Berlin Senate tries to hush dramatic increase in heart complaints and strokes in 2021
Free West Media | April 20, 2022
The Berlin SPD member of parliament Robert Schaddach inquired in March with a parliamentary question to the Senate’s internal administration about the development of relevant fire brigade incidents that suggest the suspicion of vaccination consequences. Schaddach said: “The aim of the question is to determine the development of the Berlin fire brigade’s deployment figures with regard to heart complaints and strokes over the past four years.”
The answer of the senate administration gives cause for concern. Under the headings of “Heart Complaints/Implanted Defibrillator” and “Chest Pain/Other Chest Complaints”, the number of logged deployments in 2021 increased by 31 percent to a total of 43,806 deployments compared to the averages from 2018/2019. Similarly, the number of logged deployments under the keywords “Stroke/Transient Ischaemic (TIA) Attack” increased by 27 percent to a total of 13,096 deployments compared to the averages from 2018/2019.
However, the Berlin Senate Administration does not want to comment on this development. It writes evasively in its response of April 7: “Changes in the frequency of use of the main complaint protocols ‘Heart complaints/Implanted defibrillator’ as well as ‘Chest pain/Other complaints in the chest’ within the framework of the standardised emergency call query may be related to more intensive protocol use, the classification of symptoms, the further development of quality management, but also changes in the number of emergency rescue deployments, for example due to population growth or demographic change.”
While the Berlin Senate administration is trying to keep the information out of the public eye, its response was received with all the more interest by the Feuerwehrgemeinschaft Berlin, an association of several hundred firefighters critical of vaccination. A spokesperson for the association explained: “Such rates of increase need to be explained.” He also said it was striking that the highest rates of increase are occurring precisely in the age groups that are not commonly understood to be vulnerable groups.
It is now necessary to “examine whether there is a causal connection here with the vaccination side effects caused by the Corona vaccine, which have increasingly come into the media spotlight”, according to the fire brigade community. It therefore “urges the management of the Berlin fire brigade to initiate a scientific and open-ended investigation of a possible connection in cooperation with the experts of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI)”.
Until meaningful results are available, the “facility-based vaccination obligation”, which is still in force, must be suspended.
As jabbed athletes collapse, the authorities look the other way
By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 21, 2022
THROUGHOUT 2021, attempts were made to debunk persistent reports that an unusual number of athletes were suffering cardiac events which might be related to mRNA Covid vaccination. The main theme of these fact-checking efforts was denial – athletes were not at risk and cardiac events were not happening.
In 2022 this dialogue is evolving because the numbers are growing and harder to ignore. According to an investigative report by OAN, a pro-Trump online US news site, 769 athletes suffered sudden health events between March 2021 and March 2022 with an average age of 23 years. In February, 15 top tennis players were unable to complete their matches in the Miami Open tournament.
Of necessity in the face of mounting numbers of injury reports, the fact-checking dialogue has hesitated on the brink, but on February 1 this year, the Washington Post still labelled stories of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on athletes FALSE. Its story relied heavily on a discussion of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen, who suffered a cardiac arrest on June 12 2021 just before half time in a match against Finland. The circulation of the apparently false story that Eriksen had been vaccinated was attributed by the Washington Post to a shady far-Right group in Austria seeking to influence their upcoming election.
Dig deeper and the story gets more murky. Few if any of the participants in this argument on both sides have verified hard facts to hand. The Washington Post, which had probably realised by February that it was quite possible that an unusual number of athletes were unexpectedly falling to the ground, decided to finish its article by asserting that the sporting collapses must be down to Covid, not Covid vaccination. Again no hard facts about actual athletes, just a polarised muck-throwing event.
As a scientist I realise that what is lacking here is reliable data. Why is it lacking? Here is the nub – the authorities are so sure they are right about the safety of vaccines that they are refusing to collect data. New Zealand has refused to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events following mRNA vaccination and other countries are in the same boat. We don’t have a lot of data to go on because it is not being collected. Sporting bodies are not counting either, or perhaps they have lost count or looked the other way.
Delving into the world of psychology, I find this unsettling. Why wouldn’t we collect data? Why aren’t we allowed to ask questions? Why isn’t the Ministry of Health counting and publishing up-to-date medical data on the frequency of cardiac and thrombotic events of all types?
There are stories in the popular press (actually not so popular these days) reporting recent excess cardiac events as due to ‘holiday heart syndrome’ or the need for young people ‘to avoid strenuous exercise’. Neither of these had been a thing until 2021. Why hasn’t the MoH quashed these speculative sallies into obfuscation by publishing data? You tell me.
The finger-pointing gets worse. One particular ‘whack-an-antivaxxer’ sport recently originated at Otago Medical School in New Zealand. A popular digest of a study of 1,000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 was reprinted in leading publications around the world. The article implied that anti-vaxxers suffered from sexual abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent as they were growing up. They were also described as low educational achievers likely to suffer from mental illness.
I am a little sceptical by nature, so I noticed that the reports were based on an article in a publication called The Conversation, which has received support during the pandemic from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Conversation describes itself as both devoted to academic rigour and seeking to explain science to the general public. Curiously its article about the Dunedin survey contained only one quantitative piece of information – 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant. No other quantitative information was provided to support the extreme characterisation of the vaccine hesitant in the article.
I tracked down the actual study entitled ‘Deep-seated psychological histories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance and resistance’. Seven of the ten authors were based in the USA. One of the authors disclosed that he is funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The survey completed in April 2021 actually found that 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant and 12 per cent were vaccine hesitant. So fully 25 per cent of the respondents were vaccine hesitant to varying degrees.
I then rapidly came across an old friend used to distort information: absolute differences versus relative differences.
Of those willing to vaccinate (note the word used is willing, not necessarily keen), 62 per cent had at least one Adverse Childhood Event (ACE). Of those hesitant or resistant to vaccination 73 per cent had at least one ACE. The difference between 62 and 73 per cent is not large in absolute terms.
Based on this small difference, Professor Richie Poulton, a Dunedin-based co-author of the study, was quoted in the Otago Daily Times as saying about the vaccine hesitant and resistant responders:
‘The childhood experiences of those surveyed ranged from sexual abuse, parental neglect, poverty, to isolation and lack of achievement in school. They covered the whole suite of difficulties you can think of that might impinge on a person’s good development. Their personality became very stress reactive – they saw danger or threat where there essentially was none.’
Now you probably did percentages at school, so do you think Professor Poulton’s comments accurately reflect the difference between 62 per cent and 73 per cent exposures to at least one ACE? Because I certainly don’t. A significant percentage of both groups experienced ACEs growing up, but they had different opinions about vaccination.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask: why do we have such a high rate of ACEs in New Zealand? Is our mental health service under-funded? Is our education system failing us? Is support for families sufficient?
I went further down the pages examining results of a battery of ‘questionnaires’. I found that although there were measurable differences between the two groups: ‘vaccine willing’ and ‘vaccine hesitant and resistant’, their average scores were well within the standard deviation of the mean standardised score for each test.
This means most of those responding to the survey were relatively average people. The vaccine hesitant and resistant were being falsely characterised as ill-educated social deviants. This sounds like victim blaming. So much for the academic rigour and capacity to explain science to which The Conversation proudly aspires.
Were the media comments about the study an unsupported and false attempt to discredit the unvaccinated and categorise them as outcasts and misfits without the necessary intelligence to think for themselves? The small differences between the two groups were insufficient to justify this black-and-white condemnation widely shared around the world’s media.
There were some differences in educational attainment. Some 35 per cent of the vaccine willing had a BA degree or higher, while 15 per cent of the vaccine hesitant or resistant had a BA or higher. However the Dunedin results may be misleading regarding the influence of education. A study in the USA found that people with a PhD were more likely to be vaccine hesitant, implying that a decision not to vaccinate may possibly be encouraged by the development of high level critical thinking.
In the mainstream media articles, Professor Poulton pleaded with us to feel pity for the unvaccinated, because of their supposed difficult childhood (which was in fact not so different from that of the vaccinated). Was he simply lowering our opinion of the unvaccinated by playing upon stereotypes? Subtly hammering home the current mainstream media messaging that only Right-wing extremists and selfish antisocials remain unvaccinated.
Did he realise that the unvaccinated are legitimately concerned about the vaccinated because they have been unwittingly exposed to serious but as yet unquantified medical risk?
As I am aware that Covid mRNA vaccine adverse events are running at 30-50 times higher than any previous vaccine, I would ask different questions of the data:
- Were those willing to be vaccinated being misled by the inadequate content of their education?
- Do prior adverse experiences provide good reason to be more cautious in future?
The Immunisation Advisory Centre at the respected University of Auckland (incidentally partly funded by pro-vaccine interests) reassuringly says:
‘Confirmed cases of myocarditis are rare. More than 80 per cent of reported cases of myocarditis following mRNA Covid vaccination have recovered quickly with rest and commonly used oral anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen.’
Are you reassured by this, or have you looked at the Medsafe adverse event data where 18,000 mRNA vaccine recipients reported chest pain and shortness of breath – symptoms admitted by the Immunisation Advisory Centre to be indicative of myocarditis?
Have you concluded, like me, that as many as 80 per cent of cases of myocarditis among the vaccinated remain unreported and untreated? A ticking time bomb, of which professional athletes represent only the tip of the iceberg.
The question is, how long are our health authorities going to continue to look the other way and refuse to start counting accurately, appropriately, and retrospectively?
CDC Weighs ‘Upgrades’ to COVID Vaccines as Booster Strategy Fails
By James Lyons-Weiler | PopularRationalism | April 21, 2022
According to CNN, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continue to “mull over” what’s next for Covid-19 boosters, and indeed are even considering what the “upgrades” Covid-19 vaccines. There are indications that they know that “entirely different vaccine formulations could be needed”.
Currently, additional booster doses are recommended only for certain people with weakened immune systems and adults 50 and older.
CDC quoted Dr. Sara Oliver, one of CDC’s epidemic intelligence service officers with the Division of Viral Diseases, who provided a robust soundbite:
“Policy around future doses require continued evaluation of Covid-19 epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness, including the impact of both time and variants, and the ability of doses to improve this protection.”
The specifics CNN cited Oliver as seeing CDC needing to take into account include recent case counts, hospitalization rates, and vaccine effectiveness in the US, and also – shocking – including whether it’s waning over time. They also cited that she thought CDC should weigh “the impacts of circulating coronavirus variants”.
We know vaccine effectiveness is unacceptably low – and given Dr. Fantini’s results may actually be negative, indicating disease enhancement.
Oliver stated that the evolution of the virus will be an important consideration for considering “platforms” for future COVID-19 vaccinations.
It’s not hard to read between the lines here. Readers of PopularRationalism already know that the mRNA vaccines have proven to be worse than a dismal failure. This is CDC putting the word out that a second round of vaccine development is expected, and is about the closest we’ll ever see to CDC admitting the vaccination program has flopped.
And it’s surprising to see ACIP being focused on future “effectiveness”. Clearly, if newly formulated vaccines are proposed, they will be a square one in terms of the regulatory stage of development, and we should be seeing data on efficacy, which is a measure of a vaccine’s ability to reduce transmission in a prospective randomized clinical trial, not effectiveness, which is measured using real-world data.
As the real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness came in, it was quite bad, so the net was lowered from “preventing transmission” and “reducing new infections” to “producing an antibody response”.
So far, according to USASpending.Gov, the US has now spent over 3.63 trillion dollars in its response to COVID-19. According to the US Center for Economic Studies, the US suffered record-smashing loss of -9.5% of its GDP in 2020, and over 30% shrinkage in economic growth.
Nevertheless, both Pfizer and Moderna are taking a stab at vaccines meant to be available against Omicron, but it is doubted whether the variant will be around long enough to even be targeted by the new vaccines. Pfizer is hoping for a vaccine that will remain effective for more than a year, while Moderna’s non-peer-reviewed preprint containing data from their internal study of the efficacy of their bivalent vaccine was cited by CDC with the careful caveat that the preprint had “not been peer-reviewed or published in a professional journal.”
In the heyday of the pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna could get away with sending FDA assurances that they would share data mentioned in press releases once the FDA gave EUA or full-out approval. Now that the fog of the pandemic has lifted, it seems that the standard practice of labeling press releases, such as Moderna’s recent one on their bivalent vaccine as “Forward Looking Statements” is in place, so I suspect Moderna, Pfizer and the SEC got my memos.
Due to evidence of lack of efficacy and need, FDA, Pfizer and Moderna have delayed further consideration of COVID-19 vaccines for young children until June, according to Politico (SeekingAlpha, Politico).
Unfortunately, the companies are still communicating “success” as equivalent with “antibody response” when we all know (or at least my immunology students know that they really should be measuring and reporting memory B-cell responses and the degree of match between the antibodies produced by B-cells upon reinfection and whatever variant or variants have taken over after Omicron is a distant memory.
CDC also shared that Kaiser Permanente – which profits from vaccine sales – was in the driver’s seat of the CDC’s ACIP committee, with Dr. Matthew Daley, ACIP Vaccine Working Group Chairperson and senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research issuing “marching orders” to the rest of ACIP to be “be more proactive than reactive” on the future of Covid-19 vaccinations.
This article is just a reminder to those who need it that #ParentsAreWatching, and that #ScientistsAreWatching, too.
Rhode Island bill plans to DOUBLE tax for parents of unvaccinated children
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 21, 2022
A bill recently placed before the Rhode Island legislature contains clauses that would make Covid vaccination mandatory for everyone over the age of 16, and double state income tax for all parents who refused to inject their children with Covid the experimental Covid “vaccines”.
The bill, titled “HEALTH AND SAFETY- IMMUNIZATION AGAINST COVID-19 ACT” and introduced by State Senator Samuel Bell lays out in S1 (a) and (b):
(a) Every person of at least sixteen (16) years of age who is eligible for immunization against COVID-19 and who resides in the State of Rhode Island, works in the State of Rhode Island, or pays personal income taxes to the State of Rhode Island pursuant to chapter 30 of title 44 shall be required to be immunized against COVID-19.
(b) Every resident of Rhode Island eligible for immunization against COVID-19 who is under sixteen (16) years of age or under guardianship shall be required to be immunized against COVID-19, with the responsibility for ensuring compliance falling on all parents or guardians with medical consent powers pursuant to § 23-4.6-1.
And then details stringent financial penalties in S1(e) [emphasis added]:
Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall owe TWICE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXES as would otherwise be assessed pursuant to chapter 30 of title 44.
This is by far most punitive “anti-vaxxer” legislation we’ve seen (so far). Even if it does not pass, it shows us that the Covid agenda is still very real, and they are not even close to done trying to bully people into compliance.
You can download the whole bill here.
The scandalous absence of child vaccine damage information
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022
We have repeatedly referred at TCW to the studied silence of the mainstream media regarding the damage and fatalities associated with the Covid vaccines despite reported reactions (which may be only 10 per cent of the total), now standing at 1,480,307, and nearing the one and half million mark. Fatalities, too, continue their inexorable rise, a further sixteen deaths reported since the end of March, their total now 2,087. For full reports of vaccine adverse effects and events including 352 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.
What is worse, perhaps, than the MSM’s general state of denial is their unconcern about the shocking paucity of the child adverse reaction data published by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Yet under-18s have been actively encouraged to have the vaccine since the end of July 2021 in the absence of any long-term safety data and despite clear indications that younger ‘fertile’ age cohorts were proving more vulnerable in multiple respects to the vaccine. However no special monitoring system for children has been set up, or none that has been reported. Unlike its Yellow Card reporting involving adults, the MHRA does not break down the child numbers into specific adverse events, as though children were of less importance. As a result we have no way of knowing whether the reports relate to any major, life-changing side-effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (muscle weakness caused by the immune system attacking the body’s nerves) or Bell’s palsy (a type of facial paralysis) or to other serious side-effects reported by adults including seizures, nervous system disorders, deep vein thrombosis, menstrual disorders, and eye and ear disorders including blindness and deafness.
With the extension of the vaccine rollout to young children aged between five and 11 since the beginning of April, we have decided it is high time to highlight what is known and not known, what is reported and not reported, about the risk to children of this experimental gene therapy.
Nearly 3.5 million children (3,413,500) have already been injected, with a total dosage (1st, 2nd & boosters) of 5,626,100 jabs, and a total number of 3,735 adverse reaction Yellow Card reports. Data published by the MHRA on Thursday April 14 details:
· Pfizer – 3,400,000 children (1st doses) plus 2,000,000 second doses & 200,000 boosters resulting in 3,424 Yellow Cards
· AZ – 11,600 children (1st doses) plus 8,700 second doses & ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 263 Yellow Cards – Reporting rate 1-in-44
Note: 1,500 doses (1,000 children – 1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting
· Moderna – 1,900 children (1st doses) and 1,400 second doses and 2,500 boosters resulting in 24 Yellow Cards
Note: 200 children (1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting
· Brand unspecified – 24 Yellow Cards
Unaccountably it appears that the number of 1st doses (1,000 for AZ and 200 for Moderna) and 2nd doses (500 for AZ) recorded has decreased since two weeks ago. Hence 1,200 children recorded as vaccinated two weeks ago are now missing. No explanation has been given for this. I understand that the MHRA is now on holiday for two weeks so we are unlikely to get any clarity on this until May.
Note too that AstraZeneca which is not recommended for under 18s appears to have been continued. MHRA reports to April 6 2022 show that 11,600 children (up from 11,496 last October) have received one or more doses of AstraZeneca, resulting in an increased Yellow Card adverse event reporting rate of 1 in 44 children (up from 1 in 49 last October). This, shockingly, is counter to the government’s own official guidance and evidence which has been available for patients and healthcare professionals, most recently updated on January 26 2022:
‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is not recommended for children aged below 18 years. No data are currently available on the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents younger than 18 years of age.’ Yet the most recent MHRA publication says:
‘The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents (aged <18 years old) have not yet been established. No data are available.’
So why and to which children were these doses given? To vulnerable children prior to the main rollout? And why second or booster doses? Furthermore, whoever they are, are the 263 adversely impacted children receiving adequate care and support? Are the other children who received the AZ vaccine being checked?
Myo/pericardial effects in children
The only specific adverse effects data that has been published for children is 73 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart) in under-18s. This is worrying not least because of the rising and unexplained death toll in young men reported elsewhere in these pages, but also because it is now well-established that the likelihood of this reaction in young men is higher than their risk of myocarditis from Covid infection; a risk which the NHS has warned as being especially the case ‘in young men under the age of 40‘.
Other adverse effects
This still leaves the bulk of 3,735 Yellow Card Reports up to this week for under-18s uncategorised. Yet MHRA themselves state that ‘the experience reported in under-18s is similar to that identified in the general population’. If we take them at their word, extrapolating from the data published on suspected adverse effects in the adult population, children and young people, are experiencing a selection of the following:
· Lymph node pain and swelling
· Heart palpitations and fluttering
· Fever, chills, fatigue and malaise
· Ear pain, tinnitus and vertigo
· Nausea, vomiting and allergies
· Eye pain, swelling and photophobia
· Blurred vision and visual impairment
· Diarrhoea, abdominal pain and distension
· Lip, mouth and facial swelling
· Pain in arm, chest, bones and jaw
· Anaphylaxis
· Respiratory infection, influenza and herpes
· Joint and muscle pain, swelling and stiffness
· Muscle spasms and twitching
· Balance disorders and arthralgia
· Fainting and dizziness
· Facial palsy, headaches and migraines
· Skin sensations, burning and numbness
· Seizures and tremors
· Anxiety, depression and insomnia
· Confusion and disorientation
· Kidney pain and hair loss
· Breast pain and menstrual disorders
· Breathlessness, wheezing and coughing
· Sweating, blisters, rashes and itching
· Haemorrhages (all types) and nosebleeds
· Embolisms and thrombosis
Given the lack of information published as to the adverse effects experienced by the 3.4 million children injected thus far, we have to ask whether their consent was truly informed? The answer has to be no, it was not.
Worryingly there are a number of potential barriers to reporting adverse effects in children. These include:
· Child or parental failure to recognise symptoms as vaccine-related
· Fear of parents of not being believed or thought to be anti-vax or of ‘making a fuss’
· Lack of understanding of potential longer-term issues
· Healthcare professionals’ lack of awareness of vaccine adverse effects
· Young people not seeking help and support especially if they took the vaccine decision themselves
· Yellow Card system awareness and accessibility
Furthermore, if the 3,735 Yellow Card Reports for under 18s is less than 10 per cent of actual figures as the MHRA indicates may be the case, in the absence of long-term safety data, how can the child vaccine rollout possibly be justified, deemed safe or ethical? Why was post vaccine monitoring not insisted on?
This weekend the Sunday Times reported a scandal that Jeremy Hunt, the former Health Secretary, claimed to be worse than thalidomide. He was not however addressing the reckless child Covid vaccine rollout but a deeply shocking investigation into child deformities caused by an epilepsy drug still being given to pregnant women that should have been stopped years ago. Hunt said that while it was ‘never comfortable’ for governments to acknowledge such injustices, the state had a moral duty to the families. ‘It’s time the British state faced up to its responsibilities,’ he said. ‘Just as we eventually did to victims of the thalidomide scandal.’
These are words we need to hear him speak about the Covid vaccines.
I pray that he and this newspaper, which tenaciously and courageously fought for the victims of thalidomide, will not stay blind to the scandal that is happening on their watch; or let years go by before they retrospectively struggle to examine the multiplicity of harms, some of which we may not know till they reach maturity, that children have been needlessly subjected to by the experimental Covid vaccines.
Few Doctors Telling Truth About COVID Vaccines
By Joel S. Hirschhorn | April 19, 2022
Nearly all physicians work for corporations that require them to take COVID vaccine shots. Most will be reluctant to tell their patients about their vaccine doubts. Also, most do not have the time to study the medical literature about the many negative aspects of the vaccines. Now comes a survey with some interesting findings.
Levels of vaccine hesitancy among physicians seem higher than expected, with 1 in 10 primary care doctors not believing that vaccines are safe, according to a new survey.
Among 625 physicians, 10.1% did not agree that vaccines were safe; 9.3% did not agree that vaccines were effective; and 8.3% did not agree that they were important, Timothy Callaghan, PhD, of Texas A&M School of Public Health in College Station, and colleagues reported online in Vaccine.
The high proportion of hesitancy among primary care doctors “was certainly a surprise for us,” Callaghan said. “We thought it might be a very small proportion of physicians who hold hesitancy about vaccines given that we have lots of evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. [Talk about bias!] However, once we dug into the data, we found that concerns about vaccines in general were far more widespread in the physician population than we might have expected.”
Confidence in vaccines among physicians was still higher than in the general public, as were rates of COVID-19 vaccination, with only 5.2% still unvaccinated at the end of the survey in May 2021. But high levels of vaccine uptake among doctors could have more to do with employer regulations or perceived risks of their workplace environment, Callaghan said.
The research project was inspired by Callaghan’s own experience with one of his doctors who was not vaccinated and tried to dissuade Callaghan from COVID vaccination. Few of us have had that experience!
“It wasn’t my primary care physician, but another one of my doctors realized that I studied issues related to vaccine hesitancy, and over the course of multiple visits, tried to convince me that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t safe and weren’t worth it,” Callaghan said. “It made me question whether this was a one-off, or if we have an actual issue on our hands.”
Callaghan and colleagues conducted their survey from May 14 to May 25, 2021 among 625 physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, or general practice. They were asked how strongly they agreed with questions about safety, effectiveness, and importance of vaccines, among other factors.
Only 67.4% strongly agreed that vaccines are safe, just 75% strongly agreed they are effective, and only 76% strongly agreed they’re important, the researchers found. Good, but not good enough.
“As surprised as we were about the 1-in-10 piece, we were equally if not more surprised by the proportion of physicians strongly agreeing that vaccines in general are safe,” Callaghan said, anticipating that it would have been far higher. Guess there are doctors who see the truth.
In further analyses, Callaghan and colleagues found that higher levels of political conservatism were negatively and significantly associated with agreeing that vaccines are safe. In other words, the more conservative docs saw the truth. They also found those who had COVID-19 were significantly less likely to believe that vaccines are safe.
The team saw similar results for belief in vaccine effectiveness: physicians who were more liberal were more likely to strongly agree that vaccines are effective compared with those who were more conservative.
“Conservatives (in the public) with vaccine hesitancy, served by physicians who share their political views, may therefore miss out on opportunities to be presented with information about the benefits of vaccination; especially in rural areas where both hesitancy and self-identification with right-leaning political views are particularly high,” the researchers wrote. More pro-vaccine bias.
While political affiliation did appear to play some role in beliefs, Callaghan noted a wider problem that might be at play. “There’s not that much training on vaccines and vaccinology … in medical school,” he said. “Most medical students aren’t exposed to in-depth discussions of virology to have those strong opinions.”
“And given the clouded information environment that surrounded COVID-19 in particular, and increasingly, vaccines in general, it remains possible that [physicians] are just relying on what they’re hearing in the news and the misinformation that’s out there, as opposed to best scientific evidence,” he said. The bigger truth is that most docs do not spend time examining medical research data.
The survey also asked specifically about confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and found physician confidence split by vaccine type. While 68.7% were very confident in the safety of the Moderna vaccine and 72.7% were very confident in the safety of the Pfizer vaccine, only 32.1% were very confident in the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades, and his Pandemic Blunder Newsletter is on Substack. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
COVID Vaccine Mandate for Pilots Violates Federal Law, Puts Passengers at Risk, Citizen Group Warns
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 18, 2022
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pilots violates federal regulations and places pilots and passengers at risk, according to a letter from the California-based Advocates for Citizens’ Rights.
The letter, only recently made public, was hand-delivered in December 2021 to then-director of the FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and CEOs and legal counsel of major U.S. air carriers (American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines).
It includes data showing pilots across the aviation industry — including commercial, military and general aviation pilots — face increased health risks from the vaccines due to the unique nature of their profession.
The letter also states that a significant number of vaccine injuries and adverse effects involving pilots have been recorded, and in some instances have forced pilots to stop flying.
The letter claims:
- Federal regulations that prohibit pilots who have received non-FDA-approved medical products, such as COVID vaccines, from flying are being violated.
- Vaccinated pilots potentially are flying with abnormal health conditions that may be exacerbated by flying at high altitudes. These include heart damage and blood clotting, which could lead to stroke or cardiac arrest.
- Some pilots have suffered death and serious injury following COVID vaccination.
- The federal government is aware of the issues associated with the vaccines, based on complaints filed with government agencies.
- The health risks to pilots from the vaccines may lead to a catastrophic event such as a plane crash, with multiple fatalities and significant legal and monetary liabilities for the government, insurers and airlines.
The letter was co-signed by a series of prominent figures, including:
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense (CHD)
- Mary Holland, CHD general counsel
- Reiner Fuellmich, attorney and co-founder of the People’s Court of Public Opinion, which launched an international grand jury investigating COVID-related restrictions and mandates
- Several other doctors, medical practitioners and lawyers.
In an interview with The Defender, Advocates for Citizens’ Rights attorney Leigh Taylor Dundas, lead signatory of the letter, said products authorized under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are not fully approved by the FDA, and under EUA rules cannot be mandated.
“Our government has a long history, even with approvals and releases of products … of getting it wrong,” Dundas said. “Witness thalidomide, DDT, all sorts of things like that.”
“As a former environmental attorney and now staunch defender of basic human rights and civil liberties … I get contacted a fair amount by concerned individuals from all walks of life,” Dundas said.
“I was aware from things I had been hearing at conferences … that the inoculation was presenting severe and sometimes fatal issues to those who took it.”
Dundas said:
“I became aware that certain military personnel who were high-ranking surgeons within the U.S. armed forces were not just anecdotally becoming aware that pilots were having severe incidents of injury, but also that statistically that was being borne out by way of the database.
“At the same time, I was becoming aware of similar incidents in the civilian pilot population. So the combination of the two made me sort of pull the string and try to determine if not only was the vaccination causing an increase generally of disease and fatalities among those who took it, but if perhaps [these adverse reactions were] due to the unique combination of pilots being at altitude for long periods of time.”
Dundas said it appeared from the anecdotal, subjective data she was hearing and raw statistical data coming out of the DOD databases that these military doctors had access to — that the pilots were uniquely likely to be suffering ill effects from the vaccines.
Significant health risks for pilots
The letter, along with the accompanying documentation, references numerous instances of adverse reactions sustained by pilots and other health risks they face as a result of the COVID vaccines.
The letter quotes flight surgeon and aerospace medicine specialist Dr. Theresa Long and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiology consultant for the FAA.
Long and McCullough, who signed the letter, said:
- “The risk of ‘post-vaccination myocarditis [is] not trivial.’
- “The ‘aviation population is comprised of individuals with demographics that the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] and FDA established (on June 25, 2021) was at greatest risk for developing post-vaccination induced myocarditis.’”
Cody Flint, also a signatory of the letter, described his experience. Flint, based in Cleveland, Mississippi, is an agricultural pilot with 10,000 hours of flight time. He testified at a Nov. 2, 2021 U.S. Senate hearing on COVID vaccine injuries about the adverse effects he sustained.
Portions of Flint’s testimony were quoted in the letter, including:
“I have been very healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions.
“I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine on Feb. 1 [2021]. Within 30 minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck.
“Two days after vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours. Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse.
“Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident – although I do not remember doing this.
“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and severe panic attacks – although I’ve never had a history of either of these – was later replaced with left and right peri-lymphatic fistulas, Eustachian tube dysfunction and elevated intracranial pressure due to brain swelling.
“My condition continued to decline, and my doctors told me that only an adverse reaction to the vaccine or a major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.
“I’ve had six spinal taps over eight months to monitor my intracranial pressure, and two surgeries, eight weeks apart, to repair the fistulas. I have missed nearly an entire year of my life … I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to fly again.
“… the FDA, CDC, and NIH [National Institutes of Health] refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine.”
The letter also refers to the case of American Airlines pilot Wilburn Wolfe, who suffered a major seizure following his COVID vaccination. Wolfe died, though not while he was on duty.
It also cites the case of a Canadian flight in December 2021 that was forced to divert back to the airport shortly after takeoff because the pilot, who was recently vaccinated, passed out.
In other testimony from the November 2021 Senate proceedings, Long said the U.S. military was aware of the risks to its pilots, but chose to proceed with its vaccine mandate for service members.
Long said:
“Last May [2021], I attended the Senior Preventative Leadership Program for the Army. When we were given an opportunity to ask the senior leaders questions, I simply asked: ‘So we skipped two years of Phase 2 trials, and three years of Phase 3 trials? We only lost 12 active-duty soldiers to COVID — yet we’re going to risk the health of the entire fighting force, on a vaccine we only had two months of safety data on?’
“The response was: ‘You’re damn right, Colonel. And you’re going to get every soldier you can to take the vaccine so I can get enough data points to determine if the vaccine is safe.’”
Long said numerous soldiers told her about “threats and intimidation” they faced to get the vaccines that were still under the EUA. She said the Army Public Health Command was “not tracking, tracing or monitoring adverse events.”
Additional testimony from Long, cited in the letter, concerned military pilots she treated for vaccine injuries:
“I saw five patients in clinic, two of which presented with chest pain, days to weeks after vaccination, and were subsequently diagnosed with pericarditis …
“The third pilot had been vaccinated and felt like he was drunk, chronically fatigued within 24 hours after vaccination, [stating] he drank a lot of coffee to ‘try and wake himself up’, and continued to fly, until he realized the problem wasn’t going away.
“After I reported to my command my concerns that — in one morning — I’d had to ground 3 out of 3 pilots due to vaccine injuries, the next day my patients were canceled, my charts were pulled for review and I was told that I would not be seeing acute patients anymore, just healthy pilots there for their flight physical.”
The letter referenced 10 reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) involving pilots who sustained severe injuries and side effects following the COVID vaccine. According to the letter, these 10 examples are a mere sample of the total number of injuries reported by pilots.
These injuries and symptoms included:
- Heart attacks
- Atrial fibrillation
- Pericarditis
- Brain swelling
- Elevated intracranial pressure affecting the spinal cord and brain stem
- Sub-arachnoid hemorrhages (brain bleeding)
- Blindness
Statements from the VAERS reports include descriptions of vaccine injuries reported by pilots.
One report (VAERS ID: 1026783-1) stated:
“The physician determined … I had an allergic reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine [that] severely increased the pressure in my spinal cord and brain stem. That pressure causes my vision problems and ultimately ruptured my left inner ear, breaking off several crystals in the process. I cannot fly with this condition.”
Another pilot stated (VAERS ID: 1743012-1):
“Symptoms began almost immediately [post-vaccination] as constant dizziness, body aches, overall weakness. Two months later I woke up with chest pain and difficulty breathing … I was diagnosed with inflammation of the heart cavity and pulmonary arteries … I was later diagnosed with vasculitis, specifically aortitis.
“I was completely healthy prior to the vaccination and there is not a single member of my family with any of the listed conditions … [I am] awaiting a medical evaluation … to determine if I’m allowed to remain on flying status and in the military.”
Another report (VAERS ID: 1768479-1) submitted by a pilot described the following:
“[The] morning following injection, I experienced extreme dizziness and brain discomfort. Dizziness was bad enough to make walking difficult and even created motion sickness … heights of about 10 feet give bad vertigo.
“I am a pilot and aircraft mechanic and this creates an issue working on jets … brain fog is also long-lasting still [sic] and makes mental clarity difficult, which was never an issue until the day after the shot.
“My heart has created irregular heart rhythms, I have physical stress and tire easily and my muscles will shake and twitch after minimal effort … my cognitive skills seem to have diminished from the lasting brain fog.”
Another pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1358033-1): “2 days after second shot, blood clot in left arm. Hit while walking in my home. Could not lift my arm. 5 days later heart attack. Pilot with EKG yearly. Last EKG less than one month from [sic] my heart attack on April 29, 2021.”
And one pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1376453-1): “Severe vertigo experienced for four days and counting … as a professional helicopter pilot, I cannot perform my job with these symptoms.”
In one report (VAERS ID: 1702509-1), submitted by a doctor, a pilot who was also a triathlete experienced pericarditis, chest pressure and irregular heartbeat after vaccination, with pain that “radiated to [the] jaw and neck,” “pressure in the chest” and difficulty walking, despite no prior heart problems.
Another report (VAERS ID: 1245452-1) submitted by a doctor described how a 37-year-old pilot who received the Moderna vaccine, and who had no prior medical history of heart conditions, sustained atrial fibrillation and a decrease in thyroid hormones, leading to him being kept off duty.
In one case (VAERS ID: 1388581-1), a doctor who is also a commercial airline pilot reported “subarachnoid hemorrhage” and “associated nausea, vomiting and photophobia.” According to the VAERS report, the doctor “remains off work pending FAA evaluation.”
This sampling of reports from VAERS is likely only the tip of the iceberg, according to Dundas, who said:
“It’s known that there’s a 1% reporting rate to VAERS, that there’s 99% underreporting. So if you looked at what was already in there, within a few months of this [vaccine] being rolled out and mandated to the pilots, you rapidly did the math … and realized that we are absolutely destroying the health of our pilots.”
The military’s own database, Defense Medical Epidemiological Database, found similar instances of injuries, Dundas said:
“When you looked at the data that these high-ranking U.S. military doctors were seeing, what you rapidly realized is that in all of the years prior to 2021, for the five years preceding that point in time, the total cumulative number of incidents of disease and injury in this database were 1.7 million every single year.
“Then, in January 2021, the U.S. military decided to essentially mandate that their service members take the vaccine, and it was fortuitous that they did it in January; [this] made for a very clean cut in terms of analyzing the data set.
“Within the first nine months [of 2021], the total number of incidents of disease and injury in the U.S. armed forces jumped from a very stable baseline of 1.7 million per year … to almost 22 million … and the year wasn’t even over. That was just the first three quarters of 2021.
“[These were] injuries where military pilots were walking off of flight vehicles, clutching their chests, complaining of chest pain. The military refused to take that seriously and ordered the doctors who would normally be sending these soldiers for cardiac MRIs and EKGs to basically write it off as anxiety or some such [condition].”
Josh Yoder, a pilot with a major commercial airline, Army combat veteran and former flight medic, co-founded the U.S. Freedom Flyers (USFF), an organization opposing vaccine mandates for pilots.
In an interview with The Defender, Yoder said vaccine injuries among airline crews are “extremely common” and are being “actively covered up” by airline companies and the FAA.
Yoder told The Defender :
“U.S. Freedom Flyers receives almost daily communication from airline pilots who are flying with symptoms such as chest pain and neurological conditions post-vaccination. Most of them are afraid to come forward and seek medical attention for fear of losing their flight medicals.
“USFF has documented cases of blood clots, strokes, cardiac arrest, unconsciousness and sudden death among airline professionals which have been medically linked to the COVID-19 vaccinations.”
FAA ‘betting the farm’ a major catastrophe won’t occur
Dundas told The Defender the FAA is aware of these risks associated with the vaccines but is sweeping the problem under the rug.
She said the agency may be hoping “redundancy” in the cockpits of commercial airliners — meaning that two pilots are jointly in charge of flying the aircraft — will be enough to stave off a potential disaster.
“Where that analysis breaks down is during takeoff or landing,” Dundas said, “because during takeoff and landing, you’re not on autopilot. You’ve got both pilots fully engaged, but one of the pilots actively has his hands on the joystick and the controls.”
She added:
“If you’re 300 feet or 1,000 feet above, coming in for a landing … you’ve now got a massive gross muscle unit seizure as [the pilot’s] hand is on the yoke, that’s going to dip a wing and you’re going to have an entire plane full of people cartwheeling down the runway … probably with a mass fatality event at the end of the line.
“Even if you’re betting the farm, as I believe the FAA right now is, because they don’t have a choice, the water is already under the bridge on pilot redundancy. All it takes is bad timing for one of these events to occur on takeoff or landing. And you’ve got an unrecoverable airplane, [a] fatal crash, which the Department of Justice frowns upon.”
Yoder, also addressing this risk, said:
“Pilot redundancy is a critical component to aviation safety. The topic of adverse vaccine reaction and pilot redundancy is a complex one that requires in-depth analysis which the FAA has never studied.
“Critical phases of flight such as take-off or landing pose the greatest risk to passengers, should that be the moment a pilot experiences known side effects of these inoculations, such as blood clots, stroke, cardiac arrest or sudden death, which could lead to an unrecoverable event.”
FAA, airline industry violating federal regulations
In addition to numerous documented instances of pilots sustaining significant injuries and side effects — or even dying — as a result of the COVID vaccines, the letter also indicates the vaccination itself, let alone the vaccine mandates, may be in violation of federal regulations.
Specifically, the letter accuses the FAA, and the aviation industry, of:
“ … putting both pilots and the general public at risk of death and/or serious injury by operating in contravention of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, §61.53, and related guidance which together operate to disallow medical clearance of pilots who have injected or ingested non-FDA approved products — like the COVID-19 inoculation.”
The letter goes on to clarify this clause in the federal regulations prohibits aviation medical examiners from issuing medical clearances to pilots who use non-approved medical treatments, such as those that are being administered under an EUA instead of full FDA approval, and new medications fully approved by the FDA less than 12 months prior, stating that the FDA:
“ … generally requires at least one year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes.
“This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves…”
The letter further quotes the federal regulations as stipulating:
“[N]o person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person … [is] receiving treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.”
As stated in the letter:
“[P]ut simply, any pilot flying right now who has been vaccinated in the United States has almost certainly NOT [emphasis original] received an FDA-approved vaccine …
“And even were such pilots to have received an FDA-approved vaccine, under relevant federal regulations, the pilots should still not be flying for 12 more months …
“The reason for this cannot be overstated: history and common sense evince that significant time must elapse post-FDA approval to ensure that new medical products do not end up causing adverse effects (as did Thalidomide and glyphosate).
“This is particularly true when the individuals who are receiving such new, experimental medical products are spending significant amounts of time at high altitude, and are in control of large vehicles carrying hundreds of other passengers, who could all die or be severely injured should the operator suffer an adverse health event.”
As previously reported by The Defender, and as outlined in the letter, none of the COVID vaccines currently available and being administered in the U.S. have received full FDA approval.
“We’ve got the FAA, a federal regulatory body, that is charged with protecting the safety of the flying public, as well as pilot safety, ignoring their own rule and the guidance on it,” Dundas said.
“Here, we’ve got an inoculation that is wholly unapproved, at least in the U.S., and yet we’ve got major carriers … who are not just ignoring this rule, but mandating their pilots to take this. And we’re seeing hellacious, horrifying results,” she added.
Dundas said the letter clearly warns the government and airlines of the legal and financial liabilities they would face should an airline disaster occur that is traced back to an adverse vaccine-related event suffered by a pilot — especially as it would be on the record that these entities have been made aware of such a risk.
As legal precedent, she cited a $2.5 billion fine levied by the DOJ in January 2021 against Boeing for “fraud conspiracy” involving safety issues with the 737 Max airplane, stemming from Boeing’s concealment from regulators of potential safety issues involving that model of aircraft.
The settlement included payments to the families of passengers who were killed in crashes involving the 737 Max.
Dundas likened the vaccine injury data involving pilots to the internal 1977 Ford Motor Company “smoking gun” memo that revealed the company was aware of safety issues with the Pinto model of automobiles but considered it more cost-effective to pay off future victims than to issue a recall and rectify the problem.
“Essentially what I was doing with the way I crafted the letter was … I was putting all the players in the industry, the regulator, the airline companies and the insurers for the companies, on notice that you probably have a problem here based on the numbers [of adverse vaccine events affecting pilots] that we are seeing,” Dundas said.
The letter provides an estimate of the likely amount of compensation that would result from a hypothetical accident if it could be traced back to an issue the airlines and regulators were aware of: $2 million to $3 million per person.
This amount, according to Dundas, would be “separate from punitive [actions], from fines assessed by the DOJ.”
Did letter cause FAA director to resign?
In February, then-FAA director Steve Dickson suddenly announced his resignation, effective March 2022, claiming it was “time to go home” to his family.
Dickson, however, had previously faced controversy. For instance, during his confirmation as FAA director, allegations arose that during his previous tenure overseeing the pilots of Delta Air Lines, a Delta pilot was grounded in 2016 after she raised concerns regarding the airline’s approach to managing safety risk.
According to Yoder, the real reasons for his resignation may have had less to do with a desire to spend more time with his family and more to do with the hand-delivered letter he received in December 2021.
“Dickson’s resignation came on the heels of the tremendous pressure being applied to the agency via Leigh Dundas’ FAA letter, along with back-channel communication and media attention from [the] U.S. Freedom Flyers,” Yoder said.
Dickson’s promotion of unapproved experimental vaccines for pilots, which violates the FAA’s own guidance, caused a dangerous situation for not only pilots but also the flying public, Yoder said.
“Documented cases of pilots experiencing severe adverse reactions in flight accrue daily, thanks to an inept response from the FAA,” he said. “Internal reports from FAA employees reveal a scandal-ridden agency which needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.”
“The FAA’s primary charter is safety and they have failed miserably by approving experimental vaccines for pilots with zero long-term safety studies.”
According to Yoder, the FAA, even following Dickson’s resignation, does not appear to have taken concrete actions in response to the letter.
“Rather than being proactive, the FAA and the airlines have chosen to ignore a prominent passenger safety issue,” Yoder said.
“Historically, it’s taken a fatal crash or series of near misses to execute change within the agency. Fundamental change to safety policy within the FAA is typically written in blood,” he said.
According to Dundas, a recent spate of widespread flight cancellations and protracted delays in late 2021 and up to the present — frequently blamed by airlines on such factors as poor weather — are in fact connected to pilot action in relation to the vaccine mandates, for two reasons: opposition to the mandates, and an abundance of caution by pilots who call in sick at the first sign of any symptoms of illness:
“I think it’s twofold, and I think you’re seeing two things and they’re very logical,” Dundas said, noting that pilots, along with certain other transportation employees, are technically not allowed to go on strike without first exhausting their collective bargaining remedies. That’s the federal law that’s been in existence for decades.
“But this is a cat of a different color,” Dundas said. “You are mandating, against other federal law … an inoculation that you’re not allowed to mandate, and it’s likely unconstitutional.”
“So you have a lot of sectors in transportation that are really not happy saying get the jab, get the jab or your job is going goodbye,” she said.
Dundas added:
“What you saw … were segments of these transportation sectors saying, ‘you know what, we operate heavy machinery and we are required as well by rule and law in many cases to not operate these large pieces of equipment if we are remotely under the weather.’
“So, I think you saw a convergence of two variables. I think you saw pilots who were unhappy at being made to work in unsafe working conditions … in conjunction with a pilot population that was getting now not just the first shot, but the second shot and/or the third shot and a cumulative consequence and concatenation of adverse health events.
“[T]hey [the pilots] are, in many cases, highly educated, caring human beings, [who] wake up in the morning and go, ‘You know what, I’m not 100%, I’m not fit to fly, I’m going to call out sick because I don’t want to take other people down with me if I’m about to have a stroke.’”
Dundas said a recent flight of hers from Salt Lake City was delayed for almost a full day following an adverse event affecting one of the flight attendants scheduled to work on that flight.
Dundas also cited conversations with pilots who told her “they wanted no part of the mandate.”
According to Dundas, the reasons for their opposition were described in the following terms:
“[W]e see our colleagues dying and or stroking out or having cardiovascular events that they are not recovering from.
“And so, we quit rather than sacrifice our health or possibly our lives. And now we’re flying charters [private aviation] where [COVID vaccination] is not a mandate, it’s not required.”
Letter calls on FAA, airlines to take immediate action
The letter from Advocates for Citizens’ Rights calls for immediate action by federal authorities and air carriers, including:
- Medically flagging all vaccinated pilots.
- Adaptation, on the part of the FAA, of a screening program requiring all vaccinated pilots to undergo medical recertification, including D-Dimer, Troponin, and EKG tests, as well as cardiac MRIs, with medical clearance issued to vaccinated pilots only if they present “a clean bill of health on ALL [emphasis added] tests.”
- Medically decertifying and grounding any pilot who fails one or more of the aforementioned tests, or who otherwise displays symptoms of possible blood clotting issues or myocarditis; re-testing these pilots at six-week intervals until they return to a medically acceptable condition.
- Allowing commercial aircraft to be operated only by pilots who can show a clean medical examination undertaken a minimum of five days after each COVID vaccination and booster shot, stating that “the current FAA wait time of two (2) days is insufficient to detect a significant number of blood clotting and myocarditis cases (which are manifesting more than 47 hours post-inoculation).”
- Immediate investigation, on the part of the FAA, of all commercial air carriers and all insurance companies providing coverage to commercial airlines, regarding the application of federal do-not-fly regulations.
- Creation, by the FAA, of “a database to track pilot adverse events in a manner similar to VAERS,” stating the likelihood that “medical adverse events post-vaccination in pilot populations are occurring at greater rates than have been tracked or monitored in either civilian or military populations …”
“[A]ny in-house counsel, any CEO, any insurance company number-cruncher, any airline regulator who reads this [letter] is going to be nothing if not clear about the fact that … there is a problem brewing,” Dundas said.
“Right now, they have completely abandoned their duty to both the pilot population and the American flying population by allowing carriers to mandate a non-FDA-approved medical intervention, in violation of their own regulations and guidance,” she added.
Yoder expressed his unease with the current level of safety of air travel as a result of the vaccine mandate for pilots, stating that passengers are taking a risk by flying.
“Every time a passenger flies with a fully vaccinated crew, they are accepting a predictable risk that their pilots have been injected with an inoculation which has known side effects of blood clots, strokes, myocarditis, all of which can lead to cardiac arrest, incapacitation and sudden death,” he said.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
MIT’s Dean of Science responds to me: She’s NOT interested in looking at the vax safety data!
She has intellectual curiosity in all areas of science… except the vaccines
Steve Kirsch with MIT Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala taken April 15, 2022 at MIT breakfast in Palo Alto
By Steve Kirsch | April 15, 2022
Summary
The Dean of Science at MIT believes open discussion to resolve differences of scientific opinion should be encouraged. That’s the good news.
However, when I asked her whether she would publicly call for such a discussion for the vaccines, her answer was “No.” That’s the bad news.
I also asked her if I could show her data that would change her mind. Her answer was, “No.”
This is an important issue; it is an issue that affects the health of every MIT student, staff, and faculty member. She knows that there are two legitimate sides of this issue because she knows that at least one MIT faculty member agrees with me that the COVID vaccines are dangerous. Yet open discussion on this is forbidden at MIT. They simply are not interested in hearing from anyone with any credentials (such as my colleagues) who is able to challenge their policies.
Dean Mavalvala should be actively facilitating the resolution of this important issue by calling for an open discussion. Instead, she is stonewalling and hoping it will go away. She’s wrong. It won’t.
My meeting with Dean Mavalvala
I was able to speak personally to the Dean of Science at MIT today thanks to an MIT breakfast scheduled 10 minutes from my home.
As you can see from the photo above, she’s fully bought into the mainstream narrative that masks work even though the science says they don’t work at all (and it isn’t even a close call). So I didn’t think my conversation would go that well. I was right.
I started off asking her why nobody at MIT would sponsor my talk. She said that the faculty sponsor must be both familiar with and supportive of the body of work.
OK, so that’s actually a reasonable response. No objection from me.
She also knew that Professor Retsef Levi had agreed to sponsor my talk on the MIT campus. But it wasn’t MIT who located Professor Levi. I was the one who found Professor Levi. He subscribes to my Substack and saw my frustration and reached out to me.
Professor Levi is a hero… one of the few (perhaps only) MIT faculty members who independently looked at the data and came to the same (obvious) conclusion that the vaccines were bad news. All of his attempts to persuade other MIT faculty members to look at the underlying data were unsuccessful. So now I don’t feel so bad. It’s not just me. People just don’t like to be shown they are wrong…especially on something that is life threatening.
I asked Dean how I could convince her that the MIT policies on the vaccine and masking were wrong. She replied that science advances through peer-reviewed research.
I said sure, but that process has been corrupted. She agreed with that but said that’s the way it is.
She was not interested in looking at any data that would challenge her beliefs that the vaccines are safe and effective
Next, I asked if I could meet with her to share the data showing the vaccines are unsafe. She said she was not interested in that because that isn’t her field.
That’s interesting because right after our conversation, she gave a talk about how she is fascinated by all areas of science and loves her job as Dean since she gets to learn about all the cool stuff going on at MIT.
Yet she is not interested in seeing data that challenges her beliefs that affect everyone at MIT, and that has likely caused injury and perhaps death of MIT students, staff, and faculty members. So her intellectual curiosity basically stops at the point that I challenge her strongly held beliefs.
I said that it is really important that there should be an OPEN discussion between the different points of view on the vaccine. She agreed.
She then gave her talk.
After the talk, I asked her if she would “walk the talk.” Specifically, would she publicly call out the “experts” who refuse to be challenged to have an open discussion with those who have differing views?
Her answer was “no” she wouldn’t call for this because she thinks the vaccines are safe.
I pressed her on this. I believe that her role as Dean of Science at MIT includes championing science in public policy. When public policy is based on bad science, all our science leaders should be speaking out about that. At that very instant, she and her handlers insisted that “she had to leave” before she could answer my question.
So I then sent her the following email offering to finish the conversation.
Dean Mavalvala,
I’m sorry you were rushed at the end and we didn’t have time to continue our conversation.
This is important to resolve as we believe that over 100,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccine and we have 10 different ways to show that. If we are right, the vaccines should be immediately stopped and not mandated at MIT.
I would like to finish our conversation on a zoom call. It would take less than 5 minutes.
I think you have a responsibility to call for the right thing which is an open discussion between the two sides. You agreed this was the right thing to do before your speech.
This isn’t going to be resolved by “peer reviewed science” since that process has been corrupted (which you acknowledged). Also, resolution of differences through publication of peer reviewed studies is a laborious, time consuming process that has been corrupted.
It’s important to have the disagreements over the vaccine resolved ASAP as a huge number of Americans refuse to be vaccinated. Are they justified? It’s a matter of great public concern.
Open discussions are a faster, more efficient way to resolve such differences. This is especially important when we are in a state of emergency.
For example, in less than 2 hours, we were able to resolve all of our issues with the Bangladesh mask study due to the interactive nature of the discussion. In just 2 hours, it became clear to any objective viewer that the study failed to show masks worked. This would have taken years to resolve via peer review since there would be conflicting papers.
In addition, science is supposed to encourage resolution of differences through discussion and debate rather than censorship.
I note that the scientists who disagree with the mainstream narrative WANT an open discussion/debate on the key issues.
Yet those who claim the vaccines are safe and effective WANT censorship and REFUSE to be held accountable.
For example, this happened in Canada where 3 top Canadian scientists asked for a discussion with Canada’s health authorities. The authorities did not show up at the table. They sent no one. How do we resolve our differences when the other side is afraid to show up at the table?
As Dean of Science at MIT you should be speaking out publicly against the censorship of scientists because you should be a defender of Science. Similarly, I believe you should call for those who promote the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety to accept challenges from legitimate qualified scientists. You could say this is not your role, but the fact is that no other prominent person is stepping up to the plate to do this. As a defender of science, it is your responsibility to step in and make things right, don’t you think? If not, who will?
-steve
I will let you know if I hear back. Don’t hold your breath.
If you know anyone at MIT, be sure to share this article with them.
More Than 1 Million COVID Vaccine Injuries, Nearly 27,000 Deaths Reported to VAERS: CDC Data
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | April 15, 2022
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,226,314 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 8, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 26,976 reports of deaths — an increase of 277 over the previous week — and 219,865 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 2,564 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 805,921 adverse events, including 12,471 deaths and 79,811 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 8, 2022.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 12,471 U.S. deaths reported as of April 8, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 21% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 564 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of April 8, including 334 million doses of Pfizer, 212 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
- 10,216 adverse events, including 242 rated as serious and 5 reported deaths.
- 18 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department. - 39 reports of blood clotting disorders.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
- 31,048 adverse events, including 1,792 rated as serious and 44 reported deaths.
- 67 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
- 651 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, with 639 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
- 166 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to April 8, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
- 20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
- 54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
- The average age of death was 73.
- As of April 8, 5,404 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 1,6936 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
- Of the 3,647 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 40% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
- 860 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 42% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 30% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.
- 2,373 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
- 1,671 reports of myocardial infarction.
- 13,755 reports of blood-clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 6,169 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 4,911 reports to Moderna and 2,654 reports to J&J.
- 4,124 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 2,531 cases attributed to Pfizer, 1,402 cases to Moderna and 181 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Woman develops fatal brain disease after second Moderna dose
Carol Beauchine died from sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), a rapidly evolving, fatal degenerative brain disorder she developed after her second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Carol’s son, Jeffrey Beauchine, said it was excruciating to watch his 70-year-old mother — who was healthy until she got the vaccine — die from a disease he believes the vaccine caused.
Beauchine said Carol received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.” She developed numbness that spread throughout the entire left side of her body, blindness and hearing loss. She lost the ability to walk and communicate, and her brain degenerated until she passed away on Aug. 2, 2021 — just five months after receiving her second dose of Moderna.
The family submitted a report to VAERS, but the CDC has not followed up on Carol’s death. The Defender has received numerous reports of people who died from sporadic CJD after receiving a COVID vaccine — all women who were between the ages of 60 and 70, including Cheryl Cohen and Jennifer Deason Sprague.
Biden administration extends COVID public health emergency needed to keep vaccines under EUA
The Biden administration on Wednesday extended the COVID public health emergency, now two years old, for an additional 90 days — allowing vaccines and other drugs to remain under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Keeping COVID vaccines and other countermeasures under EUA shields pharmaceutical companies from liability for the harms caused by their products.
According to Reuters, a public health emergency was initially announced in January 2020, when the COVID pandemic began. It has been renewed each quarter since and was due to expire on April 16.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a statement it was extending the public health emergency and will give states 60 days’ notice prior to termination or expiration. This may be the last time HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra extends it, according to policy experts.
Pfizer to seek authorization from FDA for COVID booster shot for kids 5 to 11 years old
Pfizer and BioNTech Thursday said they plan to apply for EUA of a COVID booster dose for healthy 5- to 11-year-olds based on the results of a small study that has not been published or analyzed by independent experts.
Pfizer said in a press release the third dose of its vaccine produced significant protection against the Omicron variant in children 5 to 11 in a small Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The study was based on data from only 140 children 5 through 11 years old who received a booster dose six months after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine as part of the primary series.
Pfizer claimed a closer look at 30 children showed a 36-fold increase in virus-fighting antibodies — levels high enough to fight the Omicron variant, and that a third dose was “well tolerated with no new safety signals observed.”
Although Pfizer said more than 10,000 children under the age of 12 have participated in clinical trials investigating Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, only 140 were selected for the study forming the basis for the company’s EUA request.
CDC launches internal review over failed COVID response
The CDC announced Monday it was launching a month-long comprehensive agency-wide review following widespread criticism of the agency’s response to the COVID pandemic.
The agency plans to evaluate its structure, systems and processes, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told staff in an email obtained by The Washington Post. Walensky said the goal of the review is to “modernize” the agency and “to position CDC, and the public health community, for greatest success in the future.”
The review will be conducted by Jim Mcrae, associate administrator for primary healthcare at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The HRSA and the CDC are part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Last month, the CDC’s decision to remove from its data tracker website tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID — including nearly a quarter of the deaths the agency said had occurred among children — eroded public trust in the CDC’s handling of case counts.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Featured Video
Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Because no animal reservoir has been found for SARS-CoV-2, it cannot properly be termed a zoonosis.* Should we call it a labnosis? And what does that mean?
By Meryl Nass, MD | July 12, 2021
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
- The Targeted Assassination of Studies Showing Vaccines Cause Injury
- BMJ Probe Into Excess Mortality Study Drags On for Two Years With No Resolution
- Securing Peace with Iran Compels Trump to Divorce Israel
- Old Iraq war architects rise up to wag finger at Trump’s Iran deal
- Strait of Hormuz closed over Israeli aggression on Lebanon
- Keir Starmer arson mysteries multiply
- IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
- Zelensky threatens to attack Belarus
- UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones
- If Americans Knew
- Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed
- FARA Docs: Israel is Spying On Millions Of Christian Americans In Their Churches
- Why US presidents from both parties end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu
- Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show
- Deaths in Gaza undercounted, possibly by 100s of thousands; “Psychopath” Ben-Gvir talks trash – Daily Update
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- Greek Orthodox Patriarchate denounces Israeli seizure of church land in Jerusalem
- How Hillel International uses antisemitism training and ‘campus climate’ concerns to attack Palestine solidarity
- Old Iraq war architects rise up against Trump’s Iran deal
- No Tricks Zone
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
Aletho News 