Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 23, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:12:13

Sonia Elijah

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I love Danny Paul!
	Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby!
	I love Danny Paul!
	Now there's another time, subscribe with me!
	Welcome to The Delingpod with me, James Delingpod, and I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am looking forward to hearing from researcher Sonia Elijah all the latest dirt on things like the procurement within the European Union for vaccines and all the scullduggery that seems to have been going on behind the scenes with the With Pfizer and the other big vaccine companies.
	How long was it since you last came on the podcast, Sonia?
	Welcome back.
	Yeah.
	Hi.
	Hi, James.
	Thank you for having me back.
	Last time we spoke it was last October.
	Actually, almost a year ago.
	Well, so much has happened since then.
	So back in October last year, I think it was still a kind of a niche position to be sceptical of these wonderful gene therapy treatments which were going to save us all from a deadly disease.
	I think since then there has been a growing public awareness that maybe things aren't quite as they were sold to us by governments and by doctors and by the medical industry.
	And I think your research shows that the vaccine companies, the manufacturers, knew about this stuff all along and this has been covered up.
	Yes, so they sold the vaccine that it was safe and effective.
	And I believe, and the evidence speaks for itself, that it's neither safe and neither effective, essentially.
	I mean, I, so, last December, I was one of the first investigative journalists to go through the Pfizer data dump, which was that the FDA released Well, it was court-ordered for them to release it.
	They wanted the public to wait, of course, I think until 2076 or 2096, I can't remember, until everybody was dead, before they were to release all the data that the FDA relied on to authorise The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to give it emergency use authorization.
	So I looked through the cumulative analysis of adverse events.
	This is post-authorization, and it covered a three-month period from December 2020 to February 2021.
	And it had some really alarming signals in it, safety signals.
	You had, I think, over 150,000 events occurring of symptoms.
	You had about at least one person having on average three to four adverse events being recorded.
	What I found very alarming was that women were primarily adversely affected by the vaccine.
	And in some cases, for example, like anaphylaxis, it was a huge jump, like eight times more.
	And you had a lot of adverse events of special interest, a lot of cardiovascular events, And so they knew all this by sort of February 2021, and yet the show just still carried on, essentially.
	I was interviewed by an Australian company around that time my report got released.
	It went viral on YouTube, over one and a half million views in about two, three days, and then it was just pulled.
	It was banned.
	And I was just quoting Pfizer's own data.
	It's just their own data.
	Their own data.
	I also had, I mean, obviously, that was December.
	And then obviously, we know there'd been these periodic data dumps every month or so.
	I also looked at all their case report forms.
	And a case report form is basically all the clinical data on the subject in the trial, sort of when they were given the dose, what reactions they had, you know, so you get a clear picture of what was going on.
	And there was some really Great, like significant anomalies in these reports.
	They were missing barcodes on lab samples.
	You had inaccurate data entries where the death of a subject was registered before their clinical COVID wellness visit.
	It was just really shocking.
	Also, just to backtrack, I forgot to mention, in that post-authorisation report, there were about 1,558 deaths recorded.
	558 deaths recorded.
	So just to, and quite a few of those deaths, this has to do with the anaphylaxis cases, happened on the same day that the vaccine was administered.
	And that really points to vaccine causality, because it was within the 24 hours that they were given the vaccine.
	Data after the vaccine has been, the vaccine that isn't a vaccine, has been authorised for mass release and this is the information their researchers are getting.
	I mean, out of a sample of how many people, how many?
	Well, of how many doses were given out, I mean, I can't, I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but I know there were 42,000 cases, close to 160,000 recorded events, symptoms that happened.
	cases close to 160,000 recorded events, symptoms that happened.
	Yeah.
	And this is in Europe and the US or?
	Yes, this is, yes, this is, yes, this is in certain different countries and they have Pfizer had to hire 600 additional full-time staff just to cope with processing the large volume of these spontaneous adverse events, which is alarming.
	And so they admitted this.
	But then you have April 2021.
	You've got the former Pfizer chief medical officer talking to The Washington Journal saying that, I can tell you that no corners were cut.
	There have been no deaths that have occurred directly as a result of the vaccine alone.
	So you have him saying that they always are very particular with their wording, their vaccine alone.
	So you can't, you know, it's sort of like you can't point, you can't say it's to do with the vaccine.
	They could have had underlying conditions.
	So they always use that as an excuse.
	And yes, so you have now, you have a lot of damning data to do with pregnancy outcomes.
	Now we know pregnant women were not included in the trial.
	So they were excluded, but looking at the protocol, it actually reveals, it exposes
	The vaccine manufacturers were on the lookout for vaccine shedding because they said if a woman was pregnant or was exposed to somebody who had taken the vaccine and had been exposed to it by skin contact or inhalation, And that speaks to vaccine shedding, which if you go on, you know, Wikipedia, that's considered a crazy, wild conspiracy theory.
	When it's even in Pfizer's clinical protocol, that vaccine shedding, they're aware of it and they're worried.
	And if there was a case where a woman's pregnant, she's tested and she's been exposed, it has to be reported immediately.
	So they were taking it seriously at that point, you know, it was on their radar.
	Yet you have, well, as we know, the CDC and here, of course, you know, everyone, the NHS, so encouraging pregnant women to take the vaccine.
	Now, going back to that report, there were pregnant women who were taking, even though they weren't part of the trial, but were given it.
	Now, this is really alarming.
	270 pregnancies were reported And there was no outcome for 238.
	So only for 32 pregnancy outcomes they knew about.
	Out of the 32 outcomes, 23 were reported as a spontaneous abortion.
	A miscarriage.
	23 out of the 32.
	knew about out of the 32 outcomes 23 were reported as a spontaneous abortion a miscarriage 23 out of the 32 now i'm not you know this is i i'm not going to say you can take that statistic and put that across the whole you know but that's really shocking really alarming that can we yeah
	Can we infer that of the ones that were kind of not counted, that they too had similarly unhappy outcomes, or do we just not know?
	No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.
	It just says no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.
	So they could all have been stillborn?
	We just, we have no idea of knowing.
	Possibly, no idea.
	But of the 32 that we do know about, 23, the outcome was a spontaneous abortion.
	This was at a time when they had this information to hand and yet they were saying their company position was that These vaccines are perfectly suitable for pregnant women and this was the government's line as well.
	I mean the American authorities and the UK authorities were all saying the same thing.
	Is that right?
	You've raised a good point.
	So I've done some investigative reports on this for Trialsite News and also on my Substack.
	Now, if you look at the FDA's packaging insert, it actually does say we don't have enough evidence to recommend the vaccine for pregnant women.
	There is not enough data.
	It's unknown.
	Safety risks are unknown, right?
	But you have the CDC pushing it hard for vaccines.
	So it's a contradictory advice.
	You had the same in the UK.
	So the MHRA's website, if you look at some of the documents, it's similar to the FDA's where there's not enough data to say whether it's a risk or not.
	It's not encouraging it.
	And this was picked up on recently and they've now slapped a notice saying this is what we knew back then, right, where we didn't know enough.
	So they've left this sort of backtracked a bit and trying to sort of sweep that under the rug.
	But for, you know, up until literally a month ago, that was still on there.
	It still is on their website, but they just have a notice now attached.
	Before you sort of download the document, you see this sort of message come up.
	So it's contradictory advice.
	On one hand, they're saying not enough data, we can't calculate the safety risks.
	But they're pushing it hard.
	What, still?
	Yes, still.
	Absolutely.
	Shocking, still.
	Well, I think it's scandalous.
	And so I also had a look through and I obviously I've done about four in-depth investigative reports just purely on the Pfizer's data or looking at that, you know, clinical trial data.
	I encourage your listeners to go to Trialsite News to look through it.
	There was a very interesting document that caught my eye.
	And again, these are thousands and thousands of pages that I have.
	I was going to ask you about that.
	I imagine that part of the object of the exercise is to dump so much information that you're overwhelmed and you can't see the wood for the trees.
	What's it like wading through all this stuff?
	I'm quite good, I read quite fast, I'm quite good at sort of going through information and anomalies, I don't know, I just have, they're like a magnet, I can really pinpoint what doesn't quite add up quite quickly and what sort of stands out, what doesn't, well that doesn't make sense, or look at that, so that sort of, I'm quite good at that and so I think that's served me well in researching and going through all of this.
	But what I found, James, that is truly astounding.
	I found a third missing death, a vaccine death, that was never included in the pivotal report published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
	This is back in December 2020.
	And this death occurred before the cutoff, which was November 14th, 2020.
	They said officially there were two vaccine deaths, but there was a third.
	And I found the third going through Pfizer's sensitive narrative document, going through the thousand pages.
	It was a man who died.
	He had a syncope, which is sort of like he fainted, like a fainting spell.
	And we know that syncopes are one of the adverse events of special interest connected with the vaccine.
	So he died and it just was never included.
	And what I find really interesting is that the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine is Dr. Eric Rubin.
	Now you might find, you might, his name might ring a bell to you.
	Because it was Dr Eric Rubin that said, I believe it was last September, October time last year, this is when they approved, they're on the cusp of approving the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds.
	And he said, unless we roll out the vaccine, we won't know it's safe, unless we roll it out.
	Yes, yes.
	Unless we try chlorine gas on them, we'll never know whether they're going to go blind or not.
	We won't know.
	So he sits, he's the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, which a lot of these Pfizer and Moderna funded studies are always published there first.
	And then a few days later, it gets authorised to a lower age group.
	It's like a pattern, right?
	And they're obviously all funded by Pfizer.
	They're all connected to employees of Pfizer or Moderna.
	Anyway, so this was another thing I found was there was a woman who had lymphodynepathy, which is enlarged lymph nodes, and her oncologist said that the cause of this, it was vaccine related.
	Now the trial investigator also agreed with her oncologist, but Pfizer, it states, did not concur.
	And this was a pattern I found in a lot of these narrative reports, where Pfizer never concurred.
	It was always not vaccine-related.
	So this is truly stunning, you know, that an oncologist says this is vaccine-related, this woman's condition.
	Trial investigator agrees, but Pfizer is just like, no, no way.
	This has nothing to do with our product.
	Is that legal?
	Or is that par for the course?
	It sounds like there's been overwhelming evidence of vaccine injury, but all Pfizer has to do is say, well, we don't accept that it's vaccine injury.
	And so they produce this kind of report saying that their vaccine is safe and effective.
	I mean, there's something wrong there.
	Yes.
	Basically, we have a dereliction of duty by our key regulators.
	The pharmaceutical industry and obviously, I mean, I think Dr Asim Alhotra has done amazing work here.
	He's exposed a lot of the conflicts of interest, corruption.
	They have fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
	They are They are profit-driven, right?
	Now it's up to the regulator to promote public health, to protect the public.
	There has been a complete dereliction of duty there.
	They have failed to do it.
	They're supposed to be the watchdog.
	They're supposed to have teeth.
	They have no teeth.
	They've been removed.
	They are essentially doing the pharmaceutical industry's bidding.
	For example, Pfizer, any pharmaceutical industry, will submit their data to them and they just go on their data, not looking at the raw clinical data.
	That has never been released, the raw clinical data, and Pfizer refused to do it.
	So this is what has gone on and they have failed to do.
	Now talking about the regulators, now recently I did a two-part investigative report published in Trial Site News where I had an anonymous source gave us a whole series of leaked internal European Medicine Agency emails and also some leaked Pfizer reports between the European Medicine Agency.
	There were some PowerPoint presentations done at the meeting and there was also a rolling review assessment by the EMA, by the European Medicines Agency.
	So I went through a lot of those emails and those reports.
	I put together a report First part was done, I think it was in June, and I published the second part just very recently.
	Now what that revealed, this is truly scandalous, is that the emails speak to a few facts, two or three key facts.
	There was this intense race To authorise these vaccines.
	Almost like the regulators were competing with each other.
	Who was going to get there first?
	It happened to be the MHRA that actually got there first.
	They granted the EUA on December 1st, 2020.
	And what is really obvious is that politics was driving the science.
	Now, it's funny because in the recent meeting that happened at the European Parliament, you have Pfizer's rep, Janine Small, saying we were going at the speed of science.
	Well, they actually were going at the speed of politics and profit.
	That was what was driving everything.
	And the emails speak to that because you have emails saying Alex Azar's going hard, pushing the authorisation, he's going hard.
	You have They have, it states, Albert Buehler lobbied, Albert Buehler being of course Pfizer's CEO, lobbied Peter Marks.
	Peter Marks sits on the FDA.
	So this is, you know, you have the pharmaceutical, you know, we know they lobby, but it's just, it is all in the emails.
	But what it spoke to as well, it revealed, It's a bit of a scientific topic now, but obviously these are mRNA injections.
	Now, what it exposed was there was a significant drop in the percentage of mRNA integrity in the commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine compared to the clinical batches, which is the small-scale batches.
	So in the clinical batches, the percentage mRNA, this is how intact the mRNA molecule is in the doses, was at 78% were intact.
	in the doses, it was at 78% were intact.
	But within the commercial batches, it dropped down to 55%, which is a huge drop.
	So that means that many of the mRNA molecules were fragmented, were not intact or truncated, So they were missing either a bottom or top end.
	And they had no idea, and this is what the key regulators all admit, we have no idea how this is going to impact safety and efficacy.
	This is now, I'm talking, I'm putting this now into context on time scale.
	This was leading up to them authorizing the vaccine.
	So this is November, end of November 20, well, mid November 2020.
	And the report, I got a meeting, a PowerPoint presentation leaked between Pfizer and the European Medicines Agency.
	And they classified this drop in mRNA to integrity a major objection, a major objection.
	They also noticed they observed visible particles in the vials, which they classified as impurities.
	And this was, again, a major objection.
	Now, in the meeting, in the PowerPoint presentation meeting, It speaks to the fact that this major objection was solved by simply lowering the specification down to 50% of the mRNA integrity, down to 50%, which means that half was allowed to be fragmented.
	And we have no idea what that fragmented mRNA translates to as a protein.
	No one knows.
	So the EMA, which is in charge of regulating pharmaceutical products across the European Union.
	Its job is to make sure that this stuff is not poisonous or whatever before it authorises it.
	Decided to deal with the problem that the standards of the safety, the quality and integrity of the vaccine doses have been reduced since the trial phase.
	They dealt with the problem by dropping the safety requirements.
	By lowering the standards.
	By lowering the standards.
	That is extraordinary, you're right.
	I mean, presumably people must have objected to this within the EMA, because I imagine that some... I mean, if your job is to save ordinary people from the effects of jab injury, the people who leaked the document to you, for example, they must be white hats, no?
	Well, I was looking at a rolling review assessment.
	This is done by a committee that is in charge of all of this within the EMA.
	And they were saying, since this specification has been dropped to 50%, we need more clinical data on, you know, what's the safety, what's the efficacy effect of it?
	So it was sort of left like that, sort of hanging.
	Now, I have been in contact with the EMA.
	They promptly responded to my email because I wanted to give them a right to reply.
	This is what's happened.
	I've written on this report.
	It speaks to this loss of integrity going on here.
	It was lowered the specification and they responded saying, well, from, you know, since from beginning of December, we got a lot more information and based on that, it got approved and there was a suitable level of mRNA.
	The specification was at a suitable level.
	And I know that level's 50% but they're not, you know, they're not, they're not writing that.
	So it's like a suitable level, a suitable level.
	Now another thing I touched on was, and this is in part two, I looked at the Pfizer and BioNTech contracts with the purchases, with the countries.
	I looked at an advanced purchase agreement signed with This is and this obviously implicates Ursula von der Leyen.
	Now she single-handedly via private texts and phone calls with Albert Buehler negotiated like multi-billion euro vaccine deal with him.
	She has now the European Court of Auditors published quite a damning report recently where they called on her to disclose all the recordings of these meetings, the phone calls, the texts, the emails.
	She's refused to do so.
	So she's just, you know, said no, not go.
	Oh, no.
	She gave the excuse that these emails and texts were lost.
	She couldn't find them.
	Okay.
	So that was her answer to that.
	Now, Albert Bueller was supposed to show up at Mondays.
	I don't know if you know, but on Monday in the European Parliament, there was a hearing by the special committee on the COVID-19 pandemic.
	There was a special committee and they called many of the vaccine manufacturers.
	They sort of called them in to sort of face questions, mainly to do with the lack of transparency that has gone on.
	And Albert Bueller pulled out last minute, and this was written up in Politico, and they sent Janine Small instead, who I guess many people would have seen now, this has gone viral, has talking about, we were working at the speed of science.
	And this is where she sort of reveals that, no, of course we didn't test the product, the vaccine, if it prevented transmission.
	Based on the Dutch politician Rob Roos, he brought that up as one of the questions.
	Yes.
	And he made a big deal of it.
	It went viral, that story.
	And everyone was...
	Everyone was saying that this is the smoking gun.
	They finally admitted that they knew all along that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission.
	Therefore, the notion of dividing the sheep and the goats, you know, of punishing the unvaccinated was completely unjustified because even if you were vaccinated, you weren't prevented from transmitting it.
	That was the excitement, wasn't it?
	I don't want to burst your bubble there, James, but I'm going to.
	Go on.
	It's actually not the smoking gun, because if you go back to October 2020, well, actually, even before that, September 2020, around mid-September 2020, Pfizer released their clinical trial protocol.
	And in that protocol, they never said they were going to test the product to see if it was going to prevent transmission.
	It was all about if it was going to reduce infection, if there was going to be a drop in, you know, if there were people who were vaccinated, You know, they were less likely, less likely to get COVID.
	Right.
	So it was known all along.
	So I don't believe it's this this sort of this new revelation.
	It might be many people might not might now be aware of it.
	Yes.
	But it was known and Peter Doshi wrote an amazing article in the BMJ in October 2020.
	Sort of flagging all the flaws in the trial.
	That they weren't going to test to see if it was going to prevent hospitalizations or severe COVID.
	It was purely going to see who had, it was just targeting cases.
	And they defined a case, this is Pfizer's definition, if you were going to have a positive PCR test.
	And maybe a cough going along with it.
	So they came up with these numbers.
	This is Pfizer.
	And now within, so they came up with these numbers.
	This is Pfizer.
	Eight in the vaccine group, they said there were eight confirmed COVID cases, but in the placebo group, there were hundreds.
	And that translates to a 95% vaccine efficacy.
	Actually, I wrote on this in April of this year, and it got republished in the Brownstone Institute.
	And also Peter Doshi mentions in his report that if you looked at the FDA's briefing document on the Pfizer data, they also had a look at the not the suspected cases of COVID.
	And those were in the thousands.
	And you literally had I think the vaccine group was about 1,500 and the placebo group was about 1,800.
	They were roughly the same, you know, they were literally roughly the same.
	It was almost like around 19%.
	I mean, actually, I said it was about 12% vaccine efficacy.
	So it didn't even meet the end point.
	The end point being a 50%.
	It had to be 50% vaccine efficacy.
	It had to meet that.
	In order for it to get authorisation by the regulators.
	So I believe it failed from the beginning.
	I think it was fraudulent from the beginning, this vaccine efficacy.
	So where was the 95% from?
	I didn't really understand that point.
	It is the 8 cases in the vaccine group versus 162 in the placebo group.
	And there's a mathematical calculation where you do the math formula and that translates to 95% efficacy.
	But they only looked at confirmed cases by a positive PCR test.
	But guess where that PCR test was done?
	It was in Pfizer's own central lab.
	So you think basically that they must have cut the figures.
	There were many more in the vaccinated group.
	There were many more.
	Yes.
	So in the FDA's briefing document, again, this is online, people can go to this.
	I think, I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but you had suspected cases.
	So these were not confirmed by a PCR test.
	These were people showing symptoms.
	Right.
	So they were about 1,500 in the VAX group and about 1,800 in the placebo group.
	So they were very similar.
	Right.
	Which speaks to a much lower vaccine efficacy rate.
	Right.
	I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	Yeah, you get it.
	OK.
	So this was from December 2020.
	OK.
	These documents were available.
	So all these claims, it's so safe, it's so effective.
	I mean, going back to the claims and going back to the piece I did on the leaked EMA emails.
	Now, the French politician Michelle Rivasi, she's the MEP and she sits on this special committee looking at the COVID-19 She sits on that committee and she read my report and she then based her questions which she asked the Pfizer rep on Monday.
	So she asked about, you know, why was there this drop?
	Who lowered it?
	Why was this threshold lowered?
	And she also raised a point, and this is what I wrote about, that the purchases, the countries who purchase these vaccines, are prohibited from testing the vials and doing a quality test to see if they conform to the product label.
	So we are, they are only going, these are the regulators, they are only going on what Pfizer is telling them.
	And Pfizer is supposed to do a quality test on the batches, but Pfizer themselves fail to do a quality test at the vial level.
	Now in a vial you have about five or six doses.
	So we have no way of knowing if they say there's 30 micrograms of mRNA, Which we know is the specification on the Pfizer vax.
	If it really is 30 micrograms, it could be 100, it could be 2, or it could be 0.
	Right?
	There is a huge discrepancy between these batches.
	And Sasha Latipova, so she is a clinical trial expert, she's written, she's done some amazing reports on this.
	And she really is an expert in this field.
	So I encourage your listeners to read her reports as well.
	And so these are huge red flags, right?
	We just don't, you don't know what you're getting, essentially.
	And there is a website called How Bad Is My Batch?
	Yes.
	Which is a comprehensive database which speaks to batch numbers, no, lot numbers, and then all the adverse events, deaths, hospitalizations that are related to that lot number.
	So I'm wondering, this is what, is it to do with the mRNA specification?
	There's this, you know, different levels Are we getting, in some batches, you're getting a lot of fragmented RNA molecules and then that, is that causing adverse events?
	So this is really concerning, very worrying, and it's just, it's just hidden.
	It's just swept under the carpet.
	And when I asked again the EMA, because we're sort of going back and forth now with emails, and I said, well, Has the regulator, has the EMA, independently tested the vials?
	At the vial level, you know, does it conform to the product label?
	And they respond by saying the vaccine manufacturer, the Pfizer, they are doing the testing and they, you know, so they're relying on reports from the vaccine manufacturer.
	They're not doing it themselves.
	And I'm the same as with the MHRA.
	I mean, I think across the board here, you have regulators assent failing to do their job.
	You know, it's a dereliction of duty.
	In these hearings, you say that there were other vaccine manufacturers as well.
	Did they all come across as similarly shifty to Pfizer?
	Yes, in a way.
	I mean, I've sort of watched snippets of a bit.
	I was focusing more on what Pfizer was saying.
	I know Novavax was there.
	I'm sure Moderna was there.
	I need to go back and watch the whole hearing in its entirety.
	I was focusing more on what the questions to Pfizer.
	But I mean, there's, I would say there's been a lack of transparency.
	A lot of these claims, a lot of assumptions were made by politicians, by obviously the media, you know, always saying, you know, it's going to prevent transmission, you're not going to get it if you get in.
	The real world data There's a completely different picture, doesn't it?
	The real world data speaks to negative vaccine efficacy.
	Now when you go into the negative, when it's to do with vaccine efficacy, that means you're more likely to get the virus if you are vaccinated.
	Which is anecdotally obvious from anyone who's not vaccinated and has watched all their vaccinated friends get so-called Covid again and again.
	But yeah, I see that.
	It's all starting to come out.
	But as you say, this information has been actually available since 2020.
	You mentioned, I don't know, Peter Doshi.
	He's obviously a proper investigative journalist.
	Yeah, he works with the BMJ, yes.
	Yes, but the BMJ I would consider generally completely contaminated.
	I mean, you know, bent as a nine bob note.
	It's like all the medical journals are not trustworthy.
	We saw what the None of them has come out smelling of violence?
	No, I understand that.
	The reports that he's written, I mean, I believe they're excellent, what he's done.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, he's done some great work there.
	I wouldn't knock him.
	Do you have any theories?
	I think I do, but I'll ask you first.
	I mean, okay, so you've got Peter Doshi, you've got Nemi, Naomi Wolf, doing this stuff in America.
	You've been doing this in the UK, going through the Pfizer data dump.
	This stuff should be all over the newspapers, because after all, I mean, we went through two years of you're all going to die unless we deal with this unprecedented pandemic.
	It dominated everyone's lives for two years.
	Lots of people got this experimental medical procedure injected into their arm on the basis of it, and a lot of people have got long-term medical conditions or are dead as a result.
	You would think, would you not, that maybe A degree of curiosity might have been shown by the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the BBC, all these journalistic institutions.
	I mean, quite a topical subject, wouldn't you say, if the vaccine companies have not done proper testing or rather have lied about test results in order to push forward these vaccines with the collusion of people like Ursula von der Leyen and the regulatory bodies.
	To my mind, that's a pretty big story.
	So why is it not being covered?
	Exactly.
	Why has it not been covered?
	And that speaks to a captured corporate media, as you are well aware of, you know.
	Surely not.
	And that speaks to the medical journals, and it speaks to big tech, obviously censoring.
	I mean, I interviewed recently Janine Yunus, And she's a civil litigator involved in the big lawsuit against the US federal government regarding online censorship.
	And she represents Jay Bhattacharya and many of the other founders of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	And so they've had a few victories.
	They recently got disclosure.
	So a lot of these sort of federal government agencies had to disclose emails and And sort of just documents and it's very damning because you have the White House ordering, essentially ordering, you know, coercing Big Tech.
	Why didn't that coercing?
	Maybe more of a collusion going on for, you know, to do the censoring.
	So Big Tech is doing the government's bidding there to shut down any dissenting voice, anybody that is sort of Questioning or just sort of, yes, even questioning is shut down.
	No debate is allowed.
	It's by diktat.
	It's like, this is how it's going to go.
	This is the official narrative.
	Anybody speaking out will be deplatformed.
	So many accounts.
	I mean, just recently, Dr Peter McCullough's Twitter account, he was booted off Twitter, essentially.
	And many others.
	And it's just, it's really, it's unconscionable what has gone on.
	And even the, going back to the Pfizer contracts, actually there's a legal implication, even unconscionable is a legal term.
	And it speaks to, it describes terms that are so unjust, Overwhelmingly one-sided and these countries have signed and Public Citizen is an amazing website as a resource to go to.
	to actually look and see these leaked documents, these leaked contracts, where you have countries, and I looked at the Albania contract, waiving their sovereign immunity, which means that Pfizer and BioNTech, and everyone misses out BioNTech, BioNTech are the, they have the MAAH, the Manufacturing Authorization, they are the Manufacturing Authorization Holder in these contracts, and they are obviously, they
	They're a co-manufacturer.
	They work with Pfizer.
	They can go after a country's sovereign assets if that country fails to pay, right?
	They have complete immunity.
	Now, that speaks to all legal liability has been removed.
	So any harm, any damages, anything arising out of the deployment and use of the vaccine, they have complete immunity to.
	Isn't that shocking?
	And it's the countries, it's the purchaser who takes on the liability.
	So when some, if this is just, um, I don't, I can't even describe a word to describe this.
	It's, it's really, uh, it's, it's so unjust, uh, that... It's unconscionable, isn't it?
	Yes, it's unconscionable.
	That's the word.
	That is the word.
	That is the word.
	And, and these countries, so these are predatory contracts.
	Pfizer has essentially bullied the nations.
	And I haven't looked at the Moderna contracts.
	I'm sure they're just as bad.
	But Pfizer, we know, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, that was rolled out the most, right?
	It was the most widely used COVID-19 vaccine.
	And they also prohibited, and this is the question that Michelle Rivasi raised on Monday to Pfizer's Janine Small, Why are countries not allowed to test the product, test the vaccine?
	They're prohibited and that's in the contract.
	That's extraordinary.
	Now isn't that extraordinary?
	So let's say you have a defective product and obviously we have the lowering of the mRNA specification that speaks to A product that is defective, right?
	It doesn't meet the, you know, and then you have these impurities, these observed particles, and obviously there's lots of reports talking about that.
	What are these particles?
	And there's no way of testing it.
	They're only allowed to visually inspect the vials.
	To visually inspect it.
	That's just crazy, isn't it?
	It's insanity.
	I mean, I And you just have the regulators going along with it, nodding their heads, you know, nodding their heads.
	You have the media nodding their heads, you know.
	We just have a lot of talking heads going on.
	And what is so harmful is that it's the public that have lost out here, right?
	You know, this is a growth miscarriage of, you know, the science has been hijacked in a way, right?
	Right? - Yes.
	- It's, there's, they've rushed everything through It's this sort of going at lightning speed.
	And the most robust assessments that are supposed to have occurred...
	Which the EMA emails speak to, because you have a few officials actually concerned, like, well, how are we going to do, how are we going to have a robust assessment if we have to meet these deadlines?
	I mean, literally, they all had to, you know, before Christmas of 2020, they had to get it authorised.
	Of course corners are going to get cut.
	Yes.
	Of course you can't do a thorough safety assessment if you're just speeding through, right?
	Rushing through.
	And it's, you know, the politics, again, the profits driving supposedly the science.
	Yes.
	I remember reading from your article on the Ursula von der Leyen.
	How do you pronounce her name?
	Von der Leyen?
	Well, I think lion is probably better because, yeah, I mean, even if it's incorrect pronunciation, I think it's more, I mean, Ursula von der Leyen a lot.
	When she was pushing for these vaccines that aren't vaccines to be authorised, there were kind of two mechanisms she could have used and The one that she went for is the one that indemnified the vaccine companies the most.
	Right.
	Is that right?
	I'm going to just, yes, I'm just going to clarify.
	So, they went for the conditional marketing authorisation.
	Now, it's a bit of a paradox.
	So, on the actual website, the European Parliament website, if you actually go through the conditional marketing authorisation, the liability is supposed to pass along to the manufacturer.
	Right.
	So, they use that as the guise.
	Right?
	It's the manufacturer because it's a CMA, it's a Conditional Marketing Authorisation.
	This is what we've granted.
	But what these emails reveal, which I did write about, and this is in Part 2, the second part, was that she was willing to call every health minister herself to make sure they avoided Article 5.2.
	Now, Article 5.2 is the nation's own EUA, Emergency Use Authorization, which means the temporary authorization use, sorry, the temporary use of an unauthorized product. If it remained, the temporary use of an unauthorized product. If it remained, if they went down the Article 5.2 route.
	But that could be coupled with Article 5.3, which was also revealed in the email, which speaks to whether or not a nation was going to give indemnity to the vaccine manufacturer.
	So if they had gone down Article 5.2.
	It may or may not have been coupled with 5.3, so I think it would have given the nations more sort of leeway to whether they're going to give indemnity or not.
	Yes.
	They had more choice.
	They would have maybe even done their own analysis of the product.
	But she signed the APA, the Advanced Purchase Agreement, was done in November 2020.
	That was when it was signed, which had a clause about indemnity.
	And then CMA was granted a month later.
	So even though CMA speaks to, well, it's the liability, the manufacturer has a liability, but the contract that was signed a month before, the vaccine manufacturer had enjoyed indemnity.
	That was a clause in the contract.
	If I understand it right, Ursula von der Leyen basically cobbled this agreement together on the phone with her mate Albert Buller, the head of Pfizer, and nobody else was privy to their discussions.
	So, I mean, what was that contract worth?
	So, I mean, you know, obviously we have several contracts that have signed.
	So, I looked at the Advanced Purchase Agreement, which was the first one.
	There's been a few.
	Now, what is also interesting is that the price of the vaccine goes up.
	So, it starts off at €15, €15.50 plus VAT, and that was for 200 million doses.
	Right.
	So times 15.5.
	And then the last series of contracts, it goes to 19 euros.
	So she's single handedly, this is like the worst contract ever.
	This is the worst.
	Totally.
	Rather than it going down in price when you're rolling it out to more and more and more, you know, and this is, you know, now we're not under a time crunch.
	This is like a lot of time has passed.
	You think they would have renegotiated a better contract?
	Wouldn't you?
	For the whole of the EU?
	I mean, you're talking about 27 member states?
	It's extraordinary.
	I mean, it does rather confirm all those of us who consider the European Union to be a deeply anti-democratic organization which has no interest whatsoever in preserving, in looking after the interests of member states.
	And here is this woman, this unelected technocrat.
	What's her title, Ursula von der Leyen?
	She's the President of the European Commission.
	Okay, so the President of the European Commission, on behalf of all the member states, decides that it's in their best interests to sign this contract where any liability for these vaccines that they cannot test themselves, any liability arising from injuries etc, will be paid for by these sovereign states rather than the vaccine company.
	And mysteriously she's lost the notes of the conversation where she had this.
	I mean, I don't want to kind of get myself in trouble with libel lawyers here, but is it not possible that maybe she might have benefited somehow from this relationship financially?
	I mean, if we looked at her bank account, I wonder whether we'd see... There's something fishy going on, isn't there, anyway?
	Yes, obviously I can't, I can't speak on that.
	If I, if I obviously had the evidence, I would.
	Well, obviously, yeah, yeah.
	I'm sure she's completely innocent.
	It was just, it was just a, it was just a simple mistake that anyone could make when negotiating a huge deal.
	Okay.
	I wanted to just mention, going back to the Conditional Marketing Authorisation, they had the veneer, right, I would say the veneer of being equitable, because part of the objectives with the EU's Covid-19 strategy was that all member states would have the vaccine at the same time.
	So they sort of argue that the downside, that's why they didn't want to use Article 5.2, because it meant that member states would have access to the vaccine at different times, depending on how quickly they would authorise their own EUA, their own emergency use authorisation.
	So they use the excuse of it not being equitable.
	Right.
	That was their argument.
	I just wanted to mention that.
	And you have, you know, so you have Ursula on the outside being all about, you know, it's all about being, you know, everyone's on the same playing field.
	We will have, it's all fair.
	This is all fair.
	So if you let, allow me, if you give, if you agree to a CMA, that means I can negotiate for, on everybody's behalf, You know, and get a good contract, like, get a good deal out of this.
	Yeah, good old us, you know, she'll sort it out.
	Doing us all a favour, right?
	Don't worry, I'll take it off your hands and leave it to me to handle.
	And now you had a... what she also contravened was that there was a steering board set up where they would need to be, they needed to be, they needed to be able to evaluate the process on every level, right?
	And she completely ignored that.
	So they had made a decision.
	So if she was going to do this, the EC was going to, the European Commission was going to negotiate and do this contract.
	The steering board had to be sort of involved at every level of these negotiations.
	They weren't.
	They weren't at all.
	So she's, you know, she's gone against that.
	She's refused, you know, again, going back to the European Court of Auditors, they've asked her to disclose all her messages, emails, any notes, any recordings, anything to do with any preliminary meetings.
	She's completely ignored them and just saying, well, not ignored, she's just said, I don't have it.
	It's lost.
	Okay.
	So, We're at the reveal stage of the pandemic plan.
	You must be familiar with the SPARS document, which essentially outlined the whole trajectory of the pandemic that isn't a pandemic.
	In about 2017, 2019, John Hopkins produced this document where they described every moment, you know, the mysterious flu outbreak in Wuhan, the rushing out of these emergency vaccines and how to rush them out, followed by the stage where Page 59.
	Everyone wakes up.
	There are vaccine injuries and the governments have to apologise to the public for what's been happening.
	I think we're about there now.
	Even people who are not so-called conspiracy theorists are now aware that something dodgy is happening with the vaccine.
	So my question to you is, Do you think that people like Ursula von der Leyen were always earmarked to be sacrificial lambs?
	Do you reckon that we're going to see heads rolling?
	Is Albert Bourla going to go?
	Clearly there's got to be payback for this.
	The public's going to demand this.
	So where's it going to go, would you say?
	I mean, this is why you're seeing this level of censorship take place.
	You know, this constant, you know, shutting down of people speaking about this because the stakes are just too high, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so they will, I don't, I personally don't think they'll ever admit this because it's just, there's too many, the ramifications are enormous here.
	Yes.
	You know, are enormous.
	We're talking about people's lives, their health, or lack of health, right?
	And of good health.
	And the billions and billions.
	Let's not forget, of course, this is—and I'm obviously just speaking about Pfizer and Pfizer-BioNTech's product here—the most successful product ever they've ever had.
	They've made billions and billions of this.
	And if you even backtrack and go back, let's say in, you know, 2017, looking They couldn't bring an mRNA injection to market before COVID hit, right?
	Because all their testings and their trials, the animals died.
	It wasn't successful.
	Yeah.
	They just couldn't get it off the ground.
	And this is in their Security Exchange Commission filings.
	They're talking to their shareholders.
	They're worried.
	Like, this is, how are we going to make this mRNA product succeed, right?
	Poor Pfizer.
	Yeah.
	We killed all the animals, so poor us!
	What are we going to do?
	How are we going to rape the consumer now?
	I just wanted again to talk about the Security Exchange Commission filings for Pfizer and Moderna.
	They classify their product as a gene therapy product, not as a vaccine.
	Very interesting, as a gene therapy product.
	Now, Going back to my earlier Pfizer reports, my investigative reports where I'm looking through the data and all of that, you looked at their clinical, you know, their non-clinical data.
	So, this is to do with the animals and the rats and the testings that they did.
	They failed to do, they didn't do, there were no carcinogenicity studies were done, no genotoxicity studies were ever done.
	And these should have been done because it's classified as a gene therapy product.
	So they didn't do the sort of safety checklist against a gene therapy product.
	They did against a vaccine.
	But this isn't a traditional vaccine at all.
	It's a gene therapy product.
	No pharmacokinetic studies were done.
	I mean, I did a whole list of all the studies that were lacking, and they used the excuse They gave a WHO guideline, I think it was a 2005 guideline, where they don't need to do it based on this guideline.
	I went to the guideline, I looked at it, I sort of researched it, and it actually does say if there are novel excipients, Then these should be done, these studies.
	Now if you look at the, and both Pfizer and Moderna have these novel excipients, these are the nanolipid, sorry, the lipid nanoparticles.
	Now two of those compounds, there's four, but out of the four, two are completely novel.
	You've got ALC, 0519, I can't remember all the numbers, I'm sorry, but they're ALC in a series of numbers.
	There's two of them.
	One that contains PEG.
	PEG is polyethylene glycol, which is highly toxic and can lead to anaphylaxis.
	Now this ties back to that early report I did where there was a lot of anaphylaxis cases.
	This was in their post-authorisation report, mainly from women having anaphylaxis.
	That's Titopeg, right?
	And that's another excipient.
	It's never been used in a medicinal product before.
	That you inject, right, inside a body, peg.
	And then you have a cationic Lipid nanoparticle, which is like a charged lipid nanoparticle, that again is highly toxic.
	And you look at the scientific literature based on that, it's really alarming what you read when you look at that.
	So you have these novel excipients and nothing was done, no extra studies were done because they were said, you know, let's maybe do a bit more safety checks here.
	Yeah.
	And the regulators didn't do them.
	It's just, it didn't push for it, you know?
	And that is, that's it again, a complete dereliction of their duty.
	But so I can see there is so much space for massive buck passing here, because you've got, well, okay, so you've got people like Ursula von der Leyen not revealing their private conversations, so that muddies the waters.
	And then you've, no doubt you'll have the The vaccine manufacturers have arranged these contracts, which seem to be watertight.
	So then the buck is passed to the governments and the regulatory agencies that commissioned, that was supposed to oversee the release of these vaccines and so on and so forth.
	Do you think... Do you know where the buck has finally rested on?
	No, tell me.
	The taxpayer.
	Us, the taxpayer, because it's the taxpayer.
	So when the governments have to pay out for damages, you know, people that have been vaccine injured, that's the taxpayer paying for that.
	Do you know what, Sonia?
	I reckon that was always the plan.
	I think they knew that all along.
	Bruce, you're right, I mean, the UK government pays a paltry maximum of £120,000, I think it is, to people, you know, even if you've lost a leg, that's all you get.
	But we're on the hook for that.
	We taxpayers, and I guess it's the same elsewhere.
	There is a sort of ray of hope, which I'm sure is going to be obliterated, which is that, am I not right in thinking that if it can be demonstrated that the vaccine manufacturers lied, that they cheated the whole process, that that somehow nullifies the indemnity clause?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And that's why I've been pushing for the, you know, we know that these products have not been tested again at the vial level.
	Do they even conform to the product label?
	If they don't, then that should be, these are defective products.
	They don't even, you know, we know there's lots of fragmented RNA or these impurities.
	And it was based on it, again, that it was going to be safe and effective.
	And that never was, I don't believe that ever was the case. - Yeah. - Right?
	Going back to their claim of 95% efficacy.
	I mean, I wrote again, wrote about that, that it probably more like 12, 15%.
	I had a lot of, USA Today did a hit piece on me Oh did they?
	Oh yes, yes.
	Tell me about the hit piece.
	Oh well, oh my goodness.
	So I wrote it in April and then I hadn't read actually Peter Doshi's report on it.
	I hadn't read that.
	I was just going through the documents and I noticed, hang on a minute, that all these unconfirmed cases in their thousands This is within the clinical trial.
	Yeah.
	And the numbers are sort of on par between the vaccine group and the placebo group.
	So this vaccine is supposed to be effective.
	Why are we not seeing a significant difference here between the two groups?
	So you're looking at 12% or 19.
	I think Peter Doshi had a 19%.
	Mine was 12.
	I think Peter Doshi had a 19%, mine was 12.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And the, the US, so I, so then the Brownstone Institute republished my report.
	And then it just went viral because I suddenly had USA Today, they're all contacting me to like, you know, I was writing this piece, you've said this.
	And I just knew it was going to be hit pieces.
	I just knew it.
	So I thought, you know what, like, let them write what they're going to write.
	I really don't care.
	And yeah, I think Le Monde in France and like this, you've just, yeah, there's a lot.
	And it was like this This sort of claim that it's, you know, it's not, you know, 95% is fraudulent and it's all the source of it is a substat by Sonia Elijah.
	It's quite amusing.
	I want to know how they belittled you and dismissed you.
	OK.
	Oh, I think, you know, who does this sort of investigative journalist think she is?
	You know, she's an expert and blah, blah, blah.
	And it's funny because I'm literally using Pfizer's own data.
	Yeah.
	And I never said it was part of the data dump.
	This is the FDA's briefing document that's been available on their website since December 2020.
	This was to do with the Pfizer, the dumpings, you know, what was disclosed later on.
	And Again, going back to the, and I've done a lot of reports on PCR and how, depending on the cycle threshold, if it's 40, you know, I think if it's like anything above 38 or 40, you're looking at it like, I think, A 95% false positive rate.
	Yes.
	Jeff Farrattel did a study done on that.
	I think there was a ruling done in a Portuguese court that said it was unlawful, right?
	So there's a lot of scandal with these PCR tests.
	So Pfizer only used a PCR test to confirm whether it was a Covid case or not.
	And that was done in their own central laboratory.
	We have no idea of knowing What cycle threshold they used, and we know the trial was essentially unblinded, right?
	Because if there was a Covid case, it was unblinded.
	So if they had a case, which threshold were they using?
	Were they ramping it up to make sure it was going to be a Covid positive case, if it was coming from the We've no way of knowing.
	I mean, there's a lot of questions here.
	I can't, you know, say this is exactly what they've done.
	I don't know, but I know it was in a central lab and there's a lot of, they're highly inaccurate, these PCR tests.
	But the cases that were unconfirmed but symptomatic, having all the symptoms of COVID, The numbers between the two groups were very similar.
	Well, Sonia, congratulations for doing...
	Almost single-handedly, you and Naomi and Peter Daschle, what all medical journalists should have been doing and aren't, and it's a scandal that, among many scandals, that they haven't.
	I mean, this should be on the front page of every newspaper, and of course they're part of the cover-up instead.
	So thank you very much for keeping us up to date.
	Where can people read your stuff?
	So, they can obviously, they can go to my sub stack, they can subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates.
	And I also, I primarily write for Trial Site News, which they can subscribe to.
	I think it's, you have at least 10 articles they can read for free a month.
	It's a great platform for, you know, transparency and medical research news.
	And I also do interviews as well.
	And I did actually a really good one recently on with Dr. Andrew Huff, which they it's really worth watching.
	And actually, I really think you should interview him yourself.
	He was he was EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower.
	Oh, okay.
	Yes, it was really shocking what he did.
	What, is it better than this interview?
	Are you saying that this was really crap and that people should go to the Andrew Huff one with you now?
	Oh no!
	What are you saying, Sonia?
	Yeah, your questions were shit, James.
	I was so much better with Andrew Huff.
	And yeah, no, I just, yeah, I'm just, I will, I will keep writing and hopefully I won't get kicked off Twitter.
	They can follow me there, but I'm also on Getter and it's at Sonia underscore Elijah.
	And yeah, I have a brand new YouTube channel, but I know they actually had a lot of problems with their, you know, their, their, their, their website getting hacked recently.
	So it's just, yeah, you know, I will continue doing what I'm doing.
	Yeah, until Big Pharma bump you off.
	I mean, you know they do that.
	No, I'm praying for you, Sonia.
	I'm sure they won't get you.
	No, not just yet.
	Anyway, thank you, Sonia.
	I'll put all your details Down at the bottom so people can follow up because you're well worth reading.
	And thank you, dear viewers and listeners.
	I really appreciate your support.
	And if you want to help me out, you can find me on Locals and on Subscribestar and on Patreon and Substack.
	So please do support me as well.
	I really appreciate it.
	Thanks very much again, Sonia.
	It's great talking to you.
	Thank you, James, for having me on again.
	Thank you.

▲