A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Trying to convince some 100 million unvaccinated Americans to get a Covid shot, U.S. federal regulators have just authorized another Covid vaccine called Novavax. The reasoning behind the move is that if a person is hesitant to take gene-editing mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna or vector-based Johnson & Johnson, he or she would probably find a vaccine that uses moth cells to grow the most toxic part of the virus — spike protein — a “safer” option.
Commenting on the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Novavax, FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf said, “Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization.”
Despite such claims, FDA-authorized Covid vaccines already in use are associated with more than 1.3 million adverse events and more than 29,000 deaths. Those numbers, apparently, are not significant, and the FDA’s sister agency, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), does not even evaluate them. Moreover, the FDA has been sued to release all documents that it was supposed to review prior to granting full approval to Pfizer-BioNTech. The agency refused, saying it needed at least 75 years to release the documents it reviewed within nine months, although the judge gave the regulators until August 2022 to make them public. Analysis of the data presented to the FDA revealed that the shots are ineffective at preventing Covid and were clinically shown to cause a wide range of severe adverse reactions, including for pregnant women and their babies. Then, there are FDA documents explicitly showing more than 40,000 adverse reactions and 1,200 deaths linked to the Pfizer shot in just two and a half months of its being administered to the public. Yet the FDA finds nothing troubling about that.
The Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted is administered as a two-dose primary series, three weeks apart. The vaccine contains the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and Matrix-M adjuvant. Adjuvants are incorporated into some vaccines to enhance the immune response of the vaccinated individual. The spike protein in this vaccine is produced in insect cells; the Matrix M-adjuvant contains saponin extracts from the bark of the Soapbark tree that is native to Chile.
Novavax describes the steps in the creation of its investigational vaccines, including those for Covid.
An “investigational” medical product means that it is experimental and “is being studied to see if your disease or medical condition improves while taking it,” according to the FDA.
The narrator describes how researchers at Novavax “hijack the ovaries of the fall armyworm” and infect them with a genetically-modified baculovirus (a type of insect virus) to contain SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.” Then, just like human cells, moths’ cells produce spike proteins and then antigen proteins, so “the match is perfect,” explained the president of research and development of Novavax, Gregory Glenn, in the video.
Speaking with The New American in July of 2021, Dr. Richard Fleming warned against using Novavax, arguing that the spike protein is an actual biological weapon.
Regarding the safety of the shot, it is linked to the increased risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart), injection-site reactions (pain, redness, swelling, itching), general side effects (fatigue, joint pain, vomiting, muscle pain, etc.), and allergic reactions, according to the FDA. There are no long-term safety studies of the shots. Some of the participants were observed for just four months.
Regulators estimated that the new shot was 90.4-percent effective in preventing mild, moderate, or severe Covid. The figure was lower for those over the age of 65, standing at 78.6 percent. It is not clear how long this immunity lasts, or whether additional doses will be required to maintain this level of protection.
Additionally, unlike the mRNA-based competitor vaccines, Novavax is much more forgiving in terms of storage and does not require storage in subfreezing temperatures. It is also said to have a longer shelf life.
The shot comes in 10-dose vials, which suggests that it would be challenging to get a consistent quantity of the antigen and adjuvant across the 10 different draws from the vial.
The FDA’s advisory panel on vaccines, the Vaccines and Related Biological Product Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), endorsed the use of Novavax on June 7.
There are still unanswered questions regarding the studies showing that the Matrix-X adjuvant is safe. It was mentioned during the discussion that there are studies ongoing in West Africa to estimate the safety, though they are not yet concluded. Gregory Glenn told NBC Chicago that each such adjuvant particle is “basically a soap bubble. It’s made of stuff that you find in root beer.” That may be, but is it safe to mix with moth-produced proteins and inject it into humans?
It also is not clear whether the shot produces sterilizing immunity (meaning, the recipient does not get infected with Covid), and whether it protects against omicron (it was not yet circulating during the clinicals and is not listed on the company’s presentation slides).
When considering taking Novavax, one should be aware that there have been unexplained irregularities during the trials that are described here.
According to Novavax, even before the FDA formally authorized the short, the Biden administration had placed an order for 3.2 million doses of the new shot. However, it won’t be available until the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) approves it. Currently, the committee is scheduled to meet July 19.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Three physicians have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this month for the agency’s “crusade” against ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. The lawsuit contends the FDA “unlawfully interfered” with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine by directing the public, health professionals, and patients not to use ivermectin.
The Epoch Timesreports that Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik filed the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. In addition to the FDA, the suit names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and Acting FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The physicians are represented by Boyden, Gray & Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA acted outside of its authority, which is limited to approving drugs and drug labeling.
“The FDA generally cannot ban particular use of human drugs once they are otherwise approved and admitted to the market, even if such use differs from the labeling — commonly referred to as “off-label” use,” the lawsuit reads. “The FDA also cannot advise whether a patient should take an approved drug for a particular purpose. Those decisions fall within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship. Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states.”
The lawsuit specifically cites an FDA publication titled, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and several tweets from the FDA discouraging the use of ivermectin as examples of FDA interference.
One such tweet includes a photo of a doctor with a horse beside an image of a doctor with a patient. The tweet reads, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
The tweet is intentionally misleading, as ivermectin has, in fact, been approved by the FDA for human use. Newsmax reported that though ivermectin was developed in the 1970s as a treatment for parasitic diseases in livestock, it became hailed as a “wonder drug” and received approval for human use against diseases such as river blindness. The Epoch Times observed it has been used widely since 1987, even earning William Campbell and Satoshi Omura the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research on the drug.
The plaintiffs contend that the FDA’s unlawful interference in the practice of medicine creates a dangerous precedent that will “metastasize to other circumstances, destroying the carefully constructed statutory wall between federal and state regulatory powers, and between the FDA and the professional judgment of health professionals.”
The plaintiffs have seen first-hand the dangers that this interference can create.
“Doctors are increasingly employees of entities that look to the FDA for guidance and enforce standards accordingly,” the lawsuit argues.
As such, despite the plaintiffs’ extensive academic and professional credentials, all of which are outlined in the lawsuit, they all faced disciplinary action for treating their patients with ivermectin.
Dr. Apter, despite his 99.8-percent success rate in treating Covid-19 patients, was referred to the Washington Medical Commission and Arizona Medical Board for disciplinary proceedings for prescribing ivermectin as part of his Covid treatment, The Epoch Times report.
Apter asserted in a press release that the FDA’s treatment of ivermectin has resulted in disciplinary actions against doctors and inhibited physician freedom to treat patients according to their best judgment, resulting in more deaths and serious disabilities. He adds the FDA’s interference has been so overreaching that even pharmacies have refused to fill ivermectin prescriptions.
Like Apter, plaintiff Dr. Mary Bowden also successfully treated Covid-19 patients with ivermectin before being forced to resign by her employer, Houston Methodist Hospital.
Bowden told The Defender that she initially supported the widespread vaccines for Covid until she noticed the prevalence of breakthrough cases and adverse reactions to the vaccine.
“If I hadn’t seen that firsthand,” she said, referring to the adverse reactions, “I would still think the vaccine was the way to go.”
Prompted by the realization that the vaccines were not the answer to the pandemic, Bowden created her own Covid protocol, which includes ivermectin, vitamins C and D, quercetin, zinc, and black seed oil. She said the results were excellent.
Similarly, Dr. Paul Marik developed a Covid-19 Management Protocol for the Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia, where he worked from 2009 to 2021. Dr. Marik also served as director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital until he was forced out of both positions for promoting the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19.
Marik contends that the FDA’s attempt to stop the use of ivermectin for Covid has “led to innumerable hospitalizations and deaths, and caused extreme distress for patients, their families, and health professionals.”
The plaintiffs’ successes in treating Covid-19 with ivermectin are not unique to them. Studies continue to show the drug is associated with lower Covid-19 death rates, but ivermectin continues to be demonized by the FDA and the mainstream media.
Despite the evidence that ivermectin is a viable treatment for Covid-19, the plaintiffs contend the lawsuit is not about the drug’s effectiveness, but about “who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.”
The lawsuit argues the FDA acted in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which expressly states that nothing in the FDCA “shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”
The plaintiffs are asking the court to hold the FDA’s actions unlawful, issue declaratory relief declaring the Defendants’ actions unlawful, and issue declaratory relief declaring that the FDA cannot interfere with the practice of medicine. The lawsuit also asks for injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from engaging in such actions as to interfere with the practice of medicine and issue statements or directives dictating the off-label use of ivermectin. Plaintiffs are also seeking attorney fees and allowable costs, and any further relief “to which they are justly entitled at law and in equity.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Last October, a conscientious whistleblower at Abbott Nutrition wrote a letter directly to the interim chief of the FDA, acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock, and others. He claimed there were serious problems at the company’s Sturgis, Mich. plant.
But the current head of the agency, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, will testify before a congressional committee today that the top levels of the agency weren’t aware of the whistleblower’s report because of “mailroom issues.”
Dozens of infants are currently being hospitalized because the specialty formula they depend on to survive is out of stock.
Up until now, however, FDA officials declined to comment on why it took months between the first report of a bacterial infection linked to the plant last September, their inspection this winter, which turned up a range of food safety problems, and the recall. But the new details aren’t likely to tamp down the criticism of the agency, rather, they are already fueling further outrage from lawmakers.
“The FDA, at every step of this process, dropped the ball,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO in an interview about the new details revealed in the testimony. “It put infants at risk.”
It actually gets worse. Despite getting the first reports of probable contamination in January, the Sturgis plant wasn’t shut down until mid-February. Even before then, there were internal discussions at the FDA about potential supply disruptions. This was critical because the Abbott plant supplies half the infant formula in the United States for the WIC program — the government food program for infants being raised mostly by single mothers.
The FDA timeline laid out in the prepared testimony acknowledges the FDA didn’t hold interagency discussions about potential supply chain disruptions until Feb. 14, three days before the Abbott Nutrition plant at the center of the current shortages shut down and issued a formula recall. And the agency didn’t notify the Agriculture Department, which oversees a critical federal nutrition program that purchases about half of the nation’s infant formula, about potential disruptions until a week before the Abbott plant shut down. The program, known as WIC, serves 1.2 million infants from low-income families. Abbott supplies nearly half of all infant formula provided through WIC state contracts.
Why did it take the FDA until the end of January to begin its inspection of Abbott’s Sturgis plant, despite receiving warnings last fall? The FDA blames the staff at Sturgis for delaying their inspection because of COVID-19 staffing issues.
And despite parents screaming for more formula for the first two weeks in May (when the issue finally became news), it wasn’t until May 16 that the government reached an agreement with Abbott to reopen its Sturgis plant.
The White House is playing dumb and trying to deflect media attention toward the FDA.
The White House has also ducked questions about its own timeline in responding to the recall and ensuing shortages. Asked by POLITICO about when the FDA told the White House of the issues at the Sturgis plant and any concerns about potential shortages, a senior administration official said they would not comment on “internal communications.” “The recall became public on February 17 and we certainly have been very public about our activity in this space since then,” the official added.
What should have been a small, temporary supply disruption has become a national crisis because of the incompetence of the Biden administration and the general stupidity of big government. The media has already advanced the narrative that this isn’t Biden’s fault, that it was shortages caused by the pandemic, and that the company is at fault for running an unsanitary plant.
But the very regulations and procedures set up by the government to deal with a crisis like this failed in a spectacular fashion. And that’s on Biden.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A tip of the tinfoil hat to my conspiracy theory friends. You’re right again.
The president of the United States would NEVER hand over immense power regarding healthcare, travel, and censorship to the World Health Organization (WHO), right?
Tucker Carlson broke a story on Thursday that every American needs to understand regarding the “Global Pandemic Treaty.”
This January, the Biden administration submitted a series of proposed amendments to something called the International Health Regulations (the IHR). Now, the Biden administration’s amendments, along with those from several other countries, will be combined to create a new global pandemic treaty. “We need a pandemic treaty.” That treaty is set to be adopted starting this weekend in Geneva at the World Health Assembly.
Now, the full text of the treaty is not yet finished, but a W.H.O. working group has summarized what it’s going to look like. The document begins by promising to restrict the W.H.O’s authority just to pandemics. Calm down, it’s just pandemics: “W.H.O. Secretariat to play the leading, convening and coordinating role in operational aspects of emergency response to a pandemic.”
to censor any “disinformation” that doesn’t agree with what they say
have real-time information about when/where YOU travel. You know, for the “health security of the world, comrade”
That means unelected officials from other countries will have a ridiculous amount of power over Americans. There is no apparent accountability. I think the word for this is “communism.” Can it REALLY happen? Buckle up.
Centralized Control: The WHO Treaty & Amendments Unleash Tedros as Health Dictator of the World – Tucker Carlson The WHO's Would-Be Treaty Powers 1.) The authority to declare what constitutes a pandemic. It could be the flu. 2.)https://t.co/J2nMn40pOvpic.twitter.com/TZkFyRd3JN
President Trump removed the U.S. from the WHO and Gropey Joe brought us back in
The WHO lied and ran cover for China during the “pandemic.” China claimed COVID couldn’t be transmitted from human to human. The WHO backed up that lie. WHO covered for China re: the origins of the Hong Kong Fluey. The WHO’s bigwig, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, went so far as to congratulate China on its handling of the Bat Stew Flu
Tedros is from Ethiopia. He once called an outbreak of cholera a simple case of “acute watery diarrhea” among a group of people whom Tucker suggests Tedros found to be “disfavorable”
Tedros is a friend of Lord Fauci
This all links China, the WHO, and Fauci. See the problem yet?
FACT-O-RAMA! Chinese doctor Ai Fen tried to warn the world about COVID. China made her disappear.
If this treaty goes through, the WHO would potentially have total authority over worldwide emergency operations. The WHO, not our own government, would control how future pandemics are dealt with in the U.S. They’d also decide what is and is not a “pandemic.”
National and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization that undermines public health.
Which means censorship in the name of “public health reasons.” Pssst, that’s communism.
WHO would have the capacity to deploy proactive countermeasures against misinformation and social media attacks. You know, like Facebook and Twitter are already doing.
If this treaty goes through, foreign agents will decide who gets vaccines and medicine based on “equity.”
Equitable and effective access to vaccines, therapeutic, diagnostics, and essential supplies and for clinical trials.
Healtchcare workers and most vulnerable get medicine first.
Most vulnerable? Who gets to decide who is the most vulnerable? The WHO, that’s who.
But no one would use this power to keep medicine from getting to “certain groups,” right?
Wrong. The CDC is all about vaccinating minorities first, and 25 states are ok with that. Now imagine this sort of equity racism on a global scale.
WHO will have the power to “develop standards for producing a digital version of the International Certificate of Vaccination and Prophylaxis.” This means that something the “tinfoil wackjobs” have been warning us about could very well become a reality, the beginning of a New World Order.
You can watch Tucker brilliantly spell it out here in the first 15 minutes of his monologue, or you can read it here. Please watch it. It’s arguably one of the most important stories of the year.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
American regulators authorized a single Pfizer-BioNTech Covid booster shot for healthy five- to 11-year-olds in a bid to enhance their protection against the infection and severe disease. The additional dose, like the initial vaccination series for young Americans, is covered by the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which means that it remains “investigational,” e.g., experimental.
According to the Tuesday press release of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the said age group could take a third dose at least five months after completion of a primary series with the Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Claiming that vaccination “continues to be the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 and its severe consequences, and it is safe,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf said that children have been getting infected and hospitalized at a higher rate with the arrival of Omicron. He added that children “may also experience the long term effects, even following initially mild disease,”and urged parents and caregivers to vaccinate their children.
Conversely, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, did not mention that the vaccination protects against infection — because it does not — and instead claimed that it is “effective in helping to prevent the most severe consequences of COVID-19.”
But there’s a caveat: “Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” noted Marks. He then concluded that the agency determined that the “known and potential benefits” of a booster dose for children outweigh its “known and potential risks.”
The decision was made without holding a traditional meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which evaluates vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and appropriate use by reviewing and verifying the data provided by the vaccine’s manufacturer.
The meeting was skipped, explained the FDA, because “the agency previously convened the committee for extensive discussions regarding the use of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines and, after review of Pfizer’s EUA request, the FDA concluded that the request did not raise questions that would benefit from additional discussion by committee members.
In other words, the federal body did not identify any information that should have been discussed in more detail by the experts on additional doses of the experimental biological product for children that started being used in humans only last year.
While the FDA said that it would post the documents it used to conclude that the booster was “safe and effective” later, the decision left many wondering if the third dose is indeed necessary for children.
For example, is there a “medical emergency?” As appears on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, Covid deaths in the age groups of 5-11 and 12-17 are not even reflected in its Covid tracker “due to low numbers.”
While that alone should be enough to end the discussion on experimental gene therapeutics for children, the media and non-establishment experts point to efficacy and safety concerns.
It appears that the overwhelming majority of American children may not need any Covid shots, let alone additional doses, since they have already recovered from Covid.
Adding to public confusion, the CDC estimates 3 out of every 4 U.S. children of all ages have been infected with the coronavirus since the pandemic’s start — many of them during the winter omicron wave. Still, health authorities urge vaccination even in people who’ve previously had COVID-19, to strengthen their protection.
Is natural immunity, which one acquires after recovering from an infection, worse than “vaccine immunity”? Eighty-one research studies published in reputable medical journals confirm that natural immunity to Covid is equal or superior to any immunity provided by the shots due to the fact that the latter do not form mycotic immunity, which is crucially important to guard off the respiratory infection.
But the matters get even worse since the efficacy of shots turns negative over time.
The CDC recently the CDC recently reported higher COVID-19 case rates have been recorded among fully vaccinated children than unvaccinated in the age group 5-11 since February 2022. That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021.
That means that vaccinated children are more likely to get infected with Covid than their unvaccinated peers.
How about the “safety” part? Apparently, it is extremely disturbing. What is even more disturbing is that America’s top regulatory body is informed on the data.
While the FDA says that it had “no questions” in regard to Pfizer documents, Pfizer — and the FDA — is fully aware that the shot is associated with significantly elevated death rates in the vaccinated trial participants compared to those who received a placebo.
Calling the vaccination of children “child sacrifice,” Malone notes,
Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potentialharm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID.
The deadly ramifications of the Pfizer shots were also observed by the Office for National Statistics, which revealed that children are up to 52 times more likely to die following the Covid injection than children who have not received it, added the doctor.
The final decision on recommending children aged five to 11 to get a third dose of Pfizer shot will be made by the CDC on Thursday.
House GOP holds press briefing on nationwide baby formula shortage & FDA, BIDEN DO NOTHING, EXCEPT LAUGH:
FDA Commissioner Claims ‘Misinformation’ Is Now America’s Leading Cause Of Death
After serving as commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under President Obama, Robert M. Califf, MD, recently returned to the role, overseeing a critical federal agency that regulates food, drugs, therapeutics, and medical devices in the US. In a wide-ranging discussion with JAMA Deputy Editor Gregory Curfman, MD, Califf discusses COVID-19 vaccine modifications, the FDA’s approach to evaluating evidence, and efforts to combat health misinformation. Recorded April 26, 2022.
FEBRUARY 19, 2022: Pro-abortion Robert Califf Confirmed to Lead F.D.A
Sen. Joe Manchin speaks from the Senate floor on FDA nominee Robert Califf
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The Leftist establishment is waging an all-out war against the freedom of speech under the guise of combating what it claims is “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton warned us against the supposedly rapidly spreading scourge of “disinformation,” and just days later, Biden’s Homeland Security Department unveiled its sinister Disinformation Governance Board, with an ill-defined and shifting scope of responsibilities. The Board, however, could be just the beginning. On Sirius XM’s Doctor Radio Reports Friday, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf said, “I have been telling Congress that misinformation is the leading cause of death.” Well then, by all means, we must outlaw it immediately!
Califf explained: “We’re in the negative spiral right now due to mostly chronic disease, drug overdose, and gun violence.” So where does “misinformation” come in? Well, you see, we’re not listening to our moral superiors when they tell us how to deal with these things:
Mental health being a very important part of the problem. If you think about the common chronic diseases we’re talking about good ol’ fashioned heart disease, diabetes, obesity. This is driven by day-to-day habits that people have. Driven largely by the information they’re ingesting and not driven by the information they should be getting about the measures that are affective. One that we have a lot of control over is we now have generic medicines for most of those that are pretty inexpensive and a lot of people aren’t taking them. We got to reach people with secondary prevention but also make sure we flood the airwaves and our personal interactions with positive, reliable, useful information.
On CNN Saturday, Califf doubled down, again warning against “misinformation” in such apocalyptic terms that he appeared to be signaling that Biden’s handlers are working on still more speech restrictions. Asked to explain why he thought “misinformation” was the leading cause of death in America today, Califf immediately retreated, admitting that he had no data to establish his claim and tacitly admitting that it was just a Leftist talking point:
Uh, I have to acknowledge there’s no way to quantify this. So I can’t say, you know, the numbers come out just like they would, uh, heart disease or cancer. But let’s look at it. You know, we’re in a country now which is seeing an erosion in our life expectancy, so that we’re now living on average five years shorter than the average of other high-income countries. Now, of course, this– these are all based on estimates, but this is quite disturbing. And as you correctly pointed out, let’s look at the causes of death. Uh, as you correctly said, heart disease, cancer, COVID, uh, much of this is a common chronic disease that we know a lot about how to treat.
And of course, with COVID, the situation is we know that if you’re vaccinated and up-to-date with your vaccinations, um, you have a ninety percent reduction in the risk of death, and then if you are unlucky enough to get infected, or unfortunate enough, another ninety percent reduction in death with the anti-virals which are now available. So almost no one in this country should be dying from COVID if we were up-to-date on our vaccinations and got appropriate anti-viral treatment. What has concerned me for a long time before the pandemic is that we’re seeing this reduction in life expectancy from common diseases like heart disease. I’m a cardiologist by training. We know so much about what to do to prevent, uh, bad outcomes from heart disease, um, but somehow the messages, the reliable, truthful messages are not getting across, and it’s being washed out by a lot of misinformation which is leading people to make bad choices that are unfortunate for their health.
Who is spreading misinformation here? That noted right-wing outlet, the New York Times, reported on Feb. 28 about a new study that didn’t quite agree with Califf’s rosy picture of the vaccines’ efficacy. As the omicron variant surged, the Timesstated, “the vaccine’s effectiveness against hospitalization declined to 73 percent from 85 percent in the older children. In the younger children, effectiveness dropped to 48 percent from 100 percent. But because few children were hospitalized, these estimates have wide margins of error. The numbers for protection from infection are more reliable. Vaccine effectiveness against infection in older children decreased to 51 percent from 66 percent. But in the younger children, it dropped sharply to just 12 percent from 68 percent.”
But as far as Robert Califf is concerned, if we silence such inconvenient data and only allow the FDA’s line to flood the airwaves, many lives will be saved. We’ll be living in an authoritarian police state that silences dissenting views, but when has the Left ever been worried about that?
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Dear Friend,
Did you hear? On April 25, 2022, the failed Ebola drug Remdesivir was approved by the FDA for “treatment” of Covid-19 in babies as young as 28 days old and as small as seven pounds! This is the exact same drug that has been wreaking carnage throughout hospitals since Fauci and Company approved the rigid CARES Act hospital protocol, along with bonus payments for treatment of Covid-19 with Remdesivir.
This is beyond shocking. Repeatedly, Remdesivir has been shown to be completely ineffective at treating Covid-19 in adults (even WHO studies show this) and to have severe side effects, including multiple organ dysfunction syndromes (MODS), kidney failure and dialysis, and septic shock.
While studies of inexpensive and familiar early treatment meds continue to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the same cannot be said about Remdesivir. What makes this plot even more sinister, is this failed drug has even been approved for babies and children who are displaying only mild symptoms of Covid-19!
As we at AFLDS have preached for over two years, children and infants are at statistically zero risk of death from Covid-19, and yet they now can legally be treated with what is essentially poison. This is one of the worst decisions of the corrupt FDA.
While the Covid-19 chatter may seem quieter, rest assured that they are far from done pushing this narrative. Now is not the time to become complacent, as they are continuing to create ways to attack our most vulnerable and put our children at grave risk.
Former Blackrock portfolio Manager Edward Dowd shows CDC data that proves the vaccine has killed many young people. Also 75% of Covid-19 hospitalizations are vaccinated in Ontario Canada!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The pharmaceutical company Moderna announced it is set to request an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Covid shot for children ages six months to six years old. The vaccine’s efficacy is estimated to be less than 44 percent for infants, and less than 38 percent for children aged two to six.
According to the announcement posted on Moderna’s website, Phase 2/3 of the so-called KidCOVE study showed “a robust neutralizing antibody response” and “a favorable safety profile” of the two-shot dose that contained a quarter, or 25 μg, of the adult mRNA dose.
KidCOVE tested Moderna’s shot on children in two age groups: from six months to under two years, and from two years to under six years of age.
The U.S. federal government took part in the trials. Per Moderna, the trials on children are being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The company will be sending the documents to the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and “other global regulators” in the coming weeks, per the announcement.
Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, noted that there is “the need for a vaccine against COVID-19 in infants and young children,” and that his company will be submitting the data “as soon as possible.” The top pharma executive added that he believes the vaccine for infants and young children “will help end this pandemic.”
Despite the fanfare, the announcement provides that Moderna’s shot efficacy in children six months to two years old was just 43.7 percent. It was even lower in the older age group, with a 37.5-percent efficacy rate in children two to under six years old.
Moderna does not see it as a problem, and says that the “majority” of Covid cases in participants “were mild, and no severe COVID-19 disease was observed in either age group.”
“The absence of any severe disease, hospitalization, or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints,” concludes the biotech giant.
In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Jacqueline Miller, Moderna’s senior vice president for infectious diseases, said, “What we have seen is a successful trial.”
“What I will say is 37.5 percent and 43.7 percent are higher than zero,” she added. “If I were the parent of a young child, I would want there to be some protection on board, especially if we see another wave of infections.”
Some biotech experts, such as French-American consultant Marc Girardot, argue that the immune protection against coronaviruses in humans is never “zero,” since people have always been surrounded by them and have developed a certain level of immunity.
For Moderna, it is obviously not the case.
As do their colleagues at Pfizer, Moderna believes that to generate a higher immune response in children, they would need to take three instead of two doses.
“Similar to adults, Moderna is preparing to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to under 6 years, 6 to under 12 years, and adolescents,” the company says, adding that one of the booster candidates would include the omicron variant booster.
According to a study published by the New York State Department of Health in late February, Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose Covid shot, which, like Moderna’s, uses mRNA technology, provided abysmal protection for children aged five to eleven during the wave of omicron infection in New York. As reported by The New American on the matter,
During the Omicron surge from December 13, 2021 through January 30, 2022, the effectiveness against infection plunged from 68 to just 12 percent for children in that age group. Protection against hospitalization dropped from 100 to 48 percent during the same period.
Moderna also indicated that it has initiated the submission of the document needed for the FDA to authorize its 50-μg, two-dose shot for children aged six to under 12 years.
Finally, the company is updating its request to authorize its shot for those aged 12 to 17. That request, which was filed last summer, was put on hold in October 2021 because the FDA asked the company to provide more data on such side effects associated with the shot as myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart.
As reported by The New American at that time, the Nordic countries have suspended administering Moderna’s Covid “Spikevax” vaccine over an increased risk of side effects such as inflammation of the heart muscle in younger recipients, and have recommended that men under the age of 30 not take it.
On January 31, 2022, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s shot, marketed as “Spikevax,” to be used on people aged 18 and older. The agency also shortened the recommended interval between the initial inoculation and booster shot from six to five months.
According to the government troll, who has been on the taxpayer dole for the past nearly 40 years, all Americans must “give up” their constitutional rights by getting “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) and wearing a mask – because doing this, he says, is necessary for the “greater good.”
“But you are a member of society,” Fauci whined during a mainstream media appearance. “And as a member of society, reaping all the benefits of being a member of society, you have a responsibility to society.”
Fauci went on to say that he personally feels as though the Constitution should be scrapped because of “a pandemic that’s killing millions of people.” This, he says, is reason enough to suspend all individual rights and force everyone into slavery under his rule.
“You have got to look at it and say, there comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the great good of society,” Fauci added.
Fauci is a threat to freedom
Much like Chairman Mao, Fauci believes that he should be able to decide who gets to do what and when, based on their mask and vaccination status. Only those Americans who obey his commands should be allowed to live.
Even after openly admitting that Chinese Virus injections are causing more disease to spread, Fauci still feels like everyone should be forced to get them in order to stay “safe” against possible infection with Chinese Germs.
Back in August, Fauci appeared, as he often does, on some mainstream media program in which he threatened that “things are going to get worse” if Americans do not fully comply with his demands.
The “pain and suffering” will intensify, Fauci promised, if unvaccinated people continue to rely on their God-given natural immunity as opposed to the fake “immunity” being dispensed by him and his ilk.
“If you look at the acceleration of the number of cases, the seven-day average has gone up substantially,” Fauci stated, rattling off made-up numbers he came up with on the fly.
“You know, what we really need to do, John, and we say it over and over again, it’s the truth, we have a hundred million people in this country who are eligible to be vaccinated who are not getting vaccinated.”
No, Fauci, what we really need to do is get rid of you and stop your reign of terror over the American people. You have no right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies, no matter how much you feel as though you do have that right.
What Fauci is effectively telling Americans is that their rights must decrease while his rights must increase. Fauci thinks he has the right to force you to wear a mask and get injected against your will, meaning he is unwilling to sacrifice his own self-perceived “right” to tell other people what to do.
The guy is a nutcase, but a dangerous one with clear psychopathic tendencies. Fauci is a threat to a free and open society, and nobody need pay him any mind – though many Branch Covidians have decided to make him their patron saint.
In the religion of Covidism, Fauci is a type of priest or pope that tells his followers what to do. The problem is that this religion has become mandatory, meaning if you refuse to convert, its members are threatening to punish you with violence and the total deprivation of your rights.
The latest news about psychopath Fauci and his murderous ilk can be found at Fascism.news.
The Biden Administration will stop at nothing to exterminate us. From leaving American citizens in Afghanistan to die, to mandating the fatal death shot that has killed more people than any other before. In their most recent video, Project Veritas has revealed that this Regime is after something far more precious… Your children. On Wednesday, the Stew Peters Show was joined by Dr. Jane Ruby to discuss these disgusting vaccine mandates.
REAL AMERICA'S Dan Ball WITH R.C. Maxwell; Latest Project Veritas Undercover Video, 2/16/22
Watch "James O'Keefe joins Sean Hannity to discuss new #ExposeFDA bombshell report by Project Veritas"
Watch "FDA Exec on Camera Reveals Future COVID Policy "Biden Wants To Inoculate As Many People As Possible""
FDA Executive Officer Exposes Close Ties Between Agency and Pharmaceutical Companies
Watch "FDA Exec Christopher Cole responds to agency's official statement in interview with James O'Keefe"
The University of Pennsylvania is a member of the Ivy League. It hosts Joe Biden’s personal think tank, the Penn Biden center. Patrick Howley is a reporter with National File. He just reported that U Penn has contracts with Biontech and that it directly profits from FDA approvals of drugs and from higher sales of both the Pfizer and Modern vaccines.
Rumble — More doctors are coming forward with evidence that vaccines against the China virus are actually causing significant side effects, including death. One America’s Pearson Sharp has more.
The FDA must release 10,000 pages per month for the first two months.
The original lawsuit against the FDA was filed by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a nonprofit whose aim is “to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license COVID-19 vaccines,” according to its website.
The court is requiring FDA to roll out the batches of data “on the first business day of each month, instead of once every thirty days,” according to the order.
The court order was signed by U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman.
The Texas court also ordered the FDA to produce “10,000 pages for the first two productions, which will be due on or before March 1 and April 1, 2022.”
Moreover, the FDA will produce “80,000 pages on or before May 2, June 1, and July 1, 2022; 70,000 pages on or before August 1, 2022; and then 55,000 pages on or before the first business day of each month thereafter.”
The order also says the FDA can “bank” excess pages of its monthly quota, “such that, for example, if the FDA produces 90,000 pages in May 2022 (or 65,000 pages in September 2022), it would bank 10,000 pages. Then, in a subsequent month, if the FDA is unable to produce the full amount of pages required, it can apply the banked pages toward its quota for that month.”
BACKGROUND:
Pfizer had tried to block Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency’s FOIA request for the pharmaceutical company’s vaccine safety data to be released immediately.
Pfizer “asked a federal court to let it intervene in a high-profile case that has seen U.S. drug regulators try to slow-walk disclosure of data on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine,” The Epoch Timesreported last month.
Pfizer said it wanted to ensure that certain safety data information was “exempt from disclosure” to the public, asking a U.S. judge for 75 years to release their safety data. But the judge rejected Pfizer’s request, ordering the FDA to produce 55,000 pages a month, allowing about eight months to fully disclose the records, reports Epoch Times.
Pfizer has intervened in our FOIA request to the FDA for release of their vaccine safety/efficacy data, which the judge ordered to be released in 8 mos. DOJ lawyers for the FDA agreed that they want Pfizer's help in redacting the documents before release.https://t.co/vkeQw5fuLv
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Days prior to today’s scheduled release of a tranche of documents related to the Pfizer COVID vaccine, the pharmaceutical company asked a federal court to let it intervene before any information is released.
PHMPT asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release all documents related to its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine and full approval of the Pfizer-Comirnaty COVID vaccine.
Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Jan. 6 issued an order requiring the FDA to release 12,000 pages of documents by Jan. 31 and an additional 55,000 pages per month thereafter, until the release of the nearly 400,000 pages of documents is complete.
FDA will have 8 months — not the 75 years it requested — to release all documents related to the licensing of Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine, a federal judge ruled Thursday.https://t.co/WSNvSbkGDM
Pfizer claims to support the disclosure of the documents, but asked to intervene in the case to ensure that information exempt from disclosure will not be “disclosed inappropriately.”
In a memorandum it submitted to the court, Pfizer said it:
“[S]eeks leave to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of ensuring that information exempt from disclosure under FOIA is adequately protected as FDA complies with this Court’s order.”
Attorneys for Pfizer also claimed while it was not asking the court to reconsider the Jan. 6 order, it would consider challenging the order at an unspecified later date, telling the court:
“Pfizer does not presently intend to move the Court to reconsider its January 6, 2022 order, but Pfizer is not in a position at this time to waive its ability to do so if circumstances change such that there is good cause at a later time to do so.”
Pfizer did not clarify what such a change of circumstances might entail.
Lawyers for PHMPT, in a brief submitted Jan. 25 to the court, asked Pittman to reject Pfizer’s motion and requested the judge ask Pfizer to clarify how, exactly, its intervention would help expedite the release of the documents, arguing that Pfizer:
“… provides no reason why it needs to intervene in this matter to render that purported assistance. Nor can Plaintiff discern why Pfizer needs to intervene in this matter to assist the FDA with expediting release of the requested documents—it can render this assistance without intervening.”
PHMPT, a group of more than 30 medical and public health professionals and scientists from institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and UCLA, in September 2021 filed a lawsuit against the FDA when the agency denied its original FOIA request.
In that request, PHMPT asked the FDA to release “all data and information for the Pfizer vaccine,” including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports, and a list of active and inactive ingredients.
The first batch of documents released in November 2021, which totaled a mere 500 pages, revealed there were more than 1,200 vaccine-related deaths within the first 90 days following the release of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine.
Arguments regarding Pfizer’s motion are scheduled to be heard in court on Jan. 28, though as of this writing, no further updates regarding the case or this scheduled hearing have been publicly disclosed.
Pfizer represented by world’s third-largest law firm
Pfizer on Jan. 21 submitted two filings to the court: a motion to intervene in the case “for a limited purpose,” and an accompanying “memorandum of points and authorities” supporting the motion.
It remains unclear how Pfizer defines “inappropriately” or “for a limited purpose,” or why it waited two weeks after Judge Pittman’s order, and only days before the Jan. 31 scheduled release of 12,000 pages to file its motion.
Pfizer claims it was unaware of the case until executives read news reports about it in December 2021, despite the fact that the case garnered coverage from major news outlets, including Reuters, in November of that year.
Still, the company hired DLA Piper LLP, one of the world’s most high-powered law firms, to represent it. DLA Piper is headquartered in London and maintains offices in 40 countries.
In 2014, the firm had revenues totaling $2.48 billion, making it the third-largest law firm in the U.S. by revenue.
DLA Piper was the 12th largest donor to President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and the 9th largest donor to Hillary Clinton between 1999 and 2018.
Douglas Emhoff, spouse of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, was employed at the firm until 2020, earning $1.2 million in partnership income that year.
FDA supports Pfizer’s motion, requests extension
In a response to Pfizer’s motion, the FDA said it welcomed Pfizer’s “help,” claiming that this is “due to the unprecedented speed with which the Court has ordered [the] FDA to process the records at issue.”
In addition to supporting Pfizer’s motion, the FDA also requested an extension from the court that would further delay the scheduled release of the documents.
Aaron Siri of the Siri & Glimstad law firm, who is representing PHMPT in its lawsuit against the FDA, explained:
“The FDA now insists it must delay its first 55,000-page production until May 1, 2022 – four months after the Court entered its order.
“However, the FDA’s own papers seeking this delay make plain it can produce at a rate of 55,000 pages per month in February and March.”
The FDA claimed Pfizer is entitled to intervene in the case and the process of redacting the documents in question, due to the “Trade Secrets Act,” signed into law by President Obama in 2016, stating:
“FDA anticipates that coordination with Pfizer to obtain the company’s views as to which portions of the records are subject to Exemption 4, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, or other statutory protections will be a necessary component of the agency’s endeavors to meet the extraordinary exigencies of this case.”
“[T]he protections provided under that law allow for an owner of a trade secret to sue in federal court when its trade secrets have been misappropriated and does not even imply that a company could intervene in a public records request through the FOIA.”
PHMPT, in its Jan. 25 brief, also rejected the FDA’s continued claim that it cannot adhere to the disclosure schedule Pittman ordered on Jan. 6, arguing “the FDA has more than sufficient resources to expeditiously produce the requested documents.”
Siri, on his blog, also questioned this aspect of FDA’s argument, writing:
“The FDA … attests that over the coming weeks, it will have 28.5 full-time people reviewing the documents. Working 7.5 hours per day for 20 business days per month, 28.5 people reviewing 50 pages per hour can review a total of approximately 213,750 pages per month.
“The FDA affirms it has already ‘allocated the equivalent of nearly 11 full-time staff to this project’ and that ‘a review speed of 50 documents per hour was within the normal range for document review in a complex matter’ in private practice; and here the 50 document per hour rate would be faster since there is only a need to review for personally identifying information (‘PII’) for most pages. Hence, if the FDA’s 11 full-time reviewers work only 7.5 hours per day and review 50 pages (not documents) per hour, the FDA could review over 88,000 pages per month in February and March. That is more than sufficient to produce the 55,000 pages per month currently ordered for these two months.”
Instead of complying with this court’s “reasoned order,” Siri Wrote, the FDA claims these 11 reviewers can only review a total of 10,000 pages per month.
What the FDA does not say, and what basic math shows, according to Siri, is that a rate of 10,000 pages a month for 11 full-time reviewers amounts to only 5 pages per hour.
Siri also questioned the FDA’s commitment to transparency and hinted at a cover-up, stating:
“The Court is, other than Congress, the only check on the FDA. In a free country, transparency is paramount, and the FDA has chosen to thwart transparency and the requirements of FOIA by anemically understaffing the office it maintains to respond to FOIA requests.
“It is also incredible for the FDA to claim that compliance here would harm its health policy objectives. Even if the FDA really does need to spend $4 to $5 million which … is an absurd overestimate, that is an inconsequential amount of its overall $3.41 billion discretionary budget.
“It is understandable that the FDA does not want independent scientists to review the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine given that it is not as effective as the FDA originally claimed, does not prevent transmission, does not prevent against certain emerging variants, can cause serious heart inflammation in younger individuals, and has numerous other undisputed safety issues.”
Siri said the FDA’s “potential embarrassment” over its decision to license the Pfizer vaccine must take a back seat to the transparency demanded by FOIA and “the urgent need and interests of the American people to review that licensure data.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide the safety data on Pfizer’s experimental covid-19 vaccine. It’s now clearer than ever that the vaccine has serious safety issues and does not stop covid-19 diagnoses, hospitalizations, or mortality. However, the FDA claimed the safety data could not be released for another twenty years!
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman disagreed and ordered the release of the documents at the rate of 55,000 pages per month, an endeavor that would take approximately eight months. The FDA appealed on behalf of Pfizer, claiming that the request would take seventy-five years to process! Pfizer and the FDA lost the high-profile case and judge Pittman ordered the release of the information, demanding transparency.
Pfizer trying to collude with FDA, redact their vaccine safety data
Now Pfizer is sweeping in with droves of lawyers to control how the FDA releases their vaccine safety data. Just two weeks after the directive, Pfizer asked the federal court to allow the company to intervene in the FDA’s disclosure of their documents. Pfizer lawyers want to ensure that certain information is not “disclosed inappropriately” under the FOIA request. Pfizer wants to hire its own team of internal regulators to help the FDA sift through the documents and withhold certain information and make additional redactions.
According to the court filings, Pfizer “seeks leave to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of ensuring that information exempt from disclosure under FOIA is adequately protected as FDA complies with this Court’s order.” The FDA is also asking the court to allow Pfizer to police the release of its own safety data, “due to the unprecedented speed with which the Court has ordered FDA to process the records at issue.”
In fact, the FDA said they anticipate that Pfizer will coordinate with the agency to satisfy the company’s views, and ensure that certain records are not made public. Department of Justice lawyers wrote, “FDA anticipates that coordination with Pfizer to obtain the company’s views as to which portions of the records are subject to Exemption 4, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, or other statutory protections will be a necessary component of the agency’s endeavors to meet the extraordinary exigencies of this case.”
Pfizer plans to fight against the court-ordered transparency of their second-degree murder operation
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency immediately saw right through the FDA’s ploy to conceal critical pharmacovigilance data. “Even though the FDA has more than sufficient resources to expeditiously produce the requested documents, and the agency has repeatedly stated its commitment to protecting Pfizer’s interests, Pfizer could still [be allowed to] assist the FDA with expediting the release of the requested documents,” the plaintiffs warned. “Pfizer, however, provides no reason why it needs to intervene in this matter to render that purported assistance. Nor can Plaintiff discern why Pfizer needs to intervene in this matter to assist the FDA with expediting the release of the requested documents—it can render this assistance without intervening.”
The first release of the Pfizer documents proves that the FDA and Pfizer knew that the vaccine was killing thousands of people and injuring countless others approximately one year ago. While it is unproven that the FDA and Pfizer premeditated these crimes against humanity, the act of pushing the vaccine further onto an unsuspecting public could still be lawfully considered multiple counts of second-degree murder. Second-degree murder is codified in law as being “caused by the offender’s reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life.”
Pfizer said they intend to comply with the January 6 court order and do not “presently intend to move the Court to reconsider.” Bound by the court order, Pfizer said they are “not in a position at this time” to waive their responsibilities. However, they did leave the possibility open that they would reject the court order “at a later time” if “circumstances change.” On January 28, Judge Pittman will hear Pfizer’s arguments as they try to work with the FDA to redact and conceal the vaccine injury data on their experimental covid-19 vaccines.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
As of January 7, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the U.S. When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745
A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact-checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots
According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company, in the third quarter of 2021, working-age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the pre-pandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021, and teens’ mortality in the U.K. shot up 47% in the three months after they became eligible for COVID shots
A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months’ post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab
As of January 7, 2022, just over a year into the campaign to inject every human being with a gene transfer product to protect against COVID, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the United States’ territories alone.1 When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745.
A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact-checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots.
During an early January 2022 Senate committee hearing on the nation’s Omicron response (see video above), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and director for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, testified — under oath — that they “did not know” how many deaths had been reported to VAERS following COVID “vaccination.”2,3
Walensky referred to the shots as “incredibly safe,” claiming — against all science — that they “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.” She also falsely claimed that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated.”
No, VAERS Is Not a Repository of Fake Reports
Worse yet, both Walensky and Fauci claim any and all adverse events following vaccination get reported to VAERS, including accidental deaths and car accidents. They both actually claim that if a person gets the COVID shot and gets hit by a car afterward, that is reported as an adverse reaction.
Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.
As reported by Health Impact News,4 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in aJanuary 12, 2022, Twitter thread:5
“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?
Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress. Not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”
VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system. It’s true that anyone can file a report, but it’s time-consuming, requires the knowledge of medical details a patient oftentimes won’t have and carries penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.
Fact-Checker Outs Himself as a Pharma Propagandist
Walensky and Fauci aren’t the only ones lying about the lethality of the COVID jab. Mainstream media are all-in as well. In a USA Today fact check,6 Daniel Funke claims that “COVID-19 vaccines [are] safe for children” and “not linked to deaths.”
“... online, some claim children face more risk from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself,” Funke writes. “USA TODAY previously rated False a claim that children are 50 times more likely to die from the COVID-19 vaccine than the virus. This claim is similarly wrong.
Public health officials say the vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5-11. As other independent fact-checking organizations have reported, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks.
‘Over 700 children have died due to COVID-19 in the United States,’ Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Florida, said in an email.
‘I am not aware of any deaths in children that have been attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine’ ... The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine for children outweigh its known and potential risks, according to the CDC. The shot does not cause death.”
Funke cites data from Pfizer’s clinical trials, “which found the vaccine was safe” for children, as “no deaths were reported” in Pfizer’s trials for 12- to 25-year-olds, and those for 12- to 17-year-olds. Funke dismisses the rationale for looking at VAERS data on the basis that anyone can file a report and that reports are unverified, and therefore cannot be used to determine causation.
All Opinion and No Data
There are so many issues with this “fact-check,” no wonder Facebook attorneys are using the legal defense that fact checks are “opinion” only and not actual assertions of fact.7,8 There’s nothing but opinions in this piece. As “evidence” that the COVID shots are safe and have caused no deaths, Funke presents:
Another opinion piece by USA Today
The supposed opinion of unnamed “public health officials”
Biased opinion assertions by other pharma-funded propaganda organizations (aka, “fact-checking organizations”)
The opinion of a single professor who admits she is unaware of publicly available data
The unsupported opinion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a captured agency that has repeatedly been caught manipulating data and changing definitions to fit the pandemic narrative
Pfizer’s preliminary trial data, which whistleblowers warn may have integrity issues9
The unsupported claim that VAERS data are unreliable because anyone can file, the implication being that people can file fake reports
The debatable claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation, hence it’s useless looking at it
It’s hard to come up with a less compelling list of evidence for safety, but then again, propagandists have to work with what they have, and in this case, they have nothing. Funke presents zero actual data to support his opinion.
Explain the Rise in Mortality if You Can
There are many data-driven reasons to suspect, predict and even assume that the COVID shots are killing more people than they’re saving — regardless of the age group in question. It would take an entire book to cover it all, so I will only review a few of those reasons here.
One very telling clue that recently came to light is life insurance data. According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company based in Indianapolis, in the third quarter of 2021, working-age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the pre-pandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID.10
And, according to CEO Scott Davidson, this catastrophic abnormality is consistently seen “across every player” in the life insurance industry.11 A 40% increase in mortality is simply unheard of, and as of yet, they claim to have no clue as to what’s causing young and middle-aged people to die prematurely at such an astounding rate.
Looking at it from a sleuth’s point of view, one might ask, “What environmental factor with unknown safety was introduced in 2021 to people in this age group?” Sure, pandemic restrictions have led to spikes in drug overdoses and suicides, which affects this cohort in particular. But “deaths of desperation” cannot account for all of it.
The one wild card is the COVID jab. More than 173 million working-age Americans (18 to 64) got these experimental gene transfer injections,12 and doctors and scientists have elucidated several mechanisms by which they might injure or kill.
What’s more, the rise in deaths began AFTER the rollout of the shots, and whatever the causative factor, it is not only national but likely international in scope. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, for example, also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021.13
Excess deaths (exceeding pre-pandemic norms) are also reported in the U.K.14 Among teens (aged 15 to 19), mortality spiked right after teens became eligible for the COVID shot.15 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, and that same period of time in 2021, teenage deaths rose by 47%.16
A rise in disability claims17 also suggests that many who aren’t killed by this novel lethal threat are seriously injured, often long-term. For all of these reasons, the COVID jabs cannot be taken off the table. Logic demands that they be looked into as a potential causative factor.
Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality?
One person who has taken a strong stance against the claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation is Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”18 he argues that VAERS can indeed be used to determine causality.
It’s important to realize that the idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot. Kirsch argues that this premise is in fact false and that causation can be determined using VAERS’ data.
To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death.
According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just a random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition.
Kirsch argues that causality can indeed be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people — many who are young, in perfect health with no predisposing conditions — die exactly 24 hours after their second dose. It’s even difficult to come up with another explanation for people who do have underlying conditions.
For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions, would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after their second dose?
Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again?
At a bare minimum, as an early warning system, VAERS is designed to flag potential causation. It’s by looking for repeated patterns of side effects that you would begin to identify a potentially problematic vaccine. Once a pattern is identified — and there’s no denying death within 24 hours to one week is a pattern seen for the COVID shots — an investigation should be launched.
But no such investigation has been launched for the COVID jabs. Clear-cut patterns are simply ignored. As an early warning system, VAERS is performing as intended, despite severe underreporting (the CDC recently published a paper in which they admit COVID jab adverse effects in children are underreported by a factor of 6.519). It’s the follow-up that’s lacking. But lack of investigation and follow-up do not evidence that the shots can’t cause death.
‘Bad Batches’ Are Another Clue
Another clue that hints at SOME of the shots being able to cause rapid death is the “bad batch” phenomenon. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have no adverse events associated with their use.
According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.20
Another website that basically does the same thing is TheEagle’s VAERS Dashboard. (A video explaining how to use the dashboard can be found on Bitchute.21)
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, cofounder of the German Corona Investigative Committee, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German parliament, discuss this “smoking gun” evidence in the video above. According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, this lot-dependent data shows vaccine makers are conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial.
They appear to actually be doing lethal-dose testing on the public. Wodarg argues that the evidence for this is very clear from the data. They also appear to be coordinating these lethal-dose experiments, so that they’re not all releasing their most toxic lots at the same time, or in the same areas, so as to avoid detection through clustering.
More Data Showing COVID Jabs Can Kill
In closing, I will raise just two more pieces of evidence that speaks to COVID jabs having the ability to kill large numbers of people:
•A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab.22,23 None of the original coroners’ reports implicated the shots, however.
The association was only established through autopsy, which revealed a “process of immunological self-attack” that is “without precedent.” “Because vaccination was the single common denominator between all cases, there can be no doubt that it was the trigger of self-destruction in these deceased individuals,” Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi and Arne Burkhardt wrote.
•According to researchers at Columbia University, the real number of people killed by the COVID jabs is about 20 times the reported rate, based on their analysis of two publicly available databases (VAERS in the U.S., and another in Europe).24,25,26 That analysis was published in October 2021, but few ever heard a peep about it. According to the authors:
“Comparing our age-stratified VFRs [vaccine-induced fatality rates] with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure.
We discuss implications for public health policies related to boosters, school and workplace mandates, and the urgent need to identify, develop and disseminate diagnostics and treatments for life-altering vaccine injuries.”
Based on the ever-mounting data, the claim that COVID shots have not, cannot, and/or will not cause death simply isn’t credible. And the longer these shots continue to be used, the greater the likelihood that they will indeed kill far more than the actual virus ever did. We also need to remember that the disabilities and long-term chronic ill-health these shots are causing will prematurely kill many more, even if it takes 10 or 15 years, and we have no data on any of that yet.
Governor Ron DeSantis criticized the decision by the FDA to revise authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments, which led the state to close all monoclonal sites "until further notice."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
As a favor to drug companies that are studying it as a potential “drug” treatment for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going after N-acetylcysteine, a natural compound that the agency is suddenly claiming no longer qualifies as a legal dietary supplement.
Reports indicate that the FDA has sent out a series of warning letters to supplement manufacturers warning them that NAC, as it is also called, does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement because it was supposedly first approved as a “drug” back in 1963.
The FDA claims that NAC was never marketed as a food or supplement prior to the agency’s approval of it as a drug. This, according to the agency, means that the “rights” to sell it are under the jurisdiction of the FDA, which is steering it towards Big Pharma entities now trying to capitalize on it as a possible Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) remedy.
Some 1,170 different dietary supplement products currently on the market contain NAC, as it is a popular natural remedy for treating liver side effects associated with Tylenol (acetaminophen) overdoses. NAC is “also used to loosen the thick mucus in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” according to the summary of a study sponsored by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
“This is not a fringe ingredient,” notes Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), as quoted by Natural Products Insider.
Before coronavirus, FDA recognized NAC as an ordinary food supplement
According to Steven Tave, director of the FDA Office of Dietary Supplement Programs (ODSP), the warning letters that have been sent out merely reiterate the FDA’s previous conclusions concerning NAC, and have nothing to do with drug companies now trying to capitalize on NAC by potentially patenting it as a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) treatment.
“To the extent that any stakeholders and anyone in industry or anyone else has facts that they think would cause us to rethink our conclusion, then we would welcome that evidence,” Tave stated during a recent interview. “We’re happy to review it, and we would invite them to submit it to us.”
Interestingly, the FDA has not had much of a problem with NAC up until now, as CRN is aware of roughly 150 structure/function claims about its use that have never drawn objection from the FDA. Supplement manufacturers have been marketing it for decades without issue, in other words, and only now is the FDA making a stink about it.
Furthermore, the FDA indicated back in 2018, responding to a petition for a qualified health claim, that six individual substances in the petitioner’s dietary supplement were either components of food or a dietary supplement. And this particular supplement contained NAC, suggesting that the FDA had no problem with it back then.
“FDA has not been consistent over the years,” Mister contends.
As for the drug exclusionary provision that Tave is now citing as justification for going after NAC in the age of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), Mister further explains that this “was intended to create a race to market so that you didn’t take away the incentives for drug companies to study products for potential disease uses.”
“But it was never meant to be a shield to just go out and start removing products from the market,” he further contends. “FDA has demonstrated over many … years a bias in favor of drug products, which makes sense because FDA has a lot more control over bringing a drug to market than they do foods or cosmetics or supplements.”
For more related news about FDA tyranny in the age of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), be sure to check out FDA.news.
N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) has been on the market as a supplement for decades—why is the FDA attacking it now?
A few weeks ago, we told you about the FDA’s recent actions threatening NAC supplements—products which the FDA has allowed on the market for decades. The question is, why now, after all these years, is the FDA doing this? Digging a bit deeper, it seems obvious that the FDA is clearing the market of affordable NAC supplements in an effort to eliminate competition for NAC drugs that could be coming to market in the next few years. If our suspicions are correct, this would be another outrageous example of the FDA doing Big Pharma’s dirty work. We cannot let it happen.
To briefly recap how we got here: In a slew of warning letters sent last year, the FDA targeted a number of supplement companies marketing “unapproved” cures for hangovers—which the agency absurdly considers to be a “disease.” Some of these products contain NAC. In the letters to those companies, the FDA states that NAC does not meet the legal definition of a supplement because it was approved as a drug in 1963; according to federal law, any substance approved as a drug before it was sold as a supplement cannot be sold as a supplement. All of this means that the status of NAC as a supplement is currently in dispute.
So, why is the FDA threatening NAC now, during a pandemic when a new FDA commissioner hasn’t even been appointed? For starters, a drug company is investigating NAC as a treatment for a rare genetic disorderthat damages the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve cells in the brain. The Phase 1 trial was completed in March 2020.
But that’s just the beginning. A search through the government’s clinical trials database shows considerable interest from the pharmaceutical industry in NAC. There are 17 trialslooking at NAC, in both drug and supplement form, in the treatment of COVID. Additionally, there are over 50 trials looking at NAC for a variety of other conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, rhinosinusitis, bronchiolitis, cardiac arrhythmia, and more.
Note that NAC drugs are currently available in generic form since it is off-patent, but a company could bring a new branded NAC drug to market if it was proven effective for an additional indication.
Given these facts, it seems reasonable to assume that the FDA is setting the stage for a new NAC drug to come to market by removing the competition from much cheaper NAC supplements.We called it when the FDA pulled a similar move a few years back when they went after brain health supplements, trying to clear the market for a new Alzheimer’s drug—culminating in the recent approval of an Alzheimer’s treatment that many experts think is not effective. CBD supplements may face a similar fate if Congress does not force the FDA’s hand by legalizing CBD in dietary supplements.
It is critically important to maintain access to affordable NAC supplements. In a recent interview with the Life Extension Foundation, Dr. Daniel Amen noted that NAC “has shown promising results in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, OCD, and addictions. It can also decrease inflammation and may help delay brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease.” NAC protects the body from toxins, is a selective immune system enhancer, and helps remove free radicals, which contribute to neurogenerative diseases and aging. In Europe, NAC is a prescription medicine used to reduce congestion.
NAC is also a precursor to glutathione, one of the body’s most important antioxidants. Glutathione plays crucial roles in nutrient metabolism and the regulation of many cellular events (such as gene expression, protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and more); glutathione deficiency contributes to oxidative stress, which is implicated in the development of many diseases: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, liver disease, HIV, heart attack, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.
Note that acetaminophen depletes glutathione, so those who regularly take it should consider, in consultation with an integrative doctor, supplementing with NAC to replenish glutathione levels. In fact, NAC is routinely used in hospitals to counteract acetaminophen toxicity.
NAC is far too important to be threatened by the FDA, especially under such dubious circumstances.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them not to threaten NAC supplements. Please send your message immediately.
