‘No Doubt’ Fauci Funded Gain-of-Function Research That Likely Led to Pandemic, Former CDC Director Tells Lawmakers
|
On March 8, 2023, former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield testified at the House COVID hearing and said that there is “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.
Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), on Wednesday said he has “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 9, 2023
The hearing included testimony related to the lab leak theory as a plausible explanation as the origin of COVID-19 and how the theory was shut down early in the pandemic in favor of narratives that COVID-19 had zoogenic — or natural — origins.
Other witnesses Wednesday included: Jamie Metzl, Ph.D., J.D., senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Nicholas Wade, former New York Times science editor and former deputy editor of Nature; and Paul G. Auwaerter, M.D., MBA, clinical director in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
The hearing followed the subcommittee’s release of a memo revealing that key NIH figures, including Fauci, helped persuade virologists to write an influential article squelching the theory that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab and asserting the virus evolved naturally.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) last month determined SARS CoV-2 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China — a theory later endorsed by FBI Director Christopher Wray. These developments helped lead to a Senate vote to declassify U.S. intelligence documents on the origins of COVID-19.
Gain-of-function research ‘caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen’
Some of the witnesses called for gain-of-function research to be slowed down, paused or stopped entirely.
Redfield testified that the “COVID-19 pandemic presents a case study on the potential dangers of such research,” and said, “we should call for a moratorium on gain-of-function research until we have a broader debate and we come to a consensus as a community about the value of [such] research.”
“Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
After three years of habitually urging the public to get a Covid-19 vaccine, to not only protect ourselves but others around us from contracting and spreading Covid, that the vaccines were the only way to “stop the spread,” and after nearly 80% of the American population has received at least one dose, and 68% got two, and 33% with three injections – Dr. Anthony Fauci and his constituents are now saying that both old and new vaccines are not effective in generating immunity against viral diseases like Covid or the flu.
Fauci, along with Dr. David M. Morens, Senior Advisor to the Director at National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., a Senior Investigator for Viral Pathogenesis & Evolution Section at NIAID – recently published a paper in the journal Cell, that discusses vaccines and their effectiveness against ailments like Covid, influenza, RSV, and the common cold.
“Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.
In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time before adaptive immune responses are fully marshaled.
We discuss possible approaches to developing next-generation vaccines against these viruses, in consideration of several variables such as vaccine antigen configuration, dose and adjuventation, route and timing of vaccination, vaccine boosting, adjunctive therapies, and options for public health vaccination polices.”
In the early introduction of the paper, the authors admit that long before Covid fears were on the scene the flu was the dominant annual threat, but had “less than suboptimal vaccines” available to the public to prevent infection.
The authors followed that with this admission:
“Over the years, influenza vaccines have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains.
Although current influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death to some degree, their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14% to 60% over the past 15 influenza seasons.”
Moderna CEO Admits That In 2019 He KNEW In Advance that “Next Year Is Going To Be a Pandemic”
|
Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, speaking at a World Economic Forum event, admitted that he knew in 2019 (before the pandemic started) that Moderna would have to increase their vaccine production to a billion doses in 2020 because “next year is going to be a pandemic.” Check it out:
.
Also, check out the article and video referenced in the above video:
Died Suddenly graphically shows long, calamari-like clots being extracted from the blood vessels of people who died after taking the jab. Also discussed is the dramatic increase in stillbirths.
Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world – even to the point of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them.
The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the award-winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.
Clear Proof the Vaccine is Dangerous and That The CDC Concealed It
One of the major challenges with the COVID-19 vaccination has been that it has been impossible to get any clear safety data on it. The two key issues have been:
Suppression of Data Showing The Vaccines Were Not Safe:
Clinical trials of the vaccines were for all practical purposes fraudulent and massively underreporting adverse events.
Many of the adverse event databases are not being reported by the government unless they are anonymously leaked by a whistleblower (e.g. here, here or here) or forced into the open by a lawsuit.
Mass censorship of reporting “unsafe” adverse responses to vaccination on every media platform.
For example, it was recently revealed that the Israeli government deliberately concealed concerning signs of vaccine safety so that it could push the vaccine through. Given that Israel’s government served as Pfizer’s laboratory for their vaccine, this was of immense consequence globally as governments around the world pushed the vaccine forward on the basis of Pfizer’s fraudulent safety data. Steve Kirsch also has been able to demonstrate that the CDC’s committee that determines the appropriateness of these vaccines is willfully ignoring this data.
Design Flaws in the Existing Adverse Event Reporting Systems:
Massive underreporting occurring globally within the existing vaccine safety monitoring systems (e.g. VAERS).
It being impossible to know the denominator (how many total people were the adverse reactions observed in) to calculate the actual adverse event rate that is occurring.
Since VAERS is a passive reporting system, it is “not possible” to determine causality from it.
Because of this, VAERS has been able to demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine is much more dangerous that any previous vaccination, but nothing has been done with its data because it is not “reliable.”
VAERS thus occupies a curious position. It is repeatedly cited when it is needed (e.g. to fulfill the required pharmacovigilance role for the FDA) but disparaged as worthless whenever its data is cited to suggest potential harm from vaccination. Many have recognized the shortcomings in VAERS, and attempts have been made to produce more reliable systems, however as these systems tend to then produce evidence vaccines are in fact quite harmful, they are then scrapped (e.g. the ESP:VAERS project).
V-Safe
Due to the unprecedented nature of the “emergency” COVID-19 vaccination campaign (a completely novel vaccine was developed in one-tenth of the time normally required for the basic safety testing to bring a vaccine to market and then forced onto the entire world), a significant amount of the safety testing had to be performed after the vaccine had already been given to the world’s population.
I cannot find direct proof of this, but I am relatively certain that it was decided that since the vaccine had to be tested on the general population and no existing mechanism existed to effectively track vaccine safety, V-Safe was developed to fulfill this role.
V-Safe briefly was a phone app the initial recipients of the vaccine (e.g. healthcare workers who could be expected to be reliable reporters of adverse events) were given and instructed to use to communicate to report their experiences. This approach is very important because this data was prospective (this data is always more reliable than retrospective data and considered necessary to demonstrate causality) and because the total number of participants was known (which is necessary to demonstrate the rate at which adverse events occurred). The CDC was also supposed to follow up with individuals who reported adverse events, although I am somewhat doubtful this occurred.
Here are some brief descriptions of V-Safe:
Not surprisingly, V-safe’s data was never made available to the public, with the CDC giving the excuse that they needed to anonymize the data in order to protect patient confidentiality so that releasing the data could be stalled out indefinitely. To any astute observer, this is a clear admission of the data within V-safe was very concerning as the CDC could not afford to publicly release it (the federal government will always try to come up with excuses to indefinitely stall on releasing incriminating data best shown with the FDA demanding decades to curate and release Pfizer’s documents).
Fortunately, Aaron Siri, an attorney who has spent years fighting for vaccine safety on behalf of ICAN and Del Bigtree, after 463 days of work was finally able to force the CDC to release the V-Safe data. Given how concerning this data this raises serious concerns on who decided it was appropriate to withhold that data from the public.
“This guidance acknowledges that the pandemic is not over, but also helps us move to a point where COVID-19 no longer severely disrupts our daily lives,” the CDC’s Greta Massetti said in a press release.
Contact tracing and routine surveillance testing of symptomatic people are no longer recommended in most settings.
According to The New York Times, the CDC has been working for months on the new guidance which builds on previous guidance issued in February that reduced isolation times for those who get COVID-19.
The agency said it is making changes to its guidance now because “vaccination and prior infections have granted many Americans some degree of protection against the virus, and treatments, vaccines and boosters are available to reduce the risk of severe illness.”
“The CDC’s focus on individual responsibility, the removal of distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the removal of quarantine recommendations and the discussion of mask-wearing as an individual responsibility are good news for employers who are considering relaxing COVID-19 workplace requirements.
“This likely will not be the last we hear from the CDC on this topic. Indeed, the CDC stated that it intends to issue more specific guidance for settings such as healthcare, congregate living, and travel.”
Mainstream’s COVID Narrative Comes Crashing Down | The Highwire With Del Bigtree
The mainstream media’s narrative on COVID has come crashing down around even the most passionate lockdown and mandate enthusiasts who have been forced to turn tail and embrace tenets of the once castigated Great Barrington Declaration.
In my teaching, I prepare undergraduate students to become high school history teachers. In one course, teacher candidates prepare and deliver mock lessons. Their peers play the role of high school students, and I observe and give feedback following these practice lessons. Whether coincidence or a reflection of the times, this fall a good number of mock lessons covered the rise of totalitarianism. In one excellent lesson, a teacher candidate had his students examine the contexts that gave rise to totalitarianism. He accompanied this lesson with an excerpt from a world history textbook listing characteristics of totalitarianism.
This lesson hit on the true purpose of including totalitarianism in high school curricula. That purpose is not to honor the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini. Nor is that purpose to provide the methods of totalitarianism as an instructional manual to follow. Rather, the purpose of teaching on totalitarianism is to deliver a warning: heed well the conditions that yielded totalitarianism, so you can recognize and avoid them. As I observed this teacher candidate’s lesson, I could not help but think about that purpose in the context of our present time.
One passage from the lesson’s textbook concerned me the most: “Totalitarian leaders often create ‘enemies of the state’ to blame for things that go wrong. Frequently these enemies are members of religious or ethnic groups. Often these groups are easily identified and are subjected to campaigns of terror and violence. They may be forced to live in certain areas or are subjected to rules that apply only to them” (pg. 876).
Creating an enemy of the state requires othering: a process of dehumanizing through marginalizing a group of humans as something different, less than, and other. Such othered groups become an easy target to scapegoat, unfairly bearing the blame for a society’s ills.
History is replete with examples of othering. The Ancient Greeks othered based on language, labeling those who did not speak Greek barbarians. In the United States, chattel slavery and segregation were sustained through othering based on skin color. In Nazi Germany, Hitler othered based on religion, casting Jewish people as enemies of the state.
Othering frequently plays on people’s stereotypes and fears. In the United States, for example, black men have been othered as “thugs,” playing on fears about violence and criminality. In another example, public health officials in Nazi-occupied Poland played on the primal human fear of disease. Propaganda posters proclaimed “Jews Are Lice: They Cause Typhus.”
Now, some politicians are othering the “unvaccinated.” These politicians attempt to scapegoat and marginalize this minority group, despite knowing that vaccinated and unvaccinated persons alike can contract and spread COVID-19. Below, I provide the words of three politicians as examples of othering language. I also encourage you to read their words in context.
In the United States, President Joe Biden’s September 9 press conference announced sweeping vaccine mandates. He expressed that “many of us are frustrated” with unvaccinated persons. He laid blame on them for the continued pandemic; Biden claimed that this “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was “caused by…nearly 80 million Americans who have failed to get the shot.” He faulted “a distinct minority of Americans” for “keeping us from turning the corner.” And he promised, “We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal.”
In a September 17 interview on the Quebec talk show La Semaine des 4 Julie, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau labeled those opposed to vaccination “misogynists” and “racists.” Then, he exclaimed that Canada needed to make a choice: “Do we tolerate these people?”
In France, President Emmanuel Macron gave an interview with Le Parisien on January 4. In this interview, he categorized the unvaccinated as non-citizens, referred to their “lies and stupidity” as the “worst enemies” of democracy, and proclaimed “I really want to piss [the unvaccinated] off.” Macron argued these unvaccinated persons to be only “a very small minority who are resisting,” and asked a chilling question: “How do we reduce that minority?”
In these communications, Biden, Trudeau, and Macron employed several practices of othering.
They created a majority in-group, signaled by the use of the first person plural (we, us), and a minority othered group, signaled by the use of the third person plural (they, them).
They cast blame for government pandemic policies on that othered group (“keeping us from turning the corner”).
They used words to signal to the in-group that they should be angry at the othered group (“many of us are frustrated,” “I really want to piss them off”).
Trudeau and Macron specifically used labels that devalued this othered group: misogynists, racists, enemies, non-citizens.
Most worryingly, Macron and Trudeau questioned whether and how to eliminate this othered group (“Do we tolerate these people?” and “How do we reduce that minority?”).
My hope is that this will all amount to nothing more than ignored political rhetoric – empty bluster these politicians hope will score a few popularity points with their electoral base. My fear is that it will not. Either way, this dangerous othering language must be recognized and condemned.
Historians study causality: contexts, conditions, events, and their outcomes. We have examined the conditions that yielded chattel slavery, the gulag, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, Rwanda. This is not an attempt to equate current pandemic policies with these past tragedies.
Rather, this is a warning call. We have seen these conditions before, and we have seen where they lead. Turn back now – that way leads to darkness.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have eight 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.
In his ruling, Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, quoted President John F. Kennedy, writing, “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
Judge Pittman rejected the FDA’s claim that it could release redacted versions of documents at a rate of only 500 pages per month, which would have meant the full cache of documents wouldn’t become public until 2096.
The documents in question relate to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021 by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), a group of more than 30 medical and public health professionals and scientists from institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and UCLA.
In his four-page order, Judge Pittman ordered the FDA to produce more than 12,000 pages of documents on or before Jan. 31, and thereafter to “produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.”
According to this timeline, the almost-400,000 pages of documents will have been made public, sans redactions, within eight months, rather than by the year 2097.
In its FOIA 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.
PHMPT had initially requested expedited processing of its FOIA submission on the basis there is a “compelling need” for the swift release of the documents in question, further arguing that the documentation should be fully released within 108 days — the number of days it took the FDA to approve Pfizer’s vaccine.
When the organization’s request was rejected by the FDA, PHMPT filed a lawsuit against the agency.
The FDA, in its argument, recognized that it had an “obligation” to make the information public, but claimed its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which maintains the records in question, has only 10 staff members, two of whom are “new.”
Suzann Burk, head of the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management, said it takes eight minutes a page for a worker “to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request.”
As a result, the FDA initially claimed that it required 55 years to fully release redacted versions of these documents. The agency later amended this request to 75 years.
A ‘great win for transparency’
In his order, Judge Pittman recognized the “burden” placed on the FDA in meeting the timeline for the release of these documents, but nevertheless made clear that it must be a priority for the agency:
“Here, the court recognizes the ‘unduly burdensome’ challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA … But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a ‘more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration … than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated, [and] making sure that the American public is assured that this was not rush[ed] on behalf of the United States.”
Pittman, in addition to quoting Kennedy in his order, also drew on the words of former U.S. President James Madison:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both.
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
Attorney Arron Siri of the Siri & Glimstad law firm, who represented PHMPT in its lawsuit, told Reuters that the judge’s order “came down on the side of transparency and accountability.”
“This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal ‘health’ authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program — issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.
“No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure. And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what is relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.”
PHMPT pledged to publish all the FDA documents on its website.
In a filing submitted to a federal judge in November, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing on behalf of the FDA, initially claimed the agency could process some 329,000 pages of documents at a rate of only 500 pages per month, in order to have time to redact legally exempt material.
According to the DOJ, such material includes “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials.”
However, the legal team representing PHMPT argued in its court papers that the FDA, as of 2020, had 18,062 employees, indicating the agency could find the necessary manpower to rapidly fulfill the FOIA request.
It is unclear whether the FDA will appeal Thursday’s decision. If not, both the FDA and PHMPT are required to submit a report by April 1, detailing the progress being made regarding the release of the documents.
The submission of additional reports will then be required every 90 days thereafter until all documentation has been released.
Several significant rulings pertaining to COVID vaccines and related measures have come out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in recent days.
On Jan. 3, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) from disciplining military service members who object to COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds.
The same court also recently ruled against the implementation of a mask and vaccine mandate for participants in federal Head Start programs.
What If the Largest Experiment On Human Beings In History Is a Failure?
|
“It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed. ” ~ Dr. Robert Malone
A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading. What a headline. “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”. This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.
People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met. They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview. Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies. And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed. As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality.
One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF). I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious. At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos Switzerland where the uber-rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen. Silly me. What a long, strange trip this has been. I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze-addled state. Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.
But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state.
It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed. And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.
Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.
“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.
“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””
So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?
“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are NOT classified as COVID-19 deaths,
Davison said.“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.””
AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”.
IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.
AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity. Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.
FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race. All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.
IF this report holds true, there must be accountability. We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure. One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.
I hope I am wrong. I fear I am right.
Dr. Robert Malone: 17 Narrative-Changing Highlights from His Epic 3-Hour Interview w/ Joe Rogan
mRNA inventor Dr. Robert Malone sat down with Joe Rogan to discuss the TRUTH about COVID-19, the Jab, The Great Reset, our “out of control” and “lawless” government, mass formation psychosis, and much more. You can read a full write-up of Dr. Malone’s interview here. Dr. Malone was banned from Twitter for having opinions on Covid that were at odds with the mainstream narrative. Listed below are 17 key points made by Malone.
(NOTE: THE FULL 3+ HOUR INTERVIEW IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST).
500K deaths in the U.S. were caused by the intentional censorship and blockade of early COVID-19 treatment
How FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock and Dr. Rick Bright (senior VP of Pandemic Prevention and Response for The Rockefeller Foundation) made it so that physicians could not administer Hydroxychloroquine outside of the hospital.
After President Joe Biden met with India’s Prime Minister Modi, a decision was made to NOT disclose the effective treatments being used to treat the people of India.
If you have had COVID you have a higher risk of adverse reaction to the jab.
How the Anti-Vaxxer label is being used by mainstream and social media to discredit anybody who raises informed concerns about vaccine safety or provides effective alternative treatments.
The 3 Top epidemiologists agreed that Covid-19 lockdowns would not work.
Why Israel’s strict enforcement of Covid-19 vaccines and booster shots is not working.
How hospitals are financially incentivized to push the Covid-19 / great reset narrative.
How Thompson-Reuters is financially tied to Pfizer, yet they are the fact-checkers for Twitter.
Why the mortality of OMICRON is remarkably low.
The purpose of the “Dark Winter of Death” press release from the White House, and why we must stop the insanity before they jab all of our kids
Why the vast majority of the medical community is guilty of gross negligence or malfeasance.
How and why the truth regarding the purpose for Covid-19, the jab, and the lockdowns (the Great Reset) is being completely suppressed.
Pfizer is one of the most corrupt organizations in history.
There are measurable drops In IQ & social intelligence due to mask-wearing.
How physicians are causing harm to their patients by following the recommended Covid-19 protocols.
Why now is the time for freedom-loving patriots to stand up and speak up!
FULL INTERVIEW
Pharma’s War on Scientists to Mandate Jabs for Life | Dr. Joseph Mercola
Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) reveals Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns
October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of high-risk individuals rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns
As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins discussed how they could stop the call for a sane, science-based approach. In an email to Fauci, Collins wrote, “There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises”
The emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science
Despite having a combined annual budget of $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have not yet conducted an actual study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab, likely because they don’t want to know the answer
The more we learn about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the worse he looks. The grandfatherly figurehead has now had two years in the limelight, urging people to “follow the science,” which he has shamelessly equated to his own ever-shifting opinion.
Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) now reveals Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns.1
Fauci and Collins Conspired to Destroy Dissent
October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement anyone could sign onto that called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns. AIER sponsored the declaration.
“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration stated. “Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins seemingly panicked and discussed how they could possibly stop the growing call for a sane, science-based approach. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:2,3,4,5
“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises …”
“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity, and Other Deadly Delusions.” “Excellent,” Collins replied.
This correspondence is a real peek behind the curtain as to who Fauci and Collins really are. They’re not interested in debating scientific merit. Their go-to strategy is simply to demolish the opposition by any means necessary.
Clearly, there’s nothing “fringe” about these scientists. Bhattacharya, for example, has conducted NIH-funded research for decades.6 If he’s a “fringe” scientist, why is Collins funding him?
As noted by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Liberty Report (video above), behind the scenes, Fauci and Collins are just “nasty bureaucrats who want to destroy anyone who challenges their power … The scientific method does not involve, ‘Oh my gosh, that guy said something that contradicts me, I must destroy him.’”
Fauci’s War on Science
As noted by Jeffrey Tucker in a December 19, 2021, Brownstone article,7 the attacks on the declaration and its creators were particularly shocking considering “They were merely stating the consensus based on science and experience. Nothing more.”
Indeed, on March 2, 2020, 850 scientists signed a letter8 to the White House warning against the use of lockdowns, travel restrictions and the closing of businesses and schools.
Fauci himself had even told a Washington Post reporter that “The epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine”9 — a scientifically correct stance he’s since abandoned. According to Tucker, the emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science.
“What we find in these emails are highly political people who are obsessed not with science but with messaging and popular influences on the public mind,” Tuckerwrites.10
“What do we learn from these emails? The attacks on tens of thousands of medical professionals and scientists were indeed encouraged from the top. The basis for the attacks were not scientific articles. They were heavily political popular pieces.
This adds serious weight to the impression we all had at the time, which was that this was not really about science but about something far more insidious. You can discover more about this in Scott Atlas’s book on the topic [‘A Plague Upon Our House’]. These new emails confirm his account. It was an outright war on top scientists …
My own estimate is that the convinced advocates of lockdowns when they took place were probably fewer than 50 in the U.S. How and why they managed to grab hold of the reins of power will be investigated by historians for many decades.
The incredibly positive response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which has garnered 900,000 signatures in the meantime, demonstrates that there was and is still life remaining in traditional public health measures deployed throughout the 20th century and still respect for human dignity and science remaining among medical professionals and the general public.
This war on dissent against lockdowns is not only a scandal of our times. The lockdowns and now the mandates have fundamentally transformed society …
We seem ever more to be on the precipice of total disaster, one that will be difficult to reverse. It is urgent that we know who did this, as well as how and why, and take steps to stop it before more damage is done and then becomes permanent.”
Bhattacharya Speaks Out
When news of the Fauci-Collins collusion broke, Bhattacharya tweeted,11 “Now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.”
According to Bhattacharya, Collins and Fauci cooked up the false counternarrative that focused protection would “let the virus rip” through populations with devastating effects. This erroneous talking point was then thrown at them again and again.
“When reporters started asking me why I wanted to ‘let the virus rip,’ I was puzzled,” Bhattacharya tweeted December 19, 2021.12“Now I know that Collins and Fauci primed the media attack with the lie.
I was also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD [Great Barrington Declaration] as a ‘herd immunity strategy,’ Biologically the epidemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity, either through COVID recovery or vax. Lockdown, let-it-rip, and the GBD all lead to that.
As Martin Kulldorff has said, it makes as much sense to say ‘herd immunity strategy’ as it does to say ‘gravity strategy’ for landing an airplane. The only question is how to land safely, not whether gravity applies.
So the question is how to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm, where the harms considered include all of public health, not just COVID. The GBD and focused protection of the vulnerable is a middle ground between lockdown and let-it-rip.
Lockdowners like Collins & Fauci … could have engaged honestly in a discussion about it, but would have found that public health is fundamentally about focused protection … Instead, Fauci & Collins decided to smear Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, me and supporters of the GBD. They lied about the ideas it contains and orchestrated a propaganda campaign against us …
Fauci & Collins are silent about lockdown harms because they are culpable. The sad fact is that they won the policy war, they got their lockdowns, and now … own the harms. They cannot deny it. The GBD warned them.
They also cannot say that the lockdowns worked to suppress COVID. In the U.S., we followed the Fauci/Collins lockdown strategy and we have 800k COVID deaths. Sweden — more focused on protecting the vulnerable — did better and cannot be ignored …
[History] will judge those in charge of the COVID policy, and it will not judge kindly. [Collins] smears the GBD and its authors because he has no substantive argument left … Collins’ interview with Baier marks a sad end to an illustrious career, and I take no joy in saying so. Fauci should join him in retirement. They have done enough damage.”
Against Fading Odds, Fauci Tries to Keep Narrative Alive
The damaging character revelations emerge just as Fauci and President Biden struggle to whip up panic about Omicron to keep the need for pandemic countermeasures going. It’s a challenge, for sure, as most people have already realized that Omicron is no worse than a common cold.
During a December 19, 2021, CNN interview, Fauci stated that they “did not anticipate the extent of mutations” that occurred in Omicron.13 So, basically, despite sinking billions of dollars into research, scientists were unable to predict the mutations. That should tell us something.
Disturbingly, there’s now evidence suggesting Omicron might be yet another lab creation. In a recent Bannons War Room interview, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,14 reviewed what we know so far about the Omicron variant.
As noted by Malone, the press has been talking about “everything except for the obvious, which is that this is a ‘vaccine’-escaped mutant.’” The variant appears highly resistant to the COVID shots, which is a sign of it having mutated within one or more COVID-jabbed individuals, yet the first recommendation from the mental giants in charge of COVID responses was to push COVID booster shots. This is as irresponsible and irrational as it is unscientific.
“The boosters are a perfect way to bias our immune system so we’re LESS able to respond to this new variant,” Malone explained. “This is [like] jabbing everybody with a flu vaccine from three seasons ago and expecting it to have effects against the current [flu strains].”
Omicron Emerged From Old 2020 Strain
As for the nature and origin of Omicron, Malone said:
“It has the hallmark of a viral agent under tight genetic selection for evolution to escape the ‘vaccine’ responses against the receptor bonding domain. The question that is outstanding right now is — because this is so different from the other strains that are being tracked; it’s in its own separate little evolutionary branch — how did this happen?”
What Malone is referring to is the fact that the closest genetic sequences to Omicron date back to mid-2020. It doesn’t seem to belong to any of the evolutionary branches that have emerged since.15 In the time-lapse graphic16 below, Twitter user Chief Nerd illustrates the genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 from the original strain until now, using data from nextstrain.org.17
Time-lapse I made of the genomic epidemiology of SARS-COV-2 since the 2020 Wuhan strain
Notice that Omicron makes a sudden appearance inconsistent with the other variants, and contains the largest number of mutations
It’s a great illustration of just how odd an unnatural Omicron’s emergence really is. As the time-lapse gets toward the end of 2021, suddenly there’s Omicron, emerging like a straight line from a mid-2020 strain, having no semblance to any of the other strains. There’s no precedent for this oddity occurring in nature.
In all, Omicron is said to have some 50 mutations from the original Alpha strain, many of which specifically allow it to circumvent COVID shot-induced antibody defenses.
According to molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Philip Buckhaults, Ph.D.,18 Omicron has 25 nonsynonymous and only one synonymous spike mutation compared to its most recent common ancestor (AV.1). Were it a natural occurrence, that ratio ought to be somewhere between 25 to 50 and 25 to 100.
Until and unless we end up with conclusive proof of its origin, we need to keep all options open, Malone says, and that includes the possibility of Omicron being cooked up in a lab from a previous strain.
One plausible theory is that scientists enabled an early SARS-CoV-2 variant to build antibody resistance, possibly by passaging them through human or humanized cell lines in the presence of convalescent plasma.
Congressman Calls for Natural Immunity Study
December 14, 2021, a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis held a remote hearing in which they debated the need for an accelerated vaccination effort. In the outtake from that meeting (video above), Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have a combined annual budget of about $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000.
With that kind of budget and an army of staff, why has the U.S. government not done a study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab? Jordan asked. The answer he received (from an, unfortunately, unidentified doctor) was refreshingly direct:
“I don’t think they want to know the answer,” because “it would undermine the indiscriminate vaccination policy for every single human being, including extremely low risk people.”
According to a Columbia University study, more than half the American population has now been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in one form or another and has natural immunity, and according to an Israeli study, natural immunity is 27 times more effective than the COVID shot.19
So, why are government leaders and so-called health authorities still acting as though natural immunity is irrelevant and the only way to control the pandemic is through repeated injections with experimental — and clearly hazardous — gene transfer technology?
I believe the answer is they’re ignoring natural immunity because their primary objective and goal it to have everyone injected. They want everyone routinely jabbed so they can justify the rollout of health passports, which will become the foundation for an all-encompassing digital ID control system.
In short, our public health agencies have been hijacked and are carrying out an anti-human, anti-health agenda intended to enslave the public in a technocratic control grid.
There’s no doubt anymore that the vaccine passports will be expanded to encompass financial transactions and incorporate a social credit system. Together, all of these pieces will allow an unelected elite to control the lives of every person on the planet, down to the minutest details of our everyday lives.
While Fauci and Collins are certainly not alone in this effort, and likely not even close to the top of the technocratic food chain, they have played very important roles. It’s time to see them for who and what they are, and demand that they be held to account for their actions.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman explained that in the usual PCR test protocol, there are three primers (fragments of single-stranded DNA), and if all three are positive, it is considered to be a positive test, and the person is diagnosed with Covid. But now the criteria have changed and only two primers are required for a test to be deemed positive. The change in protocol is a way to convert negative results to positive results and call it a new thing, which was named Omicron. The result is an increase in the number of Covid cases.
Dr. Kaufman has shown many times that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated, a process of separating it from everything else and viewing it under a microscope, and cannot be proven to exist. Similarly, the new Omicron variant of the Covid virus has yet to be isolated and proven to exist. Omicron is an ‘in silico’ computer-produced genome sequence. There is no clinical test authorized, approved, or available for purchase for any variant! There are no scientific publications studying Omicron.
David Icke summarizes Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s findings in this short video clip:
Dr. Bhakdi explains how and why the gene-based COVID-“vaccines” trigger the breakdown of immunological defenses against infectious agents that lie dormant (“sleeping”) in our bodies. These include many viruses such as Herpes zoster (shingles), Epstein-Barr-Virus (infectious mononucleosis), Cytomegaloviruses, bacteria – particularly tuberculosis – and parasites.
Moreover, our sentinel lymphocytes are vitally important in protecting us against tumors because they swiftly exterminate cancer cells that continually arise in our bodies. “Vaccine”- mediated destruction of these sentinel lymphocytes is going to have disastrous global consequences. Patients with dreaded “old” infections such as tuberculosis and with malignant tumors will flood the hospitals around the world.
The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids | Dr. Joseph Mercola
The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is that vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule
Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information
Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained
According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable
Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce, and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield
In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.
Mayer, board president of Children’s Health Defense —California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)
Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to the acting manager of worldwide customer research.
In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.
“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn’t know if I was ever going to get better.
I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.
It’s literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.
I had encephalitis and encephalopathy … digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.
I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”
The COVID Jab Tragedy
While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.
What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.
Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot, in turn, highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.
According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.
Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability
The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:
“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what’s really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].
They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.
This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of … These are the things they’re guarding with their lives.
First of all, they need to guard the emergency … so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They’re also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.
Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you’re injured by an EUA vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, you can’t sue the person who gave it to you, you can’t sue the institution where you got the shot.
You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they’ll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.
Now, if you’re vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You’ll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you’re going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that’s going to get you better if you’re vaccine injured is natural treatments …
That’s the kind of treatment you’re going to need, and that’s not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it’s a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they’re paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.
If you can’t work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don’t know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”
Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.
“If you do end up getting compensation … they don’t pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.
That’s been said to me a bunch of times by people who’ve been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]
Stages of Liability: EUA
In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.
“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.
[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it’s a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well … So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it’s basically the same as an outright mandate.
It’s illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that’s medical segregation.
That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn’t either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet … that’s also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”
Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.
“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it’s not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn’t make it legal. It’s all illegal …
Now, they know full well that it’s illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it’s illegal. But what they’re counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it’s worked.”
Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling
The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.
To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow the government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:
“This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”
DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’
In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse a EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing a EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.
However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses a EUA vaccine.
“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That’s not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.
They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it’s just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is ‘purely informational.’
Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it’s purely informational. You cannot act on it. That’s what the DOJ says. Again, it’s not adjudicated, so it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”
Four Standards for EUA
There are four standards that must be fulfilled for a EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn’t just mean vaccines. It also includes PCR tests and even surgical masks.
The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For a EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.
Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3
For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.
The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.
“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.
The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.
The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.
“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market … by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.
This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.
You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”
Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval
With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:
“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn’t have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I’m doing this presentation because I’m going to explain what’s going on with that.
This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that’s the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.
There’s all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It’s all the same answer. No, no, no, no.
The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it’s ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it’s ‘legally distinct.’
In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.
So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not available in the United States. It’s available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they’re really scared of liability.
Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it’s approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.
Here’s what they said; ‘We’re deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’
Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That’s a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?
The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That’s why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”
Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed
This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it’s also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They’re not interchangeable. That means the Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn’t have full approval and it’s not on the market.
“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we’re still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they’re not interchangeable.
[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]
So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it’s an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn’t have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it’s an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.
No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children’s recommended schedule. That’s how we know it’s not fully approved and on the market.
Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it’s emergency use authorization. It doesn’t say it’s fully approved, because it’s not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who’ve received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.
So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That’s what’s going on here.
And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it’s happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there’s a problem with their vaccine and they don’t declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID …
The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they’re going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate …
Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn’t calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don’t prevent transmission. They don’t prevent cases. They don’t prevent hospitalization or death.”
How You Can Help
Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting a EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification.
They also have a couple of dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member of childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.
This book is an absolute must-read and you know people are enjoying it as it has been No. 1 on Amazon for the last month, which is very unusual for a book. It will likely be one of the top bestsellers of the entire year. So, get your copy before Sen. Elizabeth Warren convinces Amazon to ban it!
