‘Awfully Convenient’: Leaked NATO Plans for Ukraine Should Be Taken ‘With Grain of Salt’
Sputnik | April 8, 2023
While the sudden leak of numerous classified US documents related to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine reportedly prompted the Pentagon to launch an investigation into the matter, the way the “revelation” was covered by the media makes it look somewhat suspect.
Classified documents that purportedly outline US and NATO plans for the Ukrainian military were leaked to the public this week, and if US media is to be believed, the Pentagon has already rushed to investigate this apparent breach of security.
During an interview with Sputnik, international relations and security analyst Mark Sleboda pointed out that the story was broken by the New York Times. According to him, given that US officials are now claiming that part of the story is true and part of it is not, it begets the question: “why was it leaked and what did they want us to believe?”
The leak, Sleboda suggested, likely comes “from the American side or someone within the American side,” with the analyst noting that some of the leaked papers “confirm information that we really already knew,” such as the data about the newly-formed Ukrainian brigades. He suggests taking the leaked information “with a grain of salt.”
Regarding the rationale behind the sharing of the leaked information on social media, Sleboda argued that “a lot of it maybe [was] buttressing the public knowledge of US support for the offensive that is about to be launched.”
“We know that NATO considers it their last-ditch effort, they do not have the ability to continue to sustain the Kiev regime in terms of ammunition, artillery shells, other gear, and for them this is all or nothing,” he mused. “So they’re expecting success out of this and they do not appear to have a plan B in that regard. Plan B might default the Plan D, which is NATO troops enter Western Ukraine or some NATO member-states enter West Ukraine, say Poland and the US, possibly Romania.”
He also observed that the leaked information does not include any specific battle plans, “which seems awfully convenient.”
For more in-depth analysis, check out the latest episode of Sputnik’s podcast Fault Lines.
The Great ‘Disinformation’ Hoax
BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 7, 2023
Writer Jacob Siegel has talked to UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers about America’s new censorship complex. In a 13,000 word essay for Tablet, Siegel explains how ‘disinformation’ is an invention that has morphed into a tool of governance. He told Sayers:
Disinformation is a means by which the Government in cooperation with private tech companies and civil society, NGO groups, censors, uses extra-legal means to censor political discourse around issues like Covid vaccinations, lockdowns, the elections. And in the U.S., it’s a free-for-all. It’s a blank cheque to censor anything. So on one level, disinformation is ostensibly censorship in order to protect national security. In a larger sense, that machinery of censorship is not opportunistically looking to erase certain things from the public record that are unflattering to political elites. It’s actually rather more than that. It is a means of governance. It is a system of power. It is its own system of power, outside of the formal, official — in the U.S., constitutional — means by which the Government is supposed to operate.
How did this ‘tool of governance’ become so mainstream, asks Sayers? The U.S. Government, Siegel points out, has long engaged in promoting disinformation of its own, but the ‘war on disinformation’ was begun by Barack Obama. One of the last things the former President did while in office was sign into law the ‘Countering Foreign Disinformation Act’, which fully committed the U.S. to a counter-disinformation campaign, which according to Siegel “was really always in spirit, and very quickly in practice as well, an information war directed against the American people”.
Siegel continues:
There was originally this foreign dimension… But from the very beginning, ‘foreign’ is a kind of ruse that’s setting up what is actually a much larger, effectively omni-directional structure, because the internet is global, that can censor anywhere but which is, in practice, focused on the domestic political environment inside the U.S. and specifically on this populist surge, which is taken as an existential threat by the ruling party officials in the U.S. who see populism in truly apocalyptic terms.
Siegel argues that the consequences of this censorship for American society should not to be minimised:
The system of secrecy and the Government’s own promotion of conspiracies, like the idea that Donald Trump was an agent of Vladimir Putin or a Russian stooge, which the U.S. intelligence agencies promoted. It’s not simply that they are wrong or pernicious, or that this reflects corruption. They actually drive people crazy. They deranged the political system. They ruin the ability for people to engage sanely and transparently in their own politics.
Worth reading (and watching) in full.
DHS is sued for censorship records on meetings with Big Tech

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 6, 2023
Judicial Watch has decided to sue the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after the federal agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to meetings with Big Tech representatives where censorship was allegedly discussed.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to force the DHS to disclose documents detailing how its Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) worked with companies behind social media platforms in order to censor speech.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
The initial FOIA request dates back to December of last year, and the advocacy group said that it wanted to gain access to records and communications of CISA Director Jen Easterly, a former CISA director, Christopher Krebs, former CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor Matt Masterson, and CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor Brian Scully.
These documents concern meetings that CISA either hosted or facilitated with Meta and Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia Foundation, Pinterest, and Microsoft’s LinkedIn on the topic of “election security.”
Furthermore, Judicial Watch wanted information about several other meetings, including those with DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, FBI, US Secret Service, NSA, and the Office of the Director for National Intelligence employees, related to the previously mentioned meetings, and those with Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council.
The Judicial Watch press release refers to the Twitter Files where journalist Matt Taibbi on several occasions mentions CISA’s involvement in censorship activities, and cites these and the dates when the contacts or communication occurred.
The group also refers to Twitter Files revelations regarding the FBI’s role in censorship decisions, notably the pressure it exerted on the site to act in this way, and Taibbi’s testimony before Congress about the collusion between the Biden administration – including the Democratic National Committee and federal, state, and local law enforcement – and Big Tech, with the goal of suppressing legitimate information.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton described all this, and more that is mentioned in the statement, as “an unholy conspiracy in the Biden administration to censor Americans in collusion with Big Tech.”
As for the lawsuit, Fitton said it “shows the censorship abuse is furthered by unlawful secrecy and cover-ups.”
Pfizer Whistleblower Will Appeal After Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Fraud
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 4, 2023
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Pfizer and two of its contractors manipulated data and committed other acts of fraud during Pfizer’s COVID-19 clinical trials.
Brook Jackson, a former employee of the Ventavia Research Group — which conducted some of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine — in January 2021 sued Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON PLC, another Pfizer contractor, alleging the companies committed numerous violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) during the clinical trials.
According to Jackson’s complaint, the three companies “deliberately withheld crucial information from the United States that calls the safety and efficacy of their vaccine into question,” and as a result, they defrauded the U.S. government which purchased the vaccines.
The FCA allows the government or a party suing on its behalf, such as Jackson, to attempt to recover money for false claims made by parties in order to secure payment from the government.
Those parties can be held liable under the FCA if they knowingly made a false claim or used a false record or statement in order to secure payment.
Also under the FCA, whistleblowers can be rewarded for confidentially disclosing fraud that results in a financial loss to the federal government.
In February 2022, the federal government declined to intervene in the lawsuit on Jackson’s behalf.
In his March 31 ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas-Beaumont Division ruled Jackson had not proved the companies violated the FCA.
However, in a footnote accompanying his decision, Judge Truncale left the door open for Jackson and her legal team to file an appeal, stating:
“The Court observes, however, that while Ms. Jackson has failed to state a claim for retaliation under the FCA, she may be able to bring her claim under another statute.
“The Court does not opine on the likelihood of success with respect to asserting retaliation under a different statute.”
In a statement posted on Twitter, Jackson sharply criticized Truncale’s ruling, writing:
“The dismissal of Pfizer’s case is a despicable & heinous betrayal of justice, a slap in the face to vaccine injured and whistleblowers, a blatant example of corruption, incompetence and cowardice, a declaration that the powerful are above the law.”
Jackson also tweeted:
A blueprint for federal contractors to commit fraud and get away with it?
Jackson, who had over 15 years of experience working with clinical trials, claimed she “repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues” during the approximately two weeks she was employed by Ventavia in September 2020.
She also gave The BMJ a cache of internal company documents, photos and recordings highlighting alleged wrongdoing by Ventavia.
Ventavia, which describes itself as the largest privately owned clinical research company in Texas, operated several sites where it conducted clinical trials on behalf of Pfizer.
The documents Jackson provided contained evidence of falsified data, blind trial failures and awareness on the part of at least one Ventavia executive that members of the company’s staff were “falsifying data.”
Jackson’s documents also provided evidence of administrators who had “no training” or medical certifications, or who provided “very little oversight” during the trials.
According to The Epoch Times, the federal government’s agreement with Pfizer set, as its only condition of payment, delivery of a vaccine that was authorized or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
As Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been withdrawn, the federal government’s agreement with Pfizer remains valid, according to Judge Truncale, who wrote:
“In sum, Ms. Jackson has failed to plead that the Government conditioned payment on Defendants’ certification of compliance with regulatory provisions or clinical trial protocol.
“The upshot is that there is no liability under the FCA for making or using a false record or statement where the claimant is entitled to the payment. Pfizer was entitled to its claims for payment. Therefore, Ms. Jackson has not stated a claim for false record liability.”
Jackson described Judge Truncale’s decision as a “blueprint” on how government contractors can “commit fraud and get away with it. She and her lawyers said they will appeal the dismissal.
Judge: FCA not created to ‘second-guess’ federal policymakers
Judge Truncale said the FCA places the onus on the federal government to determine whether it had been defrauded.
He quoted another ruling finding that the FCA was not created to “second guess decisions made by those empowered through the democratic process to shape public policy.”
“When the government, at appropriate levels, repeatedly concludes that it has not been defrauded, it is not forgiving a found fraud — rather, it is concluding that there was no fraud at all,” that ruling went on to state.
This very argument was put forward by Pfizer during the case. As quoted by The Epoch Times, Judge Truncale asked the defense, “So if the FDA gets it wrong, they just get it wrong, and we live with it?”
To this, Pfizer attorney Carlton Wessel replied, “Exactly.”
Judge Truncale noted that the federal government has been aware of Jackson’s claims “for several years,” but despite this, granted an EUA “multiple times” and “continues to authorize and provide Pfizer’s vaccine at no cost.”
He also noted that Jackson’s complaint did not “identify any safety risk that was hidden from the FDA.”
A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded the scope of a legal principle known as “materiality” resulted in a series of federal court decisions in which fraud cases brought under the FCA were dismissed.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court, if the government continued paying a contractor despite the contractor’s fraudulent activity, the fraud was not considered “material” to the contract.
The FCA also allows whistleblowers to file claims on the basis of harassment, retaliation and threats if they are engaged in a “protected activity,” defined as being “motivated by a concern regarding fraud against the government.”
It is this aspect of Jackson’s claim that will be allowed to proceed on appeal.
Ventavia hired Jackson in September 2020. She reported problems she observed with the Pfizer vaccine trial to the company’s management that same month. When management didn’t respond, she took her claims to the FDA on Sept. 25, 2020. Ventavia fired her that same day.
Judge Truncale ruled that Jackson had not engaged in protected activity under the standard set by the FCA, but left open the possibility that she could file a retaliation claim under a different statute.
Pfizer previously was heavily fined in connection with the FCA. As part of a 2009 settlement, the company paid $2.3 billion in fines — the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice — stemming from allegations of illegal marketing of off-label products not approved by the FDA.
In an attempt to strengthen the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions and install new safeguards against industry-level blacklisting of whistleblowers seeking employment, Congress in July 2021 introduced the False Claims Amendments Act of 2021.
In December 2021, Pfizer hired a well-connected lobbyist, Hazen Marshall, and the law firm Williams & Jensen to lobby against the bill, which ultimately faltered in Congress.
A new bill, the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023 (S.659), was filed as part of the current Congressional session, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who also sponsored the 2021 version of the bill.
This version of the bill passed the Senate via unanimous consent on March 30. It remains pending before the U.S. House of Representatives. However, its provisions are significantly more limited than the 2021 version of the bill, raising “the maximum amount of a fraud claim that may be handled administratively from $150,000 to $1 million.”
By contrast, the 2021 version of the bill stated:
“In determining materiality, the decision of the Government to forgo a refund or to pay a claim despite actual knowledge of fraud or falsity shall not be considered dispositive if other reasons exist for the decision of the Government with respect to such refund or payment.”
This language appears to be missing from the 2023 version of the bill.
It is not known if Judge Truncale issued his decision on March 31 in anticipation of the bill passing the House and potentially becoming law.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
New details emerge from interrogation of Tatarsky’s suspected killer – media

Door cam footage of Natalya Vovk, Ukrainian national suspected of killing Russian journalist Daria Dugina.
RT | April 4, 2023
The main suspect in the murder of prominent Russian military blogger Vladlen Tatarsky, Darya Trepova, has confessed to investigators details of her involvement in the incident, according to the news outlet Fontanka.
Tatarsky was killed in an explosion on Sunday at a cafe in St. Petersburg, after Trepova handed him a gift, a statuette, that contained an improvised explosive device (IED). The bombing, which also wounded 40 people, has been classified as a terrorist attack.
According to Fontanka, Trepova claims that it all started when she made friends with a certain activist online and was offered to move to Kiev to take up an editorial position at an unnamed media channel. Before she could be hired, however, she was told that she had to undergo an internship to “prove that she knows how to deal with Russian propaganda.”
Her first task was to go to the Listva bookstore in St. Petersburg and strike up a friendship with Tatarsky, who was holding an event there. Afterwards, she was reportedly told via Telegram that she had to travel to Moscow. There, a taxi driver, who was likely unaware of what he was doing, gave Trepova a package that contained a golden figurine.
Upon receiving the package, Trepova was instructed to go back to St. Petersburg to meet with Tatarsky at the Street Bar 1 café, where he was holding another event for his followers. She was allegedly told to give the figurine to Tatarsky as a gift, and “come up with something about the heroes of the Wagner PMC,” according to Fontanka.
“Then, we will act,” Trepova was reportedly told by her handlers, who said they had booked her a flight to Uzbekistan, where she would be transported to Kiev. Trepova reported her every move to her contact, sending messages such as “I’m arriving at the cafe,” “I’m about to present the figurine to Tatarsky,” and “I’ve handed it over.”
Trepova reportedly insists that she did not know the figurine contained a bomb and has repeatedly claimed that she was set up. Fontanka says her arguments seem plausible since she did not leave the building after handing over the statuette, and did not hesitate to sit next to it when Tatarsky invited her to join him on stage not long before it detonated.
Fontanka reports that explosives experts are now examining the blast site to confirm that the bomb was activated via SIM card, which would have made it possible to detonate it from anywhere in the world.
Court Orders Merck to Turn Over Gardasil Adverse Event Databases
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 3, 2023
A North Carolina district court ordered Merck to turn over all of its Gardasil adverse events databases to plaintiffs suing the pharmaceutical giant for injuries allegedly caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
The databases, which include information from the Merck Adverse Event Reporting and Review System (MARRS) — Merck’s version of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — should contain all of the reports pertaining to Gardasil adverse events submitted by physicians, patients and publications, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Baum told The Defender.
In his March 20 order, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., said, “Plaintiffs’ and their experts should have the same opportunity as Merck to review and analyze the entirety of the data.”
Merck until now has refused to make the entire MARRS databases available to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Gardasil is a widely used vaccine commonly administered to teens and young adults before they are sexually active to protect against HPV infections, which can be sexually transmitted later in life.
HPV infections may lead to the development of cervical cancer. However, most infections are benign and resolve on their own.
The firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman-on-leave, have filed more than two dozen lawsuits on behalf of young people injured by Gardasil, alleging Merck knowingly and fraudulently concealed the vaccine’s risks.
The lawsuits are some of the more than 80 pending in the federal court system, and that number is expected to grow. In August 2022, a judicial panel consolidated the lawsuits into a single federal courtroom.
Some of the signature impacts observed following HPV vaccination — which afflict a number of the plaintiffs — include permanently disabling autoimmune and neurological conditions such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, The Defender reported.
There have been thousands of reports of adverse events worldwide, peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, and statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries that demonstrate plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions.
Merck maintains there is no safety signal in the data for autoimmune conditions. The plaintiffs allege Merck made this argument by discounting reports.
Baum told The Defender access to this full database of adverse event reports should allow experts to better analyze the full extent of post-Gardasil autoimmune symptom clusters, and demonstrate there is a “statistically significant causal connection between Gardasil and autoimmune conditions.”
Gardasil’s long history of autoimmune adverse events
While Merck markets Gardasil as “safe and effective,” safety signals emerged even early, during the vaccine’s clinical trials. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted the vaccine Fast Track approval after only a six-month review process.
In 2006, Gardasil was licensed across the U.S. and Europe. But within a few years, reports of serious adverse events appeared — first in the media and then in academic journals.
In 2013, Gardasil was responsible in the U.S. for three-fifths of all serious vaccine reactions reported in young women under age 30, including 64% of deaths and 81% of cases of permanent disability.
Similarly, disproportionately high rates of adverse events were reported in Australia, Japan, and other European countries at that time.
Yet in 2014, the FDA approved a new version of the vaccine, the nine-valent Gardasil 9. And in 2016 — when GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) withdrew its poorly competing bivalent HPV vaccine Cervarix from the U.S. market — Gardasil 9 became “the only game in town.”
Gardasil 9 is FDA-approved for males and females ages 9 through 45 years.
In 2015, because of the high number of serious adverse events reports in Denmark and around the world, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority asked the European Commission to investigate the relationship between Gardasil and serious adverse events.
Several months later, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) — a European equivalent to the FDA — issued a report concluding there was no link between HPV vaccines and serious neurological adverse events.
But a leaked, confidential EMA document showed substantial disagreement among the agency’s experts.
An article published in The BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine also revealed the EMA made its evaluation based on flawed data and analysis provided by vaccine manufacturers, dismissed compelling evidence from independent researchers and the Uppsala Monitoring Centre, and sought input from experts with financial conflicts of interest, in violation of its own rules.
Given the ongoing safety concerns associated with the revelations of the EMA’s flawed study, Rebecca Chandler et al. conducted further research on the link between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders, which was published in Drug Safety in 2017.
Autoimmune disorders can be difficult to identify and take a long time to diagnose because they are typically characterized by combinations of a wide range of symptoms that can be linked to a number of illnesses.
Any one symptom on its own may not provide enough information to alert a physician to the underlying cause.
To identify autoimmune disorders associated with the HPV vaccine, Chandler and her team did a cluster analysis of VigiBase, the World Health Organization (WHO) international database of suspected adverse drug reactions.
They conducted a statistical analysis of reports on HPV adverse events, looking for clusters of symptoms associated with autoimmune conditions like POTS, CRPS and CFS — rather than looking only for cases where an autoimmune disorder was definitively diagnosed — and found statistically significant rates of serious adverse events associated with Gardasil.
It is one of several recent studies linking Gardasil with autoimmune issues.
As part of this now-consolidated lawsuit, the plaintiffs have been seeking access to Merck’s database for several years in order to do a cluster analysis on all of the data Merck has collected.
Suing Big Pharma for vaccine injury difficult — but possible
Vaccine makers can be held liable for injuries caused by a fully licensed vaccine — unless that vaccine is added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule.
The HPV vaccine is listed on that schedule.
People injured by vaccines listed on the childhood schedule can seek compensation through the taxpayer-funded National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury claims.
But many people are unaware that claimants who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the VICP process can sue the pharmaceutical company directly in civil court as long as that claimant completed the VICP process.
Baum told The Defender that the VICP has paid out more than $70 million to people making claims regarding Gardasil, but that over the last few years, they stopped making payments for autoimmune conditions, without explanation.
The lawsuits against Merck alleging the HPV vaccine caused debilitating autoimmune complications are a result of this process.
Baum also told The Defender that a claimant has only three years from the onset of symptoms to file a complaint, but because autoimmune disorders are challenging to diagnose, many people are not diagnosed until the statute of limitations has expired.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Windfarms renege on electricity contracts for a second year
Net Zero Watch | April 3, 2023
Major windfarms are again reneging on their promise to deliver power to the national grid at agreed prices.
A year ago, Net Zero Watch reported that the Moray East windfarm had become fully operational, but had refused to activate its Contracts for Difference (CfDs), under which it had promised to sell cheap power to the grid. This gaming allowed it to sell at elevated market prices instead, costing consumers hundreds of millions of pounds.
Last week the windfarm advised that it will put back the date for activation another 12 months. In addition, the CfD start date for Phase 1 of the Hornsea 2 windfarm, which became fully operational in August last year, has also been pushed back into 2024.
Delaying its CfD may have earned Moray East as much as half a billion pounds last year; putting it back another year could easily bring in another hundred million pounds at current market prices. Hornsea 2 could earn a similar amount in 2023/24.
Windfarms are entitled to do this under the CfD scheme rules, and there is scope for further delays. Moray East will be able to put off a final decision about whether to activate its CfD until March 2025. Some of the phases of Hornsea 2 will be able to delay until 2026.
Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch deputy director, said:
How long do Government and civil service think they can go on pretending that these windfarms are going to deliver cheap power? It is a deliberate, cynical deception and it needs to stop now.
Committee Reviewing COVID Vaccine Injuries Meets Behind Closed Doors
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 31, 2023
The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) met for three days — behind closed doors, except for a two-hour public comment period — to review the epidemiological, clinical and biological evidence on adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
The committee will generate a report that will be used to add injuries to the federal vaccine injury table, which lists known adverse events associated with existing vaccines.
This list helps the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) — both part of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) — to decide whether to compensate vaccine injury claims.
Historically, NASEM meetings have been open to the public — but this year’s meetings were closed, except for the two hours of public comment required by federal law.
NASEM livestreamed the public comment period, during which each speaker was limited to three minutes of comments.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense was among those who delivered comments.
Hooker told the committee:
“I have little hope that this National Academies committee of experts will do anything but simply rubber stamp the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines that were recommended and even mandated to the population of the United States.”
The committee is meant to be a neutral external body, but the review is done at the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and partially funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Hooker said:
“This is the same CDC that discovered as early as February 19, 2021, that mRNA vaccines were causing myocarditis in adolescent and young males, just 10 weeks after the rollout of the first vaccines.
“However, CDC immunization safety officials, including director Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, hid this information until they made the tacit assertion over three months later on May 27, 2021, that there might be a connection between vaccines and myocarditis.
“While CDC officials lied about this adverse event, the U.S. vaccination rate climbed from 8% to over 50% — increasing profit to the vaccine manufacturers who have fully captured this agency.”
Vaccine injury lawyer Aaron Siri told the committee that in his experience helping clients to file claims, past NASEM reports were “incredibly consequential.”
“They are documents that are going to be used by the federal government to fulfill their duty … to fight against any claim of compensation,” Siri said, adding:
“Your task, as I understand it, is to review the medical literature. But understand that pharmaceutical companies don’t have an interest in conducting the studies and neither do our federal health agencies.”
He said the experts he has deposed use the absence of evidence in these reports for any given side effect as evidence the side effect doesn’t exist. They then deny people’s injury claims on that basis.
Siri implored the committee to take seriously the testimonies offered by vaccine-injured people in the public comments when considering what to include in the report.
The committee is led by Kathleen Stratton, Ph.D., who was involved with the 2004 Institute of Medicine report cited as “proof” that vaccines don’t cause autism when there were 5,000 cases pending with the VICP.
Leaked documents showed that Stratton coordinated with the CDC to deny any links between vaccines and autism.
Reed Grimes, M.D., Ph.D., director of the division of injury compensation at the HRSA, and Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, gave presentations at the committee’s first meeting, which was held in January and posted online.
The committee is also reviewing the literature on the administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. Its findings are expected in March 2024.
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ‘would be unrecognizable’ to its founders
The more than 30 people who made public comments included vaccine-injured people, physicians, attorneys, researchers working to identify vaccine injuries and treatments, and members of the React19 advocacy group, which has compiled 3,400 peer-reviewed studies listing COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.
Speakers shared extensive personal, scientific and legal evidence of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Vaccine-injured speakers included Brianne Dressen, who received a dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine as a volunteer in a clinical trial. Her debilitating side effects, including POTS, tinnitus and other symptoms were not included in the AstraZeneca clinical trial report, even despite the fact they were recognized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Dressen told the committee she remained “perplexed” by the scientific process and said, “I ask for you to please take an honest and unbiased look at the literature that exists. Please do your part and make sure that these people that are suffering are not discarded, that we are not erased and we are not dismissed.”
Dr. Joseph Fraiman, the lead author of a peer-reviewed study on serious mRNA vaccine side effects, spoke to share the results of his research with the committee, emphasizing that there was “no question” that serious adverse events were associated with the mRNA vaccines.
The many speakers drawing attention to severe side effects linked to the vaccines included Dr. Peter McCullough, who drew the committee’s attention to the fact that “Pfizer reported 1,223 deaths that occurred in their 90-day mandatory part post-marketing data.”
He reminded the committee that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to block the release of Pfizer’s clinical trial data, and that research ongoing at multiple U.S. universities indicates hundreds of thousands of deaths are associated with the vaccine.
McCullough said:
“I conclude that the National Academies should join in support for full withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines from current use in the United States, and they begin a fair evaluation and compensation for the large number of individuals who have suffered vaccine injuries, disabilities, and deaths.”
Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, said the committee must bear in mind the FDA’s Benefit-Risk Assessment and drug regulatory decision-making, which, she said, “states for a drug to be approved for marketing FDA must determine that the drug is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients.”
She presented data — noting the committee did not allow any commenters to share slides they had prepared for the committee — showing how quickly efficacy wanes for any of the vaccines.
Albert Benavides, who runs the Vaersaware.com website told the committee that miscoding or undercoding and delayed publication in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has hidden thousands of serious adverse events.
Several speakers commented on the way these reports are misused by the VICP and the CICP.
Professor Renee Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at The George Washington University Law School, told the committee that over the last ten years, she witnessed, “the aggressive delegitimization of all non-table vaccine injuries by HHS.”
She said the HHS has aggressively fought against any claims regarding injuries not on the list, despite the fact that vaccine people are legally permitted to make claims for injuries whether they are on the list or not.
She said:
“The hard line drawn by HHS in contesting these cases, I believe, contravenes congressional intent as well as the intent of this committee and pushed the vaccine court further into the protracted litigation of the civil arena that Congress hopes to avoid.”
She explained that the stakeholders that created the VICP — vaccine manufacturers, lawyers and parents — set it up to be petitioner-friendly, informal, generous and non-adversarial, adding:
“The congressional record at the time recorded Congress’ admonition that it was better to compensate someone who was not injured by the vaccine than to fail to compensate someone who was …
“I believe the VICP as it exists today would be unrecognizable to those original stakeholders. In some circumstances, HHS’ unrelenting opposition to vaccine injuries using epidemiology discussed by this committee has resulted in the elimination of entire categories of injuries …
“In order to guarantee a strong and successful universal immunization program, you must have a vibrant safety net for those rare individuals who are injured. A compensation program must be a reasonable and meaningful alternative to civil litigation or it has failed.”
How does vaccine injury compensation work?
The PREP Act protects vaccine makers from liability for injuries or deaths associated with Emergency Use Authorization vaccines, but can be held liable for injuries caused by a fully licensed vaccine — unless that vaccine is added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule.
The COVID-19 vaccine was added to the schedule earlier this year.
People injured by vaccines listed on the childhood schedule can seek compensation through the taxpayer-funded VICP, a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury claims.
However, the revisions voted on by the ACIP committee last year explicitly state (slide 24) that the COVID-19 vaccines are not covered under the VICP.
Instead, the COVID-19 vaccines added to the childhood schedule will remain covered by the CICP.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, since the CICP was established in 2010, 11,596 claims have been filed (95% COVID-19-related).
Only 19 claims related to COVID-19 filed with the CICP have been found eligible for compensation, though no compensation has yet been paid.
10,604 claims are still under review.
During the first NASEM meeting, Dr. Chandy John, professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, asked HRSA’s Grimes when the COVID-19 vaccines that are fully approved by the FDA would move from coverage under CICP to VICP, saying many concerned parents were asking this question of their infectious disease group.
Grimes gave no timeline. Instead, he simply listed the steps in the process.
He said to move to CICP coverage, a vaccine needs to be recommended for routine administration for children and pregnant women, it needs to have an excise tax imposed upon it through the legislature, and there needs to be a notice of coverage published in the federal record.
“So once those things all happen that is when the CICP would cover the COVID-19 vaccines, if those three things were all to happen.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for . She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
