When are medical doctors going to stop shilling for pHarma and start doing their damned jobs?

Written by Meryl Dorey on April 9, 2024. Posted in Current News

Every single doctor pushing these brand new (and the old ones too) jabs for which there is no safety or efficacy data should be held legally and financially accountable in a court of law.

At the bottom of this advertorial (I’m calling it that though it doesn’t say so anywhere) published in today’s Sydney Morning Herald and shared by our old friend, I.M. Adjuvant, in teeny, tiny letters is a notice saying that this ad and the information was from GSK which is GlaxoSmithKline, the profiteer behind this useless, unnecessary jab.

Why do I say it’s useless and unnecessary? Because the common cold by any other name would still be mostly harmless and the outcome is always determined by the underlying condition of the person who catches it. And RSV – like Coronavirus – is just another name for the common cold.

Also, no vaccine ever has or ever can provide any form of what we refer to as immunity. They are incapable of doing so and history has shown that clearly.

What the TGA says

For those who are interested, here is a link to the TGA’s prescribing page for this shot, brand name Arexvy.

I will pull out a few key points for you to consider:

1. The TGA took a total of 166 days from the ‘sponsor’s’ (GSK) application to approval. In that time, they did not independent testing of the jab or its ingredients. They simply replied upon what GSK told them. And we know, pHarma never lies, right?
2. The TGA gets between 95% and 98% of their funding from the companies whose products they are meant to approve based on the safety, efficacy and necessity of those same products. But despite requesting 10 vials from each batch be sent to their ‘independent’ lab for testing, prior experience indicates that this testing is not carried out or at least, not done properly. So how are they able to assess what they are told regarding the product? And will they even think about this since their income and future job opportunities (think revolving door) rely upon them doing the ‘right thing’ by pHarma – not the Australian population.
3. This jab, as a new product, is part of Australia’s Black Triangle Scheme. This means that a visible black triangle has been placed on the packaging to remind doctors (who see it but probably have no idea what it means) and patients (who never get to see it at all) that this is a new product and any adverse effects should be reported. We saw how well that worked with the COVID jabs, right? And the evidence is clear that the TGA is actually removing or not publishing reports of severe reactions for unknown reasons. So this scheme is not working, the TGA is aware that it’s not working, but again – they work for pHarma, not us.
4. This drug is currently only approved for people aged 60 and over. My prediction is that its use will soon expand as GSK pushes for an increase in the available market. Be aware that it is a recombinant product which has never been tested for safety during, before or after pregnancy in breastfeeding women and it has also never been tested for its teratogenic effects (ability to cause genetic mutations.

You can read the prescribing information (which doctors are supposed to access prior to administering the jab) via the pdf below:

Click to see 

Please ensure that anyone who is considering offering themselves up as a guinea pig for this common cold injection is aware of this information first.

Below is some of the data on adverse events extracted from the prescribing information. Keep in mind that the self-reporting data was only from 4 days – the day of the jab and 3 days following. There would be a large number of reactions – perhaps the majority – that would never have been captured using this form of tracking. And I believe that was the intention. Why have a cutoff date if you are truly interested in finding out if a drug is safe? But if the intention is to make as much money as possible. Safety and efficacy don’t seem to enter into the equation.

I leave you with one important question. Think carefully before answering.

If given the choice between these reactions – some of which are serious and common – and a cold, what would your choice be?

See more  here Informed Choice 

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.