Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

UI Expand
titleMandates


UI Expand
titleJapan's Handling of Covid


UI Expand
titlehttps://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5738-japan-will-not-discriminate-against-vaccine-hesitant-puts-myocarditis-on-covid-vax-label-s-list-of-serious-side-effects?s=09

First, Japan's health ministry acknowledged the growing rate of heart inflammation among the vaccinated population. Then Japan's public and private sectors were alerted to the fact and forbidden to discriminate against those who refuse the COVID vaccine. Furthermore, Japan has made it clear that "informed consent" is required to receive the vaccine. Japan now insists the vaccine labels warn of dangerous potential side effects such as myocarditis.
_____________

NHK-Japan (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) | Japan's health ministry has listed inflammation of the heart muscle and of the outer lining of the heart in younger males as possible serious side effects of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines.

It says that as of November 14, out of every one million males who had the Moderna vaccine, such side effects were reported in 81.79 males aged 10 to 19 and 48.76 males in their 20s.

The figures were 15.66 and 13.32 respectively for those who had the Pfizer vaccine.

The ministry held a panel of expert on Saturday [Dec. 4] and proposed warning of the risk by printing "serious side effects" on the documents attached to the vaccines.

It will also require hospitals to report in detail incidents involving people who developed the symptoms within 28 days after being vaccinated, according to the law.

The plan was approved by the panel, and the ministry will notify municipalities.
__________________

RairFoundation.com |  Japan announces that public and private sectors can not discriminate against those who refuse the experimental mRNA gene therapy injections.

Japan is now labeling Covid “vaccines” to warn of dangerous and potentially deadly side effects such as myocarditis. In addition, the country is reaffirming its commitment to adverse event reporting requirements to ensure all possible side effects are documented.

These efforts from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the deceptive measures taken by other countries to coerce citizens into taking the injection, downplaying side effects, and discouraging proper adverse event reporting.

Additionally, Japan is emphasizing informed consent and bodily autonomy. Until the coronavirus pandemic, the concept of “informed consent” was considered sacred to healthcare professionals in the West.

Japan is particularly raising concerns about the risks of myocarditis in young men injected with Pfizer or Moderna’s gene–therapy treatment. The country is enforcing a strict legal reporting requirement of side effects that must take place within 28 days of the injections.
_______________

BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | Japan’s ministry of health is taking a sensible, ethical approach to Covid vaccines. They recently labeled the vaccines with a warning about myocarditis and other risks. They also reaffirmed their commitment to adverse event reporting to document potential side-effects.

Japan’s ministry of health states: “Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.”

Furthermore, they state: “Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”

Finally, they clearly state: “Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”

They also link to a “Human Rights Advice” page that includes instructions for handling any complaints if individuals face vaccine discrimination at work. 

Other nations would do well to follow Japan’s lead with this balanced and ethical approach.

This policy appropriately places the responsibility for this healthcare decision with the individual or family. 

We can contrast this with the vaccine mandate approach adopted in many other Western nations. The U.S. provides a case study in the anatomy of medical coercion exercised by a faceless bureaucratic network. 

A bureaucracy is an institution that exercises enormous power over you but with no locus of responsibility. This leads to the familiar frustration, often encountered on a small scale at the local DMV, that you can go round in bureaucratic circles trying to troubleshoot problems or rectify unfair practices. No actual person seems to be able to help you get to the bottom of things—even if a well-meaning person sincerely wants to assist you.

Here’s how this dynamic is playing out with coercive vaccine mandates in the U.S. The CDC makes vaccine recommendations. But the ethically crucial distinction between a recommendation and mandate immediately collapses when institutions (e.g., a government agency, a business, employer, university, or school) require you to be vaccinated based on the CDC recommendation.

Try to contest the rationality of these mandates, e.g., in federal court, and the mandating institution just points back to CDC recommendation as the rational basis for the mandate. The court will typically agree, deferring to the CDC’s authority on public health. The school, business, etc., thus disclaims responsibility for the decision to mandate the vaccine: “We’re just following CDC recommendations, after all. What can we do?”

But CDC likewise disclaims responsibility: “We don’t make policy; we just make recommendations, after all.”

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer is immune and indemnified from all liability or harm under federal law. No use going to them if their product—a product that you did not freely decide to take—harms you.

You are now dizzy from going round in circles trying to identify the actual decision-maker: it’s impossible to pinpoint the relevant authority. You know that enormous power is being exercised over your body and your health, but with no locus of responsibility for the decision and no liability for the outcomes.

You are thus left with the consequences of a decision that nobody claims to have made. The only certainty is that you did not make the decision and you were not given the choice.

Japan’s policy avoids most of these problems simply placing responsibility for the decision on the individual receiving the intervention, or the parent in the case of a child who is not old enough to consent. 

Incidentally, this focus on choice and freedom was somewhat reflected in Japan’s policies throughout the pandemic, which were less stringent that most countries, including those in the U.S. 


UI Expand
titlehttps://thewatchtowers.org/japan-says-no-to-vaccine-mandates-passports-and-discrimination-against-unvaxxed/

Japan’s government, unlike the governments in most countries in the “free” world, refuses to force and intimidate its population to get vaccinated against covid-19.

An official statement on its health ministry website reads as follows:

“Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory.

Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.

Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects.

No vaccination will be given without consent.

Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”

Japan’s approach to vaccinating its population appears to be in stark contrast to that practiced in the west.

Not only vaccine mandates are now being enforced in Europe and America, governments like that in Germany, by far the most totalitarian when it comes to dealing with Covid, is now openly inciting hatred against people who do not want to get vaccinated, and removes them from society and the public sphere.

The Japanese approach seems to be working seeing how almost 80% of its population is now fully vaccinated.

In the past Japan, unlike governments in Europe and America, also refused to impose a national lockdown on its population, resorting only to declaring a state of emegency and imposing only localized lockdowns in specific places and cities.

Japan’s approach to fighting the pandemic seems to have paid of, as it has one of the lowest death tolls from covid in the world per its population.

With the oldest population in the world, and with almost 125 million Japanese, Japan saw only around 18,000 deaths from covid in the last 2 years.

In comparison, France, which has half of the population that of Japan, had over 121,000 deaths from covid, and counting.

However you never see any mention of this on the corporate media, which praises countries like France and Germany and its leaders for the “good job” they did and how “well” they handled the pandemic.

The fact that Japan never had a national lockdown, or that it refuses to force its citizens to get vaccinated or demonise and penalise those who won’t, while doing much better than almost any other major developed country in the world, seems to fly in the face of the narrative that is being promoted and propogated by the corporate media and global institutions.



UI Expand
titleViral Load

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people

Quote macro

A new study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center, UC San Francisco and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals

Quote macro

New data was released by the CDC showing that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant can carry detectable viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated, though in the vaccinated, these levels rapidly diminish. There is also some question about how cultivatable—or viable—this virus retrieved from vaccinated people actually is. 



UI Expand
titleOmicron Spreads faster among the vaccinated

Widget Connector
width640
urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvRq2Su6F_c
height360

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v1.full

PDF version incase the stude is removed


...

UI Expand
titlePfizer Fines


UI Expand
titlePfizer Fines due to marketting

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617

— -- In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug. Once the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs, doctors can prescribe them off-label for any use, but makers can't market them for anything other than approved uses.

Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony violation for promoting off-label uses of Bextra, such as for pain relief after knee replacement surgery. At the FDA's request, Pfizer pulled Bextra off the market in April 2005 because its risks, including a rare, sometimes fatal, skin reaction, outweighed its benefits. It had been approved only for treating rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and menstrual pain.

As part of the settlement, Pfizer PFE will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

Pfizer also has agreed to pay $1 billion in civil damages and penalties to compensate federal health-care programs for false claims submitted as a result of its marketing Bextra and the other four drugs for off-label use or at unapproved dosages.

In an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY, former Pfizer sales representative John Kopchinski said he was told to distribute 20-milligram samples to rheumatologists and orthopedists, even though the FDA had approved only 10-milligram doses for arthritis. The 20-milligram doses were approved only for menstrual pain, yet Kopchinski says he never called on gynecologists or other doctors who would treat that complaint.

In 2003, Kopchinski, 45, a West Point graduate, filed the first whistle-blower lawsuit, leading to the Justice Department investigation. Kopchinski says he was inspired by David Franklin, who filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Pfizer for promoting Neurontin — at the time approved only to control seizures — for unapproved uses such as treating bipolar disorder.


When Kopchinski began questioning Pfizer's marketing of Bextra and sued, Pfizer fired him, a violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the federal False Claims Act, says his attorney, Erika Kelton of the Washington, D.C., firm Phillips & Cohen. At the time, his son was 2 and his wife was pregnant with twins.

Kopchinski, who began working for Pfizer in 1992, says he was the last employee personally hired by former CEO Edward Pratt, with whom he began corresponding while serving in the first Gulf War.

Kopchinski says one night while on guard duty, he saw a photo of Pratt, now deceased, in Reader's Digest and decided to write him to ask if he wanted to "adopt" his platoon. At the time, Kopchinski says, Pfizer owned Coty cosmetics, and Pratt, an assistant secretary of the Army in the Kennedy administration, responded by sending over three cases of cologne.

Although Kopchinski worked three years as a financial adviser after leaving Pfizer, he says, "I pretty much depleted my 401(k)."

Of the $102 million share of the settlement that will be divided among six whistle-blowers, Kopchinski will receive $51.5 million. To celebrate, he and his wife took their three children out of school Wednesday to have a new family portrait taken and to go to Chuck E. Cheese's for pizza. Kopchinski, who now lives in San Antonio, says he and his wife plan to be stay-at-home parents.

Pfizer mentioned the $2.3 billion settlement this past January in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in which it said it was taking a $2.3 billion charge against earnings related to lawsuits, but the lawsuits were sealed and the investigation ongoing at the time, so no details could be released, Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said Wednesday. Shares of Pfizer closed at $16.28, down 10 cents.

In a statement, Pfizer senior vice president and general counsel Amy Schulman said: "We regret certain actions taken in the past, but are proud of the action we've taken to strengthen our internal controls and pioneer new procedures."


UI Expand
titlePfizer Violation Tracker

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer



UI Expand
titleFrom Mice to Men

Widget Connector
width640
urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH1u1GIPU2A
height360

Peer Reviewed Paper