1

Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation
  • Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its power
  • In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers
  • A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit fault with the vaccine
  • The maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, and you first have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks in

As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.

WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.

Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:

  1. “Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
  2. Not apply its domestic laws to the company
  3. Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
  4. Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects

Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.

Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2

Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power

According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4

“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”

Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 Vaccine

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.

A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.

Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.

This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.

If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?

Side Effects Are Inevitable

Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.

They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.8 Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.

For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.9,10

What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.11 An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?

As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:

  • Brain inflammation
  • Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens
  • Dysregulated immune system
  • Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation)

Pathogenic Priming and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:12

“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.

Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.

Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”

A number of reports in the medical literature have indeed highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). As explained in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19”:13

“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.

Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …

ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described14 through a novel FcγRII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state15 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.”

Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:16

“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”

So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.

This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter17 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.

How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease

What’s more, in a paper18 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:

“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …

Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.

In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.

In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.

The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”

mRNA Technology Has Potential to Cause Microvascular Injury

Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment19 to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”

He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”

“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?” he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels …

It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.

Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”

Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting

Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

In the wake of 29 senior citizen deaths,20 Norway is reportedly considering excluding the very old and terminally ill from getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency:21

“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”22

In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused.23 Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

Persistent malaise24,25 Bell’s Palsy26,27,28
Extreme exhaustion29 Swollen, painful lymph nodes
Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions30,31,32 Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)33,34
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome35 Miscarriages36,37
Chronic seizures and convulsions38,39 Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication
Paralysis40 Sleep disturbances
Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders41
Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders42,43 Stroke44,45

In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International,46 “For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”

Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death

Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidly mounting reports of sudden death,47,48,49,50,51,52 mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.

vaers results

As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.53 Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.

Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.54

Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:55

“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …

Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.

The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …

Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind

To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.56

If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.

While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.




Media Hails New J&J Vaccine, Ignores Pharma Giant’s ‘Checkered Past’

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

On Feb. 26, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced — via a Saturday evening tweet — that the agency granted Emergency Use Authorization for Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) coronavirus vaccine for Americans 18 and older.

Claiming that “we’re in a hurry” because there’s not enough supply of the two COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — members of FDA’s committee agreed without dissent to allow a third COVID injection into the U.S. mix.

While the media drummed up enthusiasm for the expanded options, the Washington Post on March 2 offered an even splashier scoop: a “historic” production partnership between J&J and Merck, two pharma giants ordinarily portrayed as “fierce competitors.”

Employing hyperbolic language about the “wartime effort” and good “corporate citizenship,” public health leaders instantly celebrated the “unusual” arrangement for its potential to double “what Johnson & Johnson could make on its own.”

Experts bill J&J’s one-dose injections, which are storable for several months at refrigerator temperatures, as the ideal solution for vaccine programs challenged by the trickier storage and handling requirements of the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna shots — an “advantage [that] goes up in neon,” Dr. William Schaffner, an internist and infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University’s Department of Health Policy, told News7 Boston.

Dr. Nancy Messonnier, who leads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 vaccine efforts — and who two years ago sat next to Dr. Anthony Fauci as he gave Congress false information about adverse events from measles vaccination — according to CNBC conceded the J&J product will be “operationally easier in lots of contexts” and “better suited for some populations.”

Anticipating a lucrative opportunity, J&J is already preparing to launch expanded clinical trials in children (including newborns and infants) and pregnant women.

Different design, same goal

Rather than use the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology being deployed for the first time in the Pfizer and Moderna injections, J&J’s vaccine (made by the company’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary) features a genetically engineered “viral vector” design reliant on a weakened common-cold virus called adenovirus 26.

Adenovirus vaccines have a lengthy history of use in the U.S. military, but the FDA’s emergency green light for J&J’s COVID injection represents the first time the agency has authorized an adenovirus-vectored vaccine for civilian use.

Last summer, J&J obtained European approval for an Ebola vaccine using vector technology. Oxford-AstraZeneca and CanSino Biologics have adopted a similar approach for their COVID-19 vaccines, though with different adenoviral vectors.

As J&J describes them, adenoviruses are “good for transporting things into humans.” In the case of the COVID vaccine, the aim is to shuttle genetic instructions — DNA coding for the coronavirus spike protein — into the cells and force the cells to make spike protein. In theory, these “self-made spike proteins” are then supposed to train the body to “detect and terminate any real SARS-CoV-2 infections before the virus wreaks havoc.”

Although the mode of delivery is different from the lipid nanoparticles (what CNN describes as “delicate little balls of fat”) that function as a carrier system for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, all three FDA-authorized COVID vaccines share the same novel goal of getting the body to manufacture spike protein — a goal that represents a radical departure from traditional vaccines.

A University of Tennessee microbiologist told Knox News that J&J’s approach is immunologically powerful, stating that the modified adenovirus vector is “about as subtle as a wrecking ball” and “very visible to the immune system.”

According to a May 2020 article in Chemical & Engineering News, the adenovirus approach — with 30 years of study behind it — has a “checkered past,” including as a “failed gene therapy.”

Undaunted by adenoviral vectors’ ability to generate dramatic and even fatal inflammatory effects, vaccine researchers embraced the strategy, only to discover that booster shots might “unleash an antibody attack on the vaccine itself.”

In 2007, Merck encountered yet another problem when it conducted clinical trials for an adenoviral-vectored HIV vaccine that, paradoxically, increased the risk of HIV infection in a subset of recipients — a cautionary tale that “put a big kibosh on adenoviruses” for some years thereafter.

‘Morally compromised’

In response to the FDA’s emergency authorization of J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine, the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and Catholic leaders in St. Louis immediately pronounced the injection “morally compromised,” citing the company’s “extensive use of abortion-derived cell lines” and urging local Catholics not to take it. These objections are in the same vein as a letter submitted to the FDA a year ago by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which expressed concern about the development of COVID-19 vaccines reliant on “ethically problematic” cell lines.

The cell line in which Janssen grows its adenovirus vector is a human embryonic cell line called PER.C6. The retinal tissue that launched the cell line was obtained following the elective abortion of a healthy, 18-week-old fetus. The AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID vaccine uses a different human embryonic cell line called HEK293T to propagate its adenovirus.

To produce a continuous cell line of this type — what is called an “immortalized” cell line — scientists must artificially manipulate the original cells, which otherwise would have finite lifespans. This is accomplished by introducing chemical exposures or rendering them cancerous. Because this manipulation introduces genetic changes into the cells, “cell populations and cellular mechanisms are altered.”

A senior FDA official warned over two decades ago about the inherent risks of using continuous cell lines for vaccine development, noting that such cell lines, “by definition” have abnormalities, and worriedly acknowledging their “potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”

An FDA document published in late 2020 shows that these issues are far from resolved; explicitly referring to cell lines such as PER.C6 and HEK293T, the FDA author states: “The use of tumorigenic and tumor-derived cells is a major safety concern” and observes that the cell lines contain “latent” or “quiet” threats that “might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions.”

The fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the J&J COVID vaccine specifies that each dose of vaccine “may … contain residual amounts of host cell proteins … and/or host cell DNA,” but the simplified fact sheet intended for vaccine recipients and their caregivers does not.

That means that unless vaccine recipients seek out the healthcare provider fact sheet, they’ll be unaware of this potentially crucial piece of information.

The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization, Corvelva, which has conducted detailed studies of DNA from aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines, warns that such DNA is abnormal and potentially tumor-causing. Corvelva concludes that vaccines of this type “should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health.”

Along with a variety of other inactive ingredients, the J&J COVID vaccine also includes polysorbate-80, a stabilizer that studies have shown capable of transporting other substances across the blood-brain barrier.

Serial felons

When evaluating the potential safety of the J&J-plus-Merck experimental COVID vaccine, it would be prudent to take note of the corporate behemoths’ less-than-flattering track records as serial felons.

Merck, for example, paid out $4.85 billion in 2007 after pleading guilty to criminal charges over illegal marketing of its lethal drug Vioxx. The company has gone on to face numerous other allegations of fraud, deceit, and negligence, including for its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.

For its part, J&J’s recent criminal history includes:

  • A 2013 order by the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $2.2 billion in civil and criminal fines related to the antipsychotic drug Risperdal and two other drugs, following aggressive off-label marketing and other dubious practices such as fraud and kickbacks.
  • A 2019 award by a Philadelphia jury of $8 billion in punitive damages to a man alleging that J&J failed to warn that Risperdal could lead to breast growth in boys. Thousands of other lawsuits against J&J feature the same allegation.
  • $572 million judgment against J&J by the state of Oklahoma in 2019 for the company’s role in the opioid crisis.
  • $3.9 billion set aside for 25,000 lawsuits related to J&J’s asbestos-tainted baby powder. And a 2018 Missouri verdict, “one of the largest punitive-damages awards in U.S. legal history,” was reached after internal documents showed that the company had been aware of the baby powder contamination since the 1970s.

In the wake of these scandals, The Guardian wrote in 2019 that “experts are concerned that one of the world’s most recognizable names and most reliable and valuable companies is caught in no less than an existential crisis.” Citing the “product misfires,” “court judgments” and stark reputational decline, the British news outlet asked, “what happened to Johnson & Johnson?”

With the advent of J&J’s COVID vaccine (an injection already being hawked as a “vaccine for the world” and the potential “end of the pandemic”), it appears that The Guardian has its answer: J&J will send its former woes down the memory hole, an obliging media will ignore the spotty safety record of past adenovirus vaccine attempts (including J&J’s paused clinical trial last October) and a to-be-determined number of COVID-frightened Americans — tempted by the ease of a single shot — will line up for J&J’s investigational injection that, in the FDA’s own words, is “not licensed for any indication.”

Sadly, many of these individuals will be unaware that, unlike with dangerous drugs, they cannot sue indemnified COVID vaccine manufacturers should anything go wrong.




It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination — Attorney Interview

By Spiro Skouras | Activist Post

In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.

Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico but the emergency itself.

You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below … or watch it on YouTube if you must.

https://youtu.be/t3P9CYGq9M4

NM Stands Up!
https://nmstandsup.org

The first case against mandatory vaccination filed in New Mexico: report
https://thehill.com/regulation/labor/541173-first-case-against-mandatory-vaccination-filed-in-new-mexico-dention-center?rl=1

Federal judge denies Doña Ana County employee’s request, for now, in mandatory vaccine lawsuit
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2021/03/04/federal-judge-rules-restraining-order-dona-ana-county-new-mexico-mandatory-vaccine-lawsuit/4586480001/

EEOC Says Employers May Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations – Subject to Limitations
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-says-employers-may-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-subject-to-limitations

Image credit: torstensimon 

Follow Spiro on BitChuteParler and Gab.




Tanzanian President Says Citizens Will Not Be Guinea Pigs in Vaccine Trials

On Feb 2, 2021, Tanzania’s health minister, Dorothy Gwajima, announced that her country has no plans in place to recommend the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines in the African country. The announcement came a few days after Tanzania’s President John Magufuli expressed concern about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines developed and manufactured in Western countries.

By Rishma Parpia | The Vaccine Reaction

On Feb 2, 2021, Tanzania’s health minister, Dorothy Gwajima, announced that her country has no plans in place to recommend the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines in the African country.

The announcement came a few days after Tanzania’s President John Magufuli expressed concern about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines developed and manufactured in Western countries.

President Magufuli said that the health ministry will only accept COVID-19 vaccines after Tanzania’s experts have examined and certified them. Health Minister Dorothy Gwajima explained,

“We are not yet satisfied that those vaccines have been clinically proven safe.”

President Magufuli reiterated that he will not allow Tanzanians to be used as guinea pigs in COVID-19 vaccine trials conducted by vaccine manufacturers. He warned that COVID-19 vaccines could be harmful and has been urging Tanzanians to stop living in fear and adopt common-sense disease control measures and lead a healthy lifestyle. Health Minister Gwajima said:

We must improve our personal hygiene, wash hands with running water and soap, use handkerchiefs, herbal steam, exercise, eat nutritious food, drink plenty of water, and [use] natural remedies that our nation is endowed with.

The WHO and other institutions have been watching Tanzania closely since COVID-19 began to spread across Africa.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tanzanian government has objected to adopting strict lockdown protocols or restricting the movement of its citizens as the primary way to contain the spread of the virus, an approach adopted in the U.S., Europe, and other countries.

Although Tanzania’s more open and less restrictive approach has appeared to be radical and unconventional to many, the reasons included avoiding the negative economic fallout caused by lockdowns and the belief that the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic was over-rated.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Since COVID Vaccines Are Experimental, Vaccine Administrators Must Inform You of Risks

By Alliance for Natural Health International | The Defender

With the mass vaccination program now in full swing, we are hearing more and more reports suggesting this fundamental right and the legal requirement is not being respected. The vast majority of people are simply not being given the opportunity to exercise this right that is a foundational principle of medical ethics and central to the concept of patient autonomy. Most people likely don’t even know what information they should be able to receive prior to vaccination.

Check out our video below (under 8 minutes in length), presented by Rob Verkerk Ph.D., including inputs from a dentist, Dr. Zac Cox, from the World Doctors Alliance, and integrative doctor, Dr. Anna Forbes, founder, and director of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.

https://youtu.be/UBLDwinDjAs

You don’t need to sign something to give consent — baring your arm is sufficient.

In the case of vaccination, this is, in essence, the gesture that gives the vaccinator permission to touch you and inject you. Failure to seek your permission would typically be regarded, legally, as assault or battery.

The real problem, therefore, isn’t with the consent itself, but with the information that should precede the issue of consent.

The three prerequisites for informed consent

For consent to be valid you need 3 things:

  1. It must be given voluntarily— without coercion or deceit.
  2. It must be given by an individual who has mental capacity.
  3. BEFORE giving consent, a person needs to have been fully informed about the issue. That includes being informed about what the risks and benefits of the treatment or vaccination are, as well as the risks and benefits of going without the treatment or vaccination, and what alternate options might be available.

Do health authority vaccine claims constitute deceit?

Health authorities around the world continue to claim that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe.” However, according to the Collins dictionary, this means that:

“Something that is safe does not cause physical harm or danger.”

“Safe” claims are routinely made by organizations like the UK NHS, the Centers for Disease Control in the USA, and the World Health Organization.

A search we carried out of the VAERS database in the U.S. shows that nearly 8,000 adverse events have been reported to date (note: as many as 90% of adverse reactions often go unreported), and over 1.5% of these involved death. It is then arguably deceitful to refer to these experimental vaccines as “safe.”

Information chasm

Even if it can be argued that the existing safety claims, advertising campaigns, or pressure from some sectors of the health professions are neither coercive nor deceitful, it is this last prerequisite concerning the provision of information where mass vaccination programs typically fall short.

Given the lack of vaccine transparency, vaccinators themselves are not properly informed so are generally not in any position to offer accurate information that might be available in the public domain, but is generally not well known.

Information that should be freely communicated includes the fact that the vaccines are experimental and unproven. Those considering giving consent should be told about the vaccines’ reliance on synthetic biology that has never been tested at scale. But it also includes information on known risks and benefits from Phase 3 trials, and that these trials are still underway and some won’t be complete for over 18 months (e.g. Jan. 31, 2023, for Pfizer mRNA vaccine).

Put simply – without vaccine transparency, informed consent is just not possible.

The very least we should expect is that every person gets to read the product information leaflet agreed between vaccine makers and regulators — before giving their consent. Even this isn’t happening. Where the information is being given — it’s often being handed to people as a passing gesture — a formality — after vaccination.

Vaccine leaflets:

Pfizer information leaflet, UK: Pfizer PIL

Pfizer fact sheet for recipients and caregivers, U.S.

Pfizer fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the vaccine, U.S

AstraZeneca information leaflet, UK

Moderna fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the vaccine, U.S.

Moderna information leaflet, EU

Moderna information leaflet

It’s time that those in charge of the vaccination programs begin to respect informed consent. And while they’re at it, recognize that they better change how they’re approaching informed consent because many are likely breaking the law by not allowing that right to be exercised.

The law on informed consent — present in nearly all jurisdictions — forms one of the central planks of medical ethics that’s the bedrock for the practice of “good medicine” in civilized, democratized societies. Let’s not throw that to the wind.

Originally published by Alliance for Natural Health International.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




How Will We Know That a COVID-19 Vaccine is Safe?

By Dr. Liz Mumper and Children’s Health Defense team | Children’s Health Defense

Children’s Health Defense has created a video of Dr. Liz Mumper’s presentation titled “How Will We Know That a COVID-19 Vaccine is Safe?” This presentation is the result of a collaborative effort between Dr. Mumper and the team of doctors, scientists, and researchers affiliated with CHD.

Dr. Mumper carefully provides detailed answers to two questions often asked by the public: “What does a safe and effective vaccine look like?” and “How will we know that a COVID-19 vaccine is safe?” She reviews many of the reasons why vaccines, as they are currently produced, are not safe, and explains that every year there are tens of thousands of adverse events, many of them resulting in serious conditions or even death.

Dr. Mumper reviews the scientific community’s numerous concerns about the safety of a COVID vaccine and its ingredients, providing information about each of the top COVID vaccine candidates. Lastly, she discusses the legality of mandatory vaccination in a free republic that proclaims to defend the rights of “we the people.”

We hope that individuals will use this video presentation and these additional files as tools to educate friends, parents, policymakers, state and federal legislators, and public health officials who need to know of the relative risks of vaccines in general, and especially those risks associated with COVID vaccines.

Read video transcript.

PowerPoint Presentation

To view the presentation:

  • Desktop computer – mouse over the slide and arrows will appear on the right and left, or click on the circles.
  • Mobile devices – simply swipe from left to right.

This presentation can also be downloaded as a pdf (175.2MB) which has links to resources and citations.

COVID Vaccine Concern Facts

Download fact sheets.

About Dr. Mumper

Elizabeth Mumper M.D., FAAP, Pediatrician, President and CEO of The Rimland Center and CHD Scientific Advisory Committee Member

Dr. Mumper is President and CEO of The RIMLAND Center, established to mentor clinicians interested in children with neurodevelopmental problems. Her general pediatrics practice is Advocates for Children. Advocates for Families is devoted to the care of children with autism and other neurodevelopmental problems.

She attended the Medical College of Virginia, did residency training at the University of Massachusetts and University of Virginia, and she served as Chief Resident of Pediatrics at UVA.

Her clinical experience has included five years in pediatric practice, over a decade as Director of Pediatric Education in a Family Practice Residency Program, 16 years as clinical faculty at the University of Virginia, and five years as Medical Director of the Autism Research Institute. She is currently on the faculty of MAPS (Medical Academy for Pediatric Special Needs).

Other Helpful Resources




COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected. As such, these products do not meet the medical definition of a vaccine
  • As of February 4, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received 12,697 injury reports following COVID-19 vaccination and 653 deaths
  • The University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, is now enrolling children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months in their U.K. vaccine trial
  • Moderna started testing its RNA-based gene therapy on American children between the ages of 12 and 17 in December 2020, and the first Pfizer trials involving adolescents began in mid-October 2020. In China, Sinovac and SinoPharm trials have been enrolling children as young as 3
  • Children do not need a COVID-19 vaccine as they are at extremely low risk of severe COVID-19 and are not a significant vector of infection

As of February 4, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following the COVID-19 vaccination.1

Of the cases reported between December 14, 2020, and February 4, 2021, 3.69% were life-threatening and the number of deaths accounts for 5.14% of the total reports. The Pfizer vaccine accounted for 58% of deaths; Moderna’s accounted for 41%.

What’s more, when you look at vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021, you find that COVID-19 vaccines account for a staggering 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, and that’s while having been available for less than two months. The first doses of Pfizer vaccine were given in mid-December 2020,2 while Moderna’s vaccine rolled out during the last week of December 2020.3

vaers results

While these numbers are staggering, they’re likely only a tiny fraction of the actual number of adverse events. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study,4 fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.

This is primarily because VAERS reporting is voluntary. Many don’t even know it exists, or that you don’t have to be a medical professional to file a report. This would mean that there may, in reality, be over 1 MILLION COVID vaccine injuries, since 99% typically go unreported.

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

To address these shortcomings and monitor the public health effects of this mass vaccination campaign, the Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:5

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a non-governmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website

Children Are Next

Despite the clear and present dangers of these so-called vaccines, which are in actuality gene therapy, COVID-19 vaccine makers are steamrolling ahead with trials on children as young as 6 years old.

As reported6 by the University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine7,8 with AstraZeneca, children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months are eligible for participation at four U.K. centers. Those over the age of 16 do not even require a parent’s approval but can consent on their own. The remuneration for those putting their entire future at risk is £10 (about $14) per visit.

A total of 300 children are scheduled to participate, 240 of whom will receive the candidate vaccine while so-called controls will receive a meningitis vaccine. The lack of a true placebo is a red flag in and of itself, as using a vaccine as a “placebo” helps mask any number of common side effects, making the vaccine appear safer than it actually is.

The AstraZeneca vaccine has received authorization for use in the U.K. but not the U.S. Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines authorized for use in the U.S., the AstraZeneca vaccine delivers double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein inside a chimpanzee adenovirus.9

Moderna started testing its RNA-based gene therapy on American children between the ages of 12 and 17 back in December 2020,10 and the first Pfizer trials involving adolescents began in mid-October 2020.11 In China, Sinovac and SinoPharm trials have been enrolling children as young as 3.12

Children Do Not Need This Vaccine

Considering children are at extremely low risk of severe COVID-19, and have been shown to not be a significant vector of infection,13 why do children even need this vaccine? Dr. Robert Frenck, a lead investigator of the COVID-19 vaccine trials at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told ABC News:14

“If you wipe out the infection in the younger children, they don’t spread it to the adults, and so then, you can get a big handle on disease just by targeting the younger children and getting the infection out of that age group.”

This is a standard justification, but it’s really little more than a mind game. In essence, children are being required to play Russian roulette with their health based on the premise that it will benefit the whole, but is it really reasonable to ask the youngest among us, who are at the lowest risk from the infection, to sacrifice their health too, presumably, protect the elderly?

Studies15 have shown children not only very rarely transmit the disease, either between themselves or to adults, but also, if they get the disease, they virtually never suffer any serious complications. So Frenck’s argument really flies in the face of the available data. If children don’t transmit the disease, how can you get “a big handle” on it by vaccinating them?

In reality, this argument appears to be designed to coerce parents into vaccinating their children even though the public benefit from doing so is minimal. Rather than being a true public health incentive, it seems the drive to vaccinate children is more about increasing profits. Additionally, early reports suggest that the elderly also have a tendency to die shortly after the inoculation,16,17 which is raising suspicions and concern.

Adverse Effects May Take Years to Develop

In children, the side effects are likely to be less immediately noticeable, but may instead result in future health problems. In a Microbiology & Infectious Diseases paper,18 immunologist Dr. J. Bart Classen warns the mRNA jabs may instigate adverse events that take years to fully develop.19

“One such potential adverse event is prion based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participate in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS,” Classen writes.

Since research had not been done to ascertain whether mRNA gene therapy might trigger prion-based disease, Classen conducted that study. He writes:20

“Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.

In particular, it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.

In the current analysis, a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.

The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”

mRNA Vaccines Are Actually Gene Therapies

As detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” these inoculations are more accurately described as gene therapies, and by referring to them as “vaccines,” the U.S. government is likely in violation of the 2011 U.S. Code Title 15, Section 1125,21 which regulates deceptive practices such as false descriptions in medical claims.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,22 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claims this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they do not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nano lipid carrier compound,23 the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.24,25 As such, these products do not meet the medical definition of a vaccine.

Not to worry, though, the Merriam-Webster dictionary recently updated its definition of “vaccine” to include mRNA technology,26 just in time for fact-checkers to be able to “debunk” the entirely factual claim of the difference between true vaccines and mRNA technology.

Crazy enough, scientists are already discussing the potential for switching out conventional vaccines that use live or attenuated viruses with this novel RNA technology.27

Considering it’s a gene therapy that turns your cells into little “bioreactors” that spit out immune system activating proteins and have no off-switch, I don’t even want to imagine what might happen if a person were to receive several different ones.

mRNA Therapy Is a Bad Idea, Especially for Children

Aside from the possibility of prion-based diseases, reviewed above, many medical experts warn that mRNA gene therapy can trigger autoimmune problems and a wide range of inflammatory conditions. As just one example, in a recent interview, Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained the mechanics that make injecting RNA so hazardous:

“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. The central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.

So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.

Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …

Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis. 

The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia — literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia — which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.

It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials … We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord …”

Indeed, many of the side effects being reported are suggestive of neurological damage. Examples include severe dyskinesia (impairment of voluntary movement), ataxia (lack of muscle control), and intermittent or chronic seizures. As explained by Mikovits, these symptoms are caused by neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response, and/or a disrupted endocannabinoid system.

Another common side effect from the vaccine we’re seeing is allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock. A likely culprit in this is PEG (polyethylene glycol), to which Mikovitz says an estimated 70% of Americans are allergic.

COVID-19 Vaccine Is an Unnecessary Risk

Overall, with reported severe side effects and deaths climbing by the hundreds every week, it’s astonishing to think that people would voluntarily risk their children in these trials. It’s even more astonishing that public health agencies are pushing for mass inoculation of children with these experimental gene therapies when there’s no data whatsoever to assure parents that their children’s health won’t be destroyed in years to come.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I suspect this global vaccination campaign will result in an avalanche of chronic health problems and deaths so great that any talk of mandates will have to be abandoned, or rescinded if already implemented.

So, if you care about your and your family’s health, the answer may simply be to put off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for as long as possible and wait for the inevitable truth to come to light.

There are several prevention strategies and treatments readily available that have been shown to be highly effective, which means they need for a vaccine in the first place is nearly moot. Among them, nebulized hydrogen peroxide with iodine, which I’ve written about in previous articles, works very well.

For a refresher, see “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.” Other treatments include hydroxychloroquine with zincivermectin, and the iMASK and MATH+ protocols, which you can learn more about in the linked articles.

One of the Most Powerful Videos I’ve Ever Seen

The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.

There are a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that result in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in-state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and will get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call-to-action items you need at your fingertips. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call into a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

  • Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another. By knowing the specific policies where you live, you’ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices.
  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions — Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall — View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
  • Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.



White House Enlists Social Media Giants to Suppress Vaccine ‘Misinformation’

By Megan Redshaw, J.D. | The Defender

The White House is asking Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

Reuters reported that Biden, concerned that “fear about taking the vaccine has emerged as a major impediment” to his administration’s pandemic plan, wants help from the social media moguls to keep “misinformation” from going viral.

“Vaccine hesitancy is a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a White House source told Reuters late last week.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain had previously said information questioning the COVID vaccine has caused others to question the vaccine. But the news out of Washington last week was the first sign that officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users, according to Reuters.

“Social media tycoons are now openly serving as government surrogates in censoring factually accurate information that departs from government policies and pronouncements,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., co-founder, and chair of Children’s Health Defense.

The Biden administration wants to make sure that unfavorable material does not start trending on social media or become an even broader movement, citing concerns over a recent anti-vaccine protest at Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium which was organized through a Facebook page.

“We are talking to [social media companies] … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly,” a White House source explained.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-N.Y.) last week criticized social media companies in a tweet accusing Facebook and Twitter of moving too slowly in responding to targeted harassment of people getting vaccinated and what Blumenthal described as “dangerous conspiracy theories.”

A spokesperson for Facebook told Reuters the company has reached out to the White House to offer any assistance they can provide and recently announced a new policy to remove COVID information the company deems false, along with pages, groups, and accounts that repeatedly spread such material.

Twitter stated the company is in “regular communication with the White House on a number of critical issues including COVID-19 misinformation.”

Google did not comment on engagement with the White House but did point to a company blog on how it stops the spread of misinformation.

In August 2020 Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges that Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies and raised detailed factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and WHO’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg calling into question Facebook’s joint action in a censorship campaign with the government.

Earlier this month, Kennedy’s Instagram account was de-platformed without advance notice for what the media claimed were “false COVID claims” or “vaccine misinformation.” Some reports falsely characterized Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer.”

Kennedy unequivocally rejects those characterizations. He wrote in response to Instagram’s censorship:

“Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications, and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false. Facebook, the pharmaceutical industry, and its captive regulators use the term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as a euphemism for any factual assertion that departs from official pronouncements about vaccine health and safety, whether true or not. This kind of censorship is counterproductive if our objective is a safe and effective vaccine supply.”

As Kennedy has stated numerous times, “for a democracy to function, the civil debate of issues — including vaccine science — must be allowed. Censorship of that debate is anathema to democracy.”

Many reports have raised serious questions about the safety of COVID vaccines, including adverse reactions and other possible long-term complications that deserve debate, Kennedy said.

The Defender reported in January that a Florida doctor died three days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. An expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins said in an interview with The New York Times, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”Earlier this month, the CDC announced it was investigating the death of a 36-year-old doctor in Tennessee who died from an extremely rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome one month after getting his second dose of a COVID vaccination.

Drene Keyes, whose death is under investigation, died hours after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. She experienced flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, which some have experienced after receiving the COVID vaccine.

According to new data released Friday, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System since Dec. 14, 2020. One-third of reported deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the COVID vaccine.

“While social media companies are private entities with rights to censor information they don’t like, the involvement of the government in censorship efforts implicates the First Amendment,” Kennedy said.




Pathologist: FDA ‘Misled the Public’ on Pfizer Vaccine Efficacy

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Pfizer’s announcement in November 2020 that clinical trials showed its COVID-19 vaccine was “95% effective” prompted Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a Connecticut pathologist, to question Pfizer’s methodology and petition the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require accurate counts of COVID-19 cases in the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial before granting the vaccine Emergency Use Authorization (EAU).

As The Defender reported in November, Lee, who is director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, said:

“Until an accurate count of COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated and placebo groups has been determined for vaccine efficacy evaluation, we are asking the FDA to stay its decision regarding the emergency use authorization for this vaccine.”

Lee’s request was rejected by the FDA on Dec. 11, the same day the agency approved Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use. On Feb. 8, Lee filed an amended reply.

Here’s the sequence of events as they unfolded:

On Nov. 23, 2020, Lee, along with Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and its counsel, submitted a Citizen Petition and petition for an administrative stay of action to the FDA relating to the phase 3 trial of the BNT162b/Pfizer vaccine to prevent the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

In the petition and stay, Lee requested the FDA amend the study design for the late-stage trial of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Specifically, Lee requests:

“Before a EUA or unrestricted license is issued for the Pfizer vaccine, or for other vaccines for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection, all “endpoints” or COVID-19 cases used to determine vaccine efficacy in Phase 3 or 2/3 trials should have their infection status confirmed by Sanger sequencing, given the high cycle thresholds used in some trials. High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results, have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives … All RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize the patient as “COVID-19 cases” and used to qualify the trial’s endpoints should be verified by Sanger sequencing to confirm that the tested samples in fact contain a unique SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA.”

The petition makes these requests because the phase 2/3 clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine uses a presumptive RT-qPCR (“PCR”) diagnostic test, which is known to generate high rates of false-positive results.

In addition, the Pfizer vaccine trial primarily uses a PCR test that employs cycle thresholds up to 44.9 to identify COVID-19 “cases” despite the fact that “positive” results that require cycle thresholds greater than 30 to 35 are usually false positives, according to Lee.

Lee offered to re-test the residues of tested samples in his laboratory if Pfizer is unable to do so in order to confirm Pfizer’s stated vaccine efficacy rate of 95%.

Lee’s Sanger sequencing-based method for molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was published in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation.

On Dec. 11, 2020, the same day the FDA granted Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA responded to Lee’s petition and request a stay.  The agency “conclude[d] that the petitions do not contain facts demonstrating any reasonable grounds for the requested action” and denied the petitions.

The FDA, among other things, stated that “PCR testing does not need to be followed by Sanger or another sequencing for purposes of clinical diagnosis. Currently, reverse real-time PCR (RT-PCR) tests can both amplify and confirm the identity of viral genetic material in a single reaction, without a separate sequencing step.”

On Feb. 8, Lee, through ICAN’s counsel, submitted a detailed and thoroughly cited reply to the FDA’s denial of his petition and stay. This reply points out the inaccuracies, contradictions, and omissions in the FDA’s denial of the petition.

Lee wrote that the FDA’s letter denying the petition and stay “shows that the FDA has not conducted an adequate evaluation of the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy, especially concerning issues about the accuracy of RT-qPCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens.”

Lee’s detailed response, which can be read in full here, goes on to say:

“The FDA has misled the public. The key misleading statements are analyzed below point-by-point according to the sequence of their presentation in the Letter but under the following four categories for the convenience of the readers:

“A. Cherry-picking to eviscerate the guidance for the issuance of a EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine.

B. Knowingly promoting inaccurate PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.

C. Finding excuses for using PCR tests with high false-positive rates for this vaccine trial.

D. Glossing over potential risks of an mRNA vaccine while concealing its true efficacy.”

Lee, ICAN, and others are weighing possible future actions.




Using Herd Immunity Myth to Justify COVID Vaccines for Kids Is Deceptive — and Dangerous

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

During the first six weeks of the coronavirus vaccine rollout among U.S. adults, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — notorious for collecting only a tiny fraction of adverse events — received reports of more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and close to 11,000 other injuries.

Internationally renowned molecular genetics expert Dolores Cahill believes that these injuries portend a forthcoming tsunami of crippling and fatal problems. In the coming months, Cahill expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis, and organ failure.

Notwithstanding these and other credible warnings, U.S. health officials are signaling their intent to rapidly green-light the as-yet unlicensed mRNA vaccines for children.

Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines “part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”

We have since learned that 99.997% of young people ages 0-19 survive COVID-19 (with most experiencing either mild symptoms or no symptoms at all). But that does not seem to matter. Nor does a January 2021 study, which confirmed that it is only in a minuscule subset of children — mostly kids with serious underlying medical conditions — that the illness occasionally takes a turn for the worse.

In this low-risk context, public health officials know that they need to come up with different arguments to persuade parents to give the coronavirus vaccines to their offspring. Fortunately for these vaccine functionaries, there is a concept that is readily at hand: herd immunity.

And as Moderna joins Pfizer in conducting vaccine experiments on 12- to 17-year-olds — with additional trials in the works to test the injections in children under-12, including infants as young as six months — the chorus of voices casting herd immunity as “the main driver for COVID-19 child vaccinations” is growing noticeably louder.

A flawed ‘marketing gimmick’

Several years ago, JB Handley, author of “How to End the Autism Epidemic,” dissected herd immunity’s use as a “marketing gimmick” to shame and pressure people into vaccination, based on the guilt-tripping claim that non-compliers are free-riders who “put the health of the ‘herd’ at risk.”

Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., and others concur that officials enjoy wielding herd immunity “as a trump card to justify any measures, often at odds with the personal freedom of choice, aiming to increase vaccination compliance.”

There’s just one problem with vaccine herd immunity claims, says Handley: “[W]e’ve never come close to achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, and we never will.”

Having conducted extensive research on the history of vaccine policies (such as mandated vaccines for school attendance), Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President and General Counsel Mary Holland agree, stating that decades of intensive effort “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.”

The theory of herd immunity originated with a health officer working in Chicago in the 1930s. At its inception, the concept “had nothing to do with vaccination.” Instead, the theory reflected the physician’s careful observations “about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.”

As Obukhanych also explains, herd immunity evolved as an epidemiologic rather than an immunologic construct, offering at best a theoretical opportunity to predict successful disease control. As vaccines (and vaccine mandates) became more widespread in the mid-20th century, herd immunity theory underwent a pivotal transformation, based on the “faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity,” Obukhanych said. Overlooking the sophistication of the human immune system — the very model of versatility — vaccine scientists adopted the flawed assumption of equivalence and, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, now view vaccination as a superior — even ideal — route to herd immunity.

The World Health Organization goes even further, omitting any reference to natural infection and defining herd immunity solely as “a concept used for vaccination.” Ironically, even as medical facilities report “an uptick in the recording of [COVID-19 vaccine] side effects” — not to mention disruptive “health impact events” — the Mayo Clinic asserts that vaccination “create[s] immunity without causing illness or resulting complications.”

The moving herd immunity target

Dr. Anthony Fauci — Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is 50% owner of the royalty-generating Moderna vaccine patent — has declared that herd immunity cannot be achieved and life cannot “return to some kind of normal” unless 85% to 90% of the entire U.S. population gets a coronavirus vaccine, children included. Today, Fauci told ProPublica children as young as first-graders may be authorized to get the coronavirus vaccine by the time school starts in September.

Children (ages 0-17) make up 22% of the U.S. population. In late December, Fauci breezily admitted to the New York Times that he “nudged” the herd immunity target up to 90% (from a prior estimate of 70%) after he saw polls indicating a growing public willingness to get a vaccine.

Educators have been quick to reinforce Fauci’s message that young people should get the shots, stating that vaccinating students is “a crucial step in the return-to-normal for schools.” Conversely, Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently asserted that teachers don’t need to be vaccinated to reopen schools safely.

Two French scientists at the Pasteur Institute published a slightly more scientific discussion of COVID-19 herd immunity goals last September. While still promoting vaccination as the pathway of choice, they acknowledged that herd immunity calculations necessarily must account for variables such as susceptibility and transmission. They also noted that “children, particularly those younger than 10, maybe less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”

Although American officials admit that “kids do not generally suffer from severe COVID-19” and are unlikely to directly benefit from the injections, they have no intention of following the French authors’ advice to exclude children from their herd immunity calculus. Instead, framing their ethically shaky and scientifically doubtful argument in the conditional tense, they claim that “inoculating [children] could reduce the spread to people at higher risk.”

In short, public health leaders say, parents, must “vaccinate the young to protect the old.” Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefits.

Natural immunity and COVID

Interestingly, the experts issuing sweeping statements about the need for 90% vaccine coverage and protection of the elderly make no mention of the many Americans who have already had COVID-19, even though a growing number of studies point to “persistent [natural] immunity” in recovered individuals (see here and here).

Rep.Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an MIT-trained scientist and inventor who had COVID early on in the pandemic, scrutinized data from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials and ascertained that neither vaccine offers any benefit to those with naturally acquired immunity.

However, Massie discovered that the CDC not only was advising previously infected individuals to get vaccinated but continued to do so even after Massie alerted them to their propagation of “false and incorrect science.”

A phenomenon known as pathogenic priming (also called “disease enhancement”) represents another important reason to question the advisability of recommending that adults and children who have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection get a COVID vaccine.

A pivotal April paper by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler explained how exposure to specific peptides (components of proteins) through infection may “prime” some individuals “for increased risk of enhanced pathogenicity during future exposure” — including subsequent exposure in the form of vaccination.

In December, Lyons-Weiler and CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted that the clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines “did not rule out pathogenic priming in any way.” Reports of post-COVID-vaccine deaths filed with VAERS (searchable at medalerts.org) indicate that some of the deceased had previously experienced COVID illness, including seniors who were a couple of weeks “post COVID” and then died within minutes or hours of receiving their injections.

A multi-country serological analysis published in Nature estimated (Table S4) that by the beginning of September, 14% of Americans had been infected — a conservative estimate given that serology (antibody) testing provides only a partial picture, assessing what is called “humoral immunity.” As the two Pasteur Institute authors observed in their fall paper, humoral immunity (which is the type of immunity induced by vaccination) “does not capture the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 protective immunity.”

Also in September, Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), drew attention to studies showing mobilization of memory T cells against SARS-CoV-2 “in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.” The scientists quoted by Doshi in his article attribute this to prior exposure to the common cold and other coronaviruses — and wonder whether “there is more immunity out there” than meets the eye.

In fact, memory T cells are some of the immune system’s busiest white blood cells, and Doshi notes that they “are known for their ability to affect the clinical severity and susceptibility to future infection.” He suggests, therefore, that they could help elucidate “mysteries of COVID-19, such as why children have been surprisingly spared the brunt of the pandemic. . . and the high rate of asymptomatic infections in children and young adults.”

However, vaccine-centric scientists (and their mainstream media promoters) are not exploring these mysteries, instead of ignoring T cells while maintaining their narrow focus on antibodies. Piggy-backing on Doshi’s questions, another writer asks: “Is [the lack of research attention to T cells] because vaccines are good at provoking antibody responses but not so great at generating T-cells?”

Protecting the young

Over many decades, the far-from-uncommon phenomenon of vaccine failure in fully vaccinated individuals has made it abundantly clear that antibody responses are inadequate as a guarantor of real immunity. For children, an even bigger problem is that, before their immune system has even had a chance to develop, a pile-up of vaccinations aggressively overstimulates them into a state of artificial immunity. Immune dysfunction and chronic illness are the not-infrequent outcomes.

The pediatric study that recently identified underlying medical conditions as the strongest risk factor responsible for COVID-19 deaths in children cited conditions such as “asthma, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, GI/liver disease, hypertension, immune suppression, metabolic disease, neurologic disease, obesity, and renal disease.” Coincidentally or not, these are among the nearly 400 adverse reactions identified in package inserts as being potentially associated with vaccination.

As Lyons-Weiler reminded us several years before COVID, “The determination of the benefit of widespread vaccination for any vaccine must consider not only the ability to protect those at risk but also the downstream costs due to vaccine injuries.”

Instead of absurdly arguing (as some are doing) that rushing risky mRNA vaccines into children is what is needed not just to achieve an arbitrary level of herd immunity but to “fully revive the economy,” let’s heed Handley’s words: “Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.”

Parents should not be lulled into the false notion that vaccines (or any medical procedure) are all benefit and no risk.




Immunologist: Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines Could Cause Long-Term Chronic Illness

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Back in 1999, leading U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. Peter Patriarca contended that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers’ ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events.” Patriarca mused that this could lead to “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road.

In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

Classen’s study establishes the potential for the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna to activate human proteins to take on “pathologic configurations” — configurations associated with chronic degenerative neurological diseases. Although his specific interest is in prion diseases (conditions associated with misfolded versions of normal proteins), Classen also outlines a handful of other mechanisms whereby RNA-based vaccines could give rise to “multiple other potential fatal adverse events.”

Ensuring that patients clearly understand risks — including known risks as well as potential unknown risks — is an important component of the informed consent process. This is all the more true when the intervention is experimental and lacks long-term safety data, as is the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19. The FDA authorized the two vaccines for widespread emergency use based on just two months of clinical trial data.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for researchers’ communication of risks to be perfunctory. In October, researchers at New York University and Tulane reported that the information communicated to participants in the coronavirus clinical trials about a worrisome problem known as pathogenic priming was “sufficiently obscured” as to make “adequate patient comprehension” of risks “unlikely.”

It would be interesting to know what those researchers would say about Classen’s blunt conclusion that “Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”

Those contemplating COVID injections may be ignoring potential risks at their own peril.




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.




Respected Doctor and Bioweapons Researcher Believes COVID Vaccines are a Form of ‘Weaponized Medicine’

https://youtu.be/3mPIomjWwd4

By Phillip Schneider | Waking Times

An award-winning spinal surgeon and former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that current coronavirus vaccines are dangerous bioweapons being deployed against the people.

Dr. Lee Merritt, who previously studied bioweapons while serving as an orthopedic surgeon in the United States Navy for 9 years, sat on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers, believes that mRNA-altering coronavirus vaccines currently being distributed in the United States are rewriting our genetic code to make us vulnerable to a second virus later on.

I believed early on in February that this was a biologically manipulated bioweapon because the minute that anybody popped up with data suggesting that they were censored,” she said in an interview last month with The New America.

Based on her time spent in bioweapons research, Merrit believes that we live in an era of ‘fifth-generational warfare’ where instead of using weapons on the battlefield, covert biological agents, economic warfare, and propaganda are most effective in turning the tables of power between nations.

We had a lot of bioweapons over the years and the one I was very worried about was smallpox. But most of these bioweapons were either hard to distribute or there was treatment for them,” she said. “I think that there is a host of evidence that shows coronavirus is a naturally occurring very benign virus that doesn’t even give most people the cold but at the most, it’ll give you a common cold.”

Vaccines are most effective when used against an untreatable and deadly virus, she says. While diseases like smallpox and polio were effectively treated with immunizations, scientists have discovered promising treatments for coronavirus since the pandemic began such as Hydroxychloroquine and Intravenous Vitamin C.

If we are at biowarfare right now as a part of this multi-dimensional warfare, if you have a treatment in your back pocket they cannot terrorize you with viruses and that’s important because… [the vaccine] doesn’t prevent transmission by their own admission.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt

Although prevention and treatment reduce the need for a vaccine, such information is routinely censored by social media companies and demonized by the mainstream media. Even Sharyl Attkisson, a tenured former CBS journalist, had one of her reports removed from YouTube for relaying information that ran counter to the official position of the World Health Organization (WHO).

We have vaccines because we didn’t have treatment for smallpox and it was a very deadly disease. That made sense to have a vaccine. We didn’t have treatment for polio so it made sense to have a vaccine, but this? Even without doing anything, this disease has a 99.991% chance of survival… as opposed to a standard viral flu season it’s 99.992%.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt

Coronavirus numbers are widely disputed, however, scores of doctors and scientists have been speaking out for the better part of a year about the disproportionate amount of harm done by lockdowns and forced mask-wearing. One Canadian researcher estimates that the long-term cost of lockdowns will far exceed that of the virus itself by as much as ten times.

Merritt explains the difference between coronavirus vaccines and regular immunizations:

[Coronavirus vaccines] are not giving you a pathogen … what they are doing is programming mRNA. mRNA is like DNA but it’s the messenger RNA. It’s what makes proteins in the body. It’s kind of like a computer chip that you put into a 3D printer and then you tell it what you want it to make and it prints it out. We have that in engineering and this is the biological equivalent.

Well, in this case they’ve made a piece of this mRNA to create, in every cell of your body, that spike protein (or at least part of it) and you’re actually creating the pathogen in your body.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt

When you go to get your coronavirus vaccine, you are actually not getting a vaccine as we have always known them. Instead, messenger RNA is injected into your body which then alters your genetic code to begin producing its own modified version of the coronavirus, which your immune system then theoretically learns to combat.

According to Merritt, no long-term studies to verify the safety of this form of vaccination in humans have been completed and animal studies have resulted in what she refers to as ‘antibody-dependent enhancement’ where the virus enters into the body undetected because the immune system now views it as belonging to the body, ultimately causing near-immediate death.

We have never made it through an animal study successfully for this type of virus. We have never done this in humans before,” she says. The longest that they’ve really followed people after the vaccine is two months. Well you see, that’s not enough time to know that we won’t have that antibody enhancement problem.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt

Merritt speculates that this type of procedure is exactly what a foreign adversary would use if they wanted to wage clandestine biowarfare without having the process traced back to them.

This is a perfect binary weapon. There’s no way I know exactly what that mRNA is programmed to and neither do you and neither do most doctors. The doctors can’t get at that data. That’s for the guys at the very top of this project… If I were China and I wanted to take down our military, I’d just make an mRNA that I know it doesn’t exist in nature so nobody’s going to die from a vaccine and then two years later I release whatever it is that I made… and it causes this immune enhancement death.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt

Although Dr. Merritt does not recommend whether or not one should take the vaccine, she does give one uplifting piece of advice.

If you want to get out of the pandemic right now it’s really easy. You turn off your TV, you take off your mask, you reopen your business, and you live your life.”

Watch this recent interview with Dr. Lee Merrit and Alex Newman of The New American here, and please send an email to wakingtimes@gmail.com if you notice that this video has been removed.




How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more
  • Since mRNA normally rapidly degrades, it must be complexed with lipids or polymers. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis
  • Free mRNA can signal danger to your immune system and drive inflammatory diseases. As such, injecting synthetic thermostable mRNA (mRNA that is resistant to breaking down) is highly problematic as it can fuel chronic, long-term inflammation
  • Many commonly reported side effects from the COVID-19 gene therapy “vaccines” appear to be caused by brain inflammation
  • Anyone with an inflammatory disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, or chronic Lyme and those with acquired immune deficiency/dysfunction from any microbial pathogen, brain trauma, or environmental toxin is at high risk of dying from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines

In April 2020, I interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., about the potential role played by human gammaretroviruses in COVID-19. Mikovits is a molecular biologist1 and researcher and was the founding research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Nevada.

Her book, “Plague of Corruption,” ended up being a No. 1 best seller on the lists of The New York Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal in 2020. Her new book, “Ending Plague: A Scholar’s Obligation in an Age of Corruption,” will hopefully do just as well. It’s available for preorder on Amazon.

She may be one of the most censored researchers on the planet at this point, thanks in no small part to her participation in the documentary “Plandemic,” which went viral in a big way (plandemicseries.com).

Case in point: YouTube suspended our account for one week as soon as we uploaded today’s interview — even though the video was UNLISTED and not available for public viewing yet. Even worse, Mikovits’ third and most recent book, “The Case Against Masks: Ten Reasons Why Mask Use Should Be Limited,” is so heavily censored, no one can buy it.

“I don’t even have a copy,” she says. “I’m sitting here with two copies of the other books but I can’t even buy it. What the book sellers did, like Amazon, is they bought them all up from Skyhorse, the publisher, and now they won’t ship them out of the warehouse.”

Clearly, Mikovits is considered a serious threat to the technocratic status quo, and once you hear what she has to say about COVID-19 vaccines — which as you’ll see is a complete misnomer — you may start to understand why.

COVID-19 Vaccines Aren’t Real Vaccines

The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It does not improve your immune response to the infection, nor does not limit you from getting the infection. It’s really an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more.

“I’m just beside myself with anger over this synthetic gene therapy, this chemical poison, and what they’re doing worldwide,” Mikovits says. “We’re already seeing deaths from this shot. It’s illegal. It shouldn’t be done. It should be stopped right now. It should have never been allowed to happen, yet we see it being forced on the most vulnerable populations.”

Indeed, news and social media reports suggest recipients are starting to drop like flies. Many die of unknown causes within days, sometimes hours of getting the first or second shot.

Baseball legend Hank Aaron passed away two weeks after receiving the vaccine, yet this was not even mentioned in his New York Times obituary. Surely, had he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, he would have been declared a COVID-19 fatality, whether the virus actually had anything to do with it or not.

But when it comes to the vaccine, even eyebrow-raising timing is dismissed as coincidental and irrelevant. Now all of a sudden, old people dying shortly after vaccination are shrugged off with the excuse that they’re old and could have died any day anyway. Old people dying with SARS-CoV-2, however, must be stopped at any cost. Funny how that works.

The Problem With Synthetic RNA

The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are not natural. They’re synthetic. Since naturally produced mRNA rapidly degrades, it must be complexed with lipids or polymers to prevent this from happening. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.2 Lipid nanoparticles may also cause other problems.

In 2017, Stat News discussed Moderna’s challenges in developing an mRNA-based drug for Crigler-Najjar, a condition that can lead to jaundice, muscle degeneration, and brain damage:3

“In order to protect mRNA molecules from the body’s natural defenses, drug developers must wrap them in a protective casing. For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids.

And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients.

From the start, Moderna’s scientists knew that using mRNA to spur protein production would be a tough task, so they scoured the medical literature for diseases that might be treated with just small amounts of additional protein.

‘And that list of diseases is very, very short,’ said the former employee … Crigler-Najjar was the lowest-hanging fruit. Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work … The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.”

However, if they call their drugs vaccines, they can bypass the safety studies. All of a sudden, they expect us to believe that all of these safety issues have been resolved? Another problem is related to how long the mRNA remains stable in your system. It’s encased in nano lipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all?

The idea behind mRNA vaccines is that by tricking your body into creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will produce antibodies in response. But what happens when you turn your body into a viral protein factory, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?

In addition, your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self and much of the perpetual antibody response will be autoantibodies attacking your own tissues. Mikovits explains:

“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. As a molecular biologist, the central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.

So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.

Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …

Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin … is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis.

The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia, literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.

It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials, and we’re being lied to: ‘Oh, those people had that [already].’ No, they didn’t.

We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord, which is [associated with] exogenous gammaretroviruses, the XMRVs.”

These High-Risk Groups Should Avoid COVID-19 Vaccine

According to Mikovits, research shows 4% to 6% of Americans have already been infected with XMRV gammaretroviruses via contaminated vaccines and blood supply for more than three decades, which is driving a number of chronic health conditions. Now, these synthetic gene therapies (the so-called COVID-19 vaccines) will further add to the chronic disease burden by triggering myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Making matters worse, the synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation. “This is a nightmare,” Mikovits says. “I’m angry, as this should never be allowed.”

As we discussed in previous interviews, SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered in the lab with gain-of-function research that included introducing the HIV envelope into the spike protein.

Mikovits’ hypothesis is that those who are most susceptible to severe neurological side effects and death from the COVID-19 vaccines are those who have previously been injected with XMRVs, borrelia, babesia, mycoplasma, through contaminated vaccines, resulting in chronic disease. (Her book, “Plague of Corruption,” details the science and history of XMRVs, which is a fascinating read.)

“Yes, absolutely,” she says. “That’s one of our hypotheses. But also, anyone with an inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, chronic Lyme disease, anybody with an acquired immune deficiency from any pathogens and environmental toxins.

Those are the people who will be killed, murdered, by this vaccine, and Anthony Fauci knows it … I can’t even sleep [because of] how evil this is. This is so deadly, I can’t scream it loud enough from the rooftops.”

The chart below lists 35 diseases associated with XMRV infection. If you have any of these, you may want to think long and hard before you line up for an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, as your chances of severe side effects or death are likely far higher than someone who does not have any of these diseases.

diseases associated with XMRV infection

This is not a complete list. There may be many other conditions that can put you into a high-risk category. One example is idiopathic thrombocytopenia (ITP), a deadly bleeding disorder. According to Mikovits, her work shows 30% of all ITP are associated with XMRVs.

Interestingly, one example is the 58-year-old Florida doctor who recently got the COVID-19 vaccine and died from a sudden onset of ITP two weeks later. Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, told The New York Times “it is a medical certainty” that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine caused the man’s death.4,5 Pfizer, of course, denies any connection.

Genetic Alterations May Last for Life

So, just how long will the synthetic RNA in COVID-19 vaccines be maintained within your body, causing your cells to produce this aberrant protein? Mikovits believes it will escape degradation for months, years, maybe even for life in some cases.

All of this is eerily reminiscent of previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine, all of which failed due to the vaccines causing paradoxical immune reactions, or antibody-dependent immune enhancement. While the animals appeared to have antibodies against the virus, and should theoretically have been protected when they were exposed to wild coronavirus, they got severely ill and most died.

Such failures may be why so many vaccine makers decided to use mRNA rather than following conventional vaccine development strategies, but the end result is likely going to be the same or worse.

“I have a 41-year-old daughter-in-law with a very aggressive colon cancer. We’re seeing an explosion of chronic disease and these patients are not being discouraged from getting the vaccine. In fact, they’re being scared by physicians into getting it.

How do we wake people up? Is it going to take millions of Americans and people worldwide dying? Will Hank Aaron dying help the Black community? … We know the mechanisms. We know that Blacks and Hispanics can’t degrade RNA viruses as rapidly as Caucasians. We know that from studies all the way back to MMR. The MMR vaccine is associated with ITP. It says it right there on the package insert.

If you have a single nucleotide polymorphism in one of those RNases called RNase-L, you are more likely to get aggressive breast cancers, prostate cancers and other cancers from an XMRV infection (So why inject mRNA of syncytin, a gamma retrovirus envelope?).”

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Cardiothoracic Surgeon Warns FDA, Pfizer on Immunological Danger of COVID Vaccines in Recently Convalescent and Asymptomatic Carriers

By Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D. | The Defender

In a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer, and the press, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm warns of an “almost certain immunological prognostication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen-specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.”

Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-scientist and advocate for ethics, patient safety, and women’s health. He specializes in cardiothoracic surgery and has taught and practiced medicine for nearly two decades.

“Dr. Noorchashm’s prognostications of harm in elderly individuals with cardiovascular disease coincides with the numerous reports of unexplained cardiovascular deaths following COVID-19 vaccination in NorwayGermanythe UKGibraltar, and the U.S.,” said Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, director, and president emerita of Children’s Health Defense.

Redwood noted that J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., sent similar concerns to the FDA on Dec. 8, 2020. 

Whelan raised even more worrisome questions, Redwood said, in that he cited research showing that in addition to the heart, ACE-2 receptors are also present in the microvasculature of the brain, liver, and kidney.

“Ignoring these valid and scientifically supported warnings from leading physicians may result in hundreds of millions of people suffering potentially deadly injuries or permanent damage following vaccination,” Redwood said. “It will also further erode the dwindling confidence that our country has in our federal regulatory agencies to protect the health of all Americans.”  

Redwood called on the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to convene emergency meetings to review these concerns and issue new guidelines for vaccine administration that address these concerns. 

Below is Noorchashm’s introduction to his letter, as published on Medium, followed by his letter to the FDA and Pfizer.

Dear Reader,

It is my sincere hope that this public letter might stimulate FDA, Pfizer, and Moderna leaders to think critically and quickly about the immunological danger the COVID-19 vaccine might pose to the recently convalescent or asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 — most especially to those who are elderly, frail or have significant cardiovascular risk factors.

I want to be clear that my warning here is based on a near definitive scientific Immunological prognostication. It is a “prognostication” in that I have put it forth in the absence of clear “evidence” of it being a material risk. This is because we are dealing with an evolving 11-month old national health emergency with many unknowns and a vaccine that is only several weeks old — and was approved for massive-scale use on an Emergency basis. And, in a setting where it is critical to quickly vaccinate as many citizens as possible to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

I want to be very clear that I am an ardent supporter of President Biden’s plan to vaccinate 150 million Americans in 100 days. And that my letter is not to be abused by political, uninformed, or conspiratorial forces attempting to dissuade the American public from being vaccinated. I do believe that it is the patriotic duty of every American who can reasonably and safely be vaccinated, to do so — in order that we save our nation from this pandemic peril that is threatening our very existence.

Here is my email to FDA regulators, Pfizer leaders, and the press:

From: Hooman Noorchashm

Date: Tue, Jan 26, 2021

Subject: COVID-19 VACCINE WARNING — Vaccine Directed Immune Response In Asymptomatic Carriers And The Convalescent

To: Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner, FDA and Peter Marks, FDA;

Dear Drs. Woodcock and Marks,

I write here to present a warning and a, nearly certain, prognostication to you as our lead FDA regulators and public health experts.

As you know, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a tropism for the vascular endothelium, among other tissues and organs. This fact was captured in a Lancet paper published in April 2020:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30937-5/fulltext

As you also know it appears that the ACE-2 receptor on endothelium is the portal for viral entry into endothelial cells — and it seems that endothelial injury from the virus or from the inflammatory reaction it incites, is the reason why many COVID-19 patients experience thromboembolic complications.

So it is a matter of certainty that viral antigens are present in the endothelial lining of blood vessels in all persons with active or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection — irrespective of whether they are symptomatic or convalescent.

I am writing to warn that it is an almost certain immunological prognostication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen-specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.

Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen-specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium. Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients. If a majority of younger more robust patients might tolerate such vascular injury from a vaccine immune response, many elderly and frail patients with cardiovascular disease will not.

Therefore, it is my respectful request that FDA, in collaboration with Pfizer and Moderna, immediately and at the very minimum, institute clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in any recently convalescent patients, as well as, any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers — and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.

A potential reasonable solution, especially in the nursing home setting, would be to use antibody screening as a surrogate means of excluding/delaying vaccination in persons who might have been exposed to the virus and have viral antigens lingering in their tissues.

The goal of maximally and quickly vaccinating the population is the correct public health goal. It will save many lives and likely our nation — certainly, population-level vaccination will save far more lives than any given vaccine-related complication might compromise. But, in the present national emergency, simply because we know that the majority of citizens in our society will benefit from vaccination cannot justify a regulatory and corporate failure to mitigate against known and rationally prognosticated dangers to the minority subset or persons at risk of harm.

As an immunologist with a good understanding of how antigen-specific immune responses could cause organ and tissue-specific damage, I am recommending to you, as our lead FDA regulators, not to gloss over the real possibility that vaccinating persons with pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in their tissues could cause that subset of people grave harm — and especially the frail with cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, if the immunological risk I am prognosticating herein is in reality material, over the next months as millions more Americans are immunized, it will become quite visible to the public.

Can you imagine if the public, without having received any real warning from FDA, become aware of an increasing number of such vascular/thromboembolic complications? What do you suppose will happen to the level of “vaccine hesitancy” then? And, what kind of accountability do you think the public will demand from our experts and federal regulators — especially if they knew, or should have known, that this immunological danger might exist?

The aim of benefiting the majority of our public and saving the nation from this pandemic by quick and aggressive vaccination is an ethically sound one — but where we know of real or likely risks of harm and mortality, we ought to mitigate the risks to those in potential harm’s way.

So doing is the only reasonable, ethical, and likely legal option you can pursue as public health regulators — for, in America, we no longer sacrifice the lives of minority subsets of people for the benefit of the majority.

Drs. Woodcock and Marks, a professor of mine in medical school used to tell his students “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know”….Thromboembolic complications, 10–20 days following activation of a vaccine-induced antigen-specific immune response, in elderly frail vasculopathy, will not register as classical “vaccine-related complications”….But SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with tropism for the vascular endothelium….So, our Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could easily direct an antigen-specific immune attack to that very target organ.

I ask that you carefully and wisely consider my immunological prognostication and warning here — FDA, Pfizer, and Moderna ought not to miss this risk of harm to what is a daily increasing proportion of the population during this ongoing pandemic. Vaccinating patients with occult SARS-CoV-2 infections or lingering viral antigens is a clear and present potential danger to the health of these patients.

With respect and in friendship,

Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.