Connect with us

Wire

Pfizer Senior Director Breaks Into Full Sprint When Confronted About Fetal Cells and COVID Vaccines

Western Journal

Published

on

A woman identified as the senior director of worldwide research, development and medical communications for Pfizer ran away from a reporter when confronted about an email she allegedly sent confirming fetal tissue lines were used in the testing of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Why did you send emails telling Pfizer employees not to report that you guys were using fetal cell lining, miss?” Project Veritas’ James Lalino asked Vanessa Gelman in a video posted Thursday on social media.

“What else are you hiding from the public today?” he further questioned. “Miss, what else are you hiding from the public? The public needs to know.”

Gelman did not respond, instead sprinting away into a nearby house.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Pfizer whistleblower Melissa Strickler gave multiple email chains to Project Veritas that she told the group’s leader, James O’Keefe, she obtained from a company server.

In one email, Gelman allegedly told Pfizer employees that the company did not want to discuss the use of fetal cells in the testing of the vaccine.

“From the perspective of corporate affairs, we want to avoid having the information on fetal cells floating out there,” she wrote in February.

She went on to say that “the risk of communicating this right now outweighs any potential benefit we could see, particularly with general members of the public who may take this information and use it in ways we may not want out there.”

“We have not received any questions from policy makers or media on this issue in the last few weeks, so we want to avoid raising this if possible,” Gelman said.



The Pfizer executive emphasized keeping the use of fetal cells quiet in another email thread as well.

“We have been trying as much as possible to not mention the fetal cell lines. … One or more cell lines with an origin that can be traced back to human fetal tissue has been used in laboratory tests associated with the vaccine program,” Gelman wrote, according to Project Veritas.

Strickler, who told O’Keefe she worked at Pfizer for about 10 years, including the last five as a quality auditor, speculated the reason the company does not want the information disseminated is that it could create grounds for claiming a religious exemption from taking the vaccine.

“They don’t want to stir up a mess,” she said.

“They don’t want to have to deal with people who are upset, because I think people can use religious exemptions for it, and they don’t want that. I think they want nobody to have an excuse to not get it.”

WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.



Strickler explained to O’Keefe that coming forward was not a political issue for her.

“It shouldn’t be political, but they’re making it political,” she said. “The media and the government’s making it political, but this isn’t about Republican, Democrat or liberal or conservative. This is informed consent on injecting something inside of you from a company that’s called it [an] experimental vaccine.”

Strickler added that she felt the information needed to come out.

“It needs to be seen by the people because they’re trying to get this to kids, and if they’re being this deceptive about it, I don’t feel comfortable being silent while they’re trying to get it to babies who can’t talk,” she said.

The Associated Press reported that some on Twitter falsely interpreted the Project Veritas story to mean the Pfizer vaccine contains aborted fetal cells, which is not what Gelman’s email stated. She wrote the vaccines were tested using cell lines originally derived from aborted fetuses.

Should Pfizer be held to account for trying to conceal its use of fetal cells?

UCLA Health published on its website that none of the vaccines in use contains aborted fetal cells.

“However, Johnson & Johnson did use fetal cell lines — not fetal tissue — when developing and producing their vaccine, while Pfizer and Moderna used fetal cell lines to test their vaccines and make sure that they work,” the organization said.

“Fetal cell lines are grown in a laboratory and were started with cells from elective abortions that occurred several decades ago in the 1970s-80s. They are now thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. None of the COVID-19 vaccines use fetal cells derived from recent abortions.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Footage Captures Shocked Woman Moments After Bear Attack in Her Own Driveway

Western Journal

Published

on

Many people don’t think about the possibility that they might run into a bear — or vice versa — when they take their dogs out for a walk in their neighborhood, but that’s one possibility that will forever haunt one woman from DeBary, Florida.

The woman, who only gave her first name, Aydee, stepped outside onto her driveway with her two dogs Amaya and Hemmy around 9:00 p.m. on Jan. 13 and was soon met by a large adult female mother bear.

Aydee ran, and her dogs ran off, but the bear caught up to her.

“When I realized it, she got me here,” Aydee told WOFL-TV. “But I took off running, and she took running behind me.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I was screaming going to my neighbor’s to see if he, you know, he can call 911 or help me or, or I don’t know — take the gun out, whatever.”

The bear had three yearling cubs in a tree nearby, and after attacking Aydee, was treed by several neighbors who responded to the woman’s cries.

Neighbor Awston Kennedy had spotted the bear, a familiar sight in the area, shortly before the attack in the trees in front of his house. It was checking out some trash and then was shooed away by some other neighbors.

“Next thing you know there’s pounding on the door,” Kennedy said. “There was about four of us came out to check on her pretty quick … Her main concern was her dog.

“They had it cornered in the tree for a bit with dome lights trying to make sure it didn’t come out,” Kennedy said of the other neighbors who responded. “One of the neighbors actually came out with his jeep and threw the spotlights on it.”

According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the bear was dispatched on the scene.

“Volusia County Sheriff’s Officers arrived on the scene and found an adult female bear with yearlings in a tree nearby,” a statement by the FWC read. “EMS arrived on the scene to treat the woman’s injuries, which were not life threatening. The woman’s dog was not injured.

“FWC bear biologists darted the adult bear in the tree and humanely killed it per the FWC policy to protect public safety. The three 100-pound yearlings are old enough to survive on their own and so no attempt was made to capture them.”

Aydee’s dogs were found later, unharmed, but Aydee suffered from bites and scratches on her face and back, as well as a concussion and twisted ankle. Some of her wounds required stitches.



“The worst [experience] of my life,” she told WESH-TV. “Like, you know you go through stuff in life, but this is like the worst. No. 1, I would say … I feel lucky to be alive.”

Aydee also isn’t happy that the yearlings were left in the same area instead of being relocated.

“I’m an animal lover too, but those are not a friend,” she said. “She was trespassing my house. I was not in her territory. Two more years and we will be in the same boat.”

Despite the victim’s insistence that the bear was out of line, some locals are upset the bear was killed as she’s been a staple in the neighborhood for over seven years and has reportedly never been an issue before.

“Unfortunately, the neighbor got scratched up by the bear,” local David Mangham said. “She’s fortunate to be alive, I guess, but as far as euthanizing it, why not relocate it?”

After this incident, a petition has been circulating to get the “FWC to change their ‘Aggressive Bear’ killing policy,” according to a post by Bear Defenders on Facebook.

“The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has an ‘Aggressive Bear’ killing policy that does not consider the circumstances that cause bears to act aggressively,” the post read.

“There are humane and non-lethal ways to handle these situations. The FWC kills bears who act in self-defense or are defending their cubs. If a bear indeed attacked, it would result in severe injuries and even death, yet NO ONE in the State of Florida has ever died from a bear attack.



“If bears are in residential areas, they are most likely there because of unsecured trash and other bear attractants. We believe in self-defense, including a black bear’s right to defend her cubs. We wish the FWC would take into account what triggered the defensive (aggressive) response from the bear before labeling them aggressive and killing them as a result of human error.”

According to the FWC’s Bear Management Coordinator Davis Telesco, killing the bear was a sad necessity.

“We can’t have bears living in neighborhoods that are willing to hurt somebody,” he said. “We just can’t allow it.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Many people don’t think about the possibility that they might run into a bear — or vice versa — when they take their dogs out for a walk in their neighborhood, but that’s one possibility that will forever haunt one woman from DeBary, Florida. The woman, who only gave her first name, Aydee, stepped outside onto her driveway with her two dogs Amaya and Hemmy around 9:00 p.m. on Jan. 13 and was soon met by a large adult female mother bear. Aydee ran, and her dogs ran off, but the bear caught up to her. “When I realized it, she got me here,” Aydee told WOFL-TV. “But I took off running, and she took running behind me. “I was screaming going to my neighbor’s to see if he, you know, he can call 911 or help me or, or I don’t know — take the gun out, whatever.” The bear had three yearling cubs in a tree nearby, and after attacking Aydee, was treed by several neighbors who responded to the woman’s cries. Neighbor Awston Kennedy had spotted the bear, a familiar sight in the area, shortly before the attack in the trees in front of his house. It was checking out some trash and then was shooed away by some other neighbors. “Next thing you know there’s pounding on the door,” Kennedy said. “There was about four of us came out to check on her pretty quick … Her main concern was her dog. “They had it cornered in the tree for a bit with dome lights trying to make sure it didn’t come out,” Kennedy said of the other neighbors who responded. “One of the neighbors actually came out with his jeep and threw the spotlights on it.” According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,…

Continue Reading

Wire

CDC Study: Natural Immunity Provides Significantly More Protection Against COVID Than Vaccination Only

Western Journal

Published

on

Ebola

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Wednesday shows that those who have recovered from COVID-19 have more protection against infection than those who have only been vaccinated.

Researchers reviewed data from California and New York from May to November, when the delta variant was dominant in the U.S.

The study looked at four groups of people: unvaccinated with no prior COVID-19 infection, vaccinated with no prior infection, unvaccinated who recovered from COVID-19, and vaccinated who recovered.

By the first week of October, COVID-19 rates among the vaccinated with no previous infection were 6.2 times lower in California and 4.5 times lower in New York than among the unvaccinated with no previous infection.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, among the unvaccinated with a previous infection, the COVID-19 rate was 29 times lower in California and 14.7 times lower in New York.

The individuals most protected against infection were those who had previously had COVID-19 and were also vaccinated. Their infection rate was 32.5 times lower in California and 19.8 times lower in New York.

“These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization,” the CDC determined.

The agency noted that natural immunity proved more efficacious as the delta variant became predominant and vaccine-induced immunity for many began to wane.

The CDC also highlighted that the study took place before omicron became the dominant variant in the U.S. and before the impact of booster shots could be adequately measured.

Dr. Benjamin Silk of the CDC told the media on Wednesday, “Before the delta variant, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection,” CNN reported.

“When looking at the summer and the fall of 2021, when delta became the dominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection against subsequent infection than vaccination,” he added.

Dr. Eli Rosenberg, New York state deputy director for science said the safest course of action for those who have never had COVID-19 is to get vaccinated.

“Having COVID the first time carries with it significant risks, and becoming vaccinated and staying up-to-date with boosters really is the only safe choice for preventing COVID infection and severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has faulted policymakers for being too slow to acknowledge natural immunity.

“The pandemic of the unvaccinated is a misnomer. It’s a pandemic of the non-immune,” he tweeted in July.

“More precisely, it’s a series of regional outbreaks in select pockets of the country with low population immunity,” Makary said. “Same take-home message though: If you’re not immune, get immune by getting vaxed.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Wednesday shows that those who have recovered from COVID-19 have more protection against infection than those who have only been vaccinated. Researchers reviewed data from California and New York from May to November, when the delta variant was dominant in the U.S. The study looked at four groups of people: unvaccinated with no prior COVID-19 infection, vaccinated with no prior infection, unvaccinated who recovered from COVID-19, and vaccinated who recovered. By the first week of October, COVID-19 rates among the vaccinated with no previous infection were 6.2 times lower in California and 4.5 times lower in New York than among the unvaccinated with no previous infection. However, among the unvaccinated with a previous infection, the COVID-19 rate was 29 times lower in California and 14.7 times lower in New York. The individuals most protected against infection were those who had previously had COVID-19 and were also vaccinated. Their infection rate was 32.5 times lower in California and 19.8 times lower in New York. “These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization,” the CDC determined. The agency noted that natural immunity proved more efficacious as the delta variant became predominant and vaccine-induced immunity for many began to wane. The CDC also highlighted that the study took place before omicron became the dominant variant in the U.S. and before the impact of booster shots could be adequately measured. Dr. Benjamin Silk of the CDC told the media on Wednesday, “Before the delta variant, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection,” CNN reported. “When looking at the summer and the fall of 2021, when delta became the…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week