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.




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.




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.




CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women

https://youtu.be/6Vj3xGT6izE

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now recommending pregnant women to get the COVID-19 vaccine, based on preliminary postmarketing surveillance data
  • Postmarketing surveillance data are not a sufficient substitute for randomized placebo-controlled safety trials
  • All post-marketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. It’s also based solely on voluntary self-reporting
  • As of February 28, 2021, the combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate (per V-Safe) was 23.3%. As of April 1, 2021, the miscarriage or premature birth rate (per VAERS) was 29%. So, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in
  • These ratios are said to be comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, yet statistical data show the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20

The beyond conflicted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has struck again: Pregnant women are now urged to get the COVID-19 gene manipulation jab, based on preliminary findings.

The postmarketing surveillance data, published in The New England Journal of Medicine,1 found “no obvious safety signals” among the 35,691 pregnant women who got either the Moderna or Pfizer shots between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021. The women ranged in age from 16 to 54 years old. CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued a statement saying:2

“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive COVID-19 vaccines.”

Can Self-Reported Data Be Trusted?

There is more than one reason to be suspicious of this green-lighting for pregnant women. First of all, as noted by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Tweet:3

“This was NOT a randomized placebo-controlled trial. There is no data from clinical trials showing that it is safe for pregnant women to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Postmarketing surveillance is NOT a sufficient substitute for proper safety studies.”

The authors themselves state that data on mRNA “vaccines” in pregnancy are limited and that without the longitudinal follow-up of large numbers of women, it’s not possible to determine “maternal, pregnancy and infant outcomes.”4

Secondly, all postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. Thirdly, this data is solely based on voluntary self-reporting to one of two sources:

  • The Vaccine Safe (V-Safe) After Vaccination Health Checker program,5 a vaccine safety registry set up specifically for the monitoring of COVID-19 “vaccine” side effects
  • The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

By using voluntary self-reporting, we have no way of knowing how many side effects have gone unreported and cannot confirm that the data present an accurate picture. Historically, we know that voluntary reporting of vaccine side effects ranges from less than 1%6,7 to a maximum of 10%,8 so it’s likely we’re not getting the full story.

A hint that an enormous amount of data concerning pregnancy outcomes are being overlooked or hidden can be discerned by the fact that the paper only looked at 11% of the total number of pregnancies reported to V-Safe. While they state that a total of 35,691 pregnant women were included in the analysis, they actually only looked at 3,958 of them. Here’s how the paper reads:9

“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant … Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).”

If there were 35,691 pregnant V-Safe participants, why are they looking at just 11% of them?

Experimentation of the Worst Kind

Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.

Pregnancy is a time during which experimentation is extremely hazardous, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals, or foreign substances during fetal development.

The CDC has absolutely no way of gauging safety for pregnant women and babies as of yet, so to do so is reprehensible beyond words, in my opinion — especially seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.10

Contrast this to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.11,12,13,14 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive. I have little doubt we’ll end up with a second Nuremberg Trial over this at some point in the future.

Are These Miscarriage Ratios ‘Normal’?

Getting back to the NEJM study, the authors report the following findings, based on data collected from VAERS and V-Safe:15

“Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported.

Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against COVID-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).”

So, in VAERS, the miscarriage rate was 20.8% (46 of 221 reports), and in V-Safe (looking at just 11% of pregnant participants), the miscarriage rate was 13.9% (115 of 827). Again, these data were reported between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021.

The combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate, per V-Safe, was 23.3% (13.9% + 9.4%). As of April 1, 2021, 379 VAERS reports16 had been filed by pregnant women, 110 of which involved miscarriage or premature birth, giving us an updated rate of 29%. In other words, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in.

According to the authors of the NEJM report, these ratios are comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, while admitting that the data is “not directly comparable.”

I find that dubious, seeing how sources17 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.

And, while the NEJM study18 reports that 92.3% of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, it specifies that very little is as yet known about the effects of the injections when given to women during the preconception period and the first and second trimesters, as “limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”

Now, if the miscarriage rate is normally 5% and declining after Week 6, then miscarriage rates of 13.9%, 20.87%, or 29% before Week 13 is clearly excessive. As for the preterm birth rate, 9.4% does appear relatively “normal” based on historical data, which in 2019 ranged from 7.28% to 18.8% depending on the region, with an average right around 10%.19

Time will tell whether that percentage will remain within the norms as the outcomes of pregnant women are entered into databases. If preterm birth rates do rise above the norm, then that too is a significant public health issue, as the impact of premature birth on society is enormous, averaging at $26.2 billion annually, as is.20

Toxicology Expert Calls for End to mRNA Experiment

The featured video at the top of this article is the recording of a public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, given to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), April 23, 2021.

Lindsay’s expertise is an analysis of pharmacological dose-response, mechanistic biology, and complex toxicity dynamics. In her comment, Lindsay describes how she aided the development of a vaccine that caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted.

She calls for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. She notes there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova, and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”

I’ve touched on this in previous articles, including “How COVID-19 Is Changing the Future of Vaccines” and “Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, Lindsey notes.

Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study,21 which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.

It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.

“We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warns. The fact that there have been live births following the COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she says.

Lindsay also points out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the number of the injection in the thousands,22,23,24, and this too hints at reproductive effects.

I agree with her conclusion that we simply cannot inject children and women of childbearing age with these experimental technologies until more rigorous studies have been done and we have a better understanding of their mechanisms.

Rare Blood Clotting Disorders Being Reported

Lindsay also points out there have been hundreds of reports of rare blood clotting disorders following all COVID-19 “vaccines” among people with no underlying risk factors, including immune thrombocytopenia25,26,27,28 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease that causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.

Here, she points out the obvious: COVID-19 has been found to cause blood clotting disorders due to the virus’s unique spike protein. The COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your body to make that very spike protein. Why would one assume that this spike protein cannot have similar effects when produced by your own cells?

One hypothesis that has been presented is that platelet-antagonistic antibodies are being formed against the spike antigen.29 Another novel hypothesis30 is that the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, maybe carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow.

Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. As your platelets are destroyed, thrombocytopenia sets in.

Avoid This Risky Milk-Sharing Practice

Women who have received the COVID-19 jab are also making what I believe is a huge mistake by sharing breast milk in a misguided effort to inoculate unvaccinated mothers’ babies. As reported by The New York Times:31

“Multiple studies32,33 show that there are antibodies in a vaccinated mother’s milk. This has led some women to try to restart breastfeeding and others to share milk with friends’ children.”

Again, there’s scarcely any data on what these gene therapies might do to infants, which is reason alone not to experiment. So far, only one suspected case34 of infant death has been attributed to breastfeeding. A 5-month-old infant died with a diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.35,36

But while fact-checkers roundly dismiss the idea that the child could have developed thrombocytopenia from mRNA-contaminated breast milk,37 it’s important to realize they have no evidence for that. It’s pure opinion.

As of right now, we have no idea how or why the infant developed this rare blood disorder, but it would be premature and irresponsible to say that nursing children cannot be affected and that there is no risk at all. In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 20 other cases where children have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.38

At present, all we can confidently say is that short-term harmful effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being reported at a staggering rate and that the long-term effects are completely unknown.

In addition to the more immediate effects already discussed, there are mechanisms by which COVID-19 “vaccines” may actually worsen disease upon exposure to the wild virus, as detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” and several other articles.

As noted in a February 4, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine paper39 reporting on the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine developed by Moderna, “Whether mRNA-1273 vaccination results in enhanced disease on exposure to the virus in the long term is unknown.”

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects, and bleeding disorders (among other things), violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.

In my view, this mass experiment is a humanitarian crime. That said, if you or someone you love — pregnant or not — has received a COVID-19 vaccine and is experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.40 As we move forward, it’s absolutely crucial that people report their experiences with these vaccines so that we can start getting a clearer idea of what their effects are.

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website



CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities | Dr. Henry Ealy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020, quickly realizing the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities
  • Over-reporting of fatalities was enabled by a March 2020 change in how the cause of death is reported on death certificates. Rather than listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause in cases where people died from other underlying conditions, it was to be listed as the primary cause
  • As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19
  • The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed
  • We don’t yet know who was responsible for altering the reporting rules in violation of federal law. To identify the culprits, formal grand jury investigation petitions have been sent to all U.S. attorneys and the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting a thorough, independent, and transparent investigation; a direct public effort to gather signatures also commenced on the one-year anniversary of the CDC reporting change

In an interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 review how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program. He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S. when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.

Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.

As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent, and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications

The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”3

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.”

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.4

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline

In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,” Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.

In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity, and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is a public record.

As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.

This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.

March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.”

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.

I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. The currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.

Through this willful manipulation of the case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele, “People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”

Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.

More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time. We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at COVIDResearchTeam@protonmail.com. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

  1. Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
  2. Send a pre-drafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data



68-Year-Old Dies After Anaphylactic Reaction to COVID Vaccine as CDC Continues to Ignore Inquiry Into Increasing Number of Deaths

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2021, there were 44,606 reports of adverse events, including 2,050 deaths and 7,095 serious injuries.

In the U.S., 118.3 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 19.

From the 3/19/2021 release of VAERS data.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Every Friday, the CDC makes public all VAERS vaccine injury reports received as of the previous week.

This week’s VAERS data included 2,306 reports of anaphylaxis. Fifty-five percent of anaphylaxis reports were attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 45% to Moderna, and 1% to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine, which was rolled out in the U.S. on March 2.

As The Defender reported earlier this month, the J&J vaccine contains polysorbate 80, known to trigger allergic reactions. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG), also known to trigger anaphylactic reactions.

The latest news report of an anaphylactic reaction to a COVID vaccine was of a 68-year-old Kansas woman who died a day after receiving the vaccine. According to EMS dispatch records, the woman had an allergic reaction at a vaccine clinic site around 4 p.m. on Tuesday, KMBC reported. She had difficulty breathing and speaking and was injected with an EpiPen.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokesperson Kristi Zears told The Wichita Eagle that Evans had an anaphylactic reaction during a waiting period after receiving the shot. She was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead a day later. It is not clear whether Evans had underlying health conditions and the Kansas health agency did not indicate which COVID vaccine was administered.

According to the CDC’s website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

To date, the only information the CDC has published related to the investigation of COVID vaccine-related deaths and how those investigations were conducted is a COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Update via the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), published on Jan. 27.

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We provided a written list of questions about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of investigations on deaths reported in the media if autopsies are being done, and the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine.

We also inquired about whether healthcare providers are reporting all injuries and deaths that might be connected to the COVID vaccine, and what education initiatives are in place to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

As of today, 18 days later, the CDC has not responded or followed up with our calls or emails. We have contacted them numerous times and are either told “they received the email,” “they will escalate it and it is in the system” or their press officers are still reviewing it. After our most recent follow-up calls this Wednesday and giving them an updated deadline of 48 hours, we still have not heard back.

A look at the numbers

Overall, the data released today reflects trends that have been emerging since The Defender first began tracking VAERS reports related to COVID vaccines.

This week’s VAERS data show:

Physicians sound alarmed about the need for pre-screening

Meanwhile, concerns about mass vaccination continued to make national and international headlines this week.

As The Defender reported Tuesday, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, cardiothoracic surgeon and patient safety advocate, said we’re taking the COVID pandemic problem — where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying — and compounding it by vaccinating people who are already infected. In an interview with Fox News host and political commentator, Tucker Carlson, Noorchasm said public health officials are making a “dramatic error” by promoting a “one-size-fits-all” COVID vaccination program:

“… the signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries. He is promoting a screening campaign that consists of a “PCR or Rapid Antigen test to determine if there is an active infection and an IgG antibody test that would allow determination of a past infection. If either of these tests is positive, vaccination ought to be delayed for a minimum of 3 – 6 months,” Noorchasm told The Defender. “If at that time IgG levels are waning, it is reasonable to consider getting a vaccine shot. But even then, blood IgG levels should guide whether or not a person gets vaccinated.”

Noorchasm sent the third communication to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week, warning that deaths like that of 32-year-old Benjamin G. Goodman, who died after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated.

An article in The Hill this week, by several physicians, also suggested that people be prescreened for COVID before being vaccinated.

The physicians wrote:

“A closer look at the level of protection obtained by a single shot vaccine regimen for those who are ‘COVID-primed’ is needed. Rigorous, effective, and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required as well.”

AstraZeneca under fire in U.S. and Europe

As far as individual vaccines, AstraZeneca garnered the most headlines this week, in Europe and the U.S.

On March 22, The Defender reported that two independent research teams in Norway and Germany identified antibodies that provoke immune reactions leading to the type of blood clots experienced by some people who received AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.

Although many countries resumed their vaccination program with AstraZeneca’s vaccine after the EMA’s preliminary findings, some countries, including France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, did not lift their restrictions on its use.

According to Reuters, Finland announced Wednesday it was still looking into two cases of blood clots but would resume using the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID for people aged 65 and over. Finland plans to complete its investigation by April 6 at the earliest.

On March 23, U.S. health officials accused AstraZeneca of misrepresenting efficacy data when it included “outdated information” in its clinical trial results, which may have led to the vaccine maker providing the public with an incomplete view of its efficacy data, The Defender reported.

The statement by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases came less than a day after the pharmaceutical company said its vaccine was 79% effective against COVID and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

AstraZeneca released updated information on its COVID-19 clinical trial Wednesday which showed an efficacy rate of 76% against symptomatic COVID infection instead of the 79% figure released Monday. The estimated efficacy in people over 65 rose slightly, from 80% to 85%. The vaccine maker identified no safety concerns related to the vaccine.

On March 24, the Ukrainian government urged the public not to jump to conclusions after a servicewoman died two days after getting the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, reported Fox News. Although the woman reportedly had chronic cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities, she experienced no side effects from the vaccine before she suddenly lost consciousness.

According to Reuters, nine other people were given the vaccine from the same batch on the same day and had no ill effects.

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




CDC Ignores Inquiry Into Increasing Number of Deaths, Injuries Reported After COVID Vaccines

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines showed 38,444 reports of adverse events since Dec. 14, 2020.

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with questions about how the agency is investigating reports of deaths and injuries after COVID vaccines. We provided a written list of questions asking the status of investigations on deaths reported in the media, if autopsies are being done, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and the known issues with VAERS — namely whether healthcare providers are reporting all injuries and deaths that might be connected to the COVID vaccine, and what education initiatives are in place to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting. We asked for a reply within two days.

As of today, 11 days later, the CDC has not answered our questions. Instead, when we call them, they respond saying, “they have received our email, they will escalate it and it is in the system.” When we asked if we could speak with the person reviewing the email, we were told that information could not be provided. When we emailed them to follow up, we received no response.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received by the system as of Friday of the previous week. The 34,444 adverse events reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 11 include 1,739 deaths and 6,286 serious injuries.

This week’s data included reports of 478 cases of Bell’s Palsy. Of those, 66% of cases were reported after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations — almost twice as many as reported (36%) following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine.

The first Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine was administered in the U.S. on March 2. As of March 11, nine anaphylactic reactions associated with J&J’s vaccine had been reported to VAERS. As The Defender reported earlier this month, the J&J vaccine contains polysorbate 80, known to trigger allergic reactions, The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG), also known to trigger anaphylactic reactions.

In the U.S., 98.2 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 11.

From the 3/11/2021 release of Vaers data.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

For the most part, today’s data reflect trends that have emerged since The Defender first began tracking VAERS reports related to COVID vaccines.

This week’s VAERS data show:

  • Of the 1,739 deaths reported as of March 11, 30% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 21% occurred within 24 hours, and 46% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated. By comparison, during the same period, there were only 85 deaths reported following flu vaccines.
  • Nineteen percent of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
  • Fifty-three percent of those who died were male, 44% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
  • The average age of those who died was 77.9 and the youngest death was an 18-year-old.
  • As of March 11, 289 pregnant women had reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 90 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. None of the COVID vaccines approved for Emergency Use Authorization has been confirmed safe or effective for pregnant women, although J&J said earlier this month it would begin testing on pregnant women, infants, and the immunocompromised.
  • There were 1,689 reports of anaphylaxis, with 59% of cases attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 41% to Moderna.

The average age of death reported remains 77.9, however, the youngest reported death this week dropped from 23 to 18. According to VAERS, the teenager developed fatigue, body aches, and a headache one day after receiving the Moderna vaccine on March 3. On March 5 he complained of chest pain and died in his sleep later that day.

The latest data also includes the report of a 22-year-old woman with a “significant, lifelong underlying medical condition” who died 24 days after the vaccine.

According to the CDC’s website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

To date, the only information the CDC has published related to the investigation of COVID vaccine-related deaths and how those investigations were conducted is a COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Update via the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) published on Jan. 27.

The safety update analyzed only the 198 reported deaths that occurred within the first month after the first COVID vaccine was administered in the U.S. It is unknown whether the CDC has investigated any of the 1,541 reported deaths since or if investigations were conducted, what the results showed.

On March 16, The Defender reported that more than 20 countries suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine after reports of blood clots, some resulting in death, in healthy people who received the vaccine. The World Health Organization (WHO) said an ongoing analysis by its vaccines advisory committee had not established a causal link between the vaccine and blood clots and that countries should keep using it.

On March 18, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) released the results of its investigation into the AstraZeneca vaccine. The EMA said Thursday the vaccine “may be associated with very rare cases of blood clots,” but the agency still considers it to be “safe and effective” and countries should continue to use it.

The EMA determined AstraZeneca’s vaccine was not associated with an “overall risk” of blood clots in those vaccinated and there was no evidence of a problem related to specific batches of the vaccine or manufacturing sites, The Defender reported.

According to Reuters, about a dozen countries resumed the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine today, including Germany, Indonesia, and France as EU and British regulators said the benefits outweighed any risks of potential blood clots. AstraZeneca’s vaccine is not yet approved for emergency use in the U.S.

On March 18, The Defender reported Pfizer’s chief financial officer told analysts and investors during a recent earnings call that the company plans to turn its COVID vaccine with German company BioNTech into an even bigger cash cow once the pandemic ends.

Pfizer’s vaccine is already the second-highest revenue-generating drug in the world. The vaccine maker expects revenues of $15 billion in 2021 based on current contracts for its COVID vaccine, but that number could double as Pfizer says it can potentially deliver 2 billion doses this year.

Leaked documents obtained as a result of a cyberattack on the EMA and reviewed by The BMJ revealed regulators had major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities of intact mRNA in batches of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine developed for commercial production, as reported this week by The Defender.

A leaked email identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches — from around 78% to 55%. Pfizer was not manufacturing vaccines to the specifications expected, and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine was not identified, according to the email. The EMA responded by filing two “major objections” with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted to be addressed. It’s unclear if the agency’s concerns were satisfied.

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




Contrary to What the Media Is Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come From A Vaccine

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

There is a belief-forming and currently being pushed by the mainstream media and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that Americans can have their freedom back if they just roll up their sleeves and take the vaccine. This push is being backed by multiple experts who are literally comparing it to the “carrot on a string” in order to get more people to be vaccinated.

“It’s science based. It’s sensible. You can hug your grandkids again. If you’ve been waiting to get a haircut, see the dentist, you can do that,” former CDC Director Tom Frieden told CNN.

The idea that people have refused to hug their children and grandchildren over the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus is heartbreaking. But even more worrisome is the fact that the CDC thinks it can grant or revoke that “freedom” to folks based on whether or not they take the shot.

“We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love,” said CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, in a statement last week. “There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in the privacy of their own homes.”

Aside from the obvious problems of people thinking the government can tell them when and where they can see and hug their children and grandchildren, there is the underlying principle of freedom. Requiring a vaccine for “freedom” is exactly the opposite of “freedom.”

Whether or not you agree with an individual’s choice to vaccinate themselves is irrelevant. While there will likely be many folks cheering on the state in these situations of forced medication and the silencing of critics, how you feel personally about vaccines should never lead to a loss of freedom — for anyone. No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will. This is the very foundation of freedom.

Real freedom is the choice to either take the vaccine or refuse to take it. It is that simple. Many people could benefit from receiving it and that should be their choice and their choice alone, just like some people may choose not to take it.

Our individual freedoms are not granted to us by the government or vaccine manufacturers. They are inalienable. This is the very foundation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that our freedoms can be taken away if we choose not to take a vaccine. However, this is now becoming a common idea being pushed in the mainstream and by the government.

Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and the previous health commissioner for Baltimore is leading that charge. In an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, Wen expressed her discontent with states going back to normal without touting the vaccine as the reason for doing so.

“We need to make it clear to them (Americans) that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life,” Wen said, adding that states opening back up is not allowing for government to tout the vaccine as that ticket back to normal.

She then went on to insinuate that government needs to make sure that vaccination is required in order for states to reopen.

“We have a very a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status,” she said.

Wen then went on to say that freedoms must be limited or otherwise people won’t line up to get the shot. She literally compared the population to a donkey following a carrot on the stick, that is dangling their freedoms in front of them.

“Otherwise, if everything is reopened, what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to get the vaccine?” she asked.

She then called on the CDC and Biden to “come out a lot bolder” and tell people that “if you’re vaccinated, you can do all these things…. Otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.”

Imagine people wanting freedom without being forced to take a vaccine…..the horror.

https://twitter.com/CanAditude/status/1370785050342658054?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1370785050342658054%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wakingtimes.com%2Fcontrary-to-what-the-media-is-telling-you-freedom-does-not-come-from-a-vaccine%2F

Aside from the insanely tyrannical notion of requiring vaccination for freedom, there is the fact that adverse reactions are being reported by tens of thousands of people.

As TFTP has reported at length over the last several months, though many scientists and medical professionals are reassuring everyone that this vaccine is entirely safe because the vaccine was approved under emergency measures, it has — by definition — not undergone any long-term studies. Anyone making the claim that they know what happens a year or more after receiving this vaccine is purely hypothesizing.

What’s more, over a thousand deaths have been reported after the vaccination, up to and including entirely healthy young people. However, every time someone dies after getting the shot, we are told days later that their deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine. While this could certainly be the case, the sheer number of post-vaccination deaths should warrant a closer look.

In an article from the Epoch Times, which was subsequently “Fact-checked” as “True” by Newsweek, the number of post-vaccination deaths is approaching 2,000.

The CDC told The Epoch Times in an e-mail that as of Mar. 8, 2021, over 92 million doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been injected, with 1,637 deaths occurring following the injections.

Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 26, 25,072 reports were made to the VAERS system of immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed).

Currently, on the VAERS website, only 1,136 deaths are shown, however, those numbers, according to the CDC representative who contacted the Epoch Times, are higher.

The 1136 deaths represent 4.5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 94, or 8.3 percent, died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 150 (13.2 percent) died the day after. Another 105 died two days after, and 68 died three days after.

A total of 587 (51.7 percent) died within a week, 215 died within 7 to 13 days, and 124 within 14 to 20 days.

85.8 percent of deaths occurred in people over 60. There were five deaths among those aged 20–29; 10 in those aged 30–39; 23 in those aged 40–49; and 69 aged 50–59.

When tens of thousands of adverse events, along with nearly 2,000 deaths are reported after receiving the vaccine, this is significant statistic data to at least raise a red flag and to proceed with caution. However, the mainstream media, Big Tech, and the government alike have chosen to double down on pushing the notion that the vaccine is 100% safe and we need it for freedom. Dangerous times, indeed.

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.

**This article (Contrary To What The Media Ss Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come From A Vaccine) was originally published at The Free Thought Project and is re-posted here with permission.**




501 Deaths + 10,748 Other Injuries Reported Following COVID Vaccine, Latest CDC Data Show

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

As of Jan. 29, 501 deaths — a subset of 11,249 total adverse events — had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccinations. The numbers reflect reports filed between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 29, 2021.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that an adverse event was linked to a vaccine.

VAERS Data 1/29/21

As of Jan. 29, about 35 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. So far, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By the FDA’s own definition, the vaccines are still considered experimental until fully licensed.

According to the latest data, 453 of the 501 reported deaths were in the U.S. Fifty-three percent of those who died were male, 43% were female, the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased. The average age of those who died was 77, the youngest reported death was of a 23-year-old. The Pfizer vaccine was taken by 59% of those who died, while the Moderna vaccine was taken by 41%.

The latest data also included 690 reports of anaphylactic reactions to either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Of those, the Pfizer vaccine accounted for 76% of the reactions, and the Moderna vaccine for 24%.

As The Defender reported today, a 56-year-old woman in Virginia died Jan. 30, hours after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Doctors told Drene Keyes’ daughter that her mother died of flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis. The death is under investigation by Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the CDC.

Last week, the CDC told USA TODAY that based on “early safety data from the first month” of COVID-19 vaccination the vaccines are “as safe as the studies suggested they’d be” and that “everyone who had experienced an allergic response has been treated successfully, and no other serious problems have turned up among the first 22 million people vaccinated.

Other vaccine injury reports updated this week on VAERS include 139 cases of facial asymmetry, or Bell’s palsy type symptoms, and 13 miscarriages.

States reporting the most deaths were: California (45), Florida (22), Ohio (25), New York (22), and KY (22).

The Moderna vaccine lot numbers associated with the highest number of deaths were: 025L20A (20 deaths), 037K20A (21 deaths), and 011J2A (16 deaths), 025J20A (16 deaths). For Pfizer, the lot numbers associated with the most reports of deaths were: EK5730 (10 deaths), EJ1685 (23 deaths), EL0140 (19 deaths), EK 9231 (17 deaths), and EL1284 (13 deaths). For 135 of the reported deaths, the lot numbers were unknown.

The clinical trials suggested that almost all the benefits of COVID vaccination and the vast majority of injuries were associated with the second dose.

While the VAERS database numbers are sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals to submit reports voluntarily.

According to the VAERS website, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:

  • Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination
  • An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

The CDC says healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report:

  • Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether or not it is clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
  • Vaccine administration errors

However, “within the specified time” means that reactions occurring outside that timeframe may not be reported, in addition to reactions suffered hours or days later by people who don’t report those reactions to their healthcare provider.

Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS “all adverse events that come to their attention.”

Historically, fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS, a system that Children’s Health Defense has previously referred to as an “abject failure,” including in a December 2020 letter to Dr. David Kessler, former FDA director and now co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed.

A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail, and anyone with comorbidities.

CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events, and deaths from COVID vaccines.

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




How Even “Subtle” Childhood Trauma Can Affect Your Health and Wellness Now

By Lissa Rankin | lissarankin.com

Most of us experience trauma at some level, not just war veterans who witness and experience horrific terror but simply by growing up as vulnerable children in a world where many parents are themselves traumatized and can’t always hold that vulnerability safe for a child. You might mistakenly think that you must experience incest, child abuse, parental abandonment, or living in a war zone in order to be traumatized, but trauma can be much more subtle. Psychologist Dawson Church, Ph.D. defines a traumatizing event as something that is:

  • Perceived as a threat to the person’s physical survival
  • Overwhelms their coping capacity, producing a sense of powerlessness
  • Produces a feeling of isolation and aloneness
  • Violates their expectations

In his book Psychological Trauma, Dawson gives the example of Martie’s traumatizing event, which could have lasting consequences but might be easily overlooked if you were not attuned to the kinds of events that can traumatize a child.

When I was growing up, I idolized my older brother Gary. But he was pretty rough with me. He was six years older than I was. One day when I was three and he was nine, he wanted to have a “wrestling match.” He “won” by lying on top of me. I couldn’t breathe and I began to panic. Gary just laughed when he saw me struggling. I almost passed out. When he rolled off me, I began to cry uncontrollably. My mother came in, and I tried to explain what happened. He told her it was nothing. I was just being a crybaby. Mom told me, “Big girls don’t cry.”

While it might be easily dismissed as just children tussling, this example meets all four criteria for a traumatizing event. Martie thought she was going to die when Gary lay on top of her, so she perceived a threat to her survival. She tried to cope by pushing him off, but he was too big so her coping attempt failed and she felt powerless. Being smothered by her brother violated her expectation that her family would keep her safe. When her mother failed to support and comfort her by dismissing her emotions with “Big girls don’t cry,” she was left feeling isolated and alone.

 By this definition of trauma, almost all of us have experienced multiple traumatizing events in our lifetimes. In my case, I had a fairly benevolent childhood, but 12 years of medical training caused me to experience multiple events that meet these criteria for trauma. I also was held up at gunpoint by two masked gunmen in my twenties and had full on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder afterward. Most recently, I was attacked by a pit bull and started having PTSD-like flashbacks right afterward. Knowing what I know about the link between unresolved trauma and physical illness, I wanted to be proactive about healing the trauma right away. I am lucky to have at my fingertips a variety of gifted and ethical healers who treat trauma. I reached out right away and asked for help. The flashbacks stopped and haven’t come back.

Related: Manhasset Miracle Smile is the best dental office in Manhasset.

Unhealed Trauma Predisposes to Disease

As I wrote about in Mind Over Medicine, there is a substantial amount of data linking mental health issues with physical disease. This is not to suggest “it’s all in your head.” It’s absolutely in your body! It’s simply that the physiological changes that occur in the body as the result of unhealed trauma and its associated stress, anxiety, and depression translates into conditions in the body that make you susceptible to physical ailments. In a landmark 1990 study of 17,421 patients, Kaiser Permanente and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) collaborated on the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, which has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Patients were interviewed to determine whether they had experienced any of ten traumatizing events in childhood:

  • Physical abuse
  • Sexual abuse
  • Emotional abuse
  • Physical neglect
  • Emotional neglect
  • Mother treated violently
  • Household substance abuse
  • Household mental illness
  • Parental separation or divorce
  • Incarcerated household member

The study revealed that traumatizing childhood events are commonplace. Two-thirds of individuals reported at least one traumatizing childhood event. 40% of the patients reported two or more traumatizing childhood events, and 12.5% reported four or more. These results were then correlated with the physical health of the interviewed patients, and researchers discovered a dose-response. Traumatizing events in childhood were linked to adult disease in all categories—cancer, heart disease, chronic pain, autoimmune diseases, bone fractures, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, depression, smoking, and suicide. The average age of patients in this study was 57 years old, which means that childhood trauma can have a delayed effect on the body, making it entirely possible that something that happened 50 years ago may be predisposing someone to illness in the here and now. The more Adverse Childhood Events an individual reported, the sicker and more resistant to the treatment they were.

The Good News: Trauma Can Be Healed

If you’re someone who checks “yes” to these and many other traumatizing events, you might be feeling anxious right about now. Does this mean that if you’ve experienced trauma in your life, you’re now a ticking time bomb just waiting to get sick? Does it mean that you won’t be healed from your chronic illness? Does it mean the damage is done and it’s too late to undo it?

No no no. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. The good news is that we now understand that unresolved trauma, whether from childhood or adulthood, can be treated and cured. Such treatment may also have direct effects on physical health.

Psychologists didn’t always know this. They used to believe that children who experienced severe trauma were sort of damaged goods, at risk for many other challenges in adulthood—such as physical and mental illness, addiction, criminal behavior, domestic violence, obesity, and suicide. Such trauma was believed to be largely untreatable. Now, thanks to evolving methodologies for treating trauma successfully, such as Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing (EMDR), Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), Advanced Integrative Therapy (AIT).

Somatic Experiencing, and Psych-K, we know better. Trauma can be treated, and if you’ve experienced trauma, treatment can be not only preventive medicine but also the treatment of disease.

These cutting edge treatments for trauma recognize that talk therapy is inadequate to treat trauma. In fact, it can actually be harmful and retraumatizing, not to mention ineffective. When traumatized people are asked to replay the trauma through talk therapy, they often dissociate from their bodies, escaping into a safe witness consciousness, where they discuss the trauma from this disembodied, numbed out witness position, since that’s what they had to do to cope during the initial trauma. The newer trauma treatments make use of the understanding that trauma can only be truly healed when you stay in your body while addressing the often overwhelming emotions that accompany trauma, titrating your exposure to the trauma in small doses so as not to disembody and dissociate. Newer techniques for treating trauma often require very little talking, are careful to avoid retraumatizing, and can be very effective, quick, and permanent—with surprising and exciting effects not just on mental health, but on physical health, especially for those recalcitrant conditions that fail to respond to even the best Western or alternative medical treatment.

To Treat Disease, We Must Normalize and Treat Trauma


We know from copious data studying war veterans with PTSD in VA hospitals that, without any doubt, trauma and illness are linked. Yet in spite of all the solid scientific data linking trauma and disease, conventional Western medicine still tends to turn a blind eye to this strong correlation, and many patients are also resistant to considering treatment of trauma as part of a prescription for a healthy body. When was the last time your doctor told you to get treatment for your trauma as part of your cancer therapy, autoimmune disease, or heart disease? If you were asked to get trauma treatment as part of comprehensive, integrative medical therapy, how would you react? In my experience, even very progressive integrative medicine doctors rarely bring this up. Instead of focusing on drugs or surgery, they point you to a healthier diet, an herbal supplement, or a whole bunch of expensive functional medicine laboratory tests that aren’t usually covered by insurance.

But what if no drug, surgery, diet, supplement, or fancy lab test can cover up the ongoing, toxic effects of unhealed trauma on the body?  

What if everything else is merely a Band-Aid, perhaps providing temporary relief but never fully healing the root cause that makes you vulnerable to illness over and over?

What if the trauma is at the root of many illnesses in many patients, and until we treat it, even the most cutting edge medical technologies may fail to fully work?

Perhaps the block around treating trauma as part of a comprehensive medical treatment plan lies in the stigma many attach to trauma as if it’s some sort of weakness to have survived a traumatizing event. I suspect that much of the resistance stems from shame about the traumatizing events, which is why the working sociologist Brené Brown, Ph.D. is doing around shame and vulnerability is so important. If shame causes us to bury our trauma in a trauma capsule that we never touch, that trauma can turn into cancer. But if we cultivate shame resilience and we’re brave enough to be vulnerable and get help entering the trauma capsule, miraculous effects are possible. After all, there is absolutely no rational reason to be ashamed if you were sexually abused or abandoned or beaten or neglected. There need not be any shame around getting attacked or bullied or shamed or surrounded by war. Yet shame spirals are common, especially among children who are traumatized. Young psyches somehow translate the trauma into a story that we’re not good enough, or we are weak or unlovable.

Yet children are innocent, as are most adults who are traumatized. At the most basic level, it is our innocence that suffers the brunt of the wound, which means that our innocence needs our compassion and our nurturing, not our inner bullying, shaming, or self-violation. Human life is hard. We have to feel our pain and own up to it in order to heal it and alchemize it into soul growth. But even the most awakened people cannot typically bear to enter into the trauma capsule without loving, supportive, masterful help.

What If Science Can’t Keep up with the Cutting Edge of Sacred Medicine

When I keynoted at the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) conference last month, I met a handful of cutting edge Energy Psychology practitioners, and after a series of synchronicities made it clear we were supposed to get to know each other better, I spent eight hours talking to one of these Energy Psychology practitioners in depth as part of my research for Sacred Medicine. Like many of the individuals I’ve interviewed for my upcoming Sacred Medicine book, Asha Clinton, Ph.D. is a Jungian psychologist, mystic healer, and longtime spiritual practitioner of first Buddhism and then the Sufi tradition. Asha created Advanced Integrative Therapy (AIT) and has trained over 2000 practitioners in this Energy Psychology technique. What drew me to Asha and AIT was not only the vastness of her presence but the fact that she is using AIT to treat cancer. Although the methodologies used in AIT appear to be quite cognitive, left brain, and rational, it was clear to me right away that something mystical was underlying this treatment. While most of the other Energy Psychology techniques are being used to treat trauma as it applies to mental health conditions, Asha created protocols that she and other health practitioners are using as part of the prescription for people with cancer—and the great news is that, for those who are ready for this kind of deep psycho-spiritual work, results are promising.

Part of what drew me to Asha was that she wasn’t trying to sell me with pseudo-science or earn my validation with muddy data. Although many people at this conference used a lot of scientific languages to try to explain what happens when patients are treated with energy healing and energy psychology techniques, I often start to glaze over when people talk about quantum physics and use language that sounds like “pseudo-science” to try to gain acceptance in the world of science. Frankly, I am concluding that science is simply not advanced enough to keep up with the cutting edge of medicine, and no amount of trying to fit spiritual healing into a science box is going to satisfy the scientist in me. Perhaps science will catch up, and it’s important that we continue to try to study that which can be studied in order to protect us from the charlatans of the world. But to dismiss a particular phenomenology something simply because science can’t fully explain it seems irresponsibly ignorant. Holding this paradox of my desire for scientific proof and my openness to that which cannot yet be proven is a challenging edge for me, but one I am holding with greater fluidity as I continue this Sacred Medicine journey. From what I can garner, there is not yet scientific verification that AIT works to treat cancer, but there are a number of very compelling anecdotes, enough to hopefully attract the attention of scientists who might be able to track outcomes, much as Dawson Church and his colleagues are doing to validate the more mainstream Energy Psychology technique EFT.

The Healing Comes from the Divine

Part of my resistance around “energy healers” who try to use the language of energy to explain how their treatments work is that it feels almost disrespectful to that which is doing the healing. Is it really just yet another rational, scientific treatment? Or is it God? (Not that science-based, technologic treatments aren’t also God, but that’s a whole other blog post.) The reason I’m calling my book Sacred Medicine is because I don’t think it’s possible to separate energy healing modalities or traditional healing practices like shamanism from spirituality. I would even go so far as to say that Love Itself lies at the root of the healing.

Asha’s work felt like a good fit for this book because right from the get-go, Asha was blatant about saying that AIT is Divine work, that the protocols she has been mystically given in order to create AIT are a gift from God. She is fittingly humble in the way she gives credit where credit is due. The technique she has midwived into the world strikes me as very similar to the way some of the mystical healers who I’ve interviewed operate, but what attracts me to AIT is that Asha has learned how to teach this.

Related Article: Why It’s Imperative We Shift to the Sacred Matrix Reality that Contains the Healing Powers Of Life

One of the challenges I’ve faced in researching my Sacred Medicine book is that many of these Sacred Medicine practitioners cultivate dependency. They don’t teach the patient how to heal themselves. Instead, they often leave the patient feeling like they need yet another hand on healing or yet another trip to John of God or yet another boost of Divine love as it flows through the healer. And often, the effects of the healing treatment don’t seem to last. What interests me is whether we can learn something from these healers that we can practice on ourselves when we are sick, such as the techniques I described here and used on myself when I was bitten by the pit bull.

After all, if the message is always, “You need to find something outside of yourself in order to heal,” I have to pause and wonder. Other than having fewer side effects, how are a dependency on a mystical healer any different than depending on drugs and surgeries, or supplements and magic potions? I am more interested in learning from the healers who have reverse engineered what they do enough to teach others how to reproduce their results and ideally even teach the patient how to employ these methods at home. Is this possible? I don’t know. So far, I think it’s a paradox. The body is physiologically equipped to heal itself, but perhaps it can’t do it alone. Maybe this deep inner work is just too scary and painful to navigate alone. Maybe we are dependent, at least for a short while, on the loving presence of someone who can channel Divine Love, while facilitating and holding space so that the body can heal itself.

What is Advanced Integrative Therapy?

You can read the details about AIT here, but to summarize in my understanding, the technique Asha developed uses the scientifically controversial “muscle testing” (kinesiology) to run through very detailed protocols that help the practitioner assess which damaging beliefs and unhealed traumas the client has experienced, and which beliefs and traumas need to be treated in which order in order to optimize outcomes. The technique screens not only for Adverse Childhood Events or traumatizing events in adulthood but also for generational trauma, such as the trauma descendants of Nazi Germans or Holocaust Jews might experience, which can alter DNA in offspring. Based on the premise that all upsetting events are types of trauma, and that if left untreated, they become stored within the body, mind and spirit/soul, the intention of AIT is to quickly remove the after effects of such traumatic events and clear the residue of the trauma, as it shows up as disturbing emotions, limiting beliefs, self-sabotaging behaviors, compulsions, obsessions, dissociation, spiritual blockage, and yes . . . (She had me at hello) . . . physical illnesses like cancer.

To make the claim that psychological and spiritual treatment could be used to treat cancer treads on the dangerous legal territory, and Asha is careful with her words when she talks about it. The governing medical boards are very fussy about protecting patient safety—and their turf—by going after anyone they might deem to be “practicing medicine without a license.” If a nutritionist claims that her green juice cleanse can help treat cancer, or if a psychologist or spiritual healer claims that his can, they’re at risk of getting shut down by the Powers That Be. While I’m grateful we have governing boards to protect patient safety and to hold medical practitioners to high levels of ethics, integrity, and mastery of skills, I also find it shocking that we’ve forgotten what healers have known for millennia—that psycho-spiritual healing is probably the most effective, lasting, and restorative treatment of the majority of physical diseases. To suggest that a trained and licensed psychotherapist might be practicing medicine without a license if they suggest that psycho-spiritual treatment might help treat disease seems like blasphemy to me! After all, the CDC estimates that 75% of all doctor’s visits are induced by emotional stress, and Occupational Health and Safety bump that number up to 90%. Sure, there are some illnesses that need highly effective physical treatments, such as antibiotics or surgery. But it is often psychological issues that weaken the immune system and predispose to infection or surgical issues in the first place! (Read Mind Over Medicine if you want to nerd out on the science behind all this.)

The Link Between Psycho-Spiritual Wounds & Physical Illness

As part of my research for Sacred Medicine, I’m traveling the globe to work with shamans in Peru, Qigong masters from China, Hawaiian kahunas, Yogi Swamis, and other kinds of traditional healers, and they all know that psycho-spiritual trauma rides shotgun with physical illness. It’s only Westerners, in our Cartesian arrogance, who have split body, mind, and spirit/soul. Yet we are waking up again and remembering what traditional healers have known all along, that body, mind, and spirit/soul cannot be separated. If we treat the body without also treating the root cause of what predisposed the body to illness, the patient will likely get another illness, or cancer will recur, or the disease will fail to respond to even the most aggressive treatment.

If You’ve Experienced Trauma, What Can You Do to Heal It?

If you’re looking to optimize your physical health by getting help for any unresolved traumas, there are a number of ways to get help. Start by checking in with yourself. What modality resonates with your intuition? Is it AIT? EFT? EMDR? Somatic Experiencing? Shamanic healing? Faith healing? A Native American Medicine Man?

I recommend doing your homework and tuning into your intuition before you choose a practitioner. If your practitioner is a licensed health care provider, like a medical doctor or psychotherapist, they are beholden to their respective medical board with regard to ethics, education, mastery, and continuing medical education. But the minute you go outside the system into the realm of traditional healers and energy medicine practitioners who don’t also have licensed degrees, you open yourself to two kinds of risks. Some practitioners have mastery but no ethic, while others have ethic but no mastery. In other words, you may bump into some highly gifted healers, but they may not follow even the most basic medical ethics, such as confidentiality, informed consent, and restraint from having sexual relations with clients. Even more common are the people who are kind, well-intentioned people trying to be of service, people who are basically ethical and mean well, but they’re simply not good at what they do and cannot reproduce trustworthy results. In my research into Sacred Medicine, I have concluded that just because someone has spiritual power doesn’t mean they have spiritual ethic. And just because someone has spiritual ethic doesn’t mean they have spiritual power. (I talked about this for 3 ½ hours in The Shadow Of Spirituality Uncensored class I taught. You can listen to the class here to dive deeper into the topic of spiritual discernment).

I don’t say this to scare you or cause you to hesitate to get help if you’ve been traumatized. I’m just advising that you activate your discernment, ask for referrals, and be ready to sniff out those who are trying to hook you with big claims they can’t follow through on or those who might be full on black magicians dressed up in white angel robes.

If you feel drawn to modalities like AIT, EFT, EMDR, or Somatic Experiencing, there are resources online to guide you to psychotherapists who have been trained to practice these techniques.

Imagine If Doctors Were Trained to Treat Trauma Alongside Disease

Doctors and other health care providers have been exploring exactly these kinds of issues in the Whole Health Medicine Institute that I founded. Those who have been certified to facilitate the 6 Steps to Healing Yourself as outlined in Mind Over Medicine have gone through the 6 Steps themselves and have been trained to help facilitate patients who are exploring these kinds of psycho-spiritual root causes of illness. (You can find a list of graduates here). But we’ve never overtly included in the training how to treat trauma directly. Asha and I are putting our noodles together to feel into whether there’s a potential for collaboration so that the doctors in my network might be trained to not only have awareness of these new treatments for trauma so that they can refer out to licensed practitioners. Perhaps they might also get certified to treat trauma directly. This bypasses the issue of “practicing medicine without a license” and opens up the potential for a whole new approach to disease treatment and prevention within our medical systems. Of course, there are other obstacles to this potential merging of worlds, including how little time doctors have to spend with patients. But as Tosha Silver would say, “It’s impossible that doctors could be trained to help treat unhealed trauma in sick people . . . without God.”

If You’ve Been Traumatized, Please Get Help

Let me just close by saying that if you’ve experienced trauma in your life and you sense that it might be predisposing you to illness or interfering with medical treatment, please know that you are not alone and that there is no shame in having experienced trauma. Most of us have trauma in our bodies, minds, and spirit/souls. We are not alone in our traumas, and we need not hide our pain or resist treating it. Trauma can be cured, and you can have your radiant, vital life back, if only you have the courage to enter the trauma capsule—with expert guidance—and begin to let the trauma dissolve its grip on your life and your body.

Everyone is entitled to their own journey, so it’s also OK if you’re not ready yet. As my mentor Rachel Naomi Remen, MD says, “You can’t force a rosebud to blossom by beating it with a hammer.” Maybe all you can handle today is admitting, “I have trauma.” That is enough for now. Be kind to yourself. As Karen Drucker sings in her song” Gentle With Myself,” “I will only go as fast as the slowest part of me is free to go.” But perhaps by gently loving the slowest part, someday you will be ready to heal. Maybe that day begins right now.

With love and wishes for your optimal health,

Read more great articles at lissarankin.com