New Warnings Show DNA Contamination and Persistence of Spike Protein in COVID Vaccine Recipients
Regulatory Agencies Are Ignoring Science Which Continues to Paint a Troublesome Picture
BY JEFFEREY JAXEN | SEPTEMBER 25, 2023
On August 31, 2023, roughly two weeks before the latest COVID booster recommendation by FDA/CDC/ACIP, independent researchers published an online, open-access analysis announcing “… it is possible to distinguish, by tryptic digestion, followed by mass spectrometry analysis, synthetic Spike proteins originated from the translation of the mRNA vaccines from natural Spike circulating in biological fluids.”
In other words, the researchers devised a method to determine how long the synthetic spike protein created by mRNA vaccines was present in the human body of vaccinated individuals.
This was a big deal. Their approach represents the first proteomic detection of recombinant Spike in vaccinated subjects. How long did they find it lasted?
They write, “The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological samples analyzed, and its presence was independent of the SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.” Below is a chart from their study comparing the detection of the spike protein in the body of vaccinated and “after infection non vaccinated.”
The FDA and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) didn’t care and approved the new COVID booster anyway calling for yearly boosters ‘like the flu shot.’
The mRNA vaccine technology used against a circulating coronavirus is a new, never-before-used approach and method. Proper safety testing and an understanding of what happens when you repeatedly inject billions is unknown. Why the approval? Well because it was an emergency we were told… we just didn’t have time. You understand right?
Yet, with the newly updated booster announced by the CDC for 6 months and older, with no exceptions we are still aggressively injecting. Why? America is the outlier with its cavalier approach to experimenting on its population as new warnings appear almost weekly from this injectable tech platform.
The CDC states mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. The Covid vaccine’s one and only purpose is to create that spike protein. It has only one job.
Do you think regulators or the pharmaceutical companies making the shots cared to understand what else that spike did after it was created or how long it persisted?
Pfizer’s Nonclinical overview submitted to FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, a document which doctors had to sue the agency in court to obtain, states:
“The protein encoded by the RNA in BNT162b2 is expected to be proteolytically degraded like other endogenous proteins… Therefore, no RNA or protein metabolism or excretion studies will be conducted.”
In other words, we aren’t going to bother looking because one can’t find what one doesn’t search for.
Two years later, public assertions like the one from The Infectious Disease Society of America still regularly repeated estimates that the spike proteins generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks.
The flashing warning of public health ignorance and medical neglect carried all the way to CDC’s ACIP meeting in 2022, two years into the most aggressive vaccine campaign in world history when Professor of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital Dr. Pablo Sanchez asked the therapeutic head of Moderna’s respiratory vaccine division the following question:
“I’ve asked this before and I just don’t have a clear idea about how long the spike protein the messenger RNA in our bodies produce… how long has it been detected in patient serum or tissues or even in animal studies? Do you know how long it may persist in blood or serum or tissues?”
To this question, Rituparna Das, Moderna’s Therapeutic Area Head of Respiratory Vaccines and the company’s ACIP lead answered:
“The spike protein, ah, availability I believe is on the order of days, but, like less than a week. But I will confirm that with our tox [toxicology] folks as well.”
No one knew for sure, not even the injectable product’s manufacturer, and more importantly, no one cared to know.
Yet the spike continued to turn up as the culprit in more pathogenic insults to humanity. In 2023, researchers reporting circulating spike protein detected in post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccines myocarditis stated:
“A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein, unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with post vaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects”
The CDC/ACIP response was that the benefits outweigh the risks… simplistic, insulting, and lacking transparency talking down to the people being targeted by this novel shot.
The authors of the August 2023 suggested that the spike protein may be integrating into the human cells. A similar, and in ways more detailed, warning was just given by well-respected cancer genomics researcher at the University of South Carolina Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D. during his recent testimony in front of the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Committee which he stated, among other things, that:
- The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction.
- This DNA could cause rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.
- The DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomes of transfected cells.
- There is a very real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, which could cause sustained autoimmune attacks towards that tissue.
- There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer, depending on the piece of DNA and site of integration.
The CDC’s website states the following outdated and scientifically lazy explanation, at best, of what happens to human DNA after being injected with COVID-19 shots.
According to Professor Buckhaults, this is just not true… at all.
Two further points raised by Professor Buckhaults were first, that the plasmid DNA contamination was not present in the material used in Pfizer’s initial vaccine trials for regulatory approval. It was only after approval and rapid scale-up of manufacturing did the company used questionable, scientifically reckless techniques which led to the contamination. Second, Professor Buckhalut’s lab, a world leader in this type of research, estimates that each vaccination contains about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.
We know it is now a basic technique to find the synthetic spike in vaccinated individuals. Perhaps even more troubling, it’s basic genetic research to find out if the plasmid DNA is integrating into and forever changing the DNA/genetics of vaccinated individuals yet health agencies and labs just don’t seem to want to look.
With the CDC clearly not willing to do even the most basic steps to regain the public trust lost, as new director Cohen claimed was her main goal, the public must back away further from an apparently rogue government body. As prominent scientists and doctors denounce the agency and its products, we have hit breakaway speeds into historically uncharted territory as public health agencies, once a fixture running in the background of America, have become a cyclic, menacing threat with each new booster rollout campaign.
A Picture is worth a Thousand Words
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | September 18, 2023
Nothing screams ‘cult’ more than a building being lit up in corporate colours to celebrate a product launch.
Further evidence of the big pharma brainwashing can be seen with the Empire State Building turning Pfizer blue in celebration of the CDC recommending that everyone, from 6 months of age and older, can get this season’s updated Covid shot.
They then sponsored news articles to tell everyone that Covid is here again but that Pfizer is here to save us.
Seems like COVID’s everywhere again. But here’s good news from Pfizer!
This season’s updated COVID-19 shots are now available for ages 6 months and up, and they’re designed to help protect against recent variants.
That is why today, at 8pm, the Empire State Building turned its iconic building blue to announce that the CDC recommends everyone 6 months of age and older get this season’s updated COVID-19 shot. The blue light symbolizes our gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines and all those who made it possible.
COVID-19 isn’t gone, and vaccination remains one of our best tools to help protect against the virus that causes the disease. Ask your doctor or pharmacist about this season’s updated COVID-19 shots. Learn more and schedule at the CDC’s website, vaccines.gov.
Sponsored by Pfizer.
In almost religious like devotion, Pfizer wants your gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines. Because billions of dollars just isn’t enough anymore, they also want your adoration and eventually your soul.
We have got to the point now where everyone knows Covid is mild for most and that the vaccines don’t do anything. But there is a significant percentage of the population who are still in denial and convince themselves that the jabs work, save lives and make them morally superior.
Bobs Cartoons summed it up nicely with this image.
Florida Surgeon-General Snubs FDA ‘COVID Boosters-For-All’ Guidance
“Not A Good Decision For Young People”
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 15, 2023
Uttering words that would have seen you excommunicated from ‘good’ society, ostracized to an island of racists, bigots, and vaccine-deniers; Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said in a statement that the vaccines “are not backed by clinical evidence, but blind faith alone with ZERO regard for widespread immunity.”
In guidance (pdf) to patients and doctors, the Florida Department of Health added:
“Based on the high rate of global immunity and currently available data, the state surgeon general recommends against the COVID-19 booster for individuals under 65. Individuals 65 and older should discuss this information with their health care provider, including potential concerns outlined in this guidance.”
This directly contradicts guidance from The White House (everyone get up to date) and the CDC and FDA (endorsing the new jabs for anyone over 6 months old):
“We continue to live in a world where the CDC and the [Food and Drug Administration], when it comes to COVID at least, are just beating their own path in a direction that’s inexplicable in terms of thinking about data and in thinking about common sense,” Ladapo said.
And three years into this flu season, Ladalpo highlights ‘herd immunity’ among most of America:
“With the amount of immunity that’s in the community – with virtually every walking human being having some degree of immunity, and with the questions we have about safety and about effectiveness, especially about safety, my judgment is that it’s not a good decision for young people and for people who are not at high risk at this point in the pandemic,” he said.
Florida Governor DeSantis agreed:
“I will not stand by and let the FDA and CDC use healthy Floridians as guinea pigs for new booster shots that have not been proven to be safe or effective,”
In March, the CDC and FDA sent a letter to Ladapo, warning that he was fueling vaccine hesitancy and harming Florida’s seniors.
Ladalpo is not alone in his scepticism.
“Pushing a new COVID vaccine without human-outcomes data makes a mockery of the scientific method and our regulatory process,” Drs. Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoeg said in an op-ed.
“If public-health officials don’t want a repeat disappointing turnout of Americans who get the COVID booster shot, they should require a proper clinical trial to show the American people the benefit,” they added.
Just 17 percent of Americans received one of the bivalent doses, which were made available in the fall of 2022. The new vaccines replaced the bivalents.
“The CDC is advising the children get these boosters when there’s no evidence that children receive any benefit and clear evidence that they receive harm,” Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use, said on EpochTV’s “Crossroads.”
Risks include myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can lead to sudden death.
And cue the mainstream media ‘blood on their hands… science-denying’ headlines.
CDC Recommends New Covid Boosters to Everyone Over Six Months of Age
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | September 13, 2023
While Europe has now largely confined Covid vaccination to older and vulnerable groups, the American Centers for Disease Control have chosen a different path. Yesterday, they accepted the advice of an advisory panel and recommended the XBB.1.5 jabs to everyone six months and older. They insist that “the benefits of vaccination exceed the risks for everyone,” and hope vaguely that their “universal recommendation” will “ease the rollout of the vaccine and improve access and equity.”
“Let’s keep America strong, healthy,” said Dr. Camille Kotton, a panel member who voted in favor of the recommendation and who is an infectious disease specialist at Harvard Medical School. “Let’s do away with COVID-19 as best we can by prevention of disease through vaccines. Let’s make things clear.”
The argument is not easy to parse. First, the vaccines are alleged to be universally beneficial, although no studies beyond a “CDC analysis” exist to support this broad claim. Second, the universal recommendation is necessary to ensure “equity” and “make things clear.” In other words, more targeted recommendations would sow confusion and limit their uptake among those groups who would benefit from them. Finally, our Dr. Kotton still hopes that the vaccines can “do away with COVID-19.” Either she knows better or she is stupid, but once again, in the striving after an upside beyond benefits to the individual, we see an implicit acknowledgment that the vaccines aren’t universally beneficial after all.
An important consequence of the pandemic in the United States has been the alienation of a great part of the population from the project of public health in general on the one hand, and the overt politicisation of the CDC on the other. Before 2020, American medical mandarins at least claimed to work on behalf of society as a whole; now and again, they even found occasion to worry about how their recommendations would effect their credibility among the entire population. They have since abandoned this mission, adopting a narrow, much more politicised hygiene extremism. Now they have dropped all pretence, appealing only to the highly radicalised Covidians and the pharmaceuticals. Thus their rhetoric and their advice grows steadily more divorced from reality and reason, even as the actual threat of Covid recedes.
Ironically, the radicalism of the CDC arises from the success of the pandemicist opposition in the United States. America was one of the few Western countries that saw genuine resistance to the lockdowners and the vaccinators, extending even to elements of the political establishment. This opposition did serious damage to the entire enterprise of public health, and now millions of Americans will never care what the CDC says about anything ever again. In Europe, the mainstream parties formed a united front in support of the hygiene dictatorship, permitting our public health institutions to retain some claim to social consensus, however tenuous. On this side of the Atlantic, they still have something to lose, which is an incentive towards moderation.
CDC’s New ‘Wild to Mild’ Ad Campaign Hypes Flu Vaccines for Kids, Pregnant Women
John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | September 8, 2023
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this week launched a new “Wild to Mild” ad campaign to “tame skepticism about flu vaccines,” CNN Health reported.
The campaign, which will run on the radio and social media platforms starting this week, targets pregnant women and parents of young children “because vaccination rates are down in both of those high-risk groups,” said CNN.
Experts who spoke with The Defender, however, questioned the efficacy of flu vaccines and cautioned about their potential harms.
The CDC ads feature cute animal images, including one that depicts a tiger (“a ferocious animal”) and a kitten (“something that’s not scary”) designed to promote the idea that the flu vaccine, rather than preventing influenza altogether, will inhibit severe symptoms and yield a milder course of the illness.
The CNN article cited CDC data showing flu vaccination rates for pregnant women are down more than 16% since 2019 and 7% for children under 18. “That means more than 3.7 million people were unprotected during pregnancy over the past winter” along with “an estimated 32 million children,” CNN reported.
Erin Burns, M.A., associate director for communications for the Influenza Division at the CDC, told CNN the progress made to vaccinate pregnant women after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic has been “completely wiped out in the years since COVID-19.”
Focus groups run by the CDC showed that “most of the pregnant women had no intention of getting a flu vaccine and no awareness of the benefits it could bring them or their baby,” Burns said.
Dr. William Schaffner, infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University and a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, told CNN that “something was amiss” if doctors were not adequately informing pregnant women about the risks of the flu.
“Women who get influenza who are pregnant may have rates of complication that rival that of senior citizens,” Schaffner said, adding “They [doctors] have to get these messages out to women who come to them right now.”
Burns said mothers in focus groups found it “extremely motivating” when health educators explained that antibodies induced by flu shots could transfer to their babies and protect them after birth.
While seniors tend to understand their higher risk from the flu and therefore keep up with their shots, moms need more nudging, CNN reported.
Ad campaign tempers expectations about respiratory vaccines
According to CNN, Burns said the CDC felt cautious about claiming flu vaccines could attenuate illness, but since deepening its vaccine surveillance network, it found “strong and growing evidence” that the vaccine could “blunt a bout with the flu” and reduce doctor visits.
Schaffner said comparing the effectiveness of the flu vaccine to vaccines designed to eradicate diseases like measles, polio and whooping cough confuses people about what flu shots can do.
“With these respiratory viruses,” he said, “the vaccines aren’t very good at preventing milder disease. [But] we have to say … ‘here’s the benefit.’”
According to the CDC, all flu vaccines for the 2023-2024 season will be quadrivalent (i.e., targeting four different strains).
“Most will be thimerosal-free or thimerosal-reduced vaccines (91%), and about 21% of flu vaccines will be egg-free,” states the CDC website.
Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that thimerosal is a developmental neurotoxin.
The CDC is recommending the flu and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, vaccines this fall for everyone, and also the COVID-19 vaccine or booster for people 6 months and older.
‘Basically, it does not work’
The CDC states that flu vaccine effectiveness can vary, citing studies over the past 10 years showing between 19% and 54% effectiveness. The major factors influencing vaccine effectiveness are a person’s age and health and how well the vaccines match the circulating virus strains.
Dr. Meryl Nass told The Defender the CDC claims that flu shots reduce flu severity “cannot be relied on” when the shots “fail to work to prevent infection.”
Nass pointed to four studies the CDC uses to support its new contention that flu shots reduce flu severity even if they do not prevent flu. “All four published studies have CDC authors, so the CDC cites itself to make this claim.”
Two of the papers, published in the journal Vaccine in 2018 and 2021, said Nass, start by acknowledging that the effect of influenza vaccination on influenza severity remains uncertain.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a paper published in January with co-authors Dr. David M. Morens and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., said that vaccines for respiratory diseases are “decidedly suboptimal” and that new types of vaccines need to be developed.
“’Wild to Mild’ is a propaganda strategy to throw up against the facts,” Nass said, “that efficacy is often poor, that flu shots have never been shown to prevent deaths and that even Fauci has now admitted this.”
Commenting on the campaign, Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender, “In the last several years the estimated vaccine efficacy of the influenza vaccine was statistically insignificant. Basically, it does not work.”
‘No data’ on safety of flu shots for pregnant women and their babies
According to Nass, in the past flu shots were not approved for pregnancy.
“They used to be labeled ‘Category C,’ which meant ‘no data in pregnancy,’” she said. “That system of specifying the pregnancy risk was junked to make way for verbiage instead.”
As an example of this “verbiage,” Nass referred to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) risk summary for the flu vaccine FLULAVAL, which states:
“All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively.
“There are insufficient data on FLULAVAL in pregnant women to inform vaccine-associated risks.”
The flu vaccines’ effect on lactation also is unknown, according to Nass. “Despite CDC recommending use in pregnancy for well over 10 years, they just have not looked,” she said.
According to the FDA, “Data are not available to assess the effects of FLULAVAL on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research at Children’s Health Defense and co-author of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” reviewed a 2021 study published in JAMA Network on flu vaccination during pregnancy.
The retrospective cohort study reviewed live births in Nova Scotia, Canada, from 2010-2014, with a follow-up in 2016. The authors concluded that “maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse early childhood health outcomes.” But, according to Hooker, the study failed to consider several key points.
The first shortcoming was that diagnoses considered in the study were based on emergency visits and hospitalizations only, not outpatient settings such as practitioner offices, where most diagnoses are made.
To support his criticism of this diagnostic bias, Hooker noted the study found only 1.1% cases of asthma while for the overall Canadian population, the asthma rate was 9.5%.
The study also inaccurately reported on the rates of ear infections in unvaccinated versus vaccinated groups, with the latter experiencing significantly higher rates.
The study showed a significant association between lower respiratory infection in babies for mothers vaccinated in the third trimester versus unvaccinated mothers, but “these results were summarily ignored by the study authors,” Hooker said.
Finally, the study’s “control diagnosis,” which it defined as “all-cause injuries,” showed a significantly higher incidence for children whose mothers were vaccinated, which, Hooker said, “casts a shadow of doubt on any conclusions made from this study.”
Hooker expressed concern that physicians would use the study to provide a “false assurance of safety” to pregnant women considering the flu vaccine.
Nass said the majority of claims filed and compensated in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) — which has paid out over $4 billion to date — are for injuries from the flu vaccine.
NVICP is part of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. It was passed to exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
5th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Government Censorship
We got a big win Friday in Missouri v. Biden: Appellate Court Forbids White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI from Censoring Americans Online
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | September 10, 2023
Here’s my five-minute summary and reaction to the appellate court’s decision on Friday upholding the central provisions in our injunction against the government. (I’ll post the full interview soon when it’s available.)
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled: “The White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions. In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.” The appeals court thereby confirmed that for last several years, our Federal government has been systematically violating the highest law of the land—the United States Constitution—by censoring the protected speech of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans tens of millions of times. News of the ruling was front page above-the-fold yesterday in The New York Times and The Washington Post, suggesting that the legacy media cannot ignore this issue any longer.
Not all the defendants in the suit were enjoined by the appellate court’s decision, which focused on the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI. This is not, however, an indication that the other agencies named as defendants, such as CISA, are free to engage in censorship of protected speech. It simply means that at this early stage of limited discovery the appellate court did not think we have presented sufficient evidence to meet the very high legal bar required for a preliminary injunction. Although the injunction focuses on four agencies, the entire federal government is now on notice: any future communications between government officials and big tech are subject to subpoena and scrutiny in our case. If those come from any of the four enjoined agencies, those officials may now be subject not only to civil liabilities but to criminal penalties as well.
The ruling also confirmed that not only coercion but even “significant encouragement” by government officials to modify content is a form of unconstitutional censorship. The judges ruled that evidence we presented demonstrated both coercion and significant encouragement.
Contextualizing the scope of the violations of constitutional rights in our case, the judges noted that there are virtually no prior free speech cases of this scope and magnitude: “The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. Therefore, the district court was correct in its assessment—’unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ We see no error or abuse of discretion in that finding.”
Dr. Pierre Kory: New York Times Guide to Fall Vaccine Shots Is ‘Disinformation’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 6, 2023
The New York Times on Sept. 1 published a “guide to fall vaccine shots,” which included recommending the general public get COVID-19, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccines, and infants 6 months and older receive COVID-19 shots this fall.
Written by Times senior writer David Leonhardt, the guide warns about rising COVID-19 cases and the approaching flu season, before offering, “The good news is that there are vaccines and treatments that reduce risks from all major viruses likely to circulate this season.”
According to the Times, “This year, we should take a broader approach,” rather than “obsess over COVID.”
Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine — described by the Times as a “vaccine expert” — echoed that appeal. “It’s not only COVID you have to think about,” he said.
Hotez, Nirav Shah, M.D., J.D., principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other public health officials and experts quoted by the Times recommended Americans prepare for the upcoming fall and winter by getting the trio of COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines.
None of these experts, however, addressed any of the potential safety risks posed by these vaccines.
Medical and public health experts who spoke with The Defender took a different view and questioned the Times’ guide, citing concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines for respiratory illnesses.
“Vaccines against respiratory illnesses have failed miserably,” said cardiologist Peter McCullough M.D., MPH. “America is wary of vaccines at this point, wanting to get on with life free of menacing vaccines, and are willing to seek early treatment, which is always the best way to handle infections, vaccinated or not.”
Pediatrician Dr. Liz Mumper, president and CEO of the Rimland Center for Integrative Medicine, told The Defender, “There have been no studies examining the effects of giving RSV vaccine, flu vaccine and COVID vaccine at the same time.”
“If you follow the advice in The New York Times article,” Mumper said, “be aware that your child will be part of post-marketing experimentation.”
Times still pushing vaccine propaganda
According to the Times, “The best defenses against COVID haven’t changed: vaccines and post-infection treatments,” which are “especially important for vulnerable people, like the elderly and immunocompromised.”
The federal government is “on track” to approve updated COVID-19 shots, designed to combat recent variants, in mid-September, the Times reported. Once they are available, “all adults should consider getting a booster shot.”
“COVID can still be nasty even if it doesn’t put you in the hospital,” the Times states. “A booster shot will reduce its potency.”
Hotez resurrected a claim heard often during 2021 and 2022, telling the Times, “Overwhelmingly, those who are being hospitalized are unvaccinated or undervaccinated.”
Experts who spoke with The Defender disagreed.
Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, citing data from U.K. Public Health, said, “All-cause deaths ages 18+ are disproportionately among vaccinated people, whether one, two or three doses, compared to unvaccinated people.”
“The statistic quoted by Dr. Hotez is false,” Risch said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said, “The new booster simply hasn’t been tested to affirm any assertion of protection. The original trials on children were laughable as they looked at antibody titers rather than actual disease prevention.”
McCullough told The Defender, “The COVID-19 vaccines have been a safety debacle with record cases of myocarditis, blood clots, stroke, and all-cause mortality.”
Despite the injury and mortality reports and the Times’ admission that the risk of COVID-19 to young children is “very low,” Shah nonetheless recommended children as young as 6 months of age get the COVID-19 booster shots this fall.
“Do you want to see your grandpa … [and] grandma?” Shah asked in the Times. “Are you really sure you’re not going to give COVID to them?”
Experts who spoke with The Defender refuted Shah’s advice.
Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), said “There is no medical justification for a healthy 6-month-old or older child to be vaccinated for COVID-19,” adding:
“There is so little data available on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in children that to give blanket recommendations like Shah is doing creates an unnecessary risk to children’s health.
“We simply do not know enough about the COVID-19 vaccines to make such broad recommendations. Additionally, COVID-19 is highly treatable in children and poses very little risk to a healthy child.”
Mumper told The Defender, “Any official who advocates that children take a vaccine to protect grandparents has not read the medical literature carefully.” She said, “After doing a deep dive on the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines in children, I remain steadfastly opposed to their use in healthy children,” adding:
“Any immunity from COVID shots is short-lived and follows a period of immune suppression. Very worrisome adverse events like inflammation of the heart, triggering autoimmunity, interfering with autonomic functions and reproductive toxicity are well described in the medical literature.”
Not all countries following suit
Some countries began limiting COVID-19 vaccination for children last year. In April 2022, Denmark ended its blanket COVID-19 vaccination recommendation, including for children.
Now, Denmark recommends “booster-vaccination” only for people “aged 50 years and above and selected target groups.”
Earlier in 2022, public health authorities in Sweden and Norway opted not to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for children between the ages of 5 and 11.
Sweden now recommends COVID-19 vaccination only for those 50 and above (18 and above for high-risk groups), while Norway is still only recommending COVID-19 vaccines for those 65 and older (and as young as 5 for high-risk groups).
In March of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years have a “low disease burden” and are therefore low priority for vaccination.
In June, Australian public health officials said Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is “no longer available” for children under 12, and in January, U.K. public health authorities ended their booster program for those under 50.
COVID vaccine recommendations ‘not science, not medicine, not public health’
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of CHD’s scientific advisory committee, told The Defender that while public health authorities and the media continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccines, none of them have been fully licensed in the U.S., as all such vaccines are available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only.
In May 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that COVID-19 vaccines for kids under 6 would not have to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold required to obtain an EUA.
CDC data released in September 2022 showed that more than 55% of children between 6 months and 2 years old had a “systemic reaction” after their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
“The CDC, criminally, claims the (authorized) vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’” Nass said, adding:
“That is a term of art that is only allowed to be used for licensed vaccines and drugs. No licensed COVID-19 vaccine is available in the U.S. Public health is supposed to balance benefit and risk.
“This is not science. Not medicine. Not public health.”
Flu vaccines have demonstrated ‘declining efficacy’
According to the Times, “The most immediate step worth considering involves R.S.V.” On Sept. 5, the CDC issued a health advisory warning of rising RSV cases in parts of the U.S., particularly among children and babies.
Last month, the CDC signed off on the first-ever monoclonal antibody vaccine Beyfortus for the prevention of RSV, for babies up to 8 months old.
Also last month, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine for pregnant women, despite concerns raised by some medical experts about premature births identified during clinical trials. In May, the FDA approved Pfizer’s Abrysvo and GlaxoSmithKline’s Arexvy RSV vaccines for people 60 and older.
The Times quoted Ashish Jha, M.D., MPH, former White House COVID-19 adviser and now dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, who said, “If you’re 60 or over, you don’t want to get into November without having an RSV vaccine.”
And though there is no RSV vaccine approved for administration to children, the Times said that “parents may want to ask their pediatrician” about monoclonal antibody treatment for children under 8 months of age.
According to Hooker, “the RSV vaccine given to pregnant women could not even make a 20% threshold for protection (as specified by the FDA) against lower respiratory RSV infection.”
Supporting the push for the flu vaccine, the Times and experts such as Jha said, “The flu officially kills about 35,000 Americans in a typical year,” but “the flu’s toll would be lower if more people got a vaccine shot,” noting that “In recent years, less than half of Americans have done so.”
Jha added, “We underestimate the impact that respiratory viruses have on our population. The flu can knock people out for weeks, even younger people.” Jha pointed out that flu can make heart attacks and strokes more common as well.
Kory, however, told The Defender that the COVID-19 vaccines have made people more susceptible to other respiratory illnesses, like the flu and RSV:
“In my practice, we treat many vaccine-injured patients who are now more susceptible to the flu, RSV and many other viruses. The COVID vaccines cause many to present as if they have an autoimmune disease and now respond with more severe symptoms to common viruses like the flu.”
Risch, meanwhile, said, “Traditional flu vaccines are considered to be safe for most people” and may be a “reasonable” option for them, but “this should be discussed with one’s healthcare provider.”
“The flu vaccines seem to have had declining benefit over the last 10-15 years, to the point now that they may confer only a 30% benefit,” Risch added.
And according to Hooker, “The flu shot is also notoriously bad at protection against the flu and there are very few data regarding this season’s flu shot efficacy.”
‘Ludicrous’ public health messaging
Shah’s recommendation that children as young as 6 months get a COVID-19 shot this fall follows in a long line of questionable advice and claims disseminated by public health officials, some of which were later contradicted.
In a May 2021 MSNBC interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), said:
“Although you don’t like to see breakthroughs, the fact is, this is one of the encouraging aspects about the efficacy of the vaccine. It protect you completely against infection. If you do get infected, the chances are that you’re going to be without symptoms, and the chances are very likely that you’ll not be able to transmit it to other people.”
Fauci’s statements, however, failed to account for the many examples of breakthrough infections with severe symptoms and hospitalization.
After years of official “safe and effective” claims, in YouTube’s new “medical misinformation” policy introduced Aug. 15, “Claims that any vaccine is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19” are prohibited. Fauci’s videos from 2021, notably, are still up on YouTube.
In April 2020, Fauci said that remdesivir will become the “standard of care” for treating COVID-19. But numerous victims of COVID-19 hospital protocols prescribed by the CDC have come forward in recent months claiming that remdesivir was administered without permission of the patients or their families and contributed to further injury or death.
Similarly, former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in March 2021 “Our data from the CDC today suggests … that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick … can’t transmit it to others.” She doubled down on these statements during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in June, asserting that her statement “was generally accurate.”
Hooker said these statements were “obviously patently false, as the vaccines distributed in the U.S. at that time [in 2021] were not tested for transmission and there was evidence of ‘breakthrough’ infections even in the clinical trials.”
“This obviates any protection to ‘Grandma and Grandpa’ through children getting vaccinated against COVID-19,” Hooker added.
Also in 2021, Walensky recommended wearing pantyhose over a mask to ensure a tight fit.
Nass called such public health messaging “ludicrous,” noting that Walensky’s pantyhose recommendation “quickly disappeared” because it “had connotations the CDC was not willing to deal with.”
Kory criticized the Times’ fall vaccine guide, characterizing it as an example of “disinformation.”
“The New York Times is carrying the disinformation that continues to come from the CDC and other government health agencies,” he said. “This is one of the reasons that the public continues to lose trust in the media and our government.”
As a result, public health officials “create a mockery of how medical and scientific evidence is used to inform patient care decisions and public health policy,” Kory said.
Other experts who spoke with The Defender suggested taking vitamins to boost one’s immune system, rather than a series of vaccinations.
“For the immune system to defend against respiratory viruses, all people should take daily vitamin D to achieve blood levels of 50 or greater,” Risch said. “This is typically 5,000 units per day for a 150-lb person, but can be adjusted up or down according to body weight.”
“Serious RSV infections generally occur only in the youngest young and the oldest old. People in these categories should discuss this with their doctors,” he added.
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.
The FDA Can Say (and Do) Anything It Wants
For example, they can’t be sued for providing false or dishonest information
By John Droz Jr. | Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues | August 10, 2023
This is an extraordinarily important commentary!
The gist of a current court case that you’ve likely never heard of, is that three heroic doctors are suing the FDA about the loss of their jobs, about their careers being derailed, about the loss of their reputation — all because their professional, scientific opinion as to what was in the best interest of their patients, was different than the political agenda of the FDA. (Here is a bit of background.)
What is at stake here could not be more significant, and it applies across the board to EVERY federal agency. The question is: do federal agencies have the unsupervised right to replace Science with political science? Put another way: can they act dishonestly, incompetently, etc. with essentially no meaningful consequences?
Here is the doctors’ Complaint. Although it was filed a year ago, it is now being appealed this week — and some fascinating audio clips have emerged. There are three judges on a panel, asking the attorney representing the FDA some probing questions.
Five of these short audio clips (3-5 minutes each) are posted here. (The recording of the full proceeding is here.)
IMO some of the key takeaway revelations (so far) are:
1 – The FDA seems to claim that their published warnings are little more than offhand observations. For example, their slamming of Ivermectin was evidently just casual commentary (what the FDA calls “informational”).
Note the title here, on this FDA page which is STILL up! It says “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”.
Note 1: This is a deceptive headline because that article is mostly saying: a) citizens should not self-medicate, and b) using any veterinary medications can be dangerous. Both of these are legitimate concerns. So, if the FDA was honestly trying to benefit the public their heading should be: “Why You Should Not Self-Medicate Using Veterinary-Grade Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Note 2: This FDA page has changed quite a bit over time. Here is the 2021 version.
Note 3: The current page makes outright false statements like: “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.” I’m one of the few people who has taken the time to put together a spreadsheet of ALL the studies on ALL the major COVID early treatment therapies: see it here.
There have now been 99 Ivermectin scientific studies, and the overall early treatment effectiveness is 62%. IVM’s extensive safety record is extraordinary, with adverse effects (e.g., see here) in the ballpark of only one in a million usages!
Now, also on my spreadsheet, compare what the FDA has approved for early treatment of COVID-19 therapy: Paxlovid = 32% effective with these adverse safety issues, and Molnupiravir = 16% effective with these problematic safety issues!
Despite these LARGE benefits of Ivermectin in effectiveness and safety, the FDA continues to say that “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective” for early treatment of COVID-19. This is stunningly inaccurate.
Note 4: Even though the FDA now has access to 99 Ivermectin studies, their statement against Ivermectin is stronger now than when the page originally appeared in 2021! IMO this is what happens when a federal agency feels that there is no meaningful oversight, so effectively they can say anything they want.
2 – The FDA says that Courts have no business in reviewing anything they say or do!
Considering the above facts in #1, it’s obvious why this would be their self-serving position. Listen carefully to the second short audio clip, where the FDA’s attorney appears to say that the FDA’s communication to the public can be knowingly false, dishonest, etc. with no oversight or consequences — even when deaths result!
Regretfully, to date, the courts have played along with this game of charades. For example, the Chevron case is frequently cited by non-aggressive attorneys to say that courts will stay out of determining whether FDA processes, documents, and claims are legal, accurate, honest, warranted, etc.
However, that is an oversimplified opinion. Even the Chevron case states that the FDA’s actions must be “reasonable” — but that is rarely argued. BTW, the case we are discussing here would never have been filed if the doctors’ attorneys bought into the bogus idea that federal agencies have unlimited deference. Kudos to them that they did not accept that absurd argument!
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but based on the judges’ questions and comments in these clips, it seems to me that this case might eventually upend Chevron. That would be EXTRAORDINARILY beneficial for US citizens, as it would apply to all national policies: from immigration to education, energy to climate change, etc.
3 – The FDA asserts that the only recourse that US citizens have about even egregious errors and deceptions by the FDA is through the “political process.” Astounding!
4 – The FDA indicated that the “political process” means that citizens need to elect a competent and attentive President, whose responsibility it is to see that the FDA acts responsibly — or else. The flip side is that when we do not have such a President, all federal agencies have a four-year time period to wreak whatever political havoc that suits them — again, across the board, and without real consequences to the guilty parties.
5 – The FDA’s attorney implied that there would be no compensation given for inaccurate or knowingly false FDA statements — including those that lead to Americans unnecessarily dying — other than an FDA person may lose their job.
6 – Based on these select audio clips, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans likely died needlessly due to the FDA’s COVID actions and inactions (see here), was not fully addressed. Hopefully, this will be brought up in this trial.
7 – In clip #3, the FDA attorney makes the startling claim that the FDA has the authority to give citizens medical advice! How is that possible when they know nothing of the medical history of any American citizen? Further, once they assert that right, how is a conflict resolved between what the FDA says and what a citizen’s medical provider says? That is one of the major issues in this important case.
8 – In clip #4, the FDA attorney acknowledges that doctors have lost their jobs, etc. due to their scientific conclusions on such matters as Ivermectin, and their science-based actions that they believed were in the best interest of their patients. However, the FDA attorney then stated that no losses, etc. were due to anything the FDA did. (!)
……….
Note that a lot of the bad behavior with the FDA (and CDC) would be reduced if the Medical Establishment refused to play politics and instead supported real Science for the public. Regretfully, that has not happened and the COVID-19 fiasco exposed this ugly underbelly. See my Report on the COVID failings of the Medical Establishment.
In another Report, I compared the FDA’s approval process for Remdesivir to Ivermectin. This appears to show stunning incompetence at the FDA.
I have made this point before, but it’s worth repeating. The war we are engaged in is that powerful Left-wing forces (exterior and from within) are trying to take America down. One of their primary strategies to do this is to replace Science with political science. That is what this case is about, as the FDA is specifically arguing that they have the right to scrap Science and substitute political science — with impunity!
Draw your own conclusions, but to me, this case is like a Molotov cocktail thrown into the Federal Government bureaucracy. Astoundingly, all three branches of our government are complicit with this nonsense.
Some obvious questions that need to be answered and fixed are: 1) How did Congress give pharmaceutical companies such broad protections against self-serving unscientific actions? 2) How did the Executive branch allow agencies like the FDA to be run by parties that they are supposed to regulate? 3) How did our Judicial system allow bad actor agencies to arrange to have no real legal oversight?
Considering that these failings are applicable to multiple federal agencies, is there any question why such things as COVID policies (and energy, and climate, and education, and immigration, and elections, etc., etc.) are a disaster?
Hopefully, this lawsuit will crack open the door to fixing this horrific mess…
……….
PS — What needs to be done now :
1) Competent attorneys should file friend of the court briefs to support this nationally important case. Overturning the Chevron precedent would have extraordinarily positive benefits for almost ALL US citizens.
2) Competent federal legislators should introduce a “Save America” bill (aka Agency Oversight Act). This legislation will rein in ALL federal agencies, by providing timely and meaningful oversight (plus real penalties) to them all.
Pfizer drip feeds data from its pregnancy trial of covid-19 vaccine
Analysis of the data so far shows the trial was underpowered, poorly designed and incomplete
BY MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD | AUGUST 24, 2023
In January 2021, in the absence of any human data in pregnancy, the CDC stated on its website that mRNA vaccines were “unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant.”
Former CDC director Rochelle Walensky backed it up with a full-throated endorsement of covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy.
“There is no bad time to get vaccinated,” said Walensky.
“Get vaccinated while you’re thinking about having a baby, while you’re pregnant with your baby or after you’ve delivered your baby,” she added.
Behind the scenes however, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.
By February 2022, Pfizer revealed it still did “not yet have a complete data set.” Its statement read:
“The environment changed during 2021 and by September 2021, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended by applicable recommending bodies (e.g., ACIP in the U.S.) for pregnant women in all participating/planned countries, and as a result the enrollment rate declined significantly.”
This month, Pfizer finally posted some trial results on clinicaltrials.gov.
The data do not appear in a peer-reviewed journal or a pre-print, nor has it been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.
I spoke with experts who have analysed the data with a fine-tooth comb and made some alarming observations.
Pfizer originally planned to recruit 4000 healthy women aged 18 or older who were 24 to 34 weeks pregnant. Half would be randomised to the vaccine and the other half to a saline placebo.
The efficacy and safety of the vaccine would be determined by assessing covid-19 cases, antibody responses, and adverse events.
Peculiarly, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group, one month after giving birth to their babies.
Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management said that vaccinating mothers in the placebo group during the assessment period would introduce a new variable into the experiment and “corrupt” the data.
“We now know that mRNA from the vaccine is detected in the breast milk, so those babies born from mothers who were all vaccinated after giving birth, are also potentially exposed to mRNA through breastfeeding,” explained Levi.
“This corrupts the comparison of the two groups of babies because you don’t have a true control group anymore,” he added.
Less than 10% of the originally planned 4000 study participants ended up in the trial.
“Only 348 women were recruited – 174 in each arm – meaning that the trial was never going to have the statistical power, particularly when analysing potential harms,” said Levi.
Notably, study protocols indicate that Pfizer was given the green light as early as May 2021 by drug regulators to scale back the trial and reduce the sample size.
“To me, the wording in the protocol suggests that the FDA or another regulator basically gave Pfizer permission to do less,” remarked Levi.
“It’s not surprising though. The vaccine had already been recommended for pregnant women and many have taken it, so there is no upside to completing a trial that may detect signals of potential harms. It can only create problems for them, right?” he added.
Given that pregnant women were being vaccinated with a product that had not undergone rigorous safety testing in pregnancy, the FDA was asked if and why it allowed Pfizer to scale back the trial.
The FDA replied, “As a general matter, FDA does not comment on interactions it may or may not be having with sponsors about their clinical trials.”
Angela Spelsberg, an epidemiologist and medical director at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Aachen in Germany agreed that the integrity of the study had been compromised.
“There are just not enough babies in this trial to detect rare or very rare adverse events. We learned from studies in animals that lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine can deposit in many organs including the ovaries, so we must be extremely cautious about the potential negative impacts of the vaccine on reproductive health,” said Spelsberg.
“The scientific community urgently needs access to the pregnancy study data on the patient level for transparency and independent scrutiny of vaccine safety and efficacy because regulatory oversight is failing,” she added.
The small sample size may have been the result of the strict selection process.
Pfizer recruited participants with an impeccable pregnancy history, and most were in their third trimester (27-34 weeks gestation), a stage when the baby’s major development has already occurred.
“It appears that they cherry picked the mothers to get the best results,” said Levi. “We have no idea what impact this vaccine has on the early stages of development of an embryo or foetus, because all the women had advanced pregnancies when they were recruited.”
Spelsberg agreed.
“The first trimester is particularly vulnerable to adverse reproductive health outcomes,” she said.
“Based on only weak observational evidence, regulators have reassured the public that the vaccines are safe throughout pregnancy. However, we don’t have reliable evidence on the vaccine’s impact on miscarriages, malformation, foetal deaths, and maternal health risks because they excluded pregnant women from pivotal trials,” added Spelsberg.
Levi also noticed that “only partial data” were published.
“It doesn’t include any important metrics such as covid infections or antibody levels and its says we must wait until July 2024 for those results. It’s disturbing to say the least,” said Levi.
Also missing from the dataset was a full account of birth outcomes. Of the 348 women in the trial, Pfizer only reported on the birth of 335 live babies.
Of the 13 pregnancies unaccounted for, Pfizer reported one foetal death (stillbirth) in the vaccine group and the outcome of the other 12 pregnancies remains unknown.
“This is unacceptable,” said Levi. “Failing to report the outcome of 12 pregnancies could mask a potentially concerning signal of the vaccine in pregnancy. What happened to the babies, did they all die? Were their mothers vaccinated or unvaccinated?”
Finally, there were quite a few babies that were lost to follow-up in the trial.
“Twenty-nine babies in the placebo arm didn’t get to the end of the 6-month surveillance period, versus 15 babies in the vaccine arm. That’s almost double. Again, this is concerning and requires a detailed and transparent explanation,” said Levi.
Overall, both Levi and Spelsberg say the delays and failure to disclose vital data are unacceptable.
“Pfizer took a year to publish the data. When they finally did, it is incomplete. And we are expected to wait until July 2024 for the next batch of results, while authorities continue to recommend the vaccine in pregnant women,” said Levi.
“We still don’t have solid scientific evidence whether this vaccine is safe for pregnant women and their babies,” said Spelsberg. “It’s a tragedy and a scandal that vaccine use has been recommended, even mandated to women before, during and after pregnancy.”
Questions were put to Pfizer, but the company did not respond by the deadline.
Moderna is also conducting a clinical trial of its mRNA vaccine in pregnancy, but no data are available.
CDC Now Refusing New COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports in Its V-Safe Program
By David Gortler | Brownstone Institute | August 24, 2023
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) V-safe website quietly stopped collecting adverse event reports with no reason or explanation. The V-safe website simply states: “Thank you for your participation. Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.” If you go there today, V-safe directs users to the FDA’s VAERS website for adverse event reporting, even though officials continually derided VAERS as “passive” and “unverified.”
VAERS and V-safe are mutually exclusive safety collection databases operated by the FDA and CDC, respectively. VAERS is an older way of collecting safety data where one can fill out a form online, or manually, or by calling a toll-free number, whereas V-safe is a device “app” which requires online registration. Both VAERS and V-safe collect personal information, lot numbers, dates and associated information, but V-safe was an active collection system geared towards a younger app-using demographic.
Does this mean that the CDC believes that the mRNA Covid-19 injections are so safe, there is no need to monitor adverse event reports any longer? What is the argument against continued monitoring, especially since the V-safe website was already up and paid for?
While CDC’s V-safe was stealthily and abruptly turned off, refusing to accept new safety reports, to this very day the CDC continues to urge everyone ages 6 months and older to stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
As a drug safety expert, I personally can’t cite another example of any agency or manufacturer halting collection of safety data. It seems even worse because mRNA technology is relatively new with long-term manifestations unknown. On top of this, both manufacturers and the FDA refuse to share the list of ingredients, such as lipid nanoparticles, which could affect individuals differently and take a long time to manifest clinically.
Safety Data Collection Should Never Stop:
Now, contrast that with the fact that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) will still accept a safety report for a 30-year-old Ford Bronco II. Indeed, this is an oddly specific example, but only because I drove this exact vehicle as a family hand-me-down as a student, through my residency, fellowship, for my tenure as a Yale professor on the mean streets of New Haven and even during my years at the FDA as a medical officer /senior medical analyst.
Like mRNA shots, Bronco IIs are still available on the market and people are still using them up to this very day. My Bronco became an intermittent topic of conversation with friends and FDA colleagues. One day, I was informed by a patrolling security guard at the FDA that it was the oldest car on campus.
I didn’t know much about cars (or mRNA technology) back then, but when a fellow FDA-er informed me that my Bronco II had noteworthy safety problems and that the NHTSA still had their eye on this vehicle (rollover accidents were more common and more fatal) I addressed the problem: I got rid of the reliable relic, even though I really liked it. NHTSA Is still accepting safety reports three decades later.
CDC No longer accepting safety reports despite rapidly increasing safety findings:
Unlike my old Bronco, mRNA injections have only been on the market for about two years, and according to the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, mRNA “vaccines” have been named the primary suspect in over 1.5 million adverse event reports, of which there are >20,000 heart attacks and >27,000 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis just in the USA alone. Worldwide numbers would be greater. According to many references, including an FDA-funded study out of Harvard, VAERS reports represent fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events that actually occur.
Interestingly, the NHTSA link above on my Ford Bronco II only shows: one parts recall, one investigation and 23 complaints, and still features a button in the upper right hand corner for submitting new complaints.
Wikipedia defines an humanitarian crisis or humanitarian disaster as a: “singular event or a series of events that are threatening in terms of health, safety or well-being of a community or large group of people.” Based on VAERS and previous V-safe findings, adverse events from mRNA shots in the USA alone could be considered a humanitarian crisis.
Despite those alarming clinical findings, the CDC has concluded that collecting new safety reports is somehow no longer in the interest of America’s public health. Existing data from the V-safe site showed around 6.5 million adverse events/health impacts out of 10.1 million users, with around 2 million of those people unable to conduct normal activities of daily living or needing medical care, according to a third-party rendering of its findings. In other words, despite mRNA shots still being widely available and the CDC promoting its continued use, it’s “case closed” with regards to collecting new safety reports, under today’s federal public health administration.
Will the CDC opine on the existing data or justify its halting of collecting new safety data? To the best of my knowledge, stopping the collection of public health information doesn’t have a clinical justification or scientific precedence — especially when it comes to an actively marketed product.
In George Orwell’s 1984, characters were told by The Party to “reject the evidence of your eyes and [your] ears.” Now, the CDC isn’t even allowing that evidence to be collected for viewing (and prospective rejecting). It’s a terrible idea for any product, let alone novel mRNA technologies.
Dr. David Gortler, a 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a pharmacologist, pharmacist, research scientist and a former member of the FDA Senior Executive Leadership Team who served as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner on matters of: FDA regulatory affairs, drug safety and FDA science policy. He is a former Yale University and Georgetown University didactic professor of pharmacology and biotechnology, with over a decade of academic pedagogy and bench research, as part of his nearly two decades of experience in drug development. He also serves as a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Featured Video
Trump: “Iran Will Submit, We Won the War” /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Is A Genocidal Society
The Israeli Political Spectrum From The “Liberal Left” To The Far Right, Is United In Genocide
The Dissident | May 5, 2026
… The fundamental issue of Israel is not Benjamin Netanyahu, but the fact that Israel is overwhelmingly a bloodthirsty, war-ready, genocidal society.
Historian Zachary Foster has documented that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis have supported every Israeli war since the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, writing:
2006
86% of the Israeli adult population justified “the IDF operation in Lebanon against Hizbollah,” or 2006 Lebanon War, in which Israel killed 1,191 people, the vast majority civilians according to HRW (Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher)2008-2009
82% of the Israeli public thought that the 2008-9 war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 1,417 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians.) Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher2012
90% of Israeli Jews supported war on Gaza ( in which Israel killed 160 Palestinians, 66% civilians)2014
95% of Jewish Israelis believed the war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 2,310 Palestinians, 70% civilians)2021
72% of Israelis believed the war on Gaza should continue (as of May 21) after Israel had already killed 250 Palestinians in Gaza, vast majority civilians. The % of Jewish Israelis who supported killing more Palestinians was much higher.2024
A January poll found 95% of Jewish Israelis thought the Israeli military was using either the “appropriate” amount of force or “too little” force in Gaza at a time when Israel had already killed >25,700 Palestinians in Gaza.2024
In September, 90% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Lebanon (in which Israel killed 800+, including hundreds of civilians)2025
In March, 82% of Israeli Jews supported the forced expulsion of residents of Gaza, Israel’s main goal in it’s genocide & war on Gaza.2025
In June, 82% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Iran known as the “twelve day war”2026
On March 4, 93% of Israeli Jews expressed support for the war on Iran. 97% of “right-wing” Jewish Israelis support it, compared with 93% in the center and 76% on the left.
The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis also have openly genocidal views towards Palestinians.
Polls in Israel have shown that:
- 84% of the (Israeli )public gives the IDF an excellent or very good grade regarding the moral conduct of the army
- 75% of Jewish Israelis agree with the idea that ‘there are no innocents in Gaza.’
- A vast majority of Israeli Jews – 79 percent – say they are ‘not so troubled’ or ‘not troubled at all’ by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The fundamental problem in Israel is Zionism, not Benjamin Netanyahu. – Full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What has Guterres supported in Gaza?
- UAE received $80m in EU farming subsidies as calls grow for sanctions over Sudan genocide
- Trump gives green light for new arms deliveries to Ukraine
- U.S. Blockade Against Cuba Must End Immediately: China
- Trump’s Bogus Claims About Progress in Talks with Iran Just Made Some Insider a Lot of Money
- US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi
- Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
- German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
- The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number
- Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s subversion of Foreign Agents Registration Act
- Israeli Paper Admits That The Mossad Astroturfed The January Riots In Iran.
- Prominent Christian Zionist Group Is Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers on Israel—Without Revealing It’s Funded by Israel
- Ex-US spy for Israel runs for office on platform of ethnic cleansing in Gaza – Daily Update
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 