Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The DOJ Is Hiring Tort Lawyers To Defend HHS From Vaccine Injury Cases

The new vaccines: so safe that the Biden regime needs to settle lots of injury cases now!

By Emerald Robinson | The Right Way | March 21, 2022

The Biden regime’s DOJ apparently needs to hire at least four new tort lawyers to help with vaccine injury cases against HHS — according to a new job posting on the federal government’s official hiring site USAJOBS.

The job posting is only open for a month —so they need them now.

Here’s the job description (italics are mine):

Trial attorneys in Office of Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation – Vaccine Litigation Staff – represent the interests of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in all cases filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”). The cases involve claims of injury as a result of the receipt of vaccines covered by the Act. The position offers a unique experience in public service and involves trial practice. The legal and medical issues at stake in each case vary. Trial attorneys independently manage heavy caseloads, and while streamlined procedures are utilized, many cases involve complex scientific issues of causation that require employment of experts in medical fields such as pediatrics, neurology, immunology and epidemiology. In cases in which petitioners are found entitled to compensation, the litigation often requires retention and management of experts to develop an appropriate life care plan for the injured party — to include medical treatment, remedial care, rehabilitation, calculation of lost earnings, actuarial projections and structured settlements.

Attorneys appear frequently before the Office of Special Masters in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and also appear before the judges of the Court, as well as in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when handling appeals. Responsibilities include factual and legal research, medical record review, brief writing, and working with expert witnesses to develop the defense of claims, as well as to address the life care needs of vaccine-injured petitioners. As the majority of cases are resolved through settlement, attorneys also engage regularly in settlement negotiations, including alternative dispute resolution, and drafting settlement memoranda and related documents. Due to a recent increase in cases filed under the Vaccine Act, the office is expanding to address the additional workload.

Notice that the candidates will need “top secret” security clearances to do their jobs. Now why would you need a top secret clearance to do vaccine injury settlements? My guess: the Biden regime will try to hide the roles of Dr. Fauci and Dr. Baric and DARPA/Moderna (and all the rest of them at the Pentagon and NIH) in creating COVID-19 by designating the obvious truth as classified information. It’s all bioweapons research after all.

That’s exactly how the U.S. government works.

March 22, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Poll: Vaccinated People Far More Likely to Support Risking WWIII Over Ukraine

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | March 22, 2022

A new poll finds that vaccinated people are far more likely to risk World War III over Ukraine by supporting aggressive measures against Russia, while unvaccinated people are more likely to support diplomatic measures.

The revealing results of the survey, which was conducted by EKOS, were published by the Toronto Star.

Canadians who have received “three or more shots” massively supported expanding sanctions (86%), seizing Russians assets (85%), cutting off shipments of Russian oil (81%) and sending additional military equipment to Ukraine (82%). Over half (52%) supported providing Ukraine with fighter jets.

On the flip side, unvaccinated Canadians were far less likely to support measures that would serve to escalate the conflict.

Indeed, a majority of unvaccinated (52%) don’t support any of the measures listed at all.

“The overwhelming majority probably would have said “use diplomacy” if it was an option but the warhawks behind the poll left it off the list,” comments Chris Menahan.

The insightful poll results back up the claims of many, that the COVID narrative was switched for ‘support Ukraine’ virtually overnight by the media and the unthinking masses immediately displayed their ideological subservience.

NPCs were able to seamlessly transfer from zealous support for vaccines and vitriolic denunciations of anyone who didn’t get one, to zealous support for Ukraine and vitriolic denunciations of anyone who didn’t fully swallow the war narrative.

It seems that mass support for whatever ‘current thing’ the political class and culture demands has become a form of cognitive addiction.

Humanity is seemingly dependent on defining itself by lurching from one crisis to another and weaponizing it to ostracize, publicly shame and deplatform dissidents who suggest all may not be as it seems.

Samizdat adds:

The poll also revealed how the two groups feel about the reasons for the conflict, with 88% of vaccinated respondents saying the repression of Russian speakers in the Donbass region does not justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The unvaccinated, however, are more split on the question, with 26% saying Russia’s military operation is justified, 27% saying it isn’t, and 35% saying they neither agree nor disagree with it.

The vaccinated also say, almost unanimously (88%), that Russia is guilty of war crimes in Ukraine, while only 32% of unvaxxed respondents agree, and 42% say they don’t believe it is happening at all.

EKOS President Frank Graves said he found the poll results alarming, suggesting that vaccine refusers were “much more sympathetic to Russia,” and that it showcased the “highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”

“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” Graves said, as reported by the Toronto Star.

“I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”

March 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Clueless CDC Admits They Never Suspected Waning Vaccines

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 21, 2022

March 3, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky answered questions in front of medical students at her alma mater, Washington University. This is an excerpt of the 45-minute presentation,1 during which Walensky made several statements about the public health response to COVID-19 in the past two years, admitting the CDC had relied heavily on vaccines, that she’d learned of the 95% efficacy from CNN and was not told the shots would lose effectiveness.

In fact, much of her presentation is riddled with statements that likely revealed more than she intended. She might not have realized the presentation was being taped or thought a taped presentation in front of medical students wouldn’t be found. Or maybe, the CDC simply doesn’t care that what they say in 2022 is the same information that caused many to be censored or maligned in 2020 and 2021.

It would be an interesting test to repeat her statements on social media today to see if the information would be tagged as misinformation or disinformation now that the CDC has publicly recognized what scientists have been saying for years.

Walensky Admits Her Source Was CNN

Walensky was invited to speak to the medical students at Washington University as the 2022 Gerald Medoff Visiting Professor in the Department of Medicine. During the interview conducted by Dr. William G. Powderly, co-director of the Division of Infectious Diseases, she was asked what the CDC got right and how that might affect the response to future pandemics. Three minutes into her answer, she said:2

“Where could we have improved? Well, you know, I think … I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, um, the vaccine. So many of us wanted it to be helpful. Many of us wanted to say, “OK, this is our ticket out.” Right? Now we’re done.”

This may be a mind-blowing admission — that the head of the CDC’s information came from a CNN news report and not from Pfizer. It turns out the CNN report was a regurgitated Pfizer press release. Investigative journalist Paul Thacker, writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, discusses the timeline of events that led to Walensky believing the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.3

It is likely the CNN report Walensky is referring to was published November 18, 20204 by Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy, who it appears did little to augment the story after pulling information from a Pfizer press release published the same day.5 What is remarkable, and unfortunate, is that a story in CNN influenced Walensky’s thinking about the vaccine and future guidance from the CDC.

It turns out it is even more deplorable since it wasn’t a story but a republished press release. Also interesting is that it took two CNN reporters to present one republished press release/story. As Thacker writes, “The Pfizer press release became CNN headline, became CDC pandemic policy.” Walensky went on to say during the interview:6

“So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way. I really do. I think all of us wanted this to be done. Nobody said waning, when you know, oh this vaccine is going to work. Oh well, maybe it’ll work — (laughs) it’ll wear off. Nobody said what if the next variant doesn’t, it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant.”

Thacker dug into the published transcript7 of a Pfizer earnings call held February 2, 2021, in which an analyst from global financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald asked four pointed questions.

  1. If the COVID vaccine becomes routine, how do you think governments and physicians will choose among these vaccines that have received emergency use authorization?
  2. And then how do you think about that 95% efficacy rate in light of mutations?
  3. And the last question is on your PCV20, if it’s approved, what do you expect the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendation to be your — what would you ideally like it to be?
  4. And do you think there will be any upgrade for those 65-plus due to the additional serotypes?

It seems interesting that the analyst from Cantor Fitzgerald understood enough to ask about whether the vaccine would be effective against a virus nearly every scientist in the world expected to mutate. And yet, Walensky did not consider the possibility,8 despite having been a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School with years of experience dealing with viruses.9

Where Does the COVID ‘Science’ Come From?

When asked about the ACIP recommendation, Pfizer responded, “And then to your question about ACIP. Of course, we’re working closely with the FDA for approval and with the CDC at the right moments in time to get the right recommendation.”10 Many believe that the “right recommendation” was not given, yet Pfizer likely got exactly what they wanted from the CDC.

Walensky has overruled or avoided asking the ACIP’s advice on COVID booster issues at least three times, according to a STAT News report.11 As Thacker writes, this sequence of events is:12

“… direct evidence of a corporation influencing federal policy by laundering their press release through media outlets like CNN. Further, republishing press releases seems a pervasive practice in how the media covers COVID-19 vaccines — meaning, they don’t do much reporting. This has been obvious since late 2020.”

Walensky’s presentation at Washington University was just days after it was revealed that Biden and the CDC are parroting talking points developed by the same firm that conducted polling for Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.13 The memo sent February 24, 2022, closely matches statements Biden used in the State of the Union Address.

In other words, it appears that at least some of the “science” driving public health policy for COVID-19 and destroying the economy is coming directly from Impact Research,14 who are “the proud pollsters for President Joe Biden” and whose marketing includes “electing Democrats in the toughest districts,” “electing presidents” and “crafting the most authentic and persuasive language for your communications.”

Two days after Walensky spoke at Washington University, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, wrote,15 “She’s right. Nobody could possibly have known variants might be a problem.” Under this, he posted a tweet dated January 20, 2021, in which he had posted, “Spoiler alert: the vaccines probably don’t work against at least one new variant and they’re going to want you to get vaccinated again next fall.”

By August, Twitter banned Berenson permanently for “repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”16 The tweet that put Twitter over the edge compared the vaccine to a “therapeutic “with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile.” He also questioned vaccine mandates.”

Data supporting limited efficacy17 and terrible side effects18,19 are not difficult to find. In fact, Walensky admitted the vaccine has limited efficacy to Washington University — will Twitter ban her?

Walensky Knows She’s Wrong for Half the Country

Midway through the interview, Powderly asked how Walensky balances the risks of infectious disease against the mental health and economic risks from decisions the CDC has made. Her response was telling:20

“This is such an important question. The easy answer is I know I’m going to be wrong for half the country (laugh) so now that I’ve accepted that um … some fraction of people will be unhappy.

We are looking under the lamppost of all the cases and all the deaths and there have been so many other things that we’re counting that don’t make the headlines — opioid deaths, mental health challenges, cancer screening. I’ve heard from colleagues of people who came in whose elective surgeries were deferred who now come in with metastatic disease.”

Minutes before, she was asked what she thought the next couple of years would look like. She started by saying, “So this is a safe space because every piece of advice I’ve gotten is don’t predict what’s going to happen.”21 The implication appears to be that she didn’t think what she said would be made public. She went on to predict that in the months ahead she believes:

“… [O]verall immunity is going to hold us in good stead. I don’t know whether we’re going to need another boost and I don’t know when and I don’t know what that’s going to look like but I do think ultimately we will have a good level of population immunity for variants that come our way … Ultimately we will have a coronavirus that will lead to death in some people every season, that we will tolerate in some way.”

This coronavirus that will lead to death every season sounds amazingly like seasonal flu. The final estimates by the CDC22 of the 2017-2018 flu season showed 41 million people were symptomatic with an estimated 18.9 million who received medical care, 710,572 who were hospitalized and 51,646 who died.

She also hinted that mask-wearing may be here to stay, saying, “I haven’t had a cold in a really long time, and I suspect we don’t miss those.”23 Yet, Walensky has also admitted that the CDC’s mask policy for public schools to reopen was influenced by teachers’ unions who were against in-person learning.

In other words, the guidelines for children to wear masks throughout their school day were not developed based on science but, rather, on “hearing firsthand from parents and teachers directly about their experiences and concerns.” and “superintendents, principals, civil rights groups, and all sorts of other folks.”24

Despite History, CDC Is Calling for Transparency

Anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored, questioned and fake “fact-checked” so the debate over science would never see the light of day. Mainstream media outlets took up the banner, quashing any information that didn’t neatly fit the story.

If data might demonstrate that the vaccine was not functioning the way it was promised, then the CDC25 withheld the information and Health and Human Services26 stopped tracking hospital deaths related to COVID-19. But they haven’t been able to stop the data coming from Israel,27 the U.K,28 Germany29 and insurance companies.30

During Walensky’s appearance, she said she was “proud of our ability to get data out,”31 in reference to the vaccine. She indicated that they used a “pedal-to-the-metal”32 system to analyze and assimilate data that was published, on average, every 48 hours. Yet, her comments are in direct contradiction to a recent investigative report published in The New York Times33 that shows the CDC was not transparently publishing “large portions” of vaccine data.

In fact, Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-administered34 by the FDA and CDC. During her January 11, 2022, testimony before the Senate,35 Walensky clearly stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS using the example of an individual who gets vaccinated, hit by a car and dies.

She implied without outright stating that this death would also be recorded in VAERS and logged as a death related to the vaccine. In other words, she skirted the issue without having to outright lie to the Senate.

Just days before she declared her pride in the CDC’s ability to publish accurate and informative data, The New York Times36 revealed that the FDA had been aware the COVID shots were only 12% effective in children under the age of 5. However, they withheld the information before a scheduled meeting on February 15, 2022, which was subsequently canceled. According to the Times :37

“Experts worried that the news would further dissuade hesitant parents from immunizing their children. Other studies have shown the vaccine was not powerfully protective against infection with the Omicron variant in adults, either.”

Will the Gaslighting Stop?

During the interview, Walensky alluded to people in the media who “reject evidence,” saying,38 “You know in the media now, there are a lot of people who are using their voice that may or may not be helpful for public health … then that decreases public health in general so our messaging I think we have to be clear about.”

The information that Walensky revealed during the interview makes you wonder about who’s making public health decisions and why. It’s difficult to imagine and scary to think that after two years, one of the largest and most powerful health care agencies in the U.S. is led by a director who is potentially uninformed, or worse, purposefully misleading the public.

In approximately 35 short minutes Walensky revealed much. While she characterizes those who reject her propaganda as “rejecting evidence” since scientific debate is no longer part of the scientific process according to the CDC, it’s interesting to note that she:

  • Admits learning about the Pfizer 95% efficacy — information which was then used to formulate CDC guidelines — from a CNN report,39 which was nothing more than a republished press release from Big Pharma.40
  • Believes the CDC is transparently publishing data in a “pedal-to-the-metal” scenario41 even though The New York Times uncovered evidence the CDC is withholding data.42
  • Believes that no one told her or the CDC that a virus may mutate and render the vaccine ineffective,43 yet a financial analyst was astute enough to ask the question.44
  • Isn’t sure if we will need another booster45 after Pfizer told the world last year that a fourth dose may be needed sooner than expected.46
  • Blames the “public” at large for believing “the science” is black and white despite her colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who as director of the NIAID, has been the face of COVID-19 for the White House, claiming HE was the science.47 Walensky now admits: “I think the public heard that science is black and white, science is immediate … and the truth is, science is gray.”48

Sources and References

March 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

CHD Wins Federal District Court Injunction On DC’s Minor Consent for Vaccinations Act

Children’s Health Defense | March 21, 2022

Washington, DC – On March 18, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting a preliminary injunction to prohibit the mayor of the District of Columbia, the D.C. Department of Health and D.C. public schools from enforcing the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Act of 2020 until further order of the court.

“This is a major legal victory for children, parental rights, and informed consent,” said Rolf Hazlehurst, senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) who argued the case. “Government overreach such as this has dire implications for children’s health and the constitutional rights of citizens.”

The D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Act of 2020, allows children eleven years of age and older to consent to vaccinations without their parents’ knowledge or consent. The law specifically targets children whose parents have religious exemptions for their children. The D.C. Act contains several provisions designed to deceive parents and hide the fact that their children have been vaccinated against their parental judgment, authority or religious convictions.

The court order states that the parents “have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits because the District’s law requires providers to hide children’s vaccination status from parents who invoke their religious exemption rights…”

The D.C. Minor Consent Act requires health care providers to falsify records by leaving the child’s school vaccination records “blank.” The doctors may bill the parents’ insurance companies for the vaccines administered to the children against the parents’ written directive. However, to deceive the parents, insurance companies may not send the parents an Explanation of Benefits (EOB).

CHD and Parental Rights Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a court order to declare the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 unconstitutional. Plaintiffs, (Booth, et al.) are four parents of minor children who attend public school in Washington, D.C. Oral arguments were heard on March 3, 2022.

In the opinion issued on Friday, March 18, the court found the parents likely to succeed on the merits in their arguments that the D.C. Act is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, the D.C. Act is preempted by federal law because it directly contradicts the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The D.C. Act also violates the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hazlehurst argued that the District has created a “pressure-cooker environment, enticing and psychologically manipulating [minor children] to defy their parents and take vaccinations against their parents’ will.”

The Plaintiffs overcame a high legal hurdle that “threatened injury must be certainly impending” as established by the U.S. Supreme Court precedent  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l., in part by the use of a drawing entitled “Peer Pressure,” drawn by one of the plaintiff’s children. The drawing depicts the dilemma children face at school when they do not want to get the COVID vaccine or have been advised by their parents not to take the shot.

“This preliminary injunction is part of ongoing litigation in an extremely important national precedent-setting case,” said Hazlehurst. “The rights of parents to decide what is best for their children’s health is at stake. Government can’t be allowed to make such decisions for minor children.”

Two similar but separate lawsuits, Booth (argued  by CHD/Parental Rights Foundation) and Mazer (supported by Informed Consent Action Network), were filed against the D.C. Minor Consent Act. In both Booth and Mazer, the court ruled the plaintiffs have “standing” based on preemption because the D.C. Minor Consent Act conflicts with Congress’ National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. In CHD’s  Booth case, the court made the additional finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that the D.C. Minor Consent Act violates the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden stated, “Removing the law would revert the District to the standard age of consent of 18.” Although the case is not yet final, the preliminary injunction reverts D.C. to the standard age of consent of 18.

###

Children’s Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Its mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. For more information, visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org.

CHD Links:

a) 1 of 38-page document- PI Memo Opinion DC Minor Case:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/PI-memo-opinion-DC-minor-case.pdf

b) 1 of 2-page document- Booth Preliminary Injunction Order:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Booth-Preliminary-Injunction-Order.pdf

c) 1 of 88-page document- #31 Amended Complaint:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/31-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-against-All-Defendants-filed-by-SHANITA-WILLIAMS-SHAMEKA-WILLIAMS-VICTOR-M.-BOOTH-JANE-HELLEWELL.-AttachmentsHazlehurst-Rolf.pdf

d) 1 of 131-page document- #31 Appendix:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/31-1-Appendix.pdf

e) DC Plaintiff Drawing (Exhibit 11 & timestamp included):
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Exhibit-11-DC-plaintiff-drawing-.png

March 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

The Legal Right to Refuse Medical Treatment in the U.S.A.

Ronald B. Standler, Esq. has produced an extraordinary resource that summarizes key legal precedents

By Toby Rogers | March 20, 2022

I want to draw your attention to an extraordinary legal resource that I just discovered (hat tip to the brilliant @blueivyrose_ on Instagram). It’s a document prepared by Massachusetts lawyer Ronald B. Standler titled Legal Right to Refuse Medical Treatment in the U.S.A.

It summarizes all of the key court cases (up until 2012 when it was published) that establish the legal right to refuse medical treatment. He writes,

This essay discusses the history of judicial opinions that hold a mentally competent adult patient has the legal right in the USA to refuse continuing medical treatment for any reason, even if that refusal will hasten his/her death.

His summaries are excellent and really zoom in on the key quotes from the decisions:

Basis for Right to Refuse Treatment

History

The history of the right to refuse medical treatment in the USA is often traced back to two judicial opinions:

• Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891) Botsford sued railroad for concussion resulting from alleged negligence of railroad. Railroad wanted surgical examination of her injuries. Request of railroad denied. “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”

• Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”

It goes on like this for 57 pages with summaries of key cases, discussion of the major issues raised by each case, and important insights into how the courts have interpreted these precedents over the years.

I imagine this will be a helpful resource for warrior mamas in child custody cases trying to keep their kids from being poisoned by vengeful spouses. I also think it may be helpful for our warrior litigators fighting against a wide range of Pharma fascist policies at the federal, state, and local level.

One bummer about the document is that it is a locked PDF — which makes it difficult to copy and paste. I imagine that clever people will find a way around that.

To recap where we are at in the legal fight against vaccine mandates:

There are four broad sets of legal doctrines that clearly support bodily autonomy:

1. The U.S. Constitution, including the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion (1st Amendment), the right of people to be secure in their person (4th Amendment), the prohibition on involuntary servitude (13th Amendment), and the right to equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) — all support personal sovereignty.

2. International law and medical norms including:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• The Nuremberg Code and
• The Declaration of Helsinki

support the absolute right to refuse medical treatment.

3. The mountain of case law cited in Legal Right to Refuse Medical Treatment in the USA shows that the courts have long-supported medical autonomy.

4. The recent Supreme Court decision in the OSHA case and 5 other federal cases establish that federal agencies do not have the power to mandate a medical product.

Meanwhile, all that Team Pharma has going for it is the wrongly decided 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case that is now completely discredited because it was used as a justification for forced sterilization in the Buck v. Bell case in 1927 that was struck down as unconstitutional in 1978 (see Holland, 2010, p. 42, footnote 300). Jacobson is a product of eugenic thinking and it must be repudiated as such and permanently relegated to the dustbin of history.

Were it not for that fact that Pharma pumps billions of dollars into our political and regulatory system every year we would not even be having this conversation because the courts have been clear at least since World War II that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and that all medical decision reside with the individual — not the state, not doctors, and not the public health system.

The real story here is that progressives just cannot seem to quit eugenics. They loved eugenics in the 1900s when Jacobson was decided. They loved eugenics in the 1920s when Buck v. Bell was decided. And now progressives have once again embraced eugenics with their fanatical support for junk science mRNA shots that are killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. and around the world.

All decent and sane people must reject eugenics and reject Pharma junk science and return to the bedrock legal principles of individual autonomy and personal sovereignty.

March 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

CDC massages its data in order to terrify parents into vaccinating their babies and preschoolers

By Meryl Nass, MD | March 19, 2022

This story is about a particularly vile piece of disinformation CDC issued today to push vaccines on the most vulnerable, those humans who are too tiny to say no.

As I have noted periodically for twenty years, and it was roundly confirmed 4 weeks ago in the NY Times, CDC cherry-picks the data it presents to the public, hiding most of what it has. Then it blames its ‘outdated’ IT systems for the problems. As the NYT noted,

The CDC has received more than $1 billion to modernize its systems, which may help pick up the pace, [CDC spokesperson] Ms. Nordlund said. “We’re working on that,” she said.

CDC is not a public health agency. It is a public propaganda agency that collects a massive amount of data. CDC marshals its massive data library to create presentations to support the current administration’s desired public health policies. CDC also has state of the art PR staff, as well as TV studios, and produces videos, radio spots and a massive number of press releases which are distributed to the media. CDC pays for getting its messages out. As we learned last year, it paid Facebook for messaging, while Facebook donated $millions in advertising back to CDC. Last March, Mark Zuckerberg stated,

We’ve already connected over 2 billion people to authoritative COVID-19 information, and today as access to COVID-19 vaccines expands, we’re going even further and aiming to help bring 50 million people one step closer to getting vaccinated.

While CDC collects data from a much larger sample size, it often, as in this case, only presents part of its dataset, and/or (as in this case) CDC chooses a specific, limited timeframe from which to select its data.

The story that CDC is crafting today is that tiny children, under the age of 5, have been recently hospitalized at extremely high rates due to COVID, and therefore need to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is authorized for them.

  • Whereas, the true story is that most children have now been exposed to COVID and are therefore already immunized. Multiple studies have revealed that you are at higher risk of a vaccine-induced adverse reaction if you are already immune–but CDC cleverly never mentions that to parents.
  • Many other studies show the immunity derived from exposure is much stronger and long-lasting than from vaccination.
  • While a new theory gaining ground is that vaccination after infection may actually narrow and weaken the protection derived from COVID immunity.

Pediatric hospitalizations are now CDC’s golden metric, because, since it has been shown the vaccines do not prevent infection or viral transmission, CDC had to stop saying getting vaccinated protects granny, because it doesn’t. But CDC didn’t let that slow them down. They immediately pivoted to creating stories about preschooler hospitalizations, even though they are rare. Let’s see how this is done.

This current issue of the CDC’s in-house journal, the MMWR, not only discusses hospitalization rates, but provides a downloadable poster that it hopes will be placed in pediatric clinics throughout the country. Here it is:

Hospitalizations five times as high!  That’s terrible!  Omicron must be much more severe for preschoolers than we were led to believe!

But wait a sec. Let’s compare the pediatric Delta wave with the Omicron wave using the data CDC provides.

The Delta wave lasted longer than Omicron but had fewer cases at any one time. Delta’s wave looked those old graphs of ‘flattening the curve,’ while Omicron, being much more contagious, had a much taller peak while its wave ended much more quickly (what you would supposedly see if you didn’t flatten the curve). Actually, Omicron proved that all the gibberish about vaccines and masks and distancing couldn’t flatten Omicron’s curve at all. But I digress. The Delta wave led to about a third more pediatric hospitalizations overall than Omicron in CDC’s dataset (790 vs 572), but they occurred over a longer time frame.

CDC selected their best data  for the age group that they hope to immunize soon, as soon as possible after an EUA is issued for them. Here is how CDC attempts to explain its cherrypicking in its article.  While all hospitalizations were reviewed up until December 2021, for December and January 2022:

“some sites examined clinical data on a representative sample of hospitalized infants and children.”

Oh, really?  You mean CDC pays hospitals to send all their data to COVID-Net, then CDC lets them choose only a ‘representative sample’ during Omicron’s peak to send? I don’t think so. If CDC contracted and paid for a full dataset, believe me it is getting a full dataset. No self-respecting journal editor would let CDC get away with this.

In fact, the CDC had already planned the baby-toddler vaccine campaign for February, but had to postpone it when FDA delayed the authorization process on February 10. It turned out the Pfizer trial supported neither a reduction in cases nor sufficiently high antibody levels in the 2 through 4 year olds to meet the pre-specified titer required.

FDA was probably hoping to issue an EUA anyway. It had an advisory committee meeting scheduled for February 15 to vote on the proposal–until data from vaccinated 5-11 year olds in NY state (about 365,000 of them) showed the vaccine didn’t work, after only a few weeks. Somehow, some way, the lid was kept on this information after it had been presented to FDA and CDC in early February. But the story got out in a preprint and in the NY Times on February 28, which wrote:

The coronavirus vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech is much less effective in preventing infection in children ages 5 to 11 years than in older adolescents or adults, according to a large new set of data collected by health officials in New York State — a finding that has deep ramifications for these children and their parents.

After about 6 weeks, protection against hospitalization dropped from a purported 100% to 48% in the 5-11 year olds, and protection against infection had dropped to a miserable 12%.

I don’t think FDA could then deal with pushing vaccine on preschoolers when it wasn’t working in the elementary school kids, whose dose was over 3 times higher. FDA decided to wait until Pfizer waved its magic wand and produced better data. Brook Jackson can explain how that happens.

I’m guessing that in response to the abominable data, CDC spun up its spin doctors, resulting in this March 18, 2022 publication and poster.

Below is Table 1 from CDC’s March 18 paper, published in its very own, non-peer-reviewed journal, the MMWR. Publishing in its own journal lets CDC get its messages out quickly, and protects CDC’s “science” from external reviewers’ criticisms and comments.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there were a total of 2,562 children aged under 5 years who were hospitalized with COVID in CDC’s COVID-Net catchment groups in 14 states. They comprised CDC’s data collection. Nearly half (44%) of the hospitalized children were under 6 months of age, and would be too young to be vaccinated under the proposed EUA anyway.

The average length of their hospitalizations was 2 days during the Delta wave and 1.5 days during the Omicron wave. Sounds like most kids were not that sick. The deaths were the same for both Delta and Omicron: 0.5% of the children who required hospitalization died during each wave, although CDC carefully fails to tell us about comorbidities in the children who died or required ICU care. While it is true that there were more hospitalizations per week during the omicron peak than during the delta peak, this happened because cases were compressed into a smaller time period for Omicron, since the virus whizzed rapidly through the population. It took longer for Delta to reach its peak and trough, though there were, in total, more pediatric hospitalizations due to Delta than to Omicron.

CDC managed to spin these data into an appearance of terrible danger for little kids: 5 times as many hospitalizations for Omicron than Delta–but only if you parse the data by week rather than by wave. And if you parse the data by total number of cases (the area under the curve for each wave) there were many fewer hospitalizations per the number of cases for Omicron than for Delta. (I have posted a NY Times graph, which uses CDC data for cases, at the bottom of this article.)

Now that the Omicron wave is over, hospitalizations are way way down. CDC isn’t making that part of its message, even though its article came out today and the data have been available for several weeks. Telling us the current risk for kids is close to zero would ruin the narrative.

I have to vent about one more thing. I am really angry about a lie that CDC placed in its blue poster above. It says, “Get vaccinated to help protect yourself and those too young to be vaccinated.” Except, since the vaccine does not prevent you catching the disease nor spreading it, how could vaccination protect those too young to be vaccinated? It doesn’t, and we have known that since at least last October, when Boris Johnson and Rochelle Walensky started to admit it.

Grasping for talking points, despite being able to spin the data however it pleased, I guess CDC just could not shake itself loose from all its lies…

The bottom line is that the vaccine, designed for the original Wuhan virus, doesn’t do the job—and does it even less well in children. Although the safety data in children are very limited due to the tiny numbers enrolled in Pfizer’s trials, we know from older children and adults, using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, managed by CDC and FDA, that COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever used on a mass scale.

By giving manufacturers a vast liability shield, the federal government has incentivized them to rush out their products and provide only the most minimal safety testing—because the way the law is writtten, they can only be charged with willful misconduct if they knew in advance of their products’ flaws.

Parents whose children are injured by experimental COVID vaccines will never forgive themselves. Please don’t be one of them.

March 20, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

More evidence on Covid vaccine deaths

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | March 20, 2022

The writer is in New Zealand

A NEW paper at an open access platform (OSF) about German excess all-cause deaths adds significantly to the growing body of evidence being reported around the world.

There are a number of interesting points in the German data which is broken down by age. During 2020, Covid infections peaked but all-cause mortality was not seriously elevated, whereas during 2021 while the mRNA vaccine was being rolled out, German all-cause deaths were elevated for the 15-79 age range.

This is not an isolated statistic. All-cause deaths among working age populations are increasing. Official US all-cause death data paints a depressingly similar picture to the German and New Zealand stats. Commercial insurance data confirms this.

A comparison of 15-79 German all-cause deaths with vaccinations by month shows how vaccination numbers mirrored deaths. It also shows how an increase in all-cause deaths occurred when boosters were rolled out. The relationship is similar to the observed excess all-cause deaths in NZ.

The significance of this data cannot be overestimated. UKHSA reports that the average age of people dying from Covid is 82.9 years, higher than the average UK life expectancy. Therefore all-cause deaths among the 15-79 year age bracket are not expected to increase significantly as a result of Covid infections. The implications of the observed rises across multiple countries are very disturbing. Most studies of long-term outcomes following Covid infection are not differentiating between subjects who have been vaccinated and those who are not. This allows vaccine advocates, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and governments to continue to blame adverse outcomes including deaths on Covid infection alone or chance events without considering the adverse effect of mRNA vaccination, whose long-term impacts may be even larger. The German data supports causal attribution of increases in all-cause deaths to the effects of mRNA Covid vaccination.

Some are beginning to see the light. Last week John Campbell, respected provaxx YouTube Covid commentator from the UK with 2million followers, changed sides. He read out the key points from the court-ordered Pfizer release of adverse effects documents, threw up his hands in despair, and expressed anger at how we have all been misled from the start. A list of 1,223 deaths and 42,086 adverse events across broad categories of serious illness led to his censure. 

New Zealand carries on regardless

At a press conference on Thursday, Northern Region Health Coordination Centre (NRHCC) chief clinical officer Dr Andrew Old said only a third of the 1,000 people currently in hospital with Covid-19 were there due to the effects of the virus. He did not provide any details about how many of this third were vaccinated and how many unvaccinated. He didn’t provide any data on how many of the modest number of deaths were ‘with Covid’ and how many were ‘because of Covid’. So all bets are off when it comes to analysing NZ data. Yet Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the NZ Director General of Health, who was interviewed by Mike Hosking yesterday morning, said the 1,000 people in hospital would not be there if it wasn’t for Covid. Hosking had to correct him.

This means for the last few weeks we have been subjected to a meaningless psychobabble of palpably false Covid statistics designed by the Ministry of Health to contain us in a state of constant fear. What the government hasn’t really talked about is their failure to upgrade the emergency departments of NZ hospitals (they’ve had two years to prepare), instead spending 64billion dollars of borrowed money promoting an ineffective Covid vaccination programme. The NZ Herald reports our hospital system is in crisis, strained to breaking point. The statistics show that the hospitals are overwhelmed with vaccinated Covid patients, but you wouldn’t know it unless you moved beyond government propaganda.

Despite the mounting evidence of ineffectiveness and serious harm, the focus of government and the health system is still saturation advertising proclaiming the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccination. Meanwhile thousands of people in and out of hospital with serious illness continue to be under-resourced and in some cases neglected.

Excess all-cause death is not a statistic that can be ignored. Dr Ashley Bloomfield says it is not necessary to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events following vaccination. What planet is he on? We need an immediate end to mandates, proper assessment of adverse effects, and adequate compensation and treatment for those affected.

Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He lives in New Zealand.

March 19, 2022 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Stanford Study Finds Vaccine mRNA and Spike Protein Persist in the Body for Months Following Vaccination – But Not Following Infection

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | March 18, 2022

A study from Stanford University, published in Cell, has found that vaccine mRNA and spike protein persist in lymph nodes for up to two months following the second vaccine dose. This is in contrast to what happens following infection, where spike protein was found only rarely.

In contrast to disrupted germinal centres in lymph nodes during infection, mRNA vaccination stimulates robust germinal centres containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to eight weeks postvaccination in some cases…

The observed extended presence of vaccine mRNA and spike protein in vaccinee lymph node germinal centres for up to two months after vaccination was in contrast to rare foci of viral spike protein in COVID-19 patient lymph nodes… COVID-19 patient lymph nodes showed lower quantities of spike antigen.

The researchers also found the concentration of spike protein in the blood following vaccination was similar to that during infection.

At least some portion of spike antigen generated after administration of BNT162b2 becomes distributed into the blood. We detected spike antigen in 96% of vaccinees in plasma collected one to two days after the prime injection, with antigen levels reaching as high as 174 pg/mL. The range of spike antigen concentrations in the blood of vaccinees at this early time point largely overlaps with the range of spike antigen concentrations reported in plasma in a study of acute infection, although a small number of infected individuals had higher concentrations in the ng/mL range. At later time points after vaccination, the concentrations of spike antigen in blood quickly decrease although spike is still detectable in plasma in 63% of vaccinees one week after the first dose.

The researchers found evidence of ‘original antigenic sin’ from the vaccines, where a person vaccinated and then infected with a variant develops a weaker antibody response to that variant than an unvaccinated person infected with the variant. They describe it as a “strong imprinting effect of prior vaccination”.

We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses…

The extent to which vaccine boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously, as in the ‘original antigenic sin’ phenomenon described for influenza virus infection and vaccination, will be an important topic of ongoing study.

The researchers confirmed the fast decline of antibodies following vaccination, finding a 20-fold drop after nine months.

Our data demonstrate that vaccinee plasma and saliva spike and receptor-binding domain-specific IgG concentrations decrease from their peak values by approximately 20-fold by nine months after primary vaccination but quickly exceed prior peak concentrations in seven to eight days after boosting with a third vaccine dose.

The study also confirms that vaccination doesn’t generate IgA antibodies (found especially in the respiratory and digestive tracts and mounting a first defence against infection) or IgM antibodies (found especially in the blood and lymph fluid), but only IgG antibodies (found in the blood). This has been proposed as a reason that vaccination is so poor at preventing infection and transmission.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the researchers found that vaccination (whether mRNA, adenoviral or inactivated virus) stimulated a broader antibody (IgG) response than infection, leading them to predict that “antibodies derived from infection may provide somewhat decreased protection against virus variants compared with comparable concentrations of antibodies stimulated by vaccination”.

However, the post-infection IgG antibody response improved over several weeks.

Over time, infected patient plasma samples showed improvement in variant receptor-binding domain binding relative to Wuhan-Hu-1 receptor-binding domain, suggesting evolution of the antibody response through at least seven weeks post-onset of symptoms.

In addition, the apparent breadth-benefit of vaccination over infection disappeared when “whole spike antigens” were tested rather than just the receptor-binding domain targeted by the vaccine, suggesting the benefit may be an artefact of the study design not found in a real encounter with the virus.

Notably, the increased breadth of vaccinee IgG compared with COVID-19 patient IgG binding to viral variant antigens was greatest for receptor-binding domain, the main target of neutralising antibodies, and was decreased or not detected when whole spike antigens were tested.

Other limitations mentioned include not looking at “antibodies binding to the spike N-terminal domain” or other antibodies: “Our data do not reflect potentially functional antibodies binding to the spike N-terminal domain, or antibodies that may have other activities in vivo.”

The study also didn’t look at T cell responses, among other things:

Further mechanistic investigations into the differences in antibody breadth elicited by vaccination and infection are needed to define the roles of T cell help, antibody affinity maturation, germinal centre function, and innate immune responses to vaccine components, as well as the cellular and subcellular distribution of vaccine RNA and expressed antigen in lymphoid tissues.

The high concentration in the blood of spike protein following vaccination and its persistence along with vaccine mRNA in lymph nodes for months, in contrast to the situation post-infection where such persistence is rare, will fuel concerns about the safety of these Covid vaccines. It has been argued that the spike protein is itself pathogenic, not inert, and that the free spike proteins generated by the vaccines have greater capacity to bind to more types of cells than the virus particles themselves, and that this may be what lies behind many of the serious adverse events reported to regulatory bodies and identified in case reports. This warrants further investigation.

March 19, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

483 More Deaths After COVID Vaccines Reported to VAERS, as Pfizer and Moderna Push for More Boosters

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | March 18, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,183,495 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 11, 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 25,641 reports of deaths — an increase of 483 over the previous week — and 208,209 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,321 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 788,624 adverse events, including 11,728 deaths and 76,231 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 11, 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 11,728 U.S. deaths reported as of March 11, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 556 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 11, including 328 million doses of Pfizer, 209 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 March 11, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department.

  • 17 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.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 11, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent deaths involve a 17-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2171083) from Illinois with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who died from cardiac arrest after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and 14-year-old boy from Guam (VAERS I.D. 2157944) who died one week after his first dose of Pfizer when he suddenly committed suicide.

The boy’s VAERS report states:

“Sudden suicide one week after the vaccine. Patient was a perfectly happy child. After the vaccine, he became much more tired and achy and lost interest in doing his sports. One week later, without any warning, he hung himself.”

  • 68 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.
  • 646 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, with 634 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 162 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 11, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

Moderna asks FDA to authorize 4th dose for adults 18 and up

Moderna on Thursday asked the FDA to amend Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID vaccine to include a fourth dose for adults 18 and older.

According to The Associated Press, the request is broader than Pfizer’s. Pfizer earlier this week asked the agency to authorize a fourth dose of its COVID vaccine for adults 65 and older.

In a press release, Moderna said the request to include adults over 18 was made “to provide flexibility for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and healthcare providers to determine the appropriate use of an additional booster dose of mRNA-1273, including for those at higher risk of COVID-19 due to age or comorbidities.”

Moderna said its decision to seek FDA approval was based on studies from the U.S. and Israel about the Omicron variant, but didn’t provide further information. Booster doses of Moderna are half the dose of the first and second doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech ask FDA to authorize fourth vaccine dose for older adults

Pfizer and BioNTech on Tuesday said they submitted a request to the FDA for EUA of an additional booster dose of their COVID vaccine for adults 65 and older.

The companies’ request was not based on robust, peer-reviewed U.S. data, but on two recent studies from Israel — both published on preprint servers without peer review.

The first study was done in conjunction with Israel’s Ministry of Health and involved a review of 1.1 million health records. The study concluded rates of COVID in those who received a fourth dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine were lower compared to those who received only three doses.

According to the preprint published on medRxiv, since Jan. 2 Israel has been administering a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine only to people over 60 and at-risk populations.

In the second study of Israeli healthcare workers, results showed a fourth dose of either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccine boosted antibody levels, but neither was effective at preventing infections.

CDC deletes thousands of reported COVID-19 deaths in children

The CDC removed tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID, including nearly a quarter of deaths it had attributed to those younger than 18, The Epoch Times reported. The change was made on March 15 on its COVID data tracker website.

“Data on deaths were adjusted after resolving a coding logic error. This resulted in decreased death counts across all demographic categories,” the CDC said on the website. The agency also acknowledged COVID death data is not complete.

Before the change, the CDC listed 1,755 deaths in children from COVID, along with 851,000 others, according to Kelley Krohnert, a Georgia resident who tracks the CDC’s updates.

The CDC removed 416 deaths among children and more than 71,000 other reported deaths — arriving at a total of about 780,000.

The CDC’s statistics are frequently cited by physicians and experts when pushing for children to receive COVID vaccines. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, referred to the tracker’s death total on November 2021 while pushing for an expert panel to advise her agency to recommend vaccination for all children 5 to 11 years old.

Vaccine researcher develops tinnitus 90 minutes after COVID shot, calls for more research

A vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota said he developed tinnitus after receiving his second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.

Dr. Gregory Poland’s symptoms began 90 minutes after receiving the vaccine. He described the condition as “fairly severe” and “extraordinarily bothersome, interfering with sleep and the ability to concentrate.”

According to the National Institutes of Health, tinnitus is a sign that something is wrong with the auditory system. It is commonly described as a ringing in the ears, but it also can sound like roaring, clicking, hissing, or buzzing that accompanies soft, loud or high pitches.

According to the most recent VAERS data released on March 11, 19,851 people have reported developing tinnitus after a COVID vaccine, with 12,027 cases attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

CEO of German health insurer fired after releasing data on underreported COVID vaccine injuries

The CEO of one of Germany’s largest health insurance companies was abruptly fired last month after he released data suggesting German health authorities are significantly underreporting COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

The data, released by Andreas Schofbeck of BKK/ProVita, have since been scrubbed from the company’s website.

Schofbeck, who noticed an unexpected jump in vaccine-related health insurance claims, in February notified the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) — the German equivalent of the CDC — that BKK billing data indicated the PEI was underreporting adverse events to COVID vaccines.

In his letter to the PEI, Schofbeck wrote:

I’m “If these figures are extrapolated to the whole year and to the population in Germany, probably 2.5-3 million people in Germany have received medical treatment for vaccination side effects after Corona vaccination.”

Dr. Dirk Heinrich, chairman of NAV-Virchow Bund, an association of private medical practitioners in Germany, said PEI and BKK would be working closely to examine the billing code data. Heinrich also stated that the conclusions from Schofbeck’s letter are “complete nonsense.”

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

March 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Hospital restrictions remain absurd and cruel

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 18, 2022

Following our recent article highlighting isolation and neglect in care homes, we are appalled to report that the situation is only slowly improving. What is more, many NHS sites are still imposing draconian and vindictive policies. Children are being separated from parents and dying relatives are being abandoned to a lonely end.

It is beyond comprehension that this situation persists. Three weeks to flatten the curve? More like 24 months to bulldoze the social contract. Here is one quote from a UK hospital this week:

“We know that continuing to extend restrictions on visiting will be disappointing and it is not a decision we have taken lightly. We understand how important the support of family and friends can be for patients in their recovery while they are in hospital, however, our number one priority is to keep everyone safe”.

These silken, virtue-signalling words – keeping “everyone safe” – are not only utterly simplistic, they disguise blanket policies that encourage multiple Milgram-esque acts of cruel depravity. We are hearing horrific stories of desperate children being denied access to their dying parents.

“Everyone” is not safe when a nonagenarian, now in declining health, has to spend their remaining weeks – or even days – in soulless incarceration. These individuals spent their entire working lives rebuilding this country after WW2 and then brought up a subsequent generation of taxpayers. Surely we owe these bastions of society the dignity of choice in their final days.

If this situation was not depressing enough, HART has also been made aware of the most cruel of indignities: patients in their final days of life are being denied palliative care if they refuse a covid injection. It is hard to comprehend the wickedness of foisting this particular medical intervention – with all the known short-term adverse effects – on someone with a severely weakened immune system who is already in their final days. It is hard to see this as anything other than battery.

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people involved in the healthcare services want the best for their patients, so how can these things still be happening? Two years into this depressing saga, perhaps it is too late for those who promote these injustices to take responsibility for the harm caused. However, those that have been ‘going with the flow’, perhaps hoping for an easy life, might want to reconsider whether their consciences can bear any more of this, and whether they want to align themselves with faceless and sadistic despotism.

After all, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny.

March 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

In Germany, Corona Limps On

The Bundestag passes a new Infection Protection Act

eugyppius | March 18, 2022

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the legal basis for our current regime of unnecessary restrictions and interference in the everyday lives of German citizens expires after tomorrow, but Corona cannot be allowed to end in Germany. The past few weeks have seen fraught negotiations within the coalition government to draft a new Infection Protection Act and continue the circus.

Today, after acrimonious debate, the Bundestag voted in the new legislation. It provides two tiers of ongoing Corona regulation:

1) Automatically and at all times, “basic protection” measures will be available to the federal states. These allow the state governments to impose mask mandates upon local transit and healthcare facilities, and to impose testing requirements on healthcare facilities and schools. Of course, they will all do so. Mask mandates will also continue in long-distance trains and in aeroplanes.

2) State governments will be allowed to impose additional restrictions, including vaccination and testing requirements for restaurants and public events, in the case of so-called “hotspots.” Anytime you encounter English vocabulary in German law, it is a sign of bad things. A vote of the state parliament is necessary to declare a hotspot and these additional restrictions.

The federal states are allowed a transitional period to continue current rules, but this ends on 2 April.

The press is starting to fill with vile articles about the “freedoms” that will be returning to us. The thing is, that these are not freedoms anymore. They have become temporary, seasonal privileges, which can be removed anytime political pressure builds on the state parliaments. A softening of the rules makes things more comfortable in the shorter term, but it extends the political half-life of the Corona regime substantially.

Despite all the crazy discussion in the press and from individual politicians, vaccine mandates appear to be dead in Germany; only about a third of the Bundestag support a universal mandate for adults.

That’s not as good as it sounds: A lot of other members of parliament want mandate-adjacent requirements that are also bad. Andrew Ullmann, from the FDP, has gained some support for his scheme of mandatory vaccine information sessions rather than mandatory vaccination. I agree that forced lectures from ignorant low-level bureaucrats are preferable to forced medical procedures, but the whole scheme also makes me find Andrew Ullmann even more loathsome than I did before.

In case you thought Ullmann was just trying to reach a compromise to ward off the vaccinators, he’s also open to mandates for the 50+ crowd, so he’s not your friend.

Meanwhile, the CDU (and CSU), who are not in government, propose setting up a creepy “vaccination register” so the vaccinators know who to pressure. They want vaccine mandates maybe possibly for certain at-risk groups and for certain professions.

Of 736 Bundestag members, a mere 50 support a resolution against mandatory vaccination, primarily from the FDP and the AfD.

March 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Safe and Effective?

What the smallpox vaccine can teach us

By Robert W Malone MD, MS | March 15, 2022

With the reveal that the objectivity of the CDC (and US HHS) has become both politicized by the executive branch and compromised by the pharmaceutical industry, we have to come to terms with living in a world in which we can no longer take governmental public health pronouncements as gospel truth. Those of us who are thinking for ourselves (and our children) now need to make personal assessments and decisions about COVID-19 vaccines, and then booster vaccination, and then boosters again. As we all assess the advice of HHS, CDC, NIAID, Dr. Fauci, White House Advisor Dr. Francis Collins, the Surgeon General, the FDA, and of course Pfizer, let’s briefly revisit what many consider to be history’s most effective vaccine: the smallpox vaccine produced from variola.

Smallpox kills, and it has been eradicated from the world by use of a highly effective vaccine (with the exception of samples stored in various freezers). It was (is?) a far more serious threat than SARS-CoV-2, in terms of death and disease. In order to understand the science behind vaccines, one must understand the strategies behind vaccination campaigns, and the smallpox vaccines provide a great case study.

Vaccinia (cowpox) virus is closely related to smallpox (variola) virus, and Jenner (in 1796) is often credited with discovering that milkmaids (exposed to cowpox) were resistant to Smallpox disease, and then actively vaccinating against variola using vaccinia virus. The historic smallpox vaccine product principally credited with eradicating Smallpox was labeled as Dryvax, (Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.- formally discontinued in 1982) and was prepared from calf lymph using the New York City Board of Health (NYCBOH) strain of vaccinia. What that means is that the skin of calves were infected with the NYCBOH vaccinia, resulting in widespread infection and a sort of weeping exudate on the skin of the calves as the virus replicates. The calves were loaded into a mechanical holder and the exudate (with the virus) was scraped off (using something that resembled a sweat scraper used for horses) and “processed”, placed into glass vials, freeze dried, and then sealed with a standard stopper. The quality control on the “processing” was pretty crude, and I have personally seen legacy vials of Dryvax that included calf hair in the final vialed product. The vials were shipped out, and then reconstituted with a diluent (saline) and a “bifurcated needle” was dipped into the solution and then repeatedly poked into the skin (typically over the deltoid muscle – the shoulder) of the vaccine recipient, resulting in the typical round smallpox vaccine scar.

The art and science of vaccinology teaches that vaccines can vary in both safety and effectiveness. That this is a sliding scale for which disease severity, pathogen infectiousness (transmissibility, or Ro) and safety of the vaccine product all must be simultaneously optimized, resulting in a three dimensional plot (or “response surface”). The teaching is that if a vaccine is to be given to the general population, it has to have a low adverse event profile (be very safe), particularly if the disease is generally thought to either have a lower risk profile or infection is a rare event.  In general, a more “hot” vaccine, in other words one that typically has a more serious adverse event profile, will also be better at preventing infection. In the case of a highly infectious, highly pathogenic virus, the risk profile of the vaccine may be greater – in order to achieve disease people contracting the disease and with the ultimate hope of disease eradication. The licensed Merck Ebola vaccine is an example of a relatively “hot” (reactogenic) vaccine which is only deployed in populations at high risk during an Ebola (highly infectious and pathogenic virus) outbreak. Benefits versus risks. If the pathogen is particularly nasty, then it becomes more acceptable to deploy a vaccine that causes some degree of disease. Makes sense?

There is another important element in the national vaccine program, which is the requirement to keep the vaccine production facilities up and running. These facilities are producing a biological product; they must be kept in production or the process for re-licensure is onerous, if not impossible. In the case of seasonal flu, one of the justifications for the yearly vaccine is to keep the manufacturing plants running and ready for business in case of a truly severe strain of flu or some other, unknown pathogen become a threat.  If those facilities are moth-balled, they can’t be brought back on line quickly. Bet you did not know that. One major reason for pushing annual influenza vaccines is to maintain influenza vaccine manufacturing capacity. The industry term used is “warm base manufacturing”. Of course, this results in a very nice annual “cash cow” for the vaccine industry, one which gets annually milked for a tidy guaranteed profit. The term “rent seeking behavior” applies. The same is true of the various “biodefense” vaccines and products which are maintained in the “strategic national stockpile”. In the context of Smallpox, these include ACAM2000. These products have half lives, which is to say that even though they are (hopefully) not used, they still have to be replaced every few years. Again, nice predictable profit. The corporation “Emergent Biololutions” has become particularly adept at exploiting this “market opportunity”, and has managed to monopolize many of the biodefense-related vaccines and products which the US Government purchases for the Strategic National Stockpile, including ACAM2000.

So, there is more than one reason to vaccinate the entire population on a regular basis, and the government basically props up the entire vaccine industry with what are functionally major annual subsidies. Once a policy decision is made to acquire a vaccine product or establish a “standard of care” involving a vaccine, it is never re-evaluated. Any politician or government administrator that even considers rethinking whether a vaccine policy makes good sense is confronted by the specter of being blamed for any outbreak or cases of that disease that may arise – regardless of how (in)effective or risky that vaccine product may be. So, a combination of public policy realities and regulatory barriers to entry (very, very difficult and expensive to demonstrate improved effectiveness or safety for an improved vaccine when there is already an accepted vaccine on the market) make the vaccine business particularly lucrative and predictable for the large manufacturers that produce licensed vaccines.

What is Smallpox?

Before smallpox was eradicated, it was a serious infectious disease caused by the variola virus. It was contagious—meaning, it spread from one person to another. People who had smallpox had a fever and a distinctive, progressive skin rash.

Most people with smallpox recovered, but about 3 out of every 10 people with the disease died. Many smallpox survivors have permanent scars over large areas of their body, especially their faces. Some are left blind.

Thanks to the success of vaccination, smallpox was eradicated, and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since 1977. The last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949.

First, note that the modern smallpox vaccine is not the same as the inoculation that has been throughout history.

The earliest smallpox prevention efforts date back to at least the 10th century in China, when physicians found that nasal inoculation of susceptible persons with material from smallpox lesions would sometimes provide immunity. The practice of inoculation appears to have arisen independently in several other regions prior to the 17th century, including Africa and India, but the practice did not gain popularity in western Europe until the 18th century. The wife of an English ambassador, Lady Montagu, observed inoculation in Turkey, and later had her own child successfully inoculated during a smallpox epidemic in England. In this procedure a lancet or needle was used to deliver a subcutaneous dose of smallpox material to a susceptible person. The procedure, also known as variolation, was controversial. It generated immunity in many cases, but it also killed some people and contributed to smallpox outbreaks.

In other words, smallpox is deadly. Historically, 30% of the people who contract the virus die. Many people were maimed and disabled permanently.

That said, the designers of this vaccine wanted it work to not only stop disease, but eradicate it completely. So, the smallpox vaccine was designed to be “hot.” The adverse event profile is much greater than than say, that of the influenza vaccine. It is designed to stop infection and as much as possible, transmission. With flu, the vaccine is only partially effective, because otherwise the cure would be worse than the disease for most healthy people.

The CDC knows this. But they have a mission to stop vaccine hesitancy. To do this, they promote vaccines and the vaccine enterprise as safe and effective. Full stop. No exceptions or questioning tolerated.

The smallpox vaccine is old enough that its risks are well known, and those data can be used to help us better understand how the CDC assesses vaccine safety.  It is naive to think that all vaccines are “safe” – no matter what and no matter which vaccine. Unfortunately, officials at the CDC appear to have a belief system that all vaccines are “safe and effective”, which belief has become more a view of a world, a sort of object of faith (catechism) rather than objective science.

Frankly, positioning this as a statement of faith, a sort of ritual endorsed by annoited high priests of public health, gives these officials benefit by removing any reason to doubt or question. The determination and public statements that most vaccines are “safe and effective” is a promotional tool. And this propaganda is not holding up to scrutiny. People are becoming more and more distrustful of the whole vaccine enterprise, and for good reason. It is time that public health be honest and transparent. Vaccines carry risk, some vaccines carry a lot more risk than others. In the case of the vaccines for children program, the cumulative risk of the entire expanding vaccine schedule on our children has never been rigorously assessed.

So, let’s get back to assessing the benefits and risks of the smallpox vaccine as a case study.

From the CDC website, today:

“The smallpox vaccine is safe, and it is effective at preventing smallpox disease.”

Let’s see what safe means to the CDC, from their own website:

Serious Side Effects of Smallpox Vaccine

·       Heart problems

·       Swelling of the brain or spinal cord

·       Severe skin diseases

·       Spreading the virus to other parts of the body or to another person

·       Severe allergic reaction after vaccination

·       Accidental infection of the eye (which may cause swelling of the cornea causing watery painful eyes and blurred vision, scarring of the cornea, and blindness)

The CDC then lists the types of people who might have reason to not take the smallpox vaccine…

The risks for serious smallpox vaccine side effects are greater for:

·       People with any three of the following risk factors for heart disease: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood sugar, a family history of heart problems, or smoking

Let’s take a break here and look at just the first four items, the people described as being at greater risk of serious smallpox vaccine side effects:

People with diabetes – that’s 34 million Americans; people with high blood pressure (108 million Americans); people with high cholesterol (76 million Americans); people with heart disease (96 million Americans)

And there’s more:

·       People with heart or blood vessel problems, including angina, previous heart attack, artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, or other cardiac problems

·       People with skin problems, such as eczema [31 million Americans], atopic dermatitis, burns, impetigo, contact dermatitis, chickenpox [more than 95% of American adults have had chicken pox], shingles, psoriasis, or uncontrolled acne

·       Infants less than 1 year of age

·       Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding

·       People who are taking steroid eye drops or ointment

So, while the CDC definitively states that “The smallpox vaccine is safe,” they then exclude huge segments of the population, leaving very few people for whom it might be safe. The list of people at greater risk also includes people with a “family history of heart problems.” Do any of us know even a single person who doesn’t fit that into that category?

The CDC writes that “for every 1,000 people vaccinated, 1 person experienced a serious but not life-threatening reactions. These reactions may require medical attention” The CDC estimates that “1 to 2 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated could die as a result of life-threatening reactions to the vaccine”

However, other researchers place the risks as higher.

A 2021 study assessing vaccine risks in the military population who have received the more modern, smallpox vaccines reported the following.

897,227 SM who received ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine and 450,000 SM who received Dryvax smallpox vaccine were included in the surveillance population. The rate of adjudicated (proven) myopericarditis among ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine recipients was 20.06/100,000 and was significantly higher for males (21.8/100,000) than females (8.5/100,000) and for those < 40 years of age (21.1/100,000) than for those 40 years or older (6.3/100,000). Overall rates for any cardiovascular event (Group 1 plus Group 2) were 113.5/100,000 for ACAM2000 vaccine and 439.3/100,000 for Dryvax vaccine; rate ratio, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.28). The rates of subjects with one or more defined neurological events were 2.12/100,000 and 1.11/100,000 for ACAM2000 and Dryvax vaccines respectively; rate ratio, 1.91 (95% CI, 0.71-5.10).

The study above is based off of a passive data reporting system, not a clinical trial – so the actual numbers of adverse events are much higher than reported here.

So, cardiac events associated with the smallpox vaccines were at least 1 in every 885 people for the ACAM2000 vaccine and one in every 228 people for Dryvax vaccine in a healthy population. These risks seem highly significant to me, given that the risk of small pox is nil at this time (unless the military knows something that we don’t). Which is why the push to vaccinate all first responders against Smallpox during the Cheney administration (otherwise known as POTUS #43 George W. Bush) was halted – because of too many cases of myopericarditis and no circulating Smallpox. Sound familiar?

The term safe obviously means different things to different scientists and differing cohorts of people.

Note: The Mayo Clinic disagrees with the CDC on the risk and benefits of the smallpox vaccine:

“No cure or treatment for smallpox exists. A vaccine can prevent smallpox, but the risk of the vaccine’s side effects is too high to justify routine vaccination for people at low risk of exposure to the smallpox virus.”

Too high for patients of the Mayo Clinic – but not too high for Americans advised by the CDC. Although a note about the above quote, as 70% of people survive smallpox, it sure seems like they are “cured.” As for treatments, we no longer live in the middle ages – supportive care for infectious diseases work and are highly effective. Words matter – fearporn is not helpful.

To bring this topic home: Is avoiding COVID-19/Omicron worth taking the known and unknown risks of serious adverse events? In some age categories, it might be. In most age categories, it is not worth much risk. For young people, it is not worth any risk, and for children, the risks of the Covid vaccine far outweigh the risks of Covid.

The US Government had relentlessly promoted that “The vaccines are safe and effective,” the same words used for the modern smallpox vaccine. In both cases, safety is a matter of opinion and semantics – not science. Clearly, safety is relative, such as the precautions one might take when skydiving or riding a motorcycle (e.g., having a second parachute, wearing a helmet) – in order to reach the point that an activity is acceptably safe, all the while knowing it’s safer to just skip the activity.

If I proposed a person drink some potion, and said “This potion is safe, unless you are from a family with a history of heart problems,” few people would want the drink. If I added “Oh yeah, and the Mayo Clinic says the risk of side effects from this potion are too high to justify you drinking it, I’d have even fewer takers.

Mandates, which are rigid by definition, seem a bad match for assessments of personal safety, which are, by our nature, flexible and variable. Since the word safe and the idea of safety means different things to different people, such decisions are best left to those who would be most affected by, in this case, vaccination.

The smallpox vaccine shows us what the CDC means when they say something is “safe,” and it isn’t what most people using the word would mean. With risk must come choice. This is the bedrock foundation of modern bioethics and medicine.

After all that we have been through over the last two years, and the admission the the CDC has been withholding data from all of us for political reasons and to avoid “vaccine hesitancy” (which is another way of saying if you knew what the data really show you would not accept the product), who are you going to trust? Your own lying eyes and brain, or what the CDC, HHS, legacy media and the “factchecking” industry tell you?

March 17, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »