1

Pfizer Fails to Convince FDA on Immediate Need for COVID Booster Shots

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

After meeting with Pfizer executives Monday, U.S. regulators said they are still not ready to recommend COVID vaccine booster shots.

“Nothing has really changed,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo after the meeting.

Pfizer executives met privately with U.S. senior scientists and regulators Monday evening to press their case for quick authorization of COVID booster vaccines amid pushback from federal health agencies who last week said the extra doses are not needed.

Officials said after the meeting that more data — and possibly several more months — would be needed before regulators could determine whether booster shots were necessary.

During the 1-hour online virtual meeting, Pfizer’s chief scientific officer briefed top doctors in the federal government, including Fauci; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health; U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine; and Dr. David Kessler, chief science officer of the Biden administration’s COVID response team.

The meeting was largely seen as a courtesy after Pfizer’s announcement last week that it would seek Emergency Use Authorization for its booster shot led to unusual pushback from the FDA and CDC.

The two agencies responded to Pfizer’s news in a joint statement, issued last week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in which they said fully vaccinated Americans don’t need boosters right now and the science is lacking.

“The CDC and the FDA said that based on the data that we know right now, we don’t need a boost,” Fauci told CNN Monday. “That doesn’t mean that that won’t change. We might need, as a matter of fact, at some time to give boosters either across the board or to certain select groups, such as the elderly or those with underlying conditions,” Fauci said.

Officials said any recommendations about booster shots are likely to be scaled, even within age groups. For example, if booster shots are recommended, they might go first to nursing home residents who received their vaccines in late 2020 or early 2021, while elderly people who received their first shots in the spring might have a longer wait, The New York Times reported.

Then there is the issue of what kind of booster will be needed: a third dose of the original vaccine, or a shot tailored to the Delta variant.

“It was an interesting meeting,” Fauci said. “They shared their data. There wasn’t anything resembling a decision. This is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle, and it’s one part of the data, so there isn’t a question of a convincing case one way or the other.”

Pfizer called the meeting “productive”:

“We had a productive meeting with U.S. public health officials on the elements of our research program and the preliminary booster data in our ongoing trials. Both Pfizer and the U.S. government share a sense of urgency in staying ahead of the virus that causes COVID-19, and we also agree that the scientific data will dictate next steps in the rigorous regulatory process that we always follow.”

Pfizer said it would be publishing “more definitive data in a peer-reviewed journal and continuing to work with regulatory authorities to ensure that our vaccine continues to offer the highest degree of protection possible.”

According to The New York Times, HHS, which convened the meeting, issued its own statement reiterating the administration’s stance. “At this time, fully vaccinated Americans do not need a booster shot,” the agency said.

An HHS spokesperson told CNN the CDC and FDA take laboratory data, clinical trial data, cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies but do “not rely on those data exclusively.”

The administration is prepared for booster doses if the science demonstrates they are needed, the spokesperson added and will continue to review any new data as it becomes available.

Prior to Monday’s meeting, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner and current board member at Pfizer, told CBS News that updated efficacy numbers from the Israeli Ministry of Health led Pfizer to seek Emergency Use Authorization for a booster dose of its COVID vaccine.

Israel’s health ministry said in a statement last week it had seen the efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine drop from more than 90% to about 64% as the Delta variant spread.

As a result, Israel started administering a third dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to immunocompromised people and heart transplant patients — despite the vaccine’s link to heart inflammation.

WHO says Pfizer should focus on improving access to vaccines, not boosters

World Health Organization (WHO) officials insisted there was not enough evidence to show the need for third doses of COVID vaccines. They said Pfizer should concentrate instead on improving vaccine access around the world, The Guardian reported.

The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said grotesque vaccine disparities were driven by “greed.”

“We are making conscious choices right now not to protect those in need,” Ghebreyesus said, adding that people who have yet to receive a single dose should be prioritized. He  called on Pfizer and Moderna to “go all out to supply COVAX, the Africa Vaccine Acquisition Task Team, and low- and middle-income countries.”

Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief WHO scientist, said: “At this point … there is no scientific evidence to suggest that boosters are definitely needed.”

Swaminathan said the WHO would make recommendations on booster shots “based on the science and data, not on individual companies declaring that the vaccines should now be administered as a booster dose.”

Dr. Michael Ryan, WHO emergencies chief, suggested if rich countries decide to administer booster shots rather than to donate them to the developing world, “we will look back in anger and I think we will look back in shame.”

Pfizer stands to make billions from boosters

Pfizer stands to benefit financially if booster doses are needed, according to The Motley Fool which wrote: “The more COVID vaccine doses are required, the higher the companies’ sales will be and the better its vaccine stocks will likely perform.”

According to YAHOO Finance, Pfizer has recently experienced an increase in support from the world’s most elite money managers. Among these funds, Diamond Hill Capital held the most valuable stake in Pfizer — worth $407.3 million at the end of the fourth quarter.

In second place was New York-based hedge fund Two Sigma Advisors, which amassed $387.2 million worth of shares. Citadel Investment Group and AQR Capital Management — an investment management firm dedicated to delivering results for its clients — became one of the largest hedge fund holders of the company.

In terms of the portfolio weights assigned to each position, Healthcare Value Capital allocated the biggest weight to Pfizer.

Specific money managers include Marshall Wace LLP, which invested $56.1 million in the company at the end of the quarter, and Steven Boyd’s Armistice Capital, which made a $43.5 million investment in the stock during the quarter.

Other funds with brand new Pfizer positions are Charles Clough’s Clough Capital Partners, Michael Rockefeller and KarláKroeker’s Woodline Partners, and Phill Gross and Robert Atchinson’s Adage Capital Management.

As The Defender reported July 9, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that it’s current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

The company said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants — which is music to the ears of investors.




FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious But Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine saying the shot has been linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a “serious but rare” autoimmune disorder. The Washington Post attributed the news to “four individuals familiar with the situation.”

According to The New York Times, the chances of developing GBS after receiving the J&J shot is three to five times higher than would be expected in the general population in the U.S.

About 100 preliminary reports in the U.S. of GBS have been detected after receiving J&J’s vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement to CNN today. Most cases were reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men 50 and older.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to discuss the GBS cases during an upcoming meeting, the CDC said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

While the cause of GBS is not fully known, it often follows infection with a virus and has been linked to other vaccines.

The FDA has concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any danger but will include the proviso in fact sheets about the drug for providers and patients.

“It’s not surprising to find these types of adverse events associated with vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former acting chief scientist at the FDA. The data collected so far by the FDA, Borio said, suggest the vaccine’s benefits “continue to vastly outweigh the risks.”

Reports of GBS are rare, the CDC said, “but do likely indicate a small possible risk of this side effect following” the J&J vaccine.

Federal officials identified the 100 suspected cases of GBS among recipients of the J&J shot through the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — a federal monitoring system that relies on patients and health care providers to report adverse effects of vaccines.

According to the most recent data from VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 2, there were 398 reports of GBS with 187 cases attributed to Pfizer, 159 to Moderna, and 76 cases to J&J.

No link has been found between GBS and mRNA COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna despite reports in VAERS.

The VAERS database indicates the onset of GBS symptoms after the J&J vaccine within about three weeks of vaccination, The New York Times reported. One recipient, a 57-year-old man from Delaware who had suffered both a heart attack and a stroke within the last four years, died in early April after he was vaccinated and developed GBS.

As The Defender reported July 8, a third-grade teacher-developed GBS three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. Stacie [last name unknown] went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room. Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

In April, The Defender reported on a Texas teenager diagnosed with GBS a few weeks after his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The teen said he believed the vaccine was to blame, according to a local Houston news channel KPRC2 report.

“I wanted to get the vaccine,” said Wyatt McGlaun, a high school senior from The Woodlands. “I felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to travel and enjoy my last summer before college.”

A few weeks after receiving the vaccine, McGlaun became weak and had difficulty walking. He was admitted to CHI St. Luke’s Health where he was diagnosed with GBS. News reports did not disclose which vaccine the teen received.

J&J linked to blood-clotting disorders

This is the second time J&J’s COVID vaccine has been linked to a severe adverse reaction. On April 13, federal officials temporarily paused the J&J shot after confirming health officials were investigating six cases of blood clots in the U.S.

During the April 23 meeting, the ACIP said it had found 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died. Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.

The CDC advisory safety committee said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh the risks and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

On April 26, the FDA amended its EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.




Pfizer to Seek Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Booster Shots — But CDC, FDA Say Science Is Lacking

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Pfizer announced Thursday it will seek Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August for the third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. The drugmaker predicted those who have been fully vaccinated will need a booster shot within six to 12 months of receiving their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But hours later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a joint statement by the FDA and Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) saying, “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time.”

The statement did not explicitly mention Pfizer but said: “a science-based, rigorous process” headed by the CDC, FDA and the National Institutes of Health would determine when or whether boosters were necessary.

According to the HHS statement:

“FDA, CDC, and NIH are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data, and cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively.”

In a statement to CNN Friday, the World Health Organization said:

“We don’t know whether booster vaccines will be needed to maintain protection against COVID-19 until additional data is collected,” adding, “limited data [is] available on how long the protection from current doses lasts, and whether an additional booster dose would be beneficial and for whom.”

Scientists “applauded the statement” from HHS, The Washington Post reported, saying boosters were not imminent and the science isn’t clear on if or when they will be needed.

“My opinion right now … is that current vaccination seems to be large‘ holding,’” said E. John Wherry, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. “But the companies seem to suggest their continued follow-up of their trial patients shows concerning levels of the waning of immunity. Not much of these data from the companies are publicly available yet. I agree we need as much independent data and assessment as possible on this topic.”

John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, said:

“No one is saying we’ll never need a booster, but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now. The decisions that are going to be made will be made by federal agencies.”

The HHS statement followed recommendations made June 23 by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices (ACIP). Members of the ACIP COVID-19 working group said they would recommend booster shots only if there were a demonstrated decline in efficacy — not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Dr. Sara Oliver, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. Sharon Frey, ACIP member and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School, said:

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time. There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Pfizer CEO insists boosters are needed

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

All U.S. pharmaceutical companies involved in making COVID vaccines are working on formulating and testing booster shots to prepare for the possibility, The Washington Post reported.

Pfizer argued that as antibody blood concentration wanes, boosters will be required to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus. This would quench the epidemic faster, the company said.

Pfizer said its vaccine’s effectiveness had eroded, citing two lines of evidence outside scientists have not seen in detail. This included an Israeli government analysis that showed reduced efficacy with Pfizer’s vaccine and the Delta variant and data from Pfizer’s continued follow-up of people who were vaccinated last summer.

“While protection against severe disease remained high across the full six months, the observed decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time, and the continued emergence of variants, are key factors driving our belief that a booster dose will likely be necessary to maintain highest levels of protection,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer said it would submit data to regulators within weeks showing the third dose of its vaccine at six months caused antibody levels to shoot up to five to 10 times higher than the original two-dose regimen. Moderna announced similar data in May.

Pfizer motivated by profit margins

Less than 24 hours after Pfizer announced plans to seek emergency use authorization of a third dose, the drugmaker’s stock was up 1.6%.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that it’s current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

“Now, let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price,” D’Amelio said. “So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”

Pfizer said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants.




Hundreds Injured by COVID Vaccines Turn to GoFundMe for Help With Expenses

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

High school senior Emma Burkey received the one-shot Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine on April 1. Within two weeks she was placed in an induced coma. She underwent three brain surgeries after experiencing seizures and developing blood clots in her brain.

When Burkey was well enough to be transferred from the hospital to a rehabilitation center, her first round of bills totaled $513,000.

Friends of the 18-year-old’s family turned to GoFundMe to raise money to help cover Burkey’s mounting medical costs. As of July 7, more than $59,000 had been raised.

The family hopes most of Burkey’s medical costs will be covered by insurance, but that’s unclear, as their daughter’s medical care cost could run into millions of dollars.

“Right now it feels like the national debt,” a family spokesperson said. “It’s so big you can’t get your head around it.”

According to a recent update on Burkey’s GoFundMe page, Burkey is still in intensive rehab, remains in a wheelchair, and can stand unassisted for the first time July 6 — almost four months after she got the vaccine.

More than 180 people seeking help on GoFundMe

As The Defender reported July 1, research compiled by a group in Mesa County, Colorado, showed as of June 25 there were more than 180 GoFundMe accounts seeking help for people who had suffered injuries after receiving a COVID vaccine and were left with large medical bills and other expenses.

Alicia Smith, 34, is a hairdresser who felt pressured by the media to get a COVID vaccine to make her clients feel safe. After receiving her second dose of Pfizer on April 15 at Walgreens, she immediately experienced negative side effects, including swelling, loss of feeling, inability to breathe, and symptoms of Bell’s Palsy.

Bell’s Palsy is unexplained facial muscle weakness or paralysis caused by damage to the facial nerve that causes one side of the face to droop. The condition usually resolves on its own within six months, but in rare cases, may be permanent.

A neurologist at Louisiana State University told Smith her symptoms were caused by anxiety and urged her to seek cognitive therapy. Two months after being hospitalized and undergoing rehab, Smith still cannot return to work because of severe uncontrollable body tremors and Bell’s Palsy on the right side of her face.

After Smith shared her story on the Thrivetime Show: Business School without the BS, a friend started a GoFundMe to raise funds for Smith’s medical expenses.

Stacie [last name unknown] is a third-grade teacher who developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. She went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

After several weeks, Stacie was able to take a few steps with the aid of a walker and physical therapist. She was transferred to an intensive rehab facility. A friend started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Stacie’s medical bills.

Lakela Thomas started taking medicine for seronegative arthritis on April 1. The next day she received her first COVID vaccine. Within three weeks, Thomas developed severe chest pain, a rash that covered her body, and swollen hands, feet, and lips. Thomas spent more than two weeks in the hospital and is now on at least 14 medications.

Doctors believe Thomas is now suffering from several autoimmune conditions, including Steven Johnson Syndrome — a severe medical emergency that affects the skin and mucous membranes associated with oral medications and other vaccines — neuropathy, a severe flare of seronegative arthritis, thrush, and pericarditis and Behçet’s Disease, a rare disorder that causes blood vessel inflammation throughout the body.

Almost three months after her COVID vaccine, Thomas has not improved. Her husband started a GoFundMe page to help cover the costs of medical expenses and lost wages, as she is unable to return to work and he must now provide care for his wife and daughter.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room.

Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

After he was stabilized, Spaulding was sent to a rehabilitation hospital. As of June 29, he was back in the hospital for an infection and blood clots. He lost almost all the progress he made during his initial round of rehabilitation.

According to his GoFundMe, Spaulding is still unable to walk and muscle weakness and pain are his constant companions. He is fighting to regain the mobility and feeling he lost due to the GBS brought on by the COVID vaccine.

On May 25, Freddy [no last name provided], a self-employed roof contractor with two children, suffered an immediate and severe reaction to Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Within 15 minutes of vaccination, he lost feeling in the left side of his body, developed a rash, and experienced swelling in his hands and feet. He was treated on-site by paramedics and sent home.

The next night Freddy began experiencing heart palpitations and atrial fibrillation and stopped breathing. He was transferred to the hospital for heart monitoring.

On June 22, Freddy was taken by ambulance to the hospital again after he stopped breathing, experienced massive tremors in his leg, and was unable to move.

According to Freddy’s GoFundMe page, he has been dismissed or ignored by healthcare providers who don’t associate his newly acquired conditions with Moderna’s vaccine. Freddy experiences constant uncontrollable spasms and tremors, migraines, tinnitus, fatigue, dizziness, neurological episodes resembling seizures or strokes, brain fog, and pain.

Obtaining federal compensation for COVID vaccine injuries almost impossible

After being injured by COVID vaccines, people facing huge medical bills have few options, beyond what their own health insurance covers. That’s because, under federal law, vaccine makers are shielded from liability.

In 2005, Congress passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue a declaration providing immunity from tort liability for claims of loss caused by medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines, drugs, products) against diseases or other threats of public health emergencies.

On Feb. 4, 2020, HHS invoked the PREP Act when it declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency. On Jan. 21, HHS amended the act, extending the liability shield to include additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In exchange for immunity for vaccine makers, under the PREP Act, the federal government pledged compensation for adverse reactions to COVID treatments and vaccines through a program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by HHS.

As The Defender reported July 1, as of June 1, CICP reported 869 pending cases but offered no further information.

The CICP website outlines the parameters of the program, which provides compensation for medical expenses, lost employment income, and survivor death benefits as “the payer of last resort,” covering only what remains unpaid or unpayable by other third parties, such as health insurance.

Under the CICP program, attorney fees are not covered. There is no court, judge, or right to appeal.

Since the CICP program’s inception in 2010, only 29 claims have been paid, with an average payout of around $200,000. The other 452 claims (91.4%) were denied. Ten claims won approval but were deemed ineligible for compensation.

Only about 8% of people who applied to the CICP with vaccine injuries in the past received payouts, and there are no protections from the U.S. legal system.

As Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, puts it, COVID vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.”

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.




CDC Experts Disagree With Pfizer on COVID Boosters, Threatening Pharma Giant’s Billion Dollar Revenue Stream

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

As Pfizer makes plans to keep its billion-dollar revenue stream going — by assuring investors yearly COVID booster doses will be needed long after the pandemic ends — a group of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said there isn’t enough data to recommend COVID booster shots to the general population.

The COVID-19 working group of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) said on June 23, they would only recommend booster shots if there’s a demonstrated decline in efficacy –– not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may also be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Sara Oliver, M.D., a medical epidemiologist with CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Currently, there’s no evidence to suggest a booster is needed, the experts said. Boosters may be appropriate for special risk groups in the future, including elderly people and transplant recipients. To be sure, the nation’s top public health officials said they would continue to monitor the situation.

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time,” said Dr. Sharon Frey, member of the ACIP and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School. “There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Dr. Grace Lee, chair of the ACIP safety panel and professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, said she would like to see more evidence of breakthrough cases before recommending a booster shot.

“I would want greater certainty on the safety data if we’re talking about boosting before it’s clear what the risk data will look like,” Lee said. “If we’re seeing severe breakthrough cases then I think the decision-making moves forward even if there’s uncertainty with the safety data.”

CDC expert recommendations threaten Pfizer profits

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer executives have assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need — a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant, Fierce Pharma reported.

No one is completely sure when a booster will be needed, but it’s possible that some of those who were vaccinated early on may need an extra jab as early as September, or roughly 8 to 12 months after their initial regimen, CEO Albert Bourla told Axios in May.

Pfizer has argued that boosters would be required “as antibody blood concentration wanes to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus and thus quench the epidemic faster,” the Bernstein analysts, led by Ronny Gal, wrote to clients. That’s not the industry’s standard, and it’s also not what the CDC’s ACIP suggested at its meeting on June 23, analysts wrote.

A Pfizer spokesperson told Fierce Pharma the company’s “current thinking is that until we see a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 circulation and COVID-19 disease, we think it is possible that a third dose, a boost of our vaccine, could be needed to help provide protection against COVID-19,” subject to regulatory approval.

Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is already the second-highest revenue-generating drug in the world, with a projected revenue forecast of $26 billion in 2021 alone — a 70% increase in its originally projected profits.

The forecast is based on contracts to deliver 1.6 billion vaccine doses this year. The company expects to sign more deals for this year and is in supply talks with several countries for 2022 and beyond.

During an investor conference in March, Pfizer’s CFO Frank D’Amelio said the company sees “significant opportunity” for its COVID vaccine once the market shifts from a “pandemic situation to an endemic situation.”

At that point “factors like efficacy, booster ability, the clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine,” D’Amelio told the analyst.

During the Barclays’ Global Health Conference in March, D’Amelio said the company doesn’t see this as a one-time event, but “as something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.”

Bourla said a third dose of the company’s COVID vaccine was “likely” to be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations.

“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected.”

Like Pfizer, Moderna’s chief commercial officer, Corinne M. Le Goff said during a call with investors in April that Americans could start getting booster shots of its vaccine later this year to protect against COVID variants.

“It is likely that the countries that have already achieved high vaccine coverage are going to be ready to shift their focus to boosters in 2022, and possibly even starting at the end of this year,” Le Goff said.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has said its vaccine will probably need to be given annually, despite being heavily marketed to consumers as a one-dose vaccine.

As The Defender reported in May, pharmaceutical companies and their CEOs have made billions from COVID vaccines, massive compensation packages, and questionable stock sales while reassuring investors that plans were underway for boosters and annual shots.




Experts Confirm Extremely Low Levels of Fluoride Causes IQ Loss in Children

By Stuart Cooper | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • New studies find that fluoride levels four to five times lower than those found in pregnant women in fluoridated communities cause IQ loss for the child and that older women in fluoridated communities have a 50% higher risk of hip fractures.
  • Plaintiffs suing the EPA in federal court over fluoridation’s neurotoxicity have continued to win legal victories and have shared deposition videos exposing CDC and EPA negligence.
  • The former NTP director joined the chorus of scientific and public health experts raising alarms about neurotoxic risk, but the dental lobby responded by doubling their fluoridation expansion efforts.

A landmark study by Grandjean, et al., has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury, or arsenic.

The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.

A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in non-fluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.’s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health-funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.

A benchmark dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case, a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended the use of such a level.

It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.

It is estimated that more than 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated — thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study submitted to judge in federal fluoridation lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on a par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

In the written order, the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather than restart the multi-year petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published, possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22 status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, “As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence.”

The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow Fluoride Action Network (FAN) on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent-setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage, and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

Damning deposition videos

The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policymakers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong.

Instead of verifying any of these claims, policymakers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation.

Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children.

In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years.

These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans.

For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.”

FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride.

Former NTP director warns parents in an op-ed

Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health.

Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research.

Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids’ Developing Brains From Fluoride,” highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. “to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children,” and state:

“Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children … We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake.”

The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.

FAN has compiled quotes (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm.

From womb to tomb

An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in postmenopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water. It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis.

The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation.

Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.” The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found an increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.

It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride.

Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found an increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density, it simultaneously decreases the bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density.

This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures. Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death.

About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.” “Of those who survive, many do not regain their pre-fracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.

Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives, or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends the US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”

Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.” Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride.

But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay.

The fluoridation lobby is doubling down

Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community, and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction.

The UK and New Zealand are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, is urging the government to take the power over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country.

While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition.

In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards.

However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation, or public input.

Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ, the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN.

The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution.

It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane, has fought this effort, and as a result, the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane.

Calgary, Alberta, is also being threatened with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment, the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond).

We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision-makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.

From June 28 to July 4, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

https://youtu.be/PrA9nJJkRJ4

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride — up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Together, let’s help FAN get to the finish line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the tenth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Originally published by Mercola.




COVID Vaccine Manufacturer Ordered to Pay $263 Million for Role in Largest Overdose Epidemic in History

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Despite the state spending thousands of dollars a second – ticketing, kidnapping, caging, and killing evil drug users, the rate of lethal drug overdoses in the last 15 years has skyrocketed at near-exponential rates. According to the most recent data on overdose deaths, despite the state’s immoral war on drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 92,000 Americans died of an overdose in the 12-month span ending in November — the highest number ever recorded. To understand how we got to this point, we have to look at how Americans became so addicted to opioids. Spoiler alert, it was not by chance.

Across the board, drug use and deaths associated with drug use have increased at alarming rates. No amount of AR-15s, SWAT police, MRAPs, or any other military gear has had a hand in lowering these statistics. In fact, the increase in overdose deaths nearly perfectly coincides with the increase in militarization of police in the last decade and a half.

Instead of deterring drug use, it’s been expanding, getting worse, and drugs have become more available and more dangerous. How did this happen?

There are legitimate needs for opioids just like there are legitimate needs for cannabis. But when people are taught their entire lives to blindly trust the medical industry, who clearly choose to deceive them, we end up with problems like we have today.

The government making drugs illegal does absolutely nothing when a person puts blind trust in a medical establishment who then deliberately addicts them to opioids to make billions. Even when it’s illegal, after these people have been duped into their addictions, they still seek it out. This is why we see soccer moms overdosing on dangerous black market fentanyl in front of Hobby Lobby.

They put blind trust in the government and medical industry to protect them and instead were turned out for a buck.

Drug manufacturers deliberately deceived patients and doctors about the risks of opioids, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs longer, and aggressively targeted vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and veterans.

One such company was Johnson & Johnson, which was ordered this week to pay $263 million to resolve claims it fueled an opioid epidemic in New York state and two of its largest counties.

“The opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc” across the nation, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Johnson & Johnson helped fuel this fire.”

Indeed, they did. According to the original $465 million lawsuits out of Oklahoma, J&J deliberately deceived doctors and patients about their opioid drugs which played a major role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yes, hundreds of thousands. According to the CDC, nearly 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses from 1999 to 2019.

Given J&J’s history is fueling the opioid crisis, one would be naturally skeptical of blindly receiving a vaccine developed by the same company in record time. What’s more, while the opioid crisis is bad enough J&J’s past is far more insidious than just opioids.

Johnson & Johnson also knew for decades their baby powder was tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and they kept that information from regulators and the public. A government-funded study from the mid-1990s found that Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer in rats and other studies have found an increased risk of cancer in women who used their talc-based products. The potential risks have been known to the company for decades.freestar

What’s more, in 2018, the pharma giant was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to thousands of victims who reportedly developed cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s products. In that case, 22 women alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contained the known carcinogen, asbestos, which caused them to develop cancer. According to reports, there are over 9,000 similar talc lawsuits against the company.

Currently faced with several major lawsuits for fueling the opioid crisis in the United States, Johnson & Johnson also has a history of bribing doctors and government officials. Even more disturbing still, a Reuters investigation found that J&J knowingly sold a baby powder product that they knew had asbestos in it, which causes mesothelioma.

When this information is brought up, those who report on it are fact-checked into oblivion. In April, we discovered that these companies are actually tied to the fact-checkers, providing a possible reason for such massive censorship.

According to their own source, Factcheck.org is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. According to the foundation’s 2019 financial statement, the project holds over $1.8 billion of stock in the COVID-19 manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, no one here is claiming that these vaccines will hurt massive amounts of people or that they will not be beneficial in stopping the virus. No one here at TFTP is telling anyone what to do in regard to vaccinations. We are, however, advocating for safety at all levels of this process. Nevertheless, those who promote vaccine safety are increasingly being treated as outcasts and lawmakers and media alike are calling for them to be silenced.

Skepticism is not dangerous, as the media would have you believe. It is necessary for producing a safe product yet Johnson & Johnson has a highly questionable history of operating procedures that are the antithesis of safety. It’s not just J&J either.

In 2000 the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001 Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs.

Now, the Washington Post is defending the same company in regards to the vaccination.

The pharmaceutical giant also paid out $2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

“Pfizer violated the law over an extensive-time period. Furthermore, at the very same time, Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts said at the time.

But that was only a single case, this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths. Despite making the largest payout in history, Pfizer has continued to be called to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines.

If we applied the “three-strike” rule to these companies as we do to individuals, they would be in prison for life. Instead, they are receiving tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to help push their fast-tracked vaccines on Americans.

Are we supposed to forget the track record of these companies who deliberately misled regulators about the hazards of their products, knowingly contributing to the deaths of more than 125 people? Or who experimented on children? Or who has paid out hundreds of millions in settlements for the deaths of scores of patients?

The fact is that these companies have track records that include bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them.

The ability of Americans to forget the pasts of these companies and blindly line up for a jab that has set off a historical number of adverse reaction reports to the CDC’s VAERS database is uncanny. Yet those who question it are silenced. This is the state of “science” in the modern world.

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




Heart Inflammation Linked to COVID Vaccines in Study of U.S. Military, Department of Defense Confirms

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

new study of U.S. service members found higher than expected rates of heart inflammation following receipt of a COVID vaccine. It’s a finding Defense Department researchers say should call attention to the condition, known as myocarditis, as a potential side effect of vaccinations.

In a study published June 29 in JAMA Cardiology, U.S. military physicians described 23 cases of myocarditis in previously healthy males who developed the condition within four days of receiving a COVID vaccine.

total of 23 male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree) with a median age range of 25 years were evaluated between January and April 2021 for acute-onset chest pain following vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine.

All military members were previously healthy with a high level of fitness. They were physically fit by military standards and lacked any known history of cardiac disease, significant cardiac risk factors, or exposure to cardiotoxic agents.

Seven military members received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and 16 received the Moderna vaccine. Each patient had a final diagnosis of myocarditis without infectious, ischemic, or autoimmune etiologies identified. Diagnoses were reviewed and met the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) case definition criteria for probable myocarditis.

All patients presented with acute chest pain and significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels (10-fold to 400-fold the upper limits of their respective reference ranges) with symptom onset within 12 to 96 hours following COVID vaccination.

According to the study, physicians expected to find eight or fewer cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two mRNA doses. But 20 military members developed inflammation after their second dose, including 14 after the Moderna shot and six after the Pfizer shot. Three developed myocarditis after their first vaccine.

Cardiac symptoms resolved within a week of onset for 16 patients, but seven continued to have chest pain at the time of publication.

The researchers stated that while the true incidence of myocarditis is unknown at this time, the presentation pattern and clinical course suggest an association with an inflammatory response to vaccination.

The team concluded that increased attention to myocarditis as a potential adverse event following vaccination is warranted.

A new study supports the link between mRNA COVID vaccines and heart inflammation

A separate study published in JAMA Cardiology on June 29 investigated seven cases of acute myocarditis. Four cases occurred within five days of COVID vaccination between Feb. 1 and April 30.

All four patients had received the second dose of an mRNA vaccine and presented with severe chest pain, had biomarker evidence of myocardial injury, were hospitalized, and had test results consistent with myocarditis.

“It is possible that these four cases of acute myocarditis represent a rare, potential adverse event linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination,” researchers wrote. “The findings from the present report raise the possibility of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and acute myocarditis.”

An association between COVID vaccines and myocarditis was first reported in Israel with a case study in February involving a 19-year-old male.

On April 26, details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report raising concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine and myocarditis.

preliminary report by an Israeli committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

The two patients who died were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccine and had no pre-existing conditions.

On April 27, Reuters reported the U.S. Department of Defense was investigating 14 cases of heart inflammation among people who were vaccinated through the military’s health services.

On June 2, Israeli health officials confirmed a probable link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and dozens of cases of heart inflammation in young men following the second dose.

As The Defender reported June 10, the CDC’s advisory committee acknowledged a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among 16- to 24-year-olds who recently received a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Based on a May 24 report from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST), the CDC on June 1 updated its website with the following language:

“Data from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] show that in the 30-day window following dose 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16–24-year-olds.”

On June 23, the ACIP said there was a “likely association” of “mild” heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults after vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine, and a warning statement was warranted.

The safety panel acknowledged more than 1,200 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in 16- to-24-year-olds who received an mRNA COVID vaccine, mostly occurring in males after the second dose.

As The Defender reported June 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration added a warning to Pfizer and Moderna’s fact sheets indicating an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination.

According to the latest data from VAERS, there were 1,342  cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) in all age groups reported in the U.S. following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 18, 2021.

Of the 1,342 cases reported, 835 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 458 cases to Moderna and 45 cases to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine.




Why Children Should Not Receive the COVID Shot

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%
  • While benefits from COVID “vaccination” in children between the ages of 12 and 15 are rare and short-lived, side effects are common and long-term effects are completely unknown
  • In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headaches, along with a long list of other transient side effects. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving Pfizer’s mRNA shot
  • While Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway. So, the benefit is small
  • Even if vaccinated children were found to reduce infection among adults, it would be unethical and against regulations to do so, because the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population, and in children, the benefits do not outweigh the risks

Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video above features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.1 As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least.

If you choose to watch the video above I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is that if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children.

Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, the harms clearly outweighed the benefits.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

While benefits were rare and short-lived, side effects were common and long-term effects are completely unknown. In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. However, more serious systemic adverse events also occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving the actual mRNA shot.

Now, Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in this age group. This, Doshi explains, was based on 16 cases occurring in the placebo group, while no cases were recorded in the vaccine group. However, since there were about 1,000 placebo recipients, fewer than 2% of the placebo group actually tested positive for COVID-19.

“Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID,” Doshi says, adding “98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small.”

One of the reasons why children reap so little benefit from this jab is because a significant portion of American children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection, to begin with. Doshi cites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those age 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

While most side effects in children have been short-lived, at least seven deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds had been reported as of June 11, 2021, as well as 271 events rated “serious.”2 In the long term, there’s really no telling what might happen, and that’s a really important point.

As noted by Doshi, during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, narcolepsy didn’t become apparent until nine months after vaccination with the Pandemrix vaccine, and it wasn’t until four months into Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign that heart damage was recognized as a side effect in young men and boys.

Cocooning Does Not Work

Doshi goes on to explain why vaccinating children will not likely benefit adults, as claimed. This practice sometimes referred to as “cocooning,” has never actually been proven. Doshi cites a 2021 BMJ editorial3 in which the authors stressed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is “hard to justify right now,” seeing how children experience only mild disease and transmission by children is limited, while the possibility of unintended consequences is high.

“Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic,” the authors state.4

“The marginal benefits should therefore be considered in the context of local healthcare resources, equitable distribution of vaccines globally, and a more nuanced understanding of the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity.

Once most adults are vaccinated, circulation of SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be desirable, as it is likely to lead to primary infection early in life when disease is mild, followed by booster re-exposures throughout adulthood as transmission blocking immunity wanes but disease blocking immunity remains high. This would keep reinfections mild and immunity up to date.”

Doshi points out that even if you believe that a small benefit is better than nothing, you must remember that this is an unproven hypothetical benefit. We would need a proper randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether vaccinating children might actually benefit adults. “We need confirmatory evidence, not just assumptions,” Doshi says.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

However, even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, we may still not be able to do so. Why? Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, if children don’t benefit from it themselves, then we cannot authorize the vaccine for children. So, if children reap no benefit, then whether or not vaccinating them might benefit adults is a moot argument. You cannot authorize a drug for use in a population that reaps no benefit.

In conclusion, Doshi points out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval.

Already, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s own biodistribution study raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s also no need to rush to approve these injections for children.

To be clear, the only way they can even try to justify vaccinating children is by sacrificing them as shields to protect the elderly, which is completely unethical. Children are not harmed by COVID-19 itself, yet they keep using the slogan that “Nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated,” which simply isn’t true.

Carefully Consider the Many Risks

While long-term effects are unknown, there’s reason to suspect they may be severe. A Pfizer biodistribution study5,6 demonstrates the synthetic mRNA does not stay near the injection site as initially assumed. It is, in fact, widely disseminated in your body within hours of injection.

It enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein — which we now know is pathogenic and causes disease in and of itself — also travels to your heart, brain, and lungs. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, one of several things can occur:

  1. It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
  2. It can cause abnormal bleeding
  3. In your heart, it can cause heart problems
  4. In your brain, it can cause neurological damage
  5. In your blood vessels, it can cause vasculitis, including Kawasaki disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and Sjogren’s disease.7 These conditions significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions

Regardless of the tissue, the spike protein can also impair your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity, and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.8

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack, and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA have also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain cancers.9

The spike protein is also expelled in breast milk, which could be lethal for babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children, and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines outweigh the benefits by a significant margin.

How Spike Protein Harms Your Health

I’ve written several articles detailing the mechanisms by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can decimate your health. For a refresher, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

I recently came across yet another paper that describes a very important mechanism that, to my knowledge, is not widely known, despite being published in July 2020. The paper, “Genetic Polymorphisms Complicate COVID-19 Therapy: Pivotal Role of HO-1 in Cytokine Storm,”10 explains that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a far higher affinity for porphyrin molecules in the cell membrane than ACE-2.

Porphyrins are molecules with optical properties. Their ability to absorb light accounts for many of the beneficial health effects of sunlight.11 Porphyrins are also the building blocks of heme, the precursor to hemoglobin, which is necessary to bind oxygen in your blood.

According to this paper, porphyrins not only facilitate SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the cell, but they also allow the virus to bind functional hemoprotein within the cell, thereby increasing oxidative stress.

When the spike protein bind to porphyrins, it upregulates free heme and iron, which causes oxidation and fuels inflammation. It also increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, while decreasing levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzymes. HO enzymes degrade heme into free iron, bilirubin (which has antioxidant effects), and carbon monoxide (which is antiapoptotic). As such, the HO system plays a crucial role in cellular defense.

The spike protein essentially overwhelms the anti-inflammatory cytoprotection normally offered by HO-1. As dysfunctional porphyrins are no longer capable of making heme, more hemoprotein becomes available for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to, which results in the release of more free iron. As the cycle continues, inflammation builds. Iron released by dying cells also has toxic effects. All of this has devastating consequences for your mitochondria, and, as noted in this paper:12

“If insufficient mitochondria in cells are evident, such as in white adipose cells, these cells are unable to accommodate the severe ROS formed leading to overwhelming inflammation. Brown adipose cells are better at handling ROS due to higher concentrations of mitochondria.”

This explains why obese individuals are at much higher risk. Because their fat cells have fewer mitochondria, they’re less able to counteract the ROS and therefore end up with higher levels of inflammation. The unprecedented outpouring of toxic iron into the body may also help explain why some end up with “long-hauler syndrome” after recovering from COVID-19.

Worst of all, since all of this is related to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the COVID shots may also end up promoting cancer, as excess iron is tightly associated with tumorigenesis in multiple human cancer types through a variety of mechanisms, including catalyzing the formation of mutagenic hydroxyl radicals, regulating DNA replication, repair, and cell cycle progression, affecting signal transduction in cancer cells, and acting as an essential nutrient for proliferating tumor cells.

Do You Have Vaccine Regret?

If you’ve already had one or two COVID shots and are now having second thoughts, first, be sure to never have another vaccination again, with any vaccine of any kind. Even if you’re not having discernible symptoms as of yet, you’d be wise to start building your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet.

I interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on June 23, 2021, and that interview should go live on July 4, 2021. We discussed what Dr. Mike Yeadon — a former chief scientist at Pfizer, which is one of the primary manufacturers of COVID shots — believes, which is that those who are vaccinated are already condemned to certain and agonizing deaths.

He believes those who have received the injection will die prematurely and three years is a generous estimate for how long they can expect to remain alive.

If Yeadon’s projections are true, it changes EVERYTHING. There is no way to know if it is accurate or not, but Yeadon is someone who has serious insights as Pfizer’s former chief scientist. I was a Boy Scout and their motto is to “Be prepared.” Clearly, this is one contingency that needs to be planned for. Zelenko happens to share this belief. We discuss in great detail the strategies that can be used to lower the risk of Yeadon’s predictions coming true.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to an eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.

Other remedies that might be helpful if you’re experiencing side effects from your COVID shot(s) include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. To learn more, please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,13 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators
Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system
Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, stimulate your immune system
Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways
Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver



Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is World’s Greatest Threat

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The pandemic virus industrial complex — a term invented by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D. — is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit
  • It includes philanthropic organizations that act as string-pullers, influencers, and profit centers, the Defense Department, which is both a cash cow and a provocateur, academics, who provide public relations, and academic nonprofits that act as money launderers
  • The pandemic virus industrial complex is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, which is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme. Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and the public good
  • One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is to accuse all inquiries of being “anti-science”
  • When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It’s not anti-science. It’s anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions

In January 22, 2021, lecture above, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., discusses what he has dubbed the pandemic virus industrial complex — who they are, how they function and interact with elements within the academic, military, and commercial complexes, and how they have been trying to obscure facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that originated in a lab.

I have previously interviewed Latham a few times. He is the publisher of Independent Science News, a website that provides critical commentary on food, agriculture, and biotechnology. It’s part of the Bioscience Resource Project, an educational nonprofit public interest group co-founded by Latham and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., that provides independent research and analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.

Latham points out that there are currently no data to suggest a natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence and data suggesting the virus was genetically manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Much of the related research was done by a scientist called Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D.

He goes on to summarize the Mojiang miners’ passage theory. This theory postulates that the virus evolved inside the bodies of six miners who became ill with a suspected novel coronavirus infection in 2012. Some of the miners were sick for several weeks — a sufficient amount of time for the virus to mutate, Latham believes.

Viral samples from the miners were sent to the WIV. Latham and Wilson believe research on these samples was what led to an accidental release of the virus in late 2019.

The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex

Latham describes the pandemic virus industrial complex as “an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way.” It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit. He also notes that many of these participants play unexpected roles. For example:

  • Philanthropic organizations act as string-pullers, influencers, and profit centers
  • The Defense Department is both a cash cow and a provocateur
  • Academia provides public relations via legacy media controlled by philanthropic organizations and the drug industry
  • Academic nonprofits act as money launderers

“These nontraditional roles are intended to confuse and camouflage the various moving parts of what is a complex situation,” Latham says, “thereby protecting the whole from scrutiny.” While there are many similarities between the military-industrial complex and the pandemic virus industrial complex, there’s an important difference between the two.

The pandemic virus industrial complex is public-facing, and is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, and that is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme.

Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and the public good. In essence, they maintain the illusion that everything that’s taking place is for the betterment of mankind when, in reality, it’s a profit-making scheme.

Latham believes the pandemic virus industrial complex has played a decisive role in the effort to obscure the likely origin of the pandemic. He also believes this is the missing framework that helps explain the politicization of the pandemic.

Previous Obscuration Attempts of Manmade Outbreaks

In his lecture, Latham reviews some of the history of this viral pandemic industrial complex. In 2014, an Ebola outbreak in West Africa was decisively blamed on zoonotic transfer from infected bats. According to a report in EMBO Molecular Medicine,1 a 2-year-old boy playing with bats in a tree stump was Patient Zero.

However, while the paper failed to produce conclusive evidence to support its conclusion, Western media ran with this story. In West Africa, however, the rumor was that the real source of the outbreak was a hospital in Sierra Leone, which housed a biological laboratory where research on Ebola and related viruses, such as the Lassa fever virus, was being done.

This research was largely funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. The reason for this funding was a recent upgrading by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Lassa fever virus as a Category A infectious substance, meaning a pathogen likely to be used as a bioweapon by terrorists. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, led by Harvard University.

The Consortium is also tied to other academic institutions, including Tulane University, Scripps Research Institute, the University of California, San Diego, the Broad Institute of Boston and the University of Texas, as well as a number of private drug companies. According to Latham, statements made by some of the people involved in the research suggest they were taking advantage of West Africa’s lax and inferior biosecurity standards.

In his book, “The Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Corporate Gangsters, Multinationals & Rogue Politicians,” Chernoh Bah provides evidence showing the Patient Zero story was a fraud. The young boy died at 18 months of age, far too young to play with bats, and he was never diagnosed with Ebola. Neither was anyone in his family. The first recorded case of Ebola was actually found in Guinea, some three months after the little boy had died.

Bah also found other gaping holes in the narrative. For example, despite widespread sampling, no Ebola virus was ever found in any animal, and no animal die-offs occurred before the outbreak, which tends to be typical in natural zoonotic spillover events. Despite the obvious problems with the official narrative, no formal investigation of the lab leak theory was ever performed.

Follow the Money

According to Latham, we can learn a number of things from this story. First of all, lab escapes are likely more common than we think, and widely considered zoonotic outbreaks may not be zoonotic in origin at all. Another example is the AIDS epidemic, which you can learn about in the book “The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS.”

The second thing we can learn from the West African Ebola story relates to the money trail. The U.S. Department of Defense-funded the research done by the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium. Other oft-used alternative sources are public health funding and international aid. Whatever the case, be it biodefense, public health funding, or relief aid, the money comes from We the People.

Thirdly, corporate members of the Consortium had a specific business model in mind, and it had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable Africans from Lassa or Ebola. The goal of drug companies is to sell vaccines, drugs and diagnostic tools, primarily to the U.S. or European militaries.

The fact that the 2014 Ebola outbreak narrative went unchallenged shows a disturbing lack of academic rigor, and it was certainly not the first time. As noted by Latham, scientists are failing in their role to pursue and promulgate knowledge and understanding.

“Instead, more and more frequently, academia creates fictions,” he says. They create “convenient, self-serving narratives.” Legacy media works hand-in-hand with such academics, acting as a megaphone for their dubious scientific claims.

Science Used for PR Purposes

One example of how businesses use academics to shape a narrative and manipulate public opinion was when, in May 2020, 77 Nobel laureates signed a public letter urging the U.S. government to reinstate funding to EcoHealth Alliance, which has subcontracted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to the WIV. Earlier that year, then-President Trump had ordered the National Institutes of Health to cancel that funding.

The letter was organized by Sir Richard Roberts, a molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner who also happens to be a senior executive with New England Biolabs, a manufacturer of laboratory equipment and reagents.

“Cutting funds for biotech virus research threatens their core business,” Latham says. So, is Roberts really a disinterested party? Or does he have a very keen interest in keeping dangerous gain-of-function research going, risks be damned?

Back in 2016, Roberts organized a similar campaign, in which 107 Nobel laureates attacked Greenpeace for supposedly blocking the approval of GMO golden rice.

The National Press Club in Washington D.C. brought nationwide attention to the letter with a formal press conference. One of the organizers of that press event was a former Monsanto PR executive, and the website created to promote the campaign was traced to the biotech industry.

“The point here is that there’s nothing spontaneous about these letters,” Latham says. “They’re carefully choreographed PR gambits … What is really being defended is the overlapping interests of companies like New England Biolabs and Monsanto. In this world, science and scientists are useful pawns with which to shape public opinion.”

Propaganda Now Coming From the Most Unlikely Sources

One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is that if you’re concerned about the potential for lab leaks, you’re anti-science and a racist pro-Trumper.

If you file freedom of information act (FOIA) requests with scientists, you’re anti-science. If you question Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re anti-science.2,3 If you’re against GMOs, you’re anti-science. If you’re against gain-of-function research, you’re anti-science. If you’re anti-nuclear energy, you’re anti-science. This is a ploy and nothing else. Sadly, this propaganda is now being spewed by even the most unlikely of sources, such as Mother Jones.

June 14, 2021, Mother Jones published a hit piece on the Center for Food Safety, penned by Kiera Butler.4 In May 2021, the Center for Food Safety sued the NIH in an effort to force the agency to reveal its funding of gain-of-function research.

“Virologists say this kind of research is vital and has led to many important medical discoveries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. But Center for Food Safety argues that gain-of-function research is too dangerous to pursue,” Butler writes.

“Why would this lefty food and farms group … rail against high-level virology research? The key to the answer has to do with the Center for Food Safety’s long opposition to the practice of genetic engineering. In a recent phone call, I spoke to CFS’s Kimbrell, who explained what he sees as the connection.

‘You genetically engineer bacteria and plants, then you genetically engineer animals, then you genetically engineer embryos — all that has happened, with some promise, but also a tremendous amount of danger and threat,’ he said.

‘Now, viruses are not technically an organism, but they are living biological elements. So, they fit certainly within that narrative: Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do something.’

Kimbrell said he ‘absolutely’ thinks the pandemic was the result of an accidental lab release. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes, used gain-of-function to enhance a coronavirus. The virus then escaped out of the lab, spread uncontrollably, and caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, in effect, gain-of-function research caused the pandemic.”

Butler also discusses the Organic Consumers Association, the U.S. Right to Know, the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Children’s Health Defense — all of which have raised questions and concerns about this kind of dangerous research on pathogens. According to Butler, they have no business questioning such research, and their involvement could put us all in jeopardy.

“With tens of thousands of followers on social media, anti-GMO groups have the potential to turn the tide of public opinion; hanging in the balance is science that could potentially help prevent the next pandemic,” she writes.

Butler Accused of Journalistic Malpractice

In true propagandist fashion, Butler goes on to rebut gain-of-function concerns with commentary from EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., one of the most conflicted individuals you could possibly find. Indeed, his conflicts of interest have become so widely known, he was recently removed from the Lancet commission charged with investigating the origin of COVID-19 because of it.5,6

Butler also goes to great lengths trying to paint the issue in political partisan colors, and quotes Dr. Peter Hotez, another highly compromised industry-funded player who has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives.

In a scathing rebuttal, Center for Food Safety founder attorney Andrew Kimbrell accuses Butler of “journalistic malpractice,”7 and rightfully so, in my opinion. She clearly tries to confuse readers by stressing that “gain-of-function” is a broad definition and that much of the gain-of-function research being done is both harmless and valuable.

However, that’s not the kind of research the Center for Food Safety or anyone else is concerned about. The Center for Food Safety’s lawsuit specifically pertains to the manipulation of pathogens in order to make them more virulent and dangerous to humans, and she didn’t interview a single mainstream scientist who has warned of the dangers associated with this practice, even though there are dozens of them.

Overall, Butler’s piece reads like classic propaganda, created by the very people with something to hide. As noted by GM Watch:8

“The Gates-funded Alliance for Science was quick to promote Butler’s article. They’re a PR campaign based at Cornell that pushes agrichemical industry views and tries to undermine the industry’s critics, particularly those critics concerned about GMOs.

As part of this effort, the Alliance for Science has been posing as an expert body on myths about the pandemic, even though they have no such myth-busting expertise. An early example of this was a piece they published by their employee Mark Lynas that branded GMWatch, among others, as conspiracy theorists for saying the virus may have accidentally leaked from a lab.

On Twitter, Mary Mangan, who sits on the Alliance’s advisory board, has been carefully tracking and commenting on exactly which ‘anti-GMO groups’ have been calling for the lab leak hypothesis to be taken seriously …

Interestingly, a reporter told HuffPost in relation to a court case involving Monsanto that she thought Mangan had tried to ‘play’ her to do a hit job on one of the expert witnesses critical of the company’s Roundup herbicide. Could it be that Ms Butler wasn’t so resistant to being played?”

Gain-of-Function Research Poses Very Real Threat

Another clear propaganda piece was published by Hotez in The Daily Beast, June 21, 2021.9 In recent weeks, Fauci’s role in the pandemic has become increasingly clear, and it’s far from flattering. He funded dangerous research that may in fact have resulted in a global outbreak. Now, he’s trying to deflect blame by saying that personal attacks on him “represent an assault on American science,” and Hotez is doing what he can to strengthen that ridiculous notion.

To do so, Hotez takes it a step further, linking attacks on Fauci to attacks not only on science but also on the very foundation of democracy. According to Hotez, “moral courage and standing up for democratic values demands that the American people throw their full support behind scientists and scientific institutions. To do otherwise is to capitulate to the forces of insurrection.”10

Like Butler, Hotez spends an inordinate amount of time trying to paint concerns about dangerous research on pathogens that have the potential to kill us all as a far-right, racist, anti-science, anti-democracy issue, when it’s nothing of the sort.

When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It’s not anti-science. It’s anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions. Clearly, not all science is dangerous. Being against recklessly dangerous science does not mean you’re against all science or science in general.

If we want to prevent another pandemic like this from occurring in the future, we must first determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and how it ended up in the population. If it can be proven that it came from a lab, then we need to identify and hold those responsible for its creation and release accountable for their actions and/or neglect and, lastly, we need to prevent a reoccurrence by banning research in which pathogens are purposely manipulated to make them more dangerous.

To get to the bottom of it all, we need to look at the pandemic virus industrial complex. We need to dissect how it functions and how its members interlink and work together to obscure the truth.




Blistering Backstory Behind COVID-19



By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, has been an activist since the 1960s, not only centered on anti-GMO campaigns and sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but also on human rights and labor issues
  • His understanding of the natural world and passion to protect it, along with his expertise in political and economic systems, makes him uniquely suited to speak about the truth behind COVID-19 and the ongoing censorship that has kept the truth largely hidden from the public
  • The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the results of a laboratory release due to dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) research
  • Cummins believes we need to close all loopholes to make GOF research illegal, or it’s only a matter of time before another engineered virus is unleashed
  • Every facet of society is being targeted as part of the Great Reset, including finances, social structures, food, health, and even reproduction
  • Cummins urges the public “to reunite under the banner of regenerating health, not becoming transhuman objects”

Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, has been an activist since the 1960s, not only centered on anti-GMO campaigns and sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but also on human rights and labor issues.

His understanding of the natural world and passion to protect it, along with his expertise in political and economic systems, makes him uniquely suited to speak about the truth behind COVID-19 and the ongoing censorship that has kept the truth largely hidden from the public.

Cummins and I co-wrote the book, “The Truth About COVID-19 — Exposing the Great Reset, LockdownsVaccine Passports and the New Normal,” which exposes the catastrophic events that have occurred due to what appears to be an engineered coronavirus.

In an interview with Speaking Naturally founder Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., Cummins goes into more details about why he believes COVID-19 is the biggest disaster since the Second World War.

“Biofascism is what we’re staring in the face right now,” Cummins said. “And if we’re not careful, we’re going to lose not only our health, our environment, the climate crisis is not going to get fixed, but we’re going to be living in a global state that more closely resembles Communist China than it does a participatory democracy.”1

SARS-CoV-2 a ‘Lab-Released, Lab-Engineered’ Virus

The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the results of a laboratory release. While no one thought that in our lifetimes in the U.S. we’d be unable to speak freely and uncensored in many channels, such as online, Cummins believes the truth will come out.

“If we were in a courtroom, and there was a jury that had been selected based on the fact that they could render an objective judgment, we would win hands down, right now,” Cummins said, due to preponderance of the evidence. He stated:2

“They’re making billions of dollars off a lab-released, lab-engineered virus that should have never existed in the first place, and it wouldn’t have if the public had known about this. But they operate in secret and we don’t understand that the military industrial complex is not just a threat of a nuclear war or a conflict escalating into that.

These people are a threat right now with what they’re doing globally. They’re designing things that will make SARS-CoV-2 look less threatening.”

What Cummins refers to is controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research, which refers to studies that enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, making them more virulent or easily transmissible, for instance. Because GOF research can be used to make pathogens more readily able to infect humans, it poses major biosecurity risks.

Many experts, including Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, believe GOF research performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”3 Verkerk asks Cummins if he thinks SARS-CoV-2 was an accidental escape due to GOF research or a deliberate release, to which Cummins responds that that’s really beside the point — either way, it’s a disaster:4

“Scientists, as we speak, are manipulating the SARS-CoV-2 virus to where it will be able to survive the basic immune response of humans. Just think about this for a minute.

If another version gets out there — whether it’s deliberate or accidental, it’s not going to matter — but it’s a version that’s been souped up to where your natural immune system can’t fight it off, it makes it very difficult to talk about vaccine safety and freedom of choice …

The globalists now see that they can consolidate power and control from what looks like an accidental release. You will be able to do this with other varieties.”

GOF Loopholes Must Be Closed

WHO’s heavily conflicted investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, announced the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2021.

Since then, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other U.S. research partners from its website.5 It also deleted descriptions of GOF research on the SARS virus.

The U.S. government has committed to redoubling efforts to look into the real origins of COVID-19. While Beijing has stated that it considers the investigation to be complete,6 a U.S. investigation is expected to examine the information from WIV held by NIH, NIAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, EcoHealth Alliance, and the National Science Foundation.7

Meanwhile, the Senate passed an amendment to ban U.S. funding to WIV going forward, while another banned U.S. funding for any GOF research in China.8 This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough and will in no way prevent another manmade pandemic because this type of research is being done all around the world, not just in China.

Unless the U.S. government bans GOF research within its own borders and encourages the rest of the world to ban it as well, there’s nothing to prevent researchers from creating another deadly pathogen that would never have arisen naturally. As Cummins stated, we need to close all loopholes and make GOF research illegal, or it’s only a matter of time before another engineered virus is unleashed.

Cummins even mentions that some evidence suggests HIV may have been a lab release, along with Lyme disease, which he said maybe a chemical and biological weapon that escaped.

“It’s here, and the medical establishment first tried to say it was all in your head, then have been very reluctant to look at how complicated the symptoms are and how serious this disease is. And the reason it’s so serious — this is not like other diseases they look at — is because this thing was weaponized to be used in war. It was used in various theaters of the Cold War and the Hot War.”

Terrifying Prediction of Daily Life After Great Reset

Cummins also discusses the other side of the Great Reset, and what might happen socially and politically if the technocrats succeed in taking over. The long-term agenda is not about COVID-19 or even the implementation of a biosecurity state but will be used for the extinction of homo sapiens — the end of humanity as you know it.9

This isn’t conjectured. The notion of transhumanism is being actively researched and explored. In an article titled “Looking Forward to the End of Humanity,” The Wall Street Journal noted that COVID-19 “has spotlighted the promise and peril of ‘transhumanism,’ the idea of using technology to overcome sickness, aging, and death.”10

One problem is that, once you give in, you become enslaved by the system, and the very things that make us human-like independence of mind — are gone or rendered useless, because the technocrats control everything. There’s a loss of free will as humans hand over power to technology and biotechnology. Even reproduction as you now know it will be affected. Cummins explained that it’s similar to Communist China:11

“It would look like enlightened capitalism on the surface … but a middle-class person in China doesn’t have any rights compared to the remaining rights we have. You can’t go on the internet in China and find information, period, that the government doesn’t want you to see. It doesn’t necessarily mean we will be poor. We will still have a very large middle class.

There won’t be any jobs for the lower class, but I guess they just figure they’ll give them some sort of token wage, and they don’t seem to care that we’re not going to be able to procreate and reproduce the way we do now if we continue on. It’s a serious matter that we’ve got these chemicals in the environment that are decreasing sperm counts in making it harder and harder for people to have children naturally.

It’s like, well, the elite, the globalists and transhumanists, they don’t care because they are secluded from this and they figure artificial insemination is good for everyone. That way we can control the population and so on.”

Your Financial Life Will Also Be Controlled

Every facet of society is being targeted as part of the Great Reset. The World Economic Forum (WEF), a key promoter of the Reset, has been very vocal about getting rid of cash in the U.S. and moving to a centrally controlled digital currency.12 When and if this occurs, it will act as another layer of control and surveillance.

“We need to educate people about what’s going on in China right now,” Cummins said. “In China, your bank account is connected to your behavior, and if they don’t want you to you’re not going to survive economically.” He added:13

“I don’t think people quite grasp what it’s like, this digital currency controlled by the central banks, by the government. We have to fight this system and realize that surveillance capitalism is not in the future.

It already exists in the United States, and they simply haven’t closed the deal yet as the Great Reset is planning. Things like using cash, buying local, growing local food, building up strong governments — we have to decentralize power.”

Recreating China’s social credit system here in the U.S. is likely easier at this point than anyone would like to think, and probably wouldn’t take long to implement. There are no laws in place to curtail surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is that there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.

Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit.

If you want to learn more on this topic, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” written by social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff, is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It’s an absolute must-read if you have any interest in this topic and want to understand how Google and Facebook have obtained such massive control of your life.

We Need a Participatory Democracy, Not a Great Reset

Cummins urges the public to stop fighting over political terms and ideologies and instead come together toward participatory democracy, in which people have control over the policies that affect their daily leaves. This would eliminate the dominance of billionaires and corporations, which is the opposite of what the Great Reset is trying to achieve.

“We have to take down the military-industrial complex on a global scale as we’re doing this and turn it to pacification and conflict resolution. And I really believe we can do this,” Cummins said. It’s interesting, he pointed out, that a large percentage of police and marines are refusing COVID-19 vaccines because they’re skeptical not just of COVID-19 but of the elite narrative. The solution will lie in small, local movements preserving their power. According to Cummins:14

“There’s a million different communities in the world. In each one of these communities, we have to organize and take back power … The most important thing is what we’re doing right now in our local regions. If we’re going to have local currencies, cryptocurrencies, that actually work and that can’t be shut down by the government, now’s the time.

But we can’t keep sliding in this direction. We can’t have an internet controlled by billionaires who want a Great Reset and think that we can somehow work around that. We have to take them down. We have to build alternatives, and I believe we can do that.”

This all ties into the food system, as well, which is also under assault from technocrats trying to usher in synthetic meat and GMOs. But, as Cummins said, “Corporate agribusiness and the genetic engineers have set us up for a biological trigger like SARS-CoV-2, which can magnify and exacerbate the poor health in the population.”

The solution here is healthy, organic, regenerative food and farming, which will bolster the health of the planet, including the Earth itself, via healthier soil, and the humans living on it. This, too, must be done on the local level, via small movements.

Cummins mentions the growing of agave in Mexico, which is being combined with nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock.

The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

“We have to regenerate health and regenerate the Earth if we’re going to stabilize the climate,” Cummins said, and “we need to reunite under the banner of regenerating health, not becoming transhuman objects …”15 Truth-telling about COVID is another great start and essential piece to stopping the Great Reset. To learn more, be sure to read the rest of the story in “The Truth About COVID-19.”




University Fires Surgeon Who Voiced Safety Concerns About COVID Vaccines for Kids

By Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms | The Defender

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practicing surgeon in Saskatoon. Christian was called into a meeting Wednesday, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.

There is a recording of Christian’s meeting yesterday between Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.

In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Christian in his defense of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Christian having advocated for the informed consent of COVID vaccines for children.

Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed director of the Surgical Humanities Program and director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Christian is also the editor of the Journal of the Surgical Humanities.

On June 17, Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the COVID shots to children. In it, he noted that he is pro-vaccine and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan. “I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.”

Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”

“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans … before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of mRNA vaccines,” he wrote.

Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about COVID vaccines for children.

Among his points, he stated that:

  1. The mRNA vaccine is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
  2. The mRNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the U.S. CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the U.S. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations — this has not happened.”
  3. That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there are a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable, and health care workers, he said, “COVID does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of COVID is less than 0.003% — this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”
  4. Children do not readily transmit the COVID virus to adults.
  5. mRNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”
  6. He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.

The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Christian on June 21 alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving COVID-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”

Christian’s concerns regarding underage COVID vaccinations are not isolated to him. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had an “emergency meeting” early this week to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines.

The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.

The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for COVID-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “COVID vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”

Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”

Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a subspecialty in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental mRNA vaccines.

Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on COVID. “We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.

The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — including doctors.

The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.

Last week, Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the head of emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.

“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific,” states Mr. Cameron.

“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.

Originally published by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.




Kudos to WSJ Editors for Publishing Op-Ed Saying ‘Politics’ Not Science Behind Failure to Acknowledge COVID Vaccine Risks

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Kudos to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, which on Tuesday published an op-ed by two physicians who said politics — not science — is behind the failure of health officials and the media to fully inform the public about the potential risks associated with COVID vaccines.

In “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?,” Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Harvey A. Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health wrote while “some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated … the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking.”

Ladapo and Risch highlighted the fact that clinical studies don’t always tell the full story about the safety of medications, and that the health effects often remain unknown until the medicine is rolled out to the general public.

They wrote:

“Historically, the safety of medications — including vaccines — is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations. Examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children. Evidence from the real world is valuable, as clinical trials often enroll patients who aren’t representative of the general population. We learn more about drug safety from real-world evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risk and benefits.”

The authors said the “large clustering” of side effects following COVID vaccines is “concerning,” and the “silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding COVID-19 vaccines.”

They wrote: “Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients.”

The serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including low platelets, heart inflammation, deep-vein thrombosis, and death, are likely “only a fraction” of the total number of adverse events, they said.

“The true number of cases is almost certainly higher,” said Ladapo and Risch. “This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience.”

The authors slammed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious COVID vaccine side effects and said more research is needed to understand the risks.

They wrote:

“Analyses to confirm or dismiss these findings should be performed using large data sets of health insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend.”

The authors acknowledged the risks of COVID vaccines in certain populations may outweigh the benefits. They also noted that no studies show people who have recovered from the virus benefit from getting vaccinated.

They wrote:

“The implication is that the risks of a COVID-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults, and people who have recovered from COVID-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk.

“And while you would never know it from listening to public health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.”

Ladapo and Risch warned that prioritizing politics over science in the wake of a pandemic could result in widespread distrust in public health officials.

They said:

“Public health authorities are making a mistake and risking the public’s trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from certain vaccine side effects. There will be lasting consequences from mingling political partisanship and science during the management of a public-health crisis.”




Pfizer COVID Vaccine Linked to Rare Blood Clot Disorder, Israeli Researchers Say

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Israeli researchers on Monday said they discovered a link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disease.

Scientists with the Institute of Hematology at Shamir Medical Center said they began researching the possible link after reports of a sudden increase in TTP across Israel — four cases detected in one month compared to two or three cases per year.

TTP is an autoimmune disorder that causes blood clots to form in small blood vessels throughout the body. According to the National Institutes of Health, these clots can cause serious health problems if they block vessels and restrict blood flow to organs, such as the brain, kidneys, and heart.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the medical team said they found a “chronological connection” between vaccination and the onset of TTP symptoms. They stressed this occurred in both new patients and in patients with pre-existing TTP whose disease had been in remission but flared up soon after getting the vaccine.

The Health Ministry, which is evaluating the research, asked doctors not to provide interviews until the evaluation is complete.

Dr. Maya Koren-Michowitz, head of the Hematology and the Translational Hemato-Oncology Laboratory and lead author of the study, recommended people with a history of TTP get vaccinated only with special permission from their doctor — and if they do vaccinate, get a follow-up clinical evaluation.

Koren-Michowitz also called on “healthy people” who are vaccinated to be vigilant and seek medical help immediately if symptoms appear.

“Physicians and patients need to be alert to the clinical symptoms: weakness fatigue, neurological disorders, hemorrhage, and chest pain,” the Israeli team said in a press release.

A spokesperson said the study is very small and “should not deter individuals from getting the COVID vaccine.”

Experts have long warned mRNA vaccines may cause blood clots

A search of the government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), using search criteria including reports of blood clots associated with blood coagulation disorders, produced a total of 6,352 events reported between Dec. 14, 2020, through June 11, 2021.

Of the 6,352 reported cases, 2,705 were attributed to Pfizer, 2,197 were attributed to Moderna, and 1,408 were attributed to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

As The Defender reported in April, U.S. regulatory officials were alerted as far back as December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — like AstraZeneca and J&J COVID vaccine — could pose similar risks of blood clots.

On Dec. 8, 2020, before any COVID vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., wrote the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein “to cause microvascular injury and blood clots throughout the body including the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys, in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

As The Defender reported in February, Whelan, a Harvard-trained physician with a background in biochemistry, medicine, and rheumatology, did not dispute the vaccines’ potential to quickly arrest the spread of the virus — assuming the vaccines prove to actually prevent transmission, which also was not assessed in the clinical trials.

But Whelan cautioned “it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on other organs.”

In a study published by Oxford University, researchers found the number of people who developed cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) blood clots after COVID vaccines were about the same for Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca.

According to the Oxford study, 4 in 1 million people experienced CVST during the two weeks following vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, versus 5 in 1 million people who developed the condition after getting the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Although researchers found a significantly higher incidence of blood clots in people who were infected with COVID, the incidence of blood clots following vaccines was still much higher than the background incidence of 0.41 — a strong signal the vaccines pose this specific risk.

“These findings are consistent with what we know about how vaccine-induced spike proteins can on their own cause cell signaling through interactions with the ACE-2 receptors,” said Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, president emerita of Children’s Health Defense.

Redwood said:

“When this happens, it can result in inflammation and a host of other potentially pathological events in the epithelial lining of the blood vessels which can then trigger pro-inflammatory cytokines capable of activating coagulation systems and down-regulating anticoagulant pathways resulting in clot formation.”

A study published in February in the Journal of Hematology examined thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna vaccination in response to the death of a 56-year-old Florida physician — the first identified patient who died from a brain hemorrhage after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine.

After examining 20 case reports of patients who suffered blood clots following vaccination — including 17 without pre-existing thrombocytopenia — and analyzing data from U.S. health agencies, VAERS and treatment providers, researchers behind the Journal of Hematology study could not exclude the possibility that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had the potential to trigger ITP. They recommended additional surveillance.

In April, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) informed the FDA that mRNA products, through spike proteins, may have “the potential to cause microvascular injury [inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi] to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.” The FDA did not respond.

The AAPS identified at least 37 people at the time who developed a rare platelet disorder after receiving the Pfizer or Moderna shot.

On April 13, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a physician-scientist, and advocate for ethics who specializes in cardiothoracic surgery joined Tucker Carlson on his show to discuss blood clots and vaccines.

Noorchashm, commenting on the FDA decision to temporarily pause J&J’s vaccine after reports of blood clots, said although it was a good sign the FDA was taking seriously blood clot complications with the J&J vaccine, the agency was missing similar thrombotic complications with Pfizer and Moderna.

Noorchashm said:

“I don’t know why this cluster is sort of affecting J&J. There are certainly other examples of thrombotic events with Pfizer and Moderna that have been entered into the VAERS system.”

According to Redwood, it’s “only logical to assume” that when the vaccine creates the identical spike protein that occurs in infection, and which has been identified as the culprit causing a myriad serious and life-threatening injuries, “we are going to see these same injuries in individuals who receive the vaccines.”




WHO: ‘Children Should Not Be Vaccinated for the Moment’

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest guidance clarifying who should get the COVID vaccine states, “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.”

According to the WHO website: “There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have the milder disease compared to adults.”

The WHO had previously said vaccinating children against COVID was not a priority given the limited global supply of doses, Fox News reported.

During a social media session on June 3, Dr. Kate O’Brien, a pediatrician, and director of the WHO’s vaccines department said children should not be a focus of COVID immunization programs, even as increasing numbers of wealthy countries authorize the shots for teens and children.

“Children are at [a] very, very low risk of actually getting COVID disease,” said O’Brien. She said the rationale for immunizing children was to stop transmission rather than to protect them from getting sick or dying.

O’Brien added it wasn’t necessary to vaccinate children before sending them back to school safely.

“Immunization of children in order to send them back to school is not the predominant requirement for them to go back to school safely,” O’Brien said. “They can go back to school safely if what we’re doing is immunizing those who are around them who are at risk.”

The U.S., Canada, and European Union have all given the green light to some COVID vaccines for children 12 to 15 years old. In the UK, a decision to vaccinate all 12- to 17-year-olds is unlikely to be recommended by experts anytime soon, BBC NEWS reported.

One argument for not vaccinating children against COVID is they get relatively little benefit from it.

“Fortunately one of the few good things about this pandemic is children are very rarely seriously affected by this infection,” said Adam Finn, who sits on the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Infections in children are nearly always mild or asymptomatic, which is in sharp contrast to older age groups who have been prioritized by vaccination campaigns.

A study across seven countries — including the U.S. — published in the Lancet, found that fewer than two out of every 1 million children died with COVID during the pandemic.

Even children with medical conditions that would raise the risks of COVID infection in adults are not being vaccinated in the UK. Only those at “very high risk of exposure and serious outcomes” are recommended to be vaccinated.

For kids, the benefits of COVID vaccines don’t outweigh the risks

As The Defender reported, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 10 held a meeting to discuss granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID vaccines for children under 12. Numerous experts spoke out against the plan saying the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young children.

Peter Doshi, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor of The BMJ, said during the open public hearing session there is no emergency that would warrant using EUA to authorize COVID vaccines for children.

Pointing to Pfizer’s trial of 12- to15-year-olds which supported the recent EUA, Doshi said the harms outweighed the benefits, and those who had the placebo were “better off” than those who received the vaccine.

In terms of the benefits, Doshi said “the reported 100% efficacy in Pfizer’s trial was based on 16 COVID cases in the placebo group versus none in the fully vaccinated group. But there were about 1,000 placebo recipients so just 2% got COVID. Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID, whereas 98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway.”

On the other side of the ledger, Doshi said, side effects were common:

“Three in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, around 1 in 4 to 5 had a fever and joint pain. The list goes on. In sum, all the fully vaccinated 12- to 15-year-olds avoided symptomatic COVID but most wouldn’t have gotten COVID even without the vaccine. So, the benefit is small but it came at the price of side effects that were mild to moderate in severity and lasted a few days.”

Doshi pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing 23% of 0- to 4-year-olds and 42% of 5- to17-year-olds have already had COVID and have robust natural immunity.

Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative, expressed great concerns over the premature approval of COVID vaccines for children. Witczak said data shows children are neither in danger or dangerous, and the growing evidence of harm caused by COVID vaccines should not be ignored.

Witczak and Doshi were two of 27 researchers and clinicians around the world who launched a citizen’s petition demanding the FDA withhold full approval of COVID vaccines until efficacy and safety measures are met.

Dr. Sidney Wolf, founder and senior advisor of Health Research Group, also pointed out during the FDA meeting that CDC data from Jan. 1 to March 31 showed only 204 hospitalizations and 0 deaths in the 12- to17-year-old age group due to COVID.

As The Defender reported May 26, two papers recently published in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics, found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.

COVID vaccine causing heart inflammation in teens

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, said during the June 10 FDA meeting, “there are ‘very few’ reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who have been given coronavirus vaccines.”

However, the CDC data Shimabukuro presented showed a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine. The agency identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots.

Among 16- to 17-year-olds through May 31, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.

CDC data also showed that among 18- to 24-year-olds, there were 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis. The expected rate is between eight and 83 cases.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) scheduled an emergency meeting for June 18 to update data and further evaluate myocarditis following vaccination with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the CDC delayed the meeting until the June 23-25 ACIP meeting in observation of the Juneteenth National Independence Day holiday. Register here to watch Wednesday’s meeting.

According to the latest data from VAERS, there have been 1,117 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) in all age groups reported in the U.S. following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. Of those, 109 reports occurred in children 12-to-17-years-old with 108 attributed to Pfizer.

 

Currently, Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in people as young as age 12. Moderna is authorized for people 18 and older, although the company has asked the FDA to authorize its use in children as young as 12. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is authorized in people 18 and older.