Corruption of Medicine
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
And fainting doesn't save you since smellings salts will be added to the bill.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Same..but on the lookout for a new dentist since my guy retired and the rest of the practice he was involved with are HEAVY into upselling.
TPD
the poor dad
I just had a wisdom tooth pulled a month ago by a different dental practice - no blood pressure taken.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Tidewater Dental takes blood pressure before a routine cleaning.
I assumed it was because of recent stories of children dying in the dentist chair while under local anesthesia.
I assumed it was because of recent stories of children dying in the dentist chair while under local anesthesia.
Four days ago, the most important covid shot study yet was published as a preprint on MedRxIV. It was blandly titled, “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida.” In a science-following world, this study would announce the beginning of the end, the great unraveling of the big “safe and effective” lie.
If there’s one thing —just one thing— a “safe and effective” vaccine absolutely shouldn’t do, it’s increase your odds of dropping dead. Death is not a side effect; that’s the reverse-opposite of vaccination. It’s like a parachute that “works great” until you pull the ripcord. Aieeeeeeee.
This week’s study was organized by co-author and Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo, a Harvard-trained M.D. and PhD. Impeccably credentialed MIT professor of statistics Retsef Levi also joined. They brilliantly scraped Florida’s Medicare database and compared the two jabs against each other, specifically, their risks of dying from any cause —“all-cause mortality”— and they found a statistically undeniable +40% risk of fatality following the Pfizer jab over Moderna.
In other words, hundreds of thousands more Floridians died in the 12 months following the Pfizer jab than Moderna, when there should have been no difference at all. Specifically, they found that +230 more people died after Pfizer for every 100,000 jabbed. Not only that, but Pfizer getters died from cardiovascular causes at a rate of +83 more often per 100,000.
The researchers were super careful to avoid leaving room for criticism. They started with known vaccinees, then excluded nursing home residents, the homeless, and people who died from violent causes (homicides and suicides). Then they took out people who got their shots more than six weeks apart (i.e., not as recommended), people who mixed shot types, people who got more than 2 shots, and people whose health records were incomplete (such as unknown gender). Finally, they separated people who died from covid.
Those left over included more than 9 million Floridians. I.e., it was a big sample. Then they matched recipients 1-to-1 based on their location (census tract), avoiding any potential regional differences.
It wasn’t even close.
The authors ultimately concluded that, “Florida adults who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer) in the initial series appear to have significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to mRNA-1273 recipients (Moderna).”
Pfizer’s Grim Reaper came most often for seasoned citizens. “When stratifying by age group,” the researchers wrote, “the increase in mortality risk was highest in adults 60 years and older.”
The genius of Ladapo’s study was to compare the two shots against each other. The data for those who were unvaccinated is completely unreliable, since doctors recorded anyone with “unknown” jab status as unvaccinated. But the state has very good data about who actually got the shots and then died, since hospitals and pharmacies were required to report detailed data for Medicare reimbursement, both for the original shots and then for the patients’ end-of-life care.
Simply put, comparing shots like-for-like surfaced a wide variety of deadly effects, at least for Pfizer. Though the study didn’t directly study the other shot, it remains reasonable to assume Moderna also increased death risk compared to non-vaccination, since the shots are so similar.
And as bad as these results are, the truth is probably much worse. It only tracked deaths in the 12 months following the second shot, so we don’t know how high the totals are now. And it excluded people who took three, four, or more shots. It’s fair to assume that more shots don’t decrease people’s risk of death.
In other words, when it comes to mortality risk, this study’s results likely represent a floor, not a ceiling.
Death is binary. It’s not a PCR cycle. Folks either died or they didn’t. All-cause mortality is immune to narrative manipulation. You might well ask, why hasn’t the FDA already required long-term all-cause mortality studies for these products? The data is readily available. Post-marketing all-cause mortality studies are not common, but the speed at which the covid jabs were developed at warp speed and government mandates to take them aren’t common either.
If the Levi–Ladapo study is right, it implies catastrophic failure by the FDA for not requiring long-term safety data, the CDC for continuing to push boosters with no mortality data, the NIH for funding everything except what might challenge the narrative, and Big Pharma for withholding or obscuring adverse event data.
I couldn’t find a single corporate media mention about this study. The silence was deafening. As you know, media loves running headlines about weird studies linking things like “too much joy” to heart attacks and strokes. But this? Crickets. If Levi-Ladapo’s results showed that both shots had reduced 12-month mortality, that result would’ve been plastered across headlines within 24 hours and chirped three times on NPR before breakfast.
As I keep saying —and will keep saying— the steady drip of vaccine safety studies is pooling into a vast and rising lake of condemnation. At some point, that lake will be too deep for the guilty to wade across. They can tiptoe around the puddles now, but the water’s quickly coming up— and the truth will eventually drown them.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
If there’s one thing —just one thing— a “safe and effective” vaccine absolutely shouldn’t do, it’s increase your odds of dropping dead. Death is not a side effect; that’s the reverse-opposite of vaccination. It’s like a parachute that “works great” until you pull the ripcord. Aieeeeeeee.
This week’s study was organized by co-author and Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo, a Harvard-trained M.D. and PhD. Impeccably credentialed MIT professor of statistics Retsef Levi also joined. They brilliantly scraped Florida’s Medicare database and compared the two jabs against each other, specifically, their risks of dying from any cause —“all-cause mortality”— and they found a statistically undeniable +40% risk of fatality following the Pfizer jab over Moderna.
In other words, hundreds of thousands more Floridians died in the 12 months following the Pfizer jab than Moderna, when there should have been no difference at all. Specifically, they found that +230 more people died after Pfizer for every 100,000 jabbed. Not only that, but Pfizer getters died from cardiovascular causes at a rate of +83 more often per 100,000.
The researchers were super careful to avoid leaving room for criticism. They started with known vaccinees, then excluded nursing home residents, the homeless, and people who died from violent causes (homicides and suicides). Then they took out people who got their shots more than six weeks apart (i.e., not as recommended), people who mixed shot types, people who got more than 2 shots, and people whose health records were incomplete (such as unknown gender). Finally, they separated people who died from covid.
Those left over included more than 9 million Floridians. I.e., it was a big sample. Then they matched recipients 1-to-1 based on their location (census tract), avoiding any potential regional differences.
It wasn’t even close.
The authors ultimately concluded that, “Florida adults who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer) in the initial series appear to have significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to mRNA-1273 recipients (Moderna).”
Pfizer’s Grim Reaper came most often for seasoned citizens. “When stratifying by age group,” the researchers wrote, “the increase in mortality risk was highest in adults 60 years and older.”
The genius of Ladapo’s study was to compare the two shots against each other. The data for those who were unvaccinated is completely unreliable, since doctors recorded anyone with “unknown” jab status as unvaccinated. But the state has very good data about who actually got the shots and then died, since hospitals and pharmacies were required to report detailed data for Medicare reimbursement, both for the original shots and then for the patients’ end-of-life care.
Simply put, comparing shots like-for-like surfaced a wide variety of deadly effects, at least for Pfizer. Though the study didn’t directly study the other shot, it remains reasonable to assume Moderna also increased death risk compared to non-vaccination, since the shots are so similar.
And as bad as these results are, the truth is probably much worse. It only tracked deaths in the 12 months following the second shot, so we don’t know how high the totals are now. And it excluded people who took three, four, or more shots. It’s fair to assume that more shots don’t decrease people’s risk of death.In other words, when it comes to mortality risk, this study’s results likely represent a floor, not a ceiling.
Death is binary. It’s not a PCR cycle. Folks either died or they didn’t. All-cause mortality is immune to narrative manipulation. You might well ask, why hasn’t the FDA already required long-term all-cause mortality studies for these products? The data is readily available. Post-marketing all-cause mortality studies are not common, but the speed at which the covid jabs were developed at warp speed and government mandates to take them aren’t common either.
If the Levi–Ladapo study is right, it implies catastrophic failure by the FDA for not requiring long-term safety data, the CDC for continuing to push boosters with no mortality data, the NIH for funding everything except what might challenge the narrative, and Big Pharma for withholding or obscuring adverse event data.
I couldn’t find a single corporate media mention about this study. The silence was deafening. As you know, media loves running headlines about weird studies linking things like “too much joy” to heart attacks and strokes. But this? Crickets. If Levi-Ladapo’s results showed that both shots had reduced 12-month mortality, that result would’ve been plastered across headlines within 24 hours and chirped three times on NPR before breakfast.
As I keep saying —and will keep saying— the steady drip of vaccine safety studies is pooling into a vast and rising lake of condemnation. At some point, that lake will be too deep for the guilty to wade across. They can tiptoe around the puddles now, but the water’s quickly coming up— and the truth will eventually drown them.
☕️ SAFE BUT RISKY ☙ Saturday, May 3, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Most damning jab study yet drops to media silence; Ashli Babbitt case settles; Trump locks in his first 100 days; Florida reins in amendments; Russia 'unexpectedly' rises; EU fumbles for a fight.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
PJay
Well-Known Member
"Doctor confirms they are making hundreds of thousands of dollars each PER YEAR in kickbacks for vaccinations from health insurance companies “Some of the behind the scenes incentives that I don't like. Doctors get end of the year incentives and bonuses from the insurance companies for every fully vaccinated patient they have. I've seen bonuses on the level of $250 per patient, $400 per patient.” “How many average patients your average pediatrician have?” “I have about 14,000 patients myself. Say a thousand kids come through your office. That's a quarter million dollars that year” “Yeah, the bonuses are huge. And an office that has 10 pediatricians, that's multi million dollar bonuses.”
Speaking of people about to endure an investigative ordeal, yesterday Reuters ran a terrific story headlined, “US House panel seeks information from Pfizer over alleged COVID vaccine delay.” Surprisingly, it’s not about medical malpractice. The investigation is about the worst crime in the entire deplorable catalogue of human misconduct: election interference.
Philip R. Dormitzer is a prominent virologist and mRNA vaccine researcher who was Pfizer’s Global Head of Vaccine Research & Development during the pandemic. In 2021, he left Pfizer for another plum job at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). He now finds himself at the molten center of a congressional firestorm.
Of course, Reuters buried the lede. The article’s second-to-last sentence was this bombshell: “The Wall Street Journal said that GSK had reported Dormitzer's alleged comments to federal prosecutors in New York.” Federal prosecutors means there’s an open federal investigation and Mr. Dormitzer is involved in it somehow. He could be the defendant, or they could be after bigger fish.
The latest developments could have been the plot of a legal thriller on Hulu. The only reasonable way to interpret the facts is that Dormitzer’s new boss, GSK, is throwing him under the corporate bus. And now the backup lights are on. Beep, beep, beep.
First, Dormitzer knew this was coming. The article told readers that GSK volunteered to prosecutors that, after Trump was elected in November, Mr. Dormitzer became “visibly upset” and requested immediate reassignment to Canada because of, get this, fear of being investigated. It is the legal equivalent of terrified cockroaches scurrying away when the kitchen lights switch on.
According to GSK, its HR person asked Dormitzer why he was so afraid of being investigated for his role in developing the covid shots. He said, and I am not making this up, “Let’s just say it wasn’t a coincidence, the timing of the vaccine.”
In our legal system, evidence of knowledge of a future investigation is also circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. If the former Pfizer VP destroyed evidence, like by deleting his emails or trying to tell other witnesses what to say, it gets even more compelling.
But that wasn’t close to all. GSK also told the House Investigative Committee that Dormitzer repeatedly bragged to his GSK co-workers that “the three most senior” Pfizer executives decided to “slow-walk” trial results— so that the vaccine would not become available until after the 2020 elections, specifically to hurt Trump’s electoral chances.
Consistent with that testimony, Pfizer first shared its trial results on November 9, 2020 — four days after Biden won the presidential election.
The story made news this week because yesterday, House Committee Chair Jim Jordan fired off a two-page letter to Pfizer President Albert Bourla that could become historic in scope and scale. The allegations aren’t new, but they are now supported by witness statements from a credible insider (Dormitzer) and corroborating third-party testimony (GSK). This new evidence justifies deeper digging, and deeper digging is just what the House intends to do.
But maybe most encouraging was the story’s brief mention of the ongoing federal investigation out of the Southern District of New York. It could be much bigger than Dormitzer; it could be a criminal investigation of Pfizer itself. At this point, we don’t (and can’t) know; but the fact the investigation exists at all is huge.
Pfizer is a corporate juggernaut with vast and deep pockets, lobbyists, and pocketed politicians from both parties. It’s as politically well-connected as anyone, and in a case that is inherently political, is as well-protected as a Russian nuclear storage facility. Which explains why Trump’s DOJ must proceed extremely carefully, in order to build a case that could stick.
Still, despite Pfizer’s political armor and its history of surviving many other criminal prosecutions, this feels different. I couldn’t find any historical examples (at least, not from the U.S.) of big companies illegally influencing presidential elections. There’s probably a reason nobody has tried it before.
Pfizer’s woes are only just beginning. This election interference angle could be easier to prove and ultimately more damaging than Pfizer’s crimes related to the awful shots, since Pfizer lacks legal immunity for political misconduct. For anyone who wondered if there would ever be accountability, the news of multiple open investigations should be very encouraging.
But that wasn’t all yesterday’s jab news.
That didn’t take long! Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran another exclusive story, this one headlined “Exclusive | HHS to Stop Recommending Routine Covid Shots for Children, Pregnant Women.”
According to “people familiar with the matter,” the Trump administration has joined Florida, and plans to drop CDC recommendations that pregnant women, teenagers, and children get jabs unless they are in an “at-risk” group. Not only that, but the story reported that the changes to the CDC’s covid jab guidance are soon expected— along with “a new framework for approving vaccines.”
Quibblers will surely argue that covid shots should be discouraged for everybody, not just kids and pregnant women, and they will complain that it should have happened sooner, and so on. But the fact is, as one of his first and biggest official announcements, new HHS Secretary Kennedy is tackling vaccines.
Think of it. “A new framework for approving vaccines” sounds like it could be extremely unpleasant for the whole jab industry. Expect panic and widespread hysteria.
Yesterday, new FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said, “Separate from my role as a regulator at the FDA, I am not encouraging or insisting young, healthy children to get a Covid shot unless there is new evidence that emerges that suggests there is a clear benefit.”
In other words, there is not any current evidence of any clear benefit of the shots.
Alert C&C readers are unsurprised; we’ve been impatiently waiting for covid jab walkbacks since Trump took office in January. But let us not throw out the unvaccinated baby with the pediatrician’s bathwater. Any scalebacks or additional testing burdens on vaccines gores Big Pharma’s most profitable sacred cows and asses, I mean assets.
During the pandemic, “follow the CDC” became an authoritarian slogan of moral certainty. Now that the CDC (under RFK Jr.’s HHS) is about to reverse course, the same people who once invoked its authority will promptly denounce the same institution they once claimed was sacrosanct. In case anyone still doubted, this pathetic shilly-shallying reveals the truth that many of us have long known: “follow the science” was always just a tribal shibboleth. It’s pure politics. It’s only true when the right politician sits in the White House.
The Journal found one guy willing to criticize the move. Richard Hughes, a “lawyer and vaccine advocate,” said he was worried about immunocompromised people who preferred to have friends and family vaccinated. He also said the change would “have a behavioral impact on whether people choose to get vaccinated.”
In other words, Hughes just appealed to guilt and fear (i.e., it will hurt immunocompromised and increase hesitancy). Neither of his arguments were based on science, or more importantly on whether the jabs are safe and effective. I.e., Hughes appealed to emotion instead of science. So much for following the damned thing.
Finally, conservative critics have long complained that President Trump has not publicly denounced the vaccines. But what is he doing? The people he appointed are unwinding the whole corrupt ball of mRNA strands, that’s what. And the only reason they are in government at all —Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Makary— is because they opposed the shots.
It’s coming.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Philip R. Dormitzer is a prominent virologist and mRNA vaccine researcher who was Pfizer’s Global Head of Vaccine Research & Development during the pandemic. In 2021, he left Pfizer for another plum job at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). He now finds himself at the molten center of a congressional firestorm.
Of course, Reuters buried the lede. The article’s second-to-last sentence was this bombshell: “The Wall Street Journal said that GSK had reported Dormitzer's alleged comments to federal prosecutors in New York.” Federal prosecutors means there’s an open federal investigation and Mr. Dormitzer is involved in it somehow. He could be the defendant, or they could be after bigger fish.
The latest developments could have been the plot of a legal thriller on Hulu. The only reasonable way to interpret the facts is that Dormitzer’s new boss, GSK, is throwing him under the corporate bus. And now the backup lights are on. Beep, beep, beep.
First, Dormitzer knew this was coming. The article told readers that GSK volunteered to prosecutors that, after Trump was elected in November, Mr. Dormitzer became “visibly upset” and requested immediate reassignment to Canada because of, get this, fear of being investigated. It is the legal equivalent of terrified cockroaches scurrying away when the kitchen lights switch on.
According to GSK, its HR person asked Dormitzer why he was so afraid of being investigated for his role in developing the covid shots. He said, and I am not making this up, “Let’s just say it wasn’t a coincidence, the timing of the vaccine.”
In our legal system, evidence of knowledge of a future investigation is also circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. If the former Pfizer VP destroyed evidence, like by deleting his emails or trying to tell other witnesses what to say, it gets even more compelling.
But that wasn’t close to all. GSK also told the House Investigative Committee that Dormitzer repeatedly bragged to his GSK co-workers that “the three most senior” Pfizer executives decided to “slow-walk” trial results— so that the vaccine would not become available until after the 2020 elections, specifically to hurt Trump’s electoral chances.
Consistent with that testimony, Pfizer first shared its trial results on November 9, 2020 — four days after Biden won the presidential election.
The story made news this week because yesterday, House Committee Chair Jim Jordan fired off a two-page letter to Pfizer President Albert Bourla that could become historic in scope and scale. The allegations aren’t new, but they are now supported by witness statements from a credible insider (Dormitzer) and corroborating third-party testimony (GSK). This new evidence justifies deeper digging, and deeper digging is just what the House intends to do.But maybe most encouraging was the story’s brief mention of the ongoing federal investigation out of the Southern District of New York. It could be much bigger than Dormitzer; it could be a criminal investigation of Pfizer itself. At this point, we don’t (and can’t) know; but the fact the investigation exists at all is huge.
Pfizer is a corporate juggernaut with vast and deep pockets, lobbyists, and pocketed politicians from both parties. It’s as politically well-connected as anyone, and in a case that is inherently political, is as well-protected as a Russian nuclear storage facility. Which explains why Trump’s DOJ must proceed extremely carefully, in order to build a case that could stick.
Still, despite Pfizer’s political armor and its history of surviving many other criminal prosecutions, this feels different. I couldn’t find any historical examples (at least, not from the U.S.) of big companies illegally influencing presidential elections. There’s probably a reason nobody has tried it before.
Pfizer’s woes are only just beginning. This election interference angle could be easier to prove and ultimately more damaging than Pfizer’s crimes related to the awful shots, since Pfizer lacks legal immunity for political misconduct. For anyone who wondered if there would ever be accountability, the news of multiple open investigations should be very encouraging.
But that wasn’t all yesterday’s jab news.
That didn’t take long! Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran another exclusive story, this one headlined “Exclusive | HHS to Stop Recommending Routine Covid Shots for Children, Pregnant Women.”
According to “people familiar with the matter,” the Trump administration has joined Florida, and plans to drop CDC recommendations that pregnant women, teenagers, and children get jabs unless they are in an “at-risk” group. Not only that, but the story reported that the changes to the CDC’s covid jab guidance are soon expected— along with “a new framework for approving vaccines.”
Quibblers will surely argue that covid shots should be discouraged for everybody, not just kids and pregnant women, and they will complain that it should have happened sooner, and so on. But the fact is, as one of his first and biggest official announcements, new HHS Secretary Kennedy is tackling vaccines.
Think of it. “A new framework for approving vaccines” sounds like it could be extremely unpleasant for the whole jab industry. Expect panic and widespread hysteria.
Yesterday, new FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said, “Separate from my role as a regulator at the FDA, I am not encouraging or insisting young, healthy children to get a Covid shot unless there is new evidence that emerges that suggests there is a clear benefit.”
In other words, there is not any current evidence of any clear benefit of the shots.
Alert C&C readers are unsurprised; we’ve been impatiently waiting for covid jab walkbacks since Trump took office in January. But let us not throw out the unvaccinated baby with the pediatrician’s bathwater. Any scalebacks or additional testing burdens on vaccines gores Big Pharma’s most profitable sacred cows and asses, I mean assets.
During the pandemic, “follow the CDC” became an authoritarian slogan of moral certainty. Now that the CDC (under RFK Jr.’s HHS) is about to reverse course, the same people who once invoked its authority will promptly denounce the same institution they once claimed was sacrosanct. In case anyone still doubted, this pathetic shilly-shallying reveals the truth that many of us have long known: “follow the science” was always just a tribal shibboleth. It’s pure politics. It’s only true when the right politician sits in the White House.
The Journal found one guy willing to criticize the move. Richard Hughes, a “lawyer and vaccine advocate,” said he was worried about immunocompromised people who preferred to have friends and family vaccinated. He also said the change would “have a behavioral impact on whether people choose to get vaccinated.”
In other words, Hughes just appealed to guilt and fear (i.e., it will hurt immunocompromised and increase hesitancy). Neither of his arguments were based on science, or more importantly on whether the jabs are safe and effective. I.e., Hughes appealed to emotion instead of science. So much for following the damned thing.
Finally, conservative critics have long complained that President Trump has not publicly denounced the vaccines. But what is he doing? The people he appointed are unwinding the whole corrupt ball of mRNA strands, that’s what. And the only reason they are in government at all —Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Makary— is because they opposed the shots.
It’s coming.
☕️ WITLESS NITWITS ☙ Friday, May 16, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Hated ex-FBI chief steps on a rake with veiled Trump threat; Pfizer election-rigging probe heats up; RFK Jr. rewrites vax policy; WSJ hints at bigger Trump safety play.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
LightRoasted
If I may ...
TPD
the poor dad
Just a local
