The CDC WONDER online databases utilize a rich ad-hoc query system for the analysis of public health data.
The chart below shows the causes of death during 2020 for various age groups
The CDC WONDER online databases utilize a rich ad-hoc query system for the analysis of public health data.
The chart below shows the causes of death during 2020 for various age groups
What does totalitarianism look like?
In the 20th century, it took the form of secret police violently silencing anyone who spoke out against the government.
Now, it is being presented to us with a different face — But one we should be very wary of just the same.
Rod Dreher, author of Live Not By Lies, explains in this PragerU video.
Here’s the good news:
The secret police are not coming with guns to take you away to a prison camp in a frozen wasteland for speaking out against the government. They did that in Communist countries in the twentieth century. It’s not going to happen here in America or in Western Europe.
Here’s the bad news:
The secret police aren’t coming for you because they don’t have to. There are ways to shut you up and keep you quiet that don’t involve physical force. The powers that be—and that now includes major corporations, the educational establishment, the media, and the government—can just kick you off the Internet, put you on a no-fly list, and bar you from using the banking system.
We can describe scenario number one as hard totalitarianism and scenario number two as soft totalitarianism.
There are big differences between them, but in the end, you arrive at the same place—submission and silence.
To grasp the threat of totalitarianism—hard or soft—it’s important to understand exactly what it means.
According to the famous political scholar Hannah Arendt, a totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology.
The state literally defines and controls reality. Truth is whatever the rulers decide it is.
These rulers might say something like…
Men can have babies.
Skin color is more important than character.
The American Revolution was fought not for freedom, but to protect the colonists’ slave interests.
Those who resist a vaccine mandate are enemies of the people.
And insist that you not only believe it but affirm it.
If you don’t, you might lose your job, your business, and your good name.
That dystopian future, of course, is now. And, we’re only at the beginning of this process.
Where does it lead?
To less freedom—that much we know.
Again, no guns, no violence—we just go along. Nobody kicks the door down. We open the door and invite them in.
The more information the government has about you, and the more the tech sector can see what you’re doing and saying online, the easier it is to monitor your behavior.
How long before the government creates a digital profile of each citizen?
And how would the government use that profile?
It might go like this:
If you do socially positive things—as defined by the government—nothing really changes. You can do whatever you want. Maybe you’re even rewarded for good behavior—a faster internet connection, preferred medical treatment, or even the best seats at a concert. If you do socially negative things—again as defined by the government—you lose privileges. You’re pushed to the margins of society. You become a non-person.
It shouldn’t. It’s happening right now in China.
It happened in Russia and Eastern Europe not that long ago. Talk to anyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain, and they will tell you we are headed down a dangerous road.
“No,” you say, “It can’t happen here—in the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Ronald Reagan famously observed that freedom can be lost in a single generation. That’s because the human inclination is not toward liberty, but security.
Freedom is a value, not an instinct.
It entails personal responsibility and risk. Security requires little risk and little personal responsibility. So, it comes with little freedom.
That’s why every new generation must be taught the supreme importance of freedom and develop the strength of character to maintain it.
Of course, the people who want to take away our freedom say they’re doing it in the name of compassion—for the many victims of oppression.
Unlike the Bolsheviks of the old Soviet Union, the left of today’s America gets its way not by shedding blood, but by shedding tears.
Don’t be fooled. The objective is always the same—submission and silence.
So, how do we stop the drift toward soft totalitarianism? This is not an easy question, but we can create a base from which we can start to act.
Let it be this:
You may not have the strength to stand up in public and say what you really believe, but you can at least refuse to affirm what you do not believe.
You cannot overthrow this soft totalitarianism on your own, but if enough of us find within ourselves, our families, and our communities the means and the courage to live in the dignity of truth, no matter what it costs, we can keep America free.
Otherwise, we will learn how easy it is to become a totalitarian country—soft or hard.
I’m Rod Dreher, author of Live Not by Lies, for Prager University.
Totalitarianism led to the deaths of more than 100 million people over the last century.
Over the course of the last century, totalitarian regimes caused the deaths of over 100 million people. In the Soviet Union alone, more than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the communist government or died directly as a result of its repressive policies.
A U.S. report on the internal workings of the Soviet Union details the degree to which Joseph Stalin’s communist regime used totalitarian tactics to control citizens: “By the time the Great Terror ended, Stalin had subjected all aspects of Soviet society to strict party-state control, not tolerating even the slightest expression of local initiative, let alone political unorthodoxy. The Stalinist leadership felt especially threatened by the intelligentsia, whose creative efforts were thwarted through the strictest censorship; by religious groups, who were persecuted and driven underground; and by non-Russian nationalities, many of whom were deported en masse to Siberia during World War II because Stalin questioned their loyalty.”
Related video: “Is Communism Moral?” – Dennis Prager
Totalitarian society seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions to bring all aspects of society under control of one ideology.
As renowned political scholar, Hannah Arendt explained, a totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology.
The totalitarian Chinese government has suppressed its citizens since the Chinese Communist Party seized control in 1949. The government is now creating a digital profile of individuals and companies for its “social credit” system. Those deemed by the government to have engaged in socially “negative” behaviors are to be placed on various blacklists and lose important privileges.
Russia and Eastern Europe during Joseph Stalin’s totalitarian regime saw similar oppressive systems.
Related reading: “Live Not by Lies” – Rod Dreher
Soft totalitarianism controls people through political and cultural institutions rather than physical force.
In the U.S., major corporations, the educational establishment, the legacy media, and the government are using soft totalitarianism to control society, including limiting the ways people are able to voice their views and distribute information on the internet. Big Tech is increasingly blocking access to social media platforms, marginalizing and silencing individuals and entities.
Big Tech has partnered with banks to bar people for their views. The Heritage Foundation highlights a few notable examples: “Wells Fargo made the ‘business decision’ to close 2020 Republican Delaware Senate candidate Lauren Witzke’s account. Two of the more prominent digital payment services, PayPal and Stripe, have also become active cancel culture participants. PayPal has admitted to closing accounts flagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2019, now, PayPal has announced a partnership with the left-leaning Anti-Defamation League to focus on ‘further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements.’”
Airlines have also blocked people from flying based on their views and alleged behavior. In January 2021, Alaska Airlines banned 14 supporters of former President Trump for what the airline deemed “unacceptable” behavior.
Ronald Reagan famously observed that freedom can be lost in a single generation because the human inclination is not toward liberty, but security. Freedom is a value, not an instinct, and it entails personal responsibility and risk, while security involves little of either.
Leftist institutions in the U.S. use soft totalitarianism to enforce left-wing ideology and political agendas.
Leftwing ideology is increasingly dominating the culture, promoting and enforcing radical views, including about sex and gender.
Radical leftist racial theory teaches that skin color can be more important than character.
The New York Times’ “1619 Project” seeks to rewrite American history to make slavery and racism its defining elements. For example, the project claims that the American Revolution was fought not for freedom, but to protect the colonists’ slave interests. That claim and several other central claims in the leftwing project have been discredited by distinguished historians.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, left-leaning media policed what kinds of information about the virus and mitigation strategies, like mask-wearing and vaccines, were allowed on the internet.
Those who resisted mask and vaccine mandates were villainized, silenced, and even threatened with the potential of losing their livelihoods.
Political leaders and activists in the U.S. pushing to trade freedom for more government control claim they are doing it in the name of compassion for the many victims of oppression.
This article is being republished because it will auto-delete in approximately 24-hours.
According to Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed.
Her testimony was published November 2, 2021, in The British Medical Journal by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, who noted that:1
“[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”
December 2, 2021, The Last American Vagabond interviewed Jackson (video above2) about what she saw while working on Pfizer’s trial. Jackson is a trained clinical trial auditor with more than 15 years of experience in clinical research coordination and management.
She had previously held a director of operations position before she was hired in early September 2020 by the Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas. Right from the start, Jackson was struck by the chaotic nature of the operation.
She also felt the informed consent was inadequate, considering the novel nature of the mRNA gene transfer technology. On top of that, she found the crash cart contained expired medications, and some important emergency medications — were a participant to suffer an acute adverse event — were missing entirely.
Jackson claims she repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues. When she realized her concerns were ignored, she finally filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following:
Later that same day, Jackson was fired. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator. As noted by Thacker:3
“In a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. ‘In my mind, it’s something new every day,’ a Ventavia executive says. ‘We know that it’s significant.’
Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organization with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: ‘The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.’
ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which ‘Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.’
According to the trial protocol, a telephone contact should have occurred ‘to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.
In a list of ‘action items’ circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to ‘Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was ‘verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,’ a note indicates.”
Jackson’s disclosures were recently featured in the Italian documentary, “Pfizergate.”4,5 The documentation she gathered is available for download on the COVID Vaccine Reaction’s website.6
Strangely enough, the extent of Ventavia’s effort to defend itself has been to deny that Jackson ever worked on the Pfizer trial — a charge that is verifiably false, as she has documentation proving she was assigned to work on the trial.7
Pfizer has also remained mum on the issue. The company did not reply to any of The BMJ’s questions, one of which was whether Ventavia’s data were incorporated into Pfizer’s safety and efficacy analyses.
We do know, however, that none of the problems Jackson raised in her complaint to the FDA were noted or addressed in Pfizer’s briefing document, submitted to the FDA’s advisory committee meeting on December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.
The FDA went ahead and gave the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have put the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At a bare minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.
The BMJ has tried to get answers from the FDA as to why it has not inspected any of Ventavia’s trial sites in the wake of Jackson’s accusations, and whether other complaints about the trial have been received. An FDA spokesperson told The BMJ the agency cannot comment as it is “an ongoing matter,” whatever that means.
The FDA did say, though, that it has “full confidence in the data that were used to support the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine authorization and the Comirnaty approval.” Considering they’ve not investigated Jackson’s complaints, their vote of confidence doesn’t strike me as particularly convincing.
Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after raising concerns about the integrity of the Pfizer trial. According to Thacker, several other Ventavia employees either left or were fired. Among them is a Ventavia official who had participated in the late September meeting cited above. Thacker writes:8
“In a text message sent [to Jackson] in June the former official apologized, saying that ‘everything that you complained about was spot on.’ Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint.
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.
‘I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,’ she told The BMJ. ‘It just seemed like something a little different from normal — the things that were allowed and expected.’”
According to these whistleblowers, problems persisted after Jackson’s firing. One of them claims there were, on several occasions, not enough staff to test trial participants who reported COVID-like symptoms.
Laboratory confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was the primary endpoint of the trial, so this was a crucial task. An FDA review memorandum from August 2021 states that 477 trial participants with suspected COVID-19 were not tested for infection. “I don’t think it was good clean data,” the former Ventavia employee told Thacker. “It’s a crazy mess.”
Such statements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities, and the mainstream media. Most, like federal health minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, effective and manufactured to a high standard.”9
Nothing we know so far supports such a conclusion. The testing has been far from rigorous and has not been independently verified.
Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data show they’re shockingly far from safe; real-world data show effectiveness wanes within a handful of months while leaving you more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 variants and other infections; and manufacturing standards have also been shown lacking, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials.10
The video above is a short extract from a November 2, 2021, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which Peter Doshi, Ph.D., associate editor of The BMJ, reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity of the COVID jab data.
He pointed out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its raw data to independent investigators and, without that, there’s no possible way to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.
In other words, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white-collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines for fraudulent marketing and health care fraud.11 Press releases are not science. They’re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to base our decisions about the COVID kill shot.
Doshi stressed how utterly unscientific a process we’re now following. He also points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Quoting from a 2020 article he co-wrote:12
“Data transparency is not a ‘nice to have.’ Claims made without access to the data — whether appearing in peer-reviewed publications or in preprints without peer review — are not scientific claims.
Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional societies should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-19 products as being based on science.”
“The point I am trying to make is very simple,” Doshi said. “The data from COVID vaccines are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just ‘asking’ but ‘mandating’ millions of people to take these vaccines … Without data, it’s not science.”
In September 2021, a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FDA to obtain the documentation used to approve Comirnaty, including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports, and lists of active and inactive ingredients.
In their FOIA application, the PHMPT asked the agency to expedite the release of the documents — a reasonable request, considering we have no raw data and the shots are being pushed on children as young as 5. When, after a month, the FDA still had not responded to the FOIA request, the PHMPT sued.13
The FDA initially asked the judge to allow them to delay the full release of all documents — a total of 329,000 pages — until 2076, doling out just 500 pages per month. The judge agreed.
A short while later, the FDA claimed it found another 59,000 pages, which would necessitate tacking on another 20 years.14 The full release, according to the FDA, can’t be completed until 2096, at which time most of us will be dead and buried. As noted by Aaron Siri, the lawyer working on the case on behalf of the PHMPT:15
“If you find what you are reading difficult to believe — that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”
All of that said, the initial release of some 92 pages are so damning, we won’t need hundreds of thousands of pages to make an assessment as to the safety of these shots. In fact, the data are so incredibly bad, it raises serious questions about how the FDA could possibly conclude that the Pfizer shot is safe enough to use, especially on pregnant women and children.
In mid-November 2021, two months after the lawsuit against it was filed, the FDA released the first batch of 91 pages,16,17 which reveal the FDA has been aware of shocking safety issues since April 30, 2021.
Cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths, primarily from the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany, France, and Portugal. Of those adverse events, 25,379 were medically confirmed. Below is a chart from one of the documents,18 showing a general overview of the reported outcomes.
To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.
In the video above, Melanie Risdon with the Western Standard interviews Dr. Daniel Nagase, a doctor in Alberta, Canada, who was stripped of his Alberta medical license after successfully treating COVID-19 patients with ivermectin. Nagase reviews other equally devastating data in these documents.
He points out that of the 42,086 patients who were injured at some point during those first three months, 520 of them were diagnosed with a long-term disability or condition as a result. Not recovered at the time of the report were 11,361. That means 27% of those injured had not recovered from their adverse event.
When you add it all together: the 1,223 deaths, the 520 long-term disabilities, and the 11,361 who had not recovered from their injury, you end up with just over 31%.
In other words, nearly 1 in 3 people who got the shot and suffered an adverse effect ended up dead, permanently disabled, or with long-term unresolved injury. “This should be front-page news,” Nagase says. How can the FDA look at this and conclude that the shot is safe? Clearly, when people get injured by this shot, they’re often injured very badly.
On page 12 of the “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports Received Through 28-Feb-2021” document,19 you find data on pregnant and lactating women. Here too, the results are hair-raising and should have triggered a complete stop to the injection campaign of pregnant and nursing women.
Disturbingly, they did not collect comprehensive data on these women, such as which trimester they were in when they received the shots. This again points to serious problems with Pfizer’s trial data collection. How do you include pregnant women in a trial and don’t collect basic information such as how many weeks pregnant they are?
On page 12 we find that out of 124 adverse event cases involving a pregnant woman, only 49 were non-serious and 75 were serious. So, out of the 274 pregnant mothers who reported an adverse event, 27% suffered a SERIOUS adverse event, such as a miscarriage or stillbirth. “That’s an incredible danger!” Nagase says and, again, the FDA has been aware of this danger since April 30, 2021.
The data also show there’s a danger for breastfeeding mothers. Of the 133 nursing mothers who filed a report, 17 of the breastfed babies — 13% — suffered an adverse event through this secondary exposure (breastmilk), a finding that Nagase calls “absolutely stupendous.”
“So, this idea that the ‘vaccine’ sheds and transfers through breastmilk is absolutely true,” he says. “It’s proven by Pfizer’s own adverse event data.”
Pfizer also received 34 adverse event reports involving children under the age of 12, the youngest being 2 months old. Of those, 24 were categorized as “serious” and only 10 were “non-serious.” So, of the children who were injured, 70.6% suffered SERIOUS injury.
How can our health agencies approve this COVID shot for children under the age of 12 when a vast majority of injuries, when they occur, are serious ones? What’s more, 13 of the children who were seriously injured remained unresolved as of February 28, 2021.
According to Nagase, based on these documents alone, Pfizer’s COVID shot should have been permanently pulled from the market. The reason it wasn’t, he believes, is because the medical and regulatory systems have both been corrupted and usurped by the drug industry. They want to make money off these shots, and our health authorities are covering up proven harms in order to facilitate profitmaking.
At the end of the day, only you can decide what’s in your best interest. But please, do review the actual science before you make your decision, and don’t blindly trust corporate press releases and unsupported statements of safety.
Pfizer’s own data prove it’s not safe by any reasonable definition of the word, and that’s on top of the testimony of Jackson and others who have seen just how shoddy the data gathering is.