelves and into agricultural lands and gardens, the public is beginning to understand the relationship between glyphosate and cancer.
Glyphosate is implicated in many cancers. One of the earliest glyphosate studies by Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, a French molecular biologist and friend of Seneff, showed that low doses of Roundup exposure over a lifetime lead to shorter lifespans and organ damage in rats.
Further, laboratory studies on human cells and sea urchin embryos have also shown that glyphosate caused DNA breakage, which is a major factor in cancer progression.
Even Monsanto’s earlier papers showed organ damage and tumor growth in rats, though these results were not given much attention after the company submitted new studies showing no significant health impacts.
Seneff’s studies have linked glyphosate with a myriad of cancers including, but not limited to, cancer in the breast, liver, colon, kidney, skin (melanoma), thyroid, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer of the white blood cells, has appeared in many of the recent lawsuits against Monsanto, and Bayer—the current owner of the Roundup brand.
Seneff linked NHL with glyphosate exposure. For a long time it was known that farmers have a higher risk of developing NHL. Furthermore, a 2002 Swedish study showed that glyphosate was directly linked to a three-fold increase in NHL.
Seneff’s study posited that NHL may be due to glyphosate’s effect on micronutrients, particularly from deficiencies in manganese.
Manganese is an important metal that we need in trace amounts. It can bond with other molecules, forming compounds. One particularly important compound is a manganese protein named Manganese superoxide dismutase (Manganese-SOD) that works in the body as an antioxidant.
Antioxidants are important molecules for anti-aging, neutralizing the action of radioactive oxygen species that do damage to cells and DNA and increase the risk of cancer. Manganese-SOD prevents this damage by bonding with and inhibiting the molecules, and also helps to kill cancer cells.
However, glyphosate can bond to metals such as manganese and magnesium. Therefore, it likely can also bind to manganese in manganese-SOD, disrupting its functions.
Laboratory studies have shown that manganese-SOD can reduce the growth of NHL cells in laboratories and can also protect against pancreatic cancer.
People with NHL are also often found with low concentrations of manganese-SOD and are treated with another manganese compound called cationic manganese porphyrins.
Seneff says that the manganese porphyrins work by mimicking the action of manganese-SOD, highlighting the importance of manganese-SOD and the disturbances glyphosate potentially may cause to the human body.
There is “strong evidence that glyphosate is likely contributing to the increased prevalence of multiple types of cancer in humans,” Seneff wrote in her study (pdf).
“Forty years of glyphosate exposure have provided a living laboratory where humans are the guinea pigs and the outcomes are alarmingly apparent.”
Glyphosate and Proteins
The diseases mentioned are not exclusive, Seneff is also highly confident that glyphosate’s disturbance to the gut is what causes autism, coeliac, and other allergies and behavioral problems, with some of the people around her sharing stories of improvements in their children’s behavioral and asthma problems after they switched their children’s diet to organic foods.
However, the biggest concern and speculation Seneff and Samsel have made was that glyphosate may be incorporated into human proteins, the very building blocks of our cells.
Proteins are made up of molecules called amino acids, which we obtain through the food we eat or through our cells.
Seneff’s studies speculate that glyphosate is structurally similar to an amino acid named glycine, and therefore cells may mistakenly take up glyphosate and build it into proteins, thinking that it is glycine.
Previous studies have observed that glyphosate, like glycine, can modulate certain receptors on neurons. Seneff and Samsel speculate that glyphosate’s similar structure to glycine is what may have allowed it to do that.
Glycine is a very common amino acid, it can be found in many of our proteins, and plays a critical role in maintaining the function of very important proteins. Therefore, if the reality is as Seneff fears, that glyphosate can be substituted for glycine, it can cause critical changes to biochemical processes in the body.
For example, glycine is present in proteins that make energy for human cells. These proteins are in the mitochondria and change or damage to these proteins will cause them to dysfunction and send cells into stress and eventual death. Previous studies have observed that cells exposed to high doses of glyphosate caused mitochondrial damage and stress, suggesting that glyphosate may have directly played a part.
Further, Seneff believes that the increase in chronic diseases such as diabetes and other metabolic diseases are also related to increased use of glyphosate.
A slide from one of Dr. Seneff’s presentations showing the increased incidence of diabetes.
Since glycine is present in proteins that regulate fat as well as insulin. If glyphosate replaced glycine in these proteins, these proteins will become impaired and lose their function in regulating fat and blood glucose, leaving the body open to metabolic disorders including obesity and diabetes.
Bumpy Journey
Many of Seneff’s studies have been heavily criticized for making conclusions through correlations and speculations.
However, little research has been done to prove or disprove Seneff’s fears, with many in the science and media field pushing back against her research and trying to have her peer-reviewed and published works removed through retraction.
Retraction is the process where journals remove published studies from the journal. Since retraction is often associated with a fraudulent research process with fabricated data and ethical violations, a retraction history is akin to a black mark in a researcher’s career.
Seneff said she is very lucky to have none of her papers retracted, although some researchers that she knows have had their studies retracted.
She said her first paper on glyphosate was almost retracted. In that study, she referenced Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, a friend of hers and a key person in Seneff’s journey on her research on glyphosate.
“He was really the one who blew the whistle on glyphosate,” Seneff said.
Séralini shed light on the long-term harms of Monsanto’s Roundup by replicating Monsanto’s study submitted to the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA).
In Monsanto’s studies, the researchers exposed rats to Roundup at low doses over three months and found no health effects when compared to rats not exposed to the herbicide.
“That was part of the approval process, and they actually had a rule, you don’t have to look beyond three months. Three months [and] no trouble; good to go,” Seneff said.
Séralini repeated the experiment, but he wanted to test the long-term effects and exposed the rats to Roundup over a lifetime.
“He was even not sure anything was going to happen,” Seneff said, “he told me that at three months, it was looking good.”
“There wasn’t really any evidence of any problem with the exposed group [exposed to Roundup] and he was worried the whole experience was just going to be a complete blast.”
However, at four months, there was a breakthrough.
“At four months, it (rats) started to show injuries, and by the end of the lifespan, the females have massive mammary tumors, the males had kidney damage and liver damage, and both genders had reproductive issues and early death,” she said.
Séralini found glyphosate was a slow kill. His published study was one of the first on the harms of glyphosate and gave Seneff the confidence at the start of her research, that she was on the right track.
A year after Séralini published his study, Seneff published her first study on glyphosate with Anthony Samsel and referenced Séralini’s paper in her study.
Her paper drew widespread criticism within the scientific community, many slammed her for being unqualified for health matters even though she had a bachelor’s degree in biology, and attacked the journal she published in as a “predatory journal.”
A few weeks after she published her first paper, Séralini’s study was retracted, and within the same week, her journal editor contacted her, asking if she would like to withdraw.
“That’s sort of a threat that they’re going to retract it if you don’t [withdraw],” Seneff said.
If she and Samsel chose to withdraw the paper, then they would not get a retraction in their faces and “won’t have this really nasty record of having a retracted paper.”
However, Seneff and Samsel declined.
“We said no thank you, basically.”
Unexpectedly, the journal “came back a week later and said, never mind, we don’t mean it,” said Seneff.
Instead, the journal published a statement: “The policy for our journals is to widely ignore the blogosphere, where competing interests, corruption, and anonymity prevail. We do not allow personal attacks, defamatory statements, or comments of an aggressive tone.”
The editors asked researchers contesting articles published in the journal to “prepare a scientifically rigorous comment,” with authors of such comments “asked to declare all competing interests and their identity in the comment,” and to present “scientifically relevant previous publications on the subject.”
In the end, Seneff and Samsel’s first paper on glyphosate was not retracted.
“Our paper never got retracted, so I was really pleased about that,” said Seneff, sharing that the journal she published her second study in strongly defended her paper against critics who were trying to have her article removed.
Throughout Seneff’s journey, she has met other researchers sharing the same views as her around the world, forming small groups and supporting each other, collaborating and getting their papers published.
“We might scare the parents, and they don’t get their child vaccinated”
Registered Nurse Natasha McDannis inoculates Otto Linn-Walton, 8, with the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children five to 12 years at NYC Health + Hospitals Harlem Hospital, Thursday, Nov. 4, 2021, in New York. (AP Photo/Jeenah Moon)
by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
A recording of a phone call between an irate father and a pharmacist who injected his 7-year-old son with a COVID-19 vaccine after his wife brought him to the pharmacy behind his back, and is now allegedly in the hospital due to myocarditis, has been circulating in the alternative media today.
The father and his family apparently live in New Zealand, while his work originates in New York, and what is remarkable about the call is that the father asks the pharmacist if parents are warned about the risks to myocarditis and heart disease before giving the COVID-19 shots to children, and the pharmacist replies:
We might scare the parents, and they don’t want to get their child vaccinated.
I found a couple of transcripts of the dialog, and this one (I found it on The Vigilant Fox) seems to be the most complete:
Father: Are you a pharmacist?
Pharmacist: Yes, how can I help?
Father: Yeah. Hey, I’ve got a question. My wife, against my wishes, brought my seven-year-old son a few days ago for a COVID jab, and he’s now in the hospital with myocarditis. And I was obviously not very happy with you guys or with my wife. She told me that she was not told that was a potential side effect. So why wouldn’t you have told her that?
Pharmacist: Okay — sorry. So it’s quite a rare side effect as well.
Father: No, it’s not. No, it’s not because I’ve been doing research; it’s common. In the US, there’s tens of thousands of them [myocarditis cases] reported to the CDC site. So why are you not telling parents this?
Pharmacist: We might scare the parents, and they don’t want to get their child vaccinated.
Father: So you don’t want to scare the parents with something that is actually happening, that’s happened to my kid? Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? You don’t want to scare them? You need to give them the right information so they can make a proper decision! What is wrong with you? You don’t want to scare them. I’m recording this conversation as well, and this is going to a lawyer next. Thank you for admitting that. So why don’t you tell them? When someone comes in there and says, “Hey, what can go wrong?” What do you say? “Sore arm”? Have you seen the amount of dead people? Have you seen it?
Pharmacist: Has your wife asked before giving consent to give [the child the shot]?
Father: She asked what the side effects are!
Pharmacist: She asked? I’m not sure because I wasn’t there.
Father: It doesn’t matter! You’re supposed to tell people this can happen. So you know what the prognosis is? You know what it is? Possible death within five years. 20% of people with myocarditis die! It is a permanent, damaged heart. It is not temporary! He’s facing a heart transplant because of you! Because you didn’t want to scare her! You know no kids have died from COVID, not a single healthy kid, and you’re giving this stuff out, and you’re not warning people? What is wrong with you?
Pharmacist: So there are information online that you can look up —
Father: No! No! You gave the shot. When someone comes in there and asks what the side effects are, you don’t NOT say because it might scare them from the shot. What is wrong with you?
Pharmacist: So the benefit of getting a vaccination is — solely giving a vaccination because the benefits outweigh the risks.
Father: No, it isn’t! Do you know I’m looking at a Johns Hopkins study? There have been 400 people under 18 die in the United States. 330 million people. Not one of them was healthy. They had cancer, leukemia, obesity, something wrong with them. Not one kid has died or ended up in the hospital. So the benefits are ZERO to my kid! Why did you not tell them? It’s up to you to tell them. Then we make a decision. Not you! You tell us, “Okay, it’s rare, but it happens. You didn’t tell her that, did you?
Pharmacist: I’m not sure. I wasn’t the vaccinator —
Father: You said you’re not doing it. So when the next kid walks in there with a mother for a shot, are you going to tell them, “Hey, I just got a call from someone; their kid’s heart is destroyed. Keep that in mind; that can happen.” Are you going to tell them that? Are you?
Pharmacist: I cannot answer you that.
Father: Well, why can’t you because it’s going to go in a court, and you’ll answer it. You just admitted that you don’t tell people because you don’t want to scare them. It’s recorded; I’ve recorded everything.
Pharmacist: Sorry, I wasn’t the pharmacist that did the vaccination.
Father: It doesn’t matter; you just said it! You just said that you don’t tell people.
Pharmacist: I don’t know what the situation is, so I don’t know what she told in the vaccination error. I’m not sure. I cannot speak on behalf of the pharmacist that vaccinated.
Father: You just told me you don’t tell people because you might scare them. I have it on a recording. You want me to play it back? Every call — because I’m in finance — every call is recorded. Every email I sent is recorded. Every message I sent must be recorded because I work out of New York, and I live in New Zealand. It’s all recorded because the SFC requires it. You are recorded. So you’re telling people — you’re not telling them they could get damaged, so in case you scare them from taking a shot that can kill them, right? Is that correct? Are you brain dead? What is wrong with you?
Pharmacist: Sorry, I don’t think we should con — continue this conversation.
Father: No, we should because are you going to tell people this is a risk when they come through there? My kid’s screwed! You screwed him. What about everyone else? What are you going to do? You ruined a life! It’s on you for the rest of your life. This kid is screwed because of you because your policy there is to not tell people that these vaccines are dangerous and deadly. Have you seen all the people dying in their sleep? Hundreds of them? Have you seen yesterday? An NFL first-round draft pick, 24 [years old] died? An NBA first-round draft pick died four days ago, dead after the shot. Are you seeing that? Are you sitting there in your bubble collecting your 50 bucks every shot you give, you murderer? So what are you going to do? Are you going to tell parents? Are you going to say, “Look, this is what can happen; it’s not a sore shoulder”? That’s usual, but they can ruin their lives. How do you feel about that you’re ruining lives? Are you going to tell them or not? Are you going to continue to do this?
Pharmacist: Um — that’s not the decision that I make.
Father: It isn’t? So you’re just going to tell people, “Oh, nothing can go wrong,” and more kids are going to end up in the hospital with ruined hearts, right? That’s the plan? Because you can’t make that decision. And you’d hate for them not to take the shot, eh? Because then you don’t get your 50 bucks, do you?
Pharmacist: So we always ask consent for the parent before we do the vaccinations.
Father: Yeah, but you don’t tell them what can go wrong! Of course, you asked consent. The parent came there with that kid. It’s obvious consent. Why are you not telling them what can go wrong? I’m sure they’re asking. But you’re like, “Oh, no. Nothing goes wrong. Just a sore shoulder.” Right? You don’t tell them that the crazy guy called you and said his kid’s life is ruined because of what you did a few days ago. Do you or will you? You are sick! You are sick! You are twisted. You are evil. You’re a monster. You’re wrecking lives. You’re killing babies. You’re killing children. You’re killing mothers. You’re disgusting. Totally disgusting. Do you not see that? You need to at least tell them “This can go wrong,” because when you don’t, this happens! Don’t you see that?
The next part is very expletive. I do not agree with the name-calling here, but I do understand the frustration from the parent.
Father: Are you so f*cking stupid? You f*cking murdering bitch! F*ck! And you’re going to continue to do it! “Oh, I don’t make that.” You f*cking moron. You are f*cking sick in the brain. You are f*cking mentally retarded.
Passengers infrared thermal heat scan imaging camera sensor at international airport seeking high body temperature checking system detection corona virus covid-19 infection disease
During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtually no one was spared from the Great Vaccine Scare – hysteria about any and all vaccine criticism. Investigative journalist Paul Thacker details how most anyone who dares to critique vaccines is quickly silenced.
The topic of vaccines has always been controversial, but it reached a fever pitch during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became sacrilegious to speak out against them, or even question their safety and efficacy.
In 2021, investigative journalist Paul Thacker became a target of what he calls “the Great Vaccine Scare — hysteria about any and all vaccine criticism,”1 after he wrote an article published in The BMJ, titled, “COVID-19: Researcher Blows the Whistle on Data Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial.”2
The article, it should be noted, was thorough, accurate and “based on dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails.”3
It was so well done that it earned Thacker a nomination as a finalist for the Steve Connor Award for Investigative Science Journalism, presented by the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW). An ABSW judge described the article as, “A very good story on a sensitive issue that was reported responsibly, it very clearly spells out why the story mattered.”4
Fact Checkers Pounce, Label Factual Info ‘Misinformation’
Thacker’s investigation details a series of problems with laboratory management and quality control checks by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
Regional director Brook Jackson, formerly employed by Ventavia, said she witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported. After notifying Ventavia about her concerns repeatedly, she made a complaint to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — and was fired the same day.5 Other former Ventavia employees spoke of similar issues. According to Thacker’s report:6
“One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a “helter skelter” work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial … She added that during her time at Ventavia the company expected a federal audit but that this never came.
After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported covid-like symptoms, to test for infection.
Laboratory confirmed symptomatic covid-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted. (An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.) ‘I don’t think it was good clean data,’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. ‘It’s a crazy mess.’”
Soon after Thacker’s investigative piece was published in BMJ, it was “fact checked” by a group called Lead Stories, which referred to the investigation as a “hoax alert” in the related URL. Along with “correcting” statements that Thacker did not make, Lead Stories disparaged the investigation for “missing context,” but as investigative reporter Matt Taibbi explained, “‘Missing context’ has become a term to disparage reporting that is true but inconvenient.”7
Lead Stories took further issue with The BMJ investigation because it was shared by people such as Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy, who themselves have been targeted by fake fact checkers. Taibbi added:8
“The real issue with Thacker’s piece is that it went viral and was retweeted by the wrong people. As Lead Stories noted with marked disapproval, some of those sharers included the likes of Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy. To them, this clearly showed that the article was bad somehow, but the problem was, there was nothing to say the story was untrue.”
Thacker also called the “fact check” against his BMJ investigation “insane,” telling Taibbi, “Here’s what they do. They’re not fact checking facts. What they’re doing is checking narratives. They can’t say that your facts are wrong, so it’s like, ‘Aha, there’s no context.’ Or, ‘It’s misleading.’ But that’s not a fact check. You just don’t like the story.”9 Meanwhile, writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, Thacker explained:10
“After The BMJ published my investigation, we ran into a political buzzsaw from Facebook, which labeled the article “misinformation” even though they could find no factual errors. Facebook’s awkward political response spurred editors at The BMJ to send Mark Zuckerberg an open letter11 complaining about his “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible” fact check.”
Harassment for Voicing Vaccine Concerns Now Commonplace
Anyone who dares to question or criticize vaccinations is at risk of being harassed in today’s climate. Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a consultant cardiologist and chairman of public health collaboration in the U.K., is among those targeted for sharing science relating to COVID-19 shot side effects. Malhotra has earned some notoriety for speaking about the underlying factors that make certain people more vulnerable to COVID-19 — namely lifestyle-related diseases driven by poor diet.12
This aspect of prevention via a long-term healthy lifestyle, which could save lives in future pandemics, is another tenet that’s ignored by the dominant narrative. However, in June 2022, Malhotra was invited to speak at a “side event during a meeting of the British Medical Association.”13
“Just so we’re all clear — because people seem to freak out,” Thacker wrote, “Malhotra was NOT giving a talk FOR the British Medical Association (BMA). It was a talk for some international physicians, who happened to have their meeting during a BMA event.”14 The talk was based on the importance of evidence-based medicine and included information about historical corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.
The talk was not about vaccine side effects, per se, but Malhotra did mention a preprint article that found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest.15 The excess risk of these adverse events exceeded the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization compared to the placebo group.
The UK Medicine Regulator has confirmed that over a period of nineteen months the Covid-19 Vaccines have caused at least 5.5x as many deaths as all other available vaccines combined in the past 21 years.
This means, that when compared side by side, the Covid-19 injections are a shocking 7,402% more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.
A Freedom of Information request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021 in which a Mr Anderson asked the MHRA the following questions –
How many Deaths have there been from all Covid-19 vaccines?
Are there any other reporting AI system monitoring systems like the Yellow Card scheme?
Are Covid-19 Vaccines still in trials?
How many deaths has there been in last 20 years by previous Vaccines without Covid-19 Vaccines?
What happens if a there is a new vaccine or new drug? What process and monitoring do they go through?
What cut off point will the MHRA say a vaccine or drug is unsafe for humans?
The MHRA responded with the usual “we do not hold this information”, as seen time and time again from Government departments.
However, they did confirm that they are using other epidemiological studies, anonymised GP-based electronic healthcare records and international experience to proactively monitor safety alongside the spontaneous reports received via the Yellow Card scheme.
The MHRA also confirmed that the current Covid-19 vaccines on offer in the United Kingdom are only under a temporary authorisation and that these authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.
In answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years the MHRA provided the usual robotic response about how great the Covid-19 vaccines are and how they are the “single most effective treatment for preventing serious illness due to Covid-19” but what they did not do is say that they “do not hold this information”.
Instead, they revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.
But how does that fare against the number of reported adverse reactions to all temporarily authorised Covid-19 vaccines associated with a fatal outcome?
Well, since the Pfizer injection was rolled out in December 2020 there have been 808 reported deaths as of 13th July 22, meaning that in just 19 months, this “vaccine” alone outnumbers the deaths due to all other vaccines combined in the past 20 years.
However, the AstraZeneca viral vector injection has fared much worse with 1,294 deaths being reported to the MHRA since January 2020, more than three times as many deaths as what has been reported due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years.
Therefore, up to July 13th 2022, there have been a grand total of 2,213 deaths reported to the MHRA as adverse reactions to all available Covid-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom since the beginning of 2021.
Meaning there have officially been 5.5x as many deaths in just 19 months due to the Covid-19 vaccines than there have been due to every other available vaccine combined since the year 2001.
Twenty years and 8 months is a period that is 13.7 x longer than the nineteen-month period where the Covid-19 vaccines have been rolled out.
Therefore, the number of deaths reported to all other vaccines combined in the same time frame of nineteen months equates to 29.5 deaths.
This means the Covid-19 injections are proving to be a shocking 7,402% more deadly than every other vaccine available in the UK.
My Awesome Fearless Blog 