Daan - the way we practice Philanthropy in Bharat - unlike the way of modern day Philanthropists...

The lies - the falsification of facts - the farce in the Clinical Trial methodologies - taken from Dr. Robert W. Malone - the inventor of mRNA vaccine...

I have taken this eye-opening document written by none other than Robert W Malone - the inventor of the mRNA vaccine...

The Clinical Trial Experience

I recognize that bringing up the subject of domestic abuse can be a very unpleasant subject to touch upon, and for that reason, I went back and forth on it. However, I felt it so perfectly matches what I’ve seen happen to clinical trial participants, it had to be covered.

In numerous clinical trials I’ve looked at, the same pattern is followed:

The pharmaceutical company does everything it can to entice the trial participant into participating, including emphasizing how special they are for doing it, and promising that nothing bad will happen, but if it does, the company will do everything possible to take care of them (doctors are also often paid for each participant they enroll, and aid this process).

Once the participant experiences negative effects from the trial drug, the trial coordinators will do everything they can to gaslight the participant into either believing the adverse event did not happen, or was not related to the drug. This is often easy to accomplish because the abused trial participant does not want to believe it could have happened (e.g., because they trusted in the researcher’s promises that led to their enrollment).

If the participant overcomes the gaslighting, and attempts to have their experience documented, their adverse event will still not make it into the final clinical trial report (it will either not be reported at all, or reclassified as something relatively minor). 

Most importantly, regardless of any previous promises, the pharmaceutical company will not offer any support to those who are harmed by the pharmaceutical. Instead, they are kicked to the curb and discarded once they no longer have anything to offer the pharmaceutical company.

I became familiar with the entire issue after a few of my friends were severely injured by the HPV vaccine. After asking myself how a vaccine that dangerous could have been allowed on the market, I learned that the above had happened throughout Merck’s clinical trial. Once it dawned on me how much of a problem this was, I realized I would need to hear reports directly from the people in trials for a vaccine that I was relatively sure would be forced on the population in the near future. 

In 2020, I found a way to join an online group for participants in the COVID-19 vaccine trials and read a variety of fairly concerning side effects by the participants. Later when the trial reports were published, I could not see many of the concerning symptoms they described anywhere in either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s clinical trial reports. Since that time, I have seen a gradual trickle of people coming forward from the clinical trials telling that exactly what I had seen happen previously in the HPV trials had happened to them.

I should also note that this abuser issue is not exclusive to vaccines; there are many harrowing examples of severe injuries occurring within trials for other pharmaceuticals such as SSRIs (which, as was the case with HPV vaccine, harmful “placebos,” were almost certainly utilized deliberately to make the drug under study look better at the patient's expense). However, as was the case with the HPV vaccine, the pharmaceutical industry has been mostly successful in covering up what happened in the SSRI trials.

The HPV Trials

This section contains direct quotations from this excellent book at the permission of its author. It was written in 2018 and sadly predicted much of what was to follow less than 3 years later. The most important thing to understand about the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine was that it was designed to be a cash cow “prevent cervical cancer,” and made Merck a lot of money.

The book uses two cases study examples to describe the experiences of two Gardasil trial participants:

When she was eighteen and still in high school, Kesia received a brochure in the mail about an exciting clinical trial for a vaccine that would prevent cervical cancer. She didn’t know it was possible to vaccinate against cancer. She had heard that getting regular Pap tests was the best way to prevent cancer because most problems could be caught early and treated. The brochure said that the vaccine had no side effects, as it had already been thoroughly tested. It read, “FUTURE 2 er IKKE et bivirkningsstudie,” which translates to “the FUTURE 2 study is NOT a side effect study” (original emphasis on “NOT”). This piqued her interest, particularly because the vaccine had already been proven safe….

…At her [third vaccination] appointment, she told the clinician she wasn’t feeling well and was frequently tired and in pain. She asked if she should perhaps delay the shot. The nurse reassured her that what she was feeling had nothing to do with the vaccine and that she could get the third dose without problem. The nurse asked if Kesia had had any reactions after her second dose. Outside of the headaches, the fatigue, and muscle aches from her ongoing illness, Kesia couldn’t remember the exact details from the last six months. She told the nurse about the headaches, which she got four or five times a week, lasting all day. The nurse told her not to worry and that some headaches were normal.

She completed the paperwork and gave Kesia her third and final injection…After this appointment, Kesia felt dizzy for the first time. She felt nauseated, and her arm hurt more than ever. During the following weeks, however, her health took a sharp turn for the worse.

She went to her doctor, and when she told him she had participated in a clinical trial for a new vaccine, he was worried. He made a note in her file, and Kesia saw him put two exclamation points next to it. He asked her to talk to the trial staff again about her symptoms because all her blood tests were fine [common blood tests typically cannot detect signs of vaccine injuries which leads to the patients being told nothing is wrong and it is all in their head].

Kesia returned to the hospital for a follow-up visit a month after her final shot. She tried to talk to the trial staff again about her symptoms based on her doctor’s concerns [sadly this is often the only way to get people to listen], and they listened more intently this time. She told them that she was struggling to keep a normal, everyday life and that this was not something she had ever experienced before. But they told her once again that her symptoms were not the kind they would expect to see with the vaccine, and she should continue to see her regular doctor.

Kesia accepted this explanation; after all, they were the experts, and she knew the vaccine had already been tested for safety. She tried to put it out of her mind (“I DIDN’T WANT IT TO BE THE VACCINE”), as she had a 50 percent chance she’d received the saline placebo and not the vaccine at all.

As [the] months passed, Kesia became so ill that all she could think about was her next doctor’s appointment. She missed so many exams in her last year of high school that she couldn’t graduate alongside her classmates. She had to put her dreams and plans “on hold until she could feel well enough to get through the day without a headache or pain in her joints and muscles. It was a daily struggle to get out of bed, let alone to attend school or university…She never thought months would turn into years, and years would turn into more than a decade [I also know people who have experienced things like this].

When the trial investigators unblinded the trial in 2007, a year after the FDA approved Gardasil, Kesia learned that she had received the vaccine after all. She was relieved that the trial was over. If she had had the saline injection, she would have been strongly urged to go back to the hospital for the three vaccines, which would have been tough now that she was so ill [this an excellent illustration of the cult-like mentality around vaccines, which only see their benefits but not their harms]. She heard no more from the clinical trial staff, although she agreed to be part of follow-up studies.”

More than a year later, when she was sitting with her husband, watching an online news channel, things clicked. She heard a woman talk about getting the vaccine shortly after it was approved. As the woman described her reaction to each shot, Kesia’s heart stopped. It was like listening to her own story—the same timeline, the same symptoms. At that moment, Kesia felt like the rug had been pulled out from under her. After all these years of wondering why she was so sick, here was another woman telling the exact same story.

She couldn’t believe it. How could this happen if the vaccine had been “proven” safe? Every time she told the trial nurse about her symptoms, the nurse assured her that they weren’t related…She barely slept that night.

The next day, she went online to start looking for answers [although Facebook aggressively censors pharmaceutical injury support groups, they are much more common now than they were in the past and I’ve learned a great deal from them]. She contacted Denmark’s vaccine victim support group and spoke with Sara, who eventually became her dear friend. They talked for a long time, and Sara understood. She had heard it before. For Kesia, though, it was the first time she didn’t feel crazy. It had been thirteen years of living with pain and hearing doctors deny that her condition was real [this is what you hear over and over again in those previously mentioned support groups].

In April 2016, she finally sat down with her husband to watch The Vaccinated Girls. She wasn’t quite prepared to see Danish teenagers suffering from precisely what she had been living through for more than a decade. She cried for what she had suffered, but even more for what was happening to all the other girls since the clinical trials. If clinicians in the trials denied any connection between her symptoms and the vaccine, it made sense that doctors today continue to deny them.

Here is the next “real life” example from the book:

Only a few miles away in Copenhagen, another young woman was going through a similar awakening. Sesilje had also been in the FUTURE 2 study, and like Kesia, her health too has suffered ever since. The two young women met through the victim support group in July 2016. Sesilje’s story is remarkably similar to Kesia’s, with one significant difference: Sesilje received the placebo…

…Sesilje didn’t notice any strong reactions after the first shot, although it was quite painful. She had an unusual menstrual period the month following the vaccine but did not think it was related. The clinicians did not give her any booklet or form for recording symptoms. They did mention that she would feel injection site reactions and maybe a headache. The bleeding was just a coincidence, she thought.

A month later, Sesilje went back to the hospital for her second shot…[The clinicians] told her that she should see her personal doctor about the menstrual period, as it was unrelated. “It was after this shot that she noticed unusual symptoms, not just the heavy menstrual period. Her skin hurt, she had headaches, and she felt as if she had the flu. Her stomach really hurt, and she lost twelve pounds in a matter of weeks. She went to her doctor, but he could not figure out her symptoms. Sesilje couldn’t understand; she had always been healthy [this is also a very common story].

When Sesilje returned for her third shot, the trial staff told her again that her recent health issues were unrelated. She should continue to see her own doctors and follow their advice. They assured her it was safe to proceed.

[After] finishing the series in 2003, Sesilje was told she had to wait until 2007 to find out if she had received the saline placebo or the vaccine. Her symptoms persisted, but no doctor could figure out why. She developed an allergy to her deodorant and various skin creams. She went to a dermatologist, who told her to switch brands, which didn’t help. As part of her studies in medical research, Sesilje was around healthcare professionals, but no one could explain why she was so ill. Like Kesia, she learned to cope [and suffered significant symptoms in the years that followed, especially after being pressured to and receiving the actual vaccine]…

…In 2015, everything changed. She read online that the Gardasil clinical trials had used an aluminum solution as the control, not saline, as she had been told. Sesilje worked in clinical research, so she knew that this should not have been permissible. She was certain that she had been told that the control was saline—it was even printed in the brochure she received years ago.

She was determined to research this, if only to prove the online information wrong. She expected to confirm that the placebo was “saltvand”—Danish for “saline.” Instead, she found that there was no saline placebo group at all. What she had read online was correct: the control contained aluminum. Her heart sank. She knew what this meant: because the vaccine also had the same solution as the control, [she had] received [a total of] six injections containing aluminum, three as the “placebo” and later three as the vaccine.

The awful experiences of these two women are also extremely informative for understanding how regulators treat this conduct:

The protocol said that safety testing was the clinical trial’s number one objective. Yet Merck had assured potential trial volunteers in the brochure they’d received that the control was saline and that FUTURE 2 was not a “side effect trial,” because the vaccine had already been proven safe [as all vaccines are “safe”]. Was this why their side effects were not taken seriously, because even the trial administrators didn’t know exactly what they were injecting into participants? The clinicians did not collect any medical records from Kesia’s or Sesilje’s doctors and didn’t record any details to explain why they thought the symptoms were unrelated. The reason Kesia and Sesilje felt safe enlisting in the trial was that [they were told] Gardasil had been proven safe.

The protocol states that 10% of participants received a “vaccination report card” to record adverse effects in the first fifteen days after each vaccination [which is too small of a window to catch most reactions], but only in the US. Why did Danish girls not receive a report card? They had many more questions.

Merck vaguely defined “safety” as three doses of Gardasil being “generally well tolerated.” We are unable to know how Merck assessed whether Gardasil was “generally well tolerated” in analyzing the data [this illustrates why it is so important to pay attention to the exact wording that pharmaceutical companies use; here they implied something without actually committing to the implied position].

Within the trial guidelines, investigators seemed to have [had] broad discretion to determine what constituted a reportable adverse event, and Merck was under no obligation to review a participant’s medical records, even if a participant developed a “serious medical condition that meets the criteria for serious adverse experiences” as defined in Protocol 3.

Based on Kesia’s and Sesilje’s experiences in Denmark, it appears that trial staff asked subjects at each visit if they had experienced any side effects since the previous visit. We know from Kesia’s and Sesilje’s accounts that this subjective data collection method was subpar, relying on the participant’s recollection and the potentially biased viewpoint of the trial investigator [keep in mind that as Brook Jackson has showed, the Pfizer investigators were not even blinded]. In Kesia’s case, the clinicians did not report the onset of her illness as potentially vaccine-related, and they made no attempt to look further into her concerns [sound familiar?].

Some trial participants did receive Vaccination Report Cards. These cards provided a simple way for participants to record data concerning adverse experiences following each shot, both serious and nonserious, such as temperature, injection site reactions, and headaches. In FUTURE 2, only 10% of participants—all in the US—got cards. Even then, Merck instructed those participants to record information for only 14 days after each injection. These cards, designed to capture straightforward, immediate reactions, are not well suited to capture chronic conditions like autoimmune or menstrual cycle problems [which are also some of the most common but continually covered-up side effects of the mRNA vaccines]. Based on documents Slate author Joelving uncovered, it appears that trial staff recorded one-word descriptions on the form to record “new medical history.

The Gardasil clinical trials used a new metric, “New Medical Conditions,” as a way to claim that serious health problems after vaccination were unrelated to the vaccine or aluminum-containing fauxcebo [fake placebo]. More than 50% of all clinical trial participants reported “new medical conditions,” including infections, reproductive disorders, neurological syndromes, and autoimmune conditions. The FDA did not question this novel metric or whether the vaccine itself might be contributing to these conditions.

When did Merck add this “new medical condition” category to the trial protocol? According to the 2002 Gardasil trial design, it was not part of the study protocol. A 2006 peer-reviewed article reviewing the Gardasil trials in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) did not report data on “new medical conditions” [similarly NEJM’s 12/31/2020 publication on the safety and efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccines only detailed a few minor side effects seen within 7 days of vaccination and mentioned the presence of more side effects without specifying what they were].

Likewise, a 2006 European Medicines Agency (EMA) pre-licensure scientific discussion made no reference to the term. The first place we find reported data is in the FDA’s 2006 Clinical Review, immediately before it approved the vaccine. The document does not define this category and lists it as “new medical history” in the table of contents. It uses the terms “new medical history” and “new medical condition” interchangeably.”

Buried near “the end of the FDA review document, tables 302 and 303 [which can be viewed within The HPV Vaccine on Trial] reveal that almost half of all trial participants, regardless of whether they received the vaccine or a fauxcebo, reported “new medical conditions.

Why did Merck single out only 2.3% of the “new medical condition” data, particularly when 49% of participants reported other new conditions indicating all kinds of serious illnesses, including blood, lymphatic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, immune, musculoskeletal (arthritis), reproductive, neurological, and psychological ones, and even conditions requiring surgery, such as appendectomies? Even with the autoimmune subset data disclosed on the insert, Merck could justify them by noting that the Gardasil and control groups had virtually the same results. Merck and the FDA apparently interpreted these similar data as support for safety rather than as signals for alarm.

Despite the high overall rate of new conditions reported, Merck only disclosed a small subset of these data on the package insert. On Table 9 [also show within The HPV Vaccine on Trial], Merck disclosed that 2.3% of participants in both groups reported “new medical conditions potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder,” although it did not define the term.

Merck’s November 2014 response [to the EMA questioning their reporting] explained away rare conditions occurring in less than 1% of participants as having no real pattern, and thus as unrelated.

Merck offered the explanation that there was a similar number of subjects with illnesses in the Gardasil 9 and Gardasil control groups.  But they considered all of these conditions unrelated to the vaccine.

Before it approved Gardasil 9, the EMA also asked Merck in 2014 for more data on acute leukemia cases. The December 2017 Slate article provided links to these documents. Of the five cases Merck reported, four were in the Gardasil group, including three in Colombia, and one in the Gardasil control group. Merck disputed that the cases were cause for concern because the time to disease onset was prolonged (482 to 1,285 days) in all cases but one, when a trial subject received a diagnosis within a month after the third dose.

The EMA expressed concern and commented that the number of cases in the trials was greater than what they would expect in the general population at this age, although ages were redacted in the report (see above table). It asked Merck to take a closer look at each case to see if there was a connection to the vaccine. The EMA asked Merck to provide an analysis of “expected” versus “observed” numbers of leukemia cases in subjects under 20 years old. We do not know Merck’s response, but since the EMA approved the vaccine shortly thereafter, we infer that the EMA was content with Merck’s response.”

When the FDA approved Gardasil in 2006, Merck reported 10 deaths in the vaccine group and 7 in the AAHS group, out of 21,458 participants [which equated to 8.5 per 10,000 and 7.2 per 10,000]…Based on data from the CDC from 2002, the average death rate in girls and young women in the general population was 4.37 per 10,000.

Protocol 019 [for a later vaccine] had seven deaths in the Gardasil group and one in the AAHS group. The Gardasil group’s rate of death was over four times that of previous studies in younger girls…Again, the FDA was satisfied that there was no signal in these data and that none of the reported deaths were associated with the vaccine. The FDA, however, did not approve the vaccine for older women following this study, allegedly because of poor efficacy.

Protocol 020, an all-male trial of 16-to-26-year-olds, had thirteen deaths out of 4,065 study participants. Uniquely in this trial, there were three deaths in the Gardasil group and ten in the fauxcebo group. The rate of death was seven times higher than in the other fauxcebo groups. In all other trials, the fauxcebo group deaths never exceeded those in the vaccine group…Once again, the FDA did not note any unusual remarks in their review of the data and accepted Merck’s assertions that no deaths were due to the vaccine. The FDA approved the vaccine for boys and men based on these data.

Once Merck added in these belated clinical trial death results from Protocol 019 and 020 to the original 2006 data set, the death rate jumped significantly to 13.3 per 10,000 (21 deaths out of 15,706) in the Gardasil groups and 14.5 per 10,000 (19 deaths out of 13,617) in the AAHS [“placebo”] group…The FDA did not note any of these rates as unusual.”

The manufacturers never tested HPV vaccines on human fertility. Although this vaccine is given to adolescents throughout the world, the manufacturers acknowledge in their package inserts that they never tested the vaccine for fertility effects in humans—only rats. We look at the substantial evidence of severe adverse effects on fertility, including miscarriage and premature ovarian failure in girls and young women.

Hopefully, my familiarity with these events and the complete failure of the federal government to address any of them should help to explain why I was somewhat skeptical that the COVID-19 clinical trials would be conducted with integrity or that their widely heralded trial reports published in a premier academic journal could be taken at face value.

Lastly, I will note that if abuse is not addressed, it typically worsens with time. For this reason, my expectation going into the COVID-19 vaccines was that what we would see would be even worse than what had happened with Gardasil (e.g., I believe it is fair to say multiple generations have been betrayed this time around), even though Merck was not the one to conduct those trials (as they lost the race to make a COVID-19 vaccine).

I hope that this article has given you some context for why it is so important to speak out against these injustices (because otherwise, it won’t be long before they happen to you) and how something like this can happen.

Let's end this year with a blazing #TRUTH - Bharat didn't become completely independent (Purna Swaraj) on 15th August, 1947

I remember when I was in class iX or X, my mom used to say that Bharat is not completely independent.

I think she became aware of some of the issues about this subject from the Bengali newspaper at that time - called Yugantar - however, I am not sure from which source she got such types of information - I will have a chat with her and let you know.

But because at that time there was no Internet - I really had no source to verify that.

Thank you Anuj Dhar for the clarification

For the Humans of Bharat - wake up from slumber.

Know the real history of Bharat...

Jaihind...

The Paradox called Indian Freedom Struggle- the strugglers were simply trampled over by the Brown Sahibs in the "free" Bharat

The video is taken from the movie called Tahader Katha showing a conversation between two real freedom fighters (unlike the Chacha or the Father of Nation) discussing their hopelessness, their agony in the Free Bharat...

Exactly what happened after the British left Bharat? You will get a complete idea if you watch the movie

Tahader Katha (Bengali)

I watched this movie many years ago when I was a student.

Today again I watched this great piece of creation by the director Buddhadeb Dasgupta.

You will understand that the police officers or the judges who brutally trampled over the true freedom fighters during the British era - all got plump positions in the "free" Bharat at different powerful official posts - the power transfer happened from the British people to the Brown sahibs.

In most nations, these leeches would have been identified and publicly hanged or at least shamed...

Alas!!! this is Bharat... The paradox that is called the Indian Freedom Struggle and the outcome of it - the sycophants of the British people took all of the powerful govt jobs

and

the strugglers were simply kicked out of society or cornered.

They lost their voice completely. It happened to the soldiers of Netaji's army and many other true freedom fighters across the nation...

The movie portrays the frustration of a true freedom fighter who killed a Britisher

how he is termed as a terrorist by a senior govt official in the Free Bharat and how he became crazy in the eyes of the common people of Bharat -

just like a lion inside a flock of sheep...

If this has happened to the ordinary freedom fighters

just imagine what happened to the bottled-up souls of

Netaji

or

Shyamaprasad Mukherjee

Netaji has at least been remembered and offered his rightful by the present Govt of India, but we have totally forgotten Shyama Prasad Mukherjee

Had S P Mukherjee not been there, I would have, by now, become Samidur or similar from Somenath.

Humans of Kolkata - please raise your voice to give back the rightful place of S P Mukherjee in our society.

Watch the movie Tahader Katha here

Here was what the Mom of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, Yogmaya Devi wrote to Nehru ji after the sad demise of Mukherjee sir.

We have done enough sins by bypassing the true freedom fighters.

Please... no more.

It's time for our national heroes to get back their lost pride...

I hope the people of Bharat - at last wake up and ask questions to the authority.

Or else, History won't forgive us.

Jai Hind...

पंडित नेहरू जी, मैंने अपने बेटे की रहस्यमयी मृत्यु पर एक निष्पक्ष जांच की मांग की थी ना कि आपका कोई निष्कर्ष मांगा था। आखिर आपको एक खुली और निष्पक्ष जांच से दिक्कत क्या है? मेरे पास पक्के सबूत हैं जिनसे काफी कुछ साबित हो सकता है। लेकिन आपने उन्हें जानने या समझने की कोई कोशिश नहीं की। आप सबूतों का सामना करने से डरते हैं। मैं जम्मू कश्मीर की सरकार को अपने बेटे की मौत का जिम्मेदार मानती हूं और ये आरोप भी लगाती हूं कि आपकी सरकार भी इसमें शामिल थी। मैं चाहती हूं कि भारत के लोगों को पता चले कि इस दुखद घटना के असली कारण क्या हैं, जिसे एक "स्वतंत्र देश" में अंजाम दिया गया और जिसमें आपकी सरकार ने भी एक भूमिका अदा की। लेकिन एक दिन सच सामने आएगा, एक दिन आपको भारत के लोगों को और स्वर्ग में भगवान को भी जवाब देना होगा। जोगमाया देवी (डॉ. श्यामा प्रसाद मुखर्जी की मां) दिनांक - 9 जुलाई 1953

The illusion of TRUTH...

Repeat a lie very often and it'll become a TRUTH

Wake up - the Humans of the UNIVERSE

Know how to filter out #TRUTH from the hey stack of #LIES ...

Vijay Dibos 2022 - let's discard any forms of impotency in the guise of Ahimsa promoted by Gandhiji

Let's discard any forms of impotency in the guise of Ahimsa promoted by Gandhiji

When a proxy can't handle the heavy-duty stuff - when there is a fire in your own backyard...

There is a famous design pattern in the Object Oriented domain by the name Proxy Design Pattern.

The basic idea behind this design pattern is that for all sorts of small lightweight duties, the proxy will handle it, but in case there is a heavy-duty task, the system will replace the proxy and the real actor will take on the responsibility, and carry out the task.

The reason behind such a design principle is not to disturb the real actor with insignificant tasks in the UNIVERSE.

We have seen the biggest proxy pattern in the political history of Bharat during the dancer and mouni baba period.

And in the USA, the humans of the UNIVERSE are all experiencing the Proxy Design Pattern.

But the danger of such a pattern is - in case the proxy itself is given the heavy-duty stuff to carry out.

It was really unfortunate and I feel really sorry for the people of the USA that heavy-duty stuff like UkraineRussiaNATO war outbreaks during the time of the demented leader who was just working as the interface of the proxy design pattern - and i think the background actor has relinquished his duty  to support the proxy