Pfizer, Moderna Spend Millions on Ads Featuring Catchy Phrases and Celebrities to Push COVID Shots
By Mike Capuzzo | The Defender | November 22, 2023
Facing dramatic stock market declines and growing resistance to their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna are running upbeat TV commercials with jingles and celebrities to push COVID-19 vaccination just in time for the holidays.
The 30-second Pfizer commercial features a cheery, driving tune and smiling celebrities Martha Stewart, singer-songwriter John Legend, professional soccer player and progressive activist Megan Rapinoe, singer-songwriter Charlie Puth and football star Travis Kelce.
All but Rapinoe flash Pfizer’s trademark blue band-aids on a shoulder showing they got Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot.
“Got it,” Stewart says, as the Pfizer ad copy reads, “This season’s updated COVID-19 shots are here,” and “Ask your healthcare provider if getting your COVID shot with your flu shot is right for you.”
“Got yours?” is the Pfizer tagline.
Moderna’s 60-second TV spot wants its audience to “Spikevax that body.”
Spikevax is the brand name of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. It refers to the artificial spike protein the vaccine is designed to stimulate in the body to allegedly trigger protective antibodies to the virus.
The commercial opens with an older man playing table tennis accompanied by a narrator, who says, “When it comes to your health … you ping and pong that body.”
The spot proceeds through a variety of ordinary people practicing their passions, including a woman blending a vegetable shake (“you green that body”), a man plunging into an ice bucket (“you plunge that body”), and a man and woman playing chess (“you brainpower that body).”
It concludes with, “You flu shot that body, and now, you Spikevax that body. Because even though the pandemic is over, COVID-19 isn’t.”
The pharmaceutical trade press portrayed the ads as an attempt by Pfizer and Moderna, whose COVID-19 vaccines were injected into more than 5 billion people worldwide during the pandemic, to reverse dramatic losses in their stock prices in recent weeks.
“With hardly any Americans signing up to receive the updated COVID-19 shot, Pfizer is pulling out all the stops to increase uptake,” said Dr. Joseph Mercola.
Mercola reported that Pfizer paid Kansas City Chiefs tight end Kelce an outsized $20 million to promote the drugmaker’s COVID-19 shots, compared to his $5 million-per-year total endorsements from McDonald’s, Papa John’s, Walgreens, Nike and Tide, and was trying to capitalize on the football star’s recent surge in popularity as he dates pop star Taylor Swift.
Other medical trade journals debated whether celebrity endorsements like Kelce’s will actually help or hurt Pfizer’s sales and stock price.
Critic: COVID shot ads don’t meet FDA requirements for biologic side effects
But doctors and scientists interviewed by The Defender were appalled that Pfizer and Moderna, and the governments and media that support them, would continue to push the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines blamed for more than 36,000 deaths reported to the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.
A large Canadian study of 17 countries estimated the COVID-19 vaccines killed approximately 17 million people around the world.
Dr. Peter Breggin, a New York psychiatrist and author with his wife Ginger of “COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey,” said the Pfizer and Moderna commercials draw the audience into “a never-never land of fakers.”
“This is a combination of extreme fraud and sham,” Breggin told The Defender. “We now know from multiple scientific studies that there was a broad panoply of adverse effects to the vaccines as there are with some very potent drugs. That resulted in death in some people, and with more reports to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] of deaths than all the other vaccines in the world combined.”
Breggin, a frequent expert witness in pharmaceutical cases involving dangerous drugs and co-author of the bestseller “Talking Back to Prozac: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Today’s Most Controversial Drug,” said the Moderna ad makes a passing reference to possible myocarditis side effects while the Pfizer spot names no possible dangers at all.
“They’re not like ordinary drug commercials,” he said, adding that neither meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirement for describing biologic side effects.
Pfizer outspent competitors on digital, TV ads for COVID shots
Big Pharma advertising is big business in the U.S., the only country in the world with the exception of New Zealand that allows direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers.
Spending on the marketing of prescription drugs, health services, laboratory tests and disease awareness grew from $17.7 billion in 1997 to $29.9 billion in 2016, with the largest increases coming in direct-to-consumer spending, which nearly tripled to 32% of all medical marketing spending.
Between Jan. 1 and May 6, 2021, Pfizer spent $21.5 million on digital advertising alone to push its COVID-19 vaccine, while Johnson & Johnson spent $29.1 million marketing its COVID-19 vaccine.
Big Pharma TV ad spending grew 8% in 2022, reaching a total of $4.05 billion. Much of that was “COVID vaccine-related television commercials” with “companies such as Pfizer and BioNTech” spending “large amounts of TV dollars on campaigns highlighting ‘getting back to normal,’ featuring loved ones reuniting after years apart,” according to Fierce Pharma.
Pfizer was the biggest drug-ad spender at this year’s Oscars, shelling out an estimated $5.7 million for the most expensive spot in the televised event on its new COVID-19 drug ad: “If it’s COVID, it’s Paxlovid.”
Pfizer also aired the second-most-expensive TV ad at the Oscars, spending an estimated $3.8 million on another COVID-19 ad using “star power to emphasize risk factors and COVID-19 in [its] latest vaccine ad push” featuring celebrities including Pink, Questlove, Michael Phelps and Jean Smart.
The fourth-biggest advertising spender at the Oscars was the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which spent an estimated $1.9 million on a 30-second “awareness ad” with no pharma company mentioned “to get people to consider getting the latest COVID boosters amid ‘fading protection.’”
Despite nearly around-the-clock media reports and advertising by Big Pharma and governments urging people to get the latest COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, Pfizer’s September 2023 rollout of its updated 2023-24 COVID-19 shot suffered “abysmal” uptake, with only 7.1% of adults and 2.1% of children receiving the updated COVID-19 shot as of Oct. 14, according to Mercola.
Dr. Pierre Kory was encouraged that vast numbers of Americans, a majority of whom took the experimental mRNA COVID-19 shots during the pandemic, are waking up to the fact the mRNA technology is dangerous and its risk-reward benefit presents potentially frightening risk with little or no benefit, especially for children.
“It appears to me that pharma companies are now desperately marketing the vaccines to consumers via TV ads,” he said. “It looks like their previously winning strategy of fear-mongering via public health agency proclamations and widespread news media behavioral psychology ‘nudging’ tactics is now failing.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Pfizer sues Poland over Covid-19 vaccine
RT | November 23, 2023
US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has escalated its feud with Poland over excess Covid-19 vaccine doses that were ordered under a massive contract with the European Union. The company is suing the country over what it claims is an unfulfilled contract for Covid-19 vaccines.
Warsaw was locked into buying tens of millions of doses under a controversial contract the European Commission had signed with Pfizer in 2021 on behalf of EU nations. Pfizer is demanding 6 billion zloty ($1.5 billion) in compensation for 60 million doses that Poland’s government declined, after it stopped taking delivery of the jabs in April 2022.
The entire bloc wound up ordering 1.1 billion doses under the contract, saddling EU states with a vaccine glut as the Covid-19 pandemic waned. The EU prosecutor’s office has already announced an investigation into the procurement process amid allegations of corruption and secret backroom deals while Polish Health Minister Katarzyna Sojka has warned other EU states could be next to face prosecution.
Warsaw has questioned the controversial role of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in the Pfizer deal after it emerged she had for weeks privately communicated with the company’s CEO Albert Bourla during the contract negotiations. However, the European Commission claimed last year that her text messages with the big pharma boss on deals worth multiple billions of dollars executive could not be found.
The first hearing in Pfizer’s lawsuit is scheduled to take place in Brussels on December 6. Earlier this year the pharma giant offered to give the EU more time to complete its minimum vaccine purchases under the binding contract, but insisted that the bloc must pay in full for the contractually specified number of doses. Poland since refused to sign a revised EU agreement with the drugmaker.
Sojka told broadcaster TVN24 on Wednesday that there is some hope of resolving the Pfizer lawsuit “in a positive way.”
A Pfizer company spokesman told Politico however that the company decided to go forward with the lawsuit “following a prolonged contract breach and a period of discussions in good faith between the parties”.
Millions of Poles refused to receive Covid-19 vaccines, and Warsaw halted deliveries of the jabs as an influx of Ukrainian refugees in early 2022 strained the government’s finances.
Pfizer Sues Poland, Demanding Money for Undelivered and Unwanted COVID Vaccines.
BY IGOR CHUDOV | NOVEMBER 24, 2023
After achieving a modest 57% COVID vaccination rate and seeing the vaccines not live up to the promise, Poles refused additional Pfizer COVID vaccine doses around April 2022.

“At the end of last week, we used the force majeure clause and informed both the European Commission and the main vaccine producer that we are refusing to take these vaccines at the moment and we are also refusing to pay,” health minister Adam Niedzielski told private broadcaster TVN24.
“Indeed, the consequence of this will be a legal conflict, which is already taking place,” he said.
Poland cannot directly terminate the contract for the supply of vaccines as the parties to the contracts are the European Commission and manufacturers, he said.
The value of the contract for vaccine supplies to Poland up to the end of 2023 with one producer alone was worth over 6 billion zlotys ($1.4 billion), with over 2 billion zlotys of that for supply in 2022.
Pfizer said its agreement over the supply of its COVID-19 vaccine to European Union member states was with the EU Commission.
“Our discussions with Governments and the details of vaccine deliveries are confidential,” it added.
Somehow, Poland is a party to the EU/Pfizer contract that was kept confidential from the country but still obligates it to pay.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and EU’s Ursula von der Leyen negotiated the contract in secret. (see picture below)

Anyway, now in 2023, Pfizer filed a suit, suing Poland for the monies due under the contract that was confidential and unavailable for Poland to even look at.
How a party can be obligated to pay under a contract that could not ever be assented to due to secrecy is a mystery to me, but I guess the legal minds in Europe see it differently.
Pfizer is suing in Brussels because Polish courts cannot see the contract and are unlikely to be very receptive to enforcing a contract that the court can review.
According to Polish newspaper Gazeta Prawa, Pfizer brought the civil case before a Brussels court because the doses were purchased through EU joint procurement contracts, drawn up under Belgian law.
Can Poland, perhaps, bring forth some novel defenses?
Perhaps Poland can ask Pfizer to comment on the dramatic fall in fertility that Poland is experiencing.

Poland may ask its local courts to make Pfizer compensate Polish COVID vaccine victims. (fortunately, there are fewer of them compared to the vax-crazy countries).
Pictures of some of the Polish victims of Covid vaccines, beautiful healthy humans who never needed the “vaccine” and yet died from it, are displayed by their bereaved relatives:

ht tps://twitter.com/DominateREALITY/ status/1488214087259459584/photo/3
Can Pfizer explain, for example, why Sweden’s deaths continued to go up as the country was vaccinated, while Poland’s deaths went down after Poland refused COVID vaccines?

I am not an international lawyer, and I do not specialize in the enforceability of secret contracts that cannot even be seen by the parties which they obligate.
But I expect that Pfizer will lose.
German News Report on Covid Vaccines and ‘Turbo Cancer’ Withdrawn in “Frontal Assault on Freedom of the Press”
BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 21, 2023
This past September 21st, the German news agency epd – the news agency of the German Protestant Church – published a potentially explosive report titled ‘Coronavirus Vaccines: Doctors and Researchers Express Concerns.’ The concerns in question were, more precisely, about a possible link between mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and rapidly-developing or “turbo” cancers.
Thus, we read, for instance:
The Munich-based immunologist Peter Schleicher is currently treating 1,000 patients in his medical practice. Around 30 of them have “turbo cancer”, as he says. This means that “the cancer grows incredibly quickly,” Schleicher told the Evangelischer Pressedienst (epd). He has never before had so many “turbo cancer patients” at the same time, he added.
According to Schleicher, all 30 patients were diagnosed with cancer within three months of their last coronavirus vaccination. He has long suspected that mRNA vaccines can impair the immune system, so that diseased cells in the body can no longer be effectively combated: “In my view, this explains why the tumours grow at lightning speed.”
And further on in the article:
“As early as autumn 2021, I suspected that the coronavirus vaccines could give rise to turbo cancer,” Ute Krüger told epd. The cancer epidemiologist, who specialised as a breast cancer pathologist at the Breast Cancer Centre of Oskar Ziethen Hospital in Berlin in 2004, is currently conducting research at Lund University in Sweden.
For some time now, she has been dealing with cancer patients the course of whose illness has been extremely strange, she says. The cancer specialist points, for instance, to a 70-year-old woman who had been living with metastatic breast cancer for several years: “Shortly after being vaccinated against COVID-19, the tumour growth in her liver exploded.” The patient died within a month.
The article also cites chemistry professors Andreas Schnepf of the University of Tubingen and Martin Winkler of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, who likewise expressed their worries about the dangers of the vaccines.
Within one week of publication, however, the report had been quietly withdrawn. The article has been preserved on the Wayback Machine here. But it has disappeared from the original URL on the website of the German Protestant Church newspaper, the Evangelische Zeitung. Under the same title, ‘Coronavirus Vaccines: Doctors and Researchers Express Concerns’ – even with the same publication date and time! – we now find a brief disclaimer instead of the article. This disclaimer begins as follows:
Here, there was previously a text about coronavirus vaccinations and alleged possible links to cancer illnesses. It was an agency text which came directly from the agency and which had not been edited [by us]. The editors had already distanced themselves from the text and the repeatedly-used term ‘turbo cancer’, which has gained notoriety from its use by so-called ‘Querdenker‘.
The term Querdenker is widely used in German public discourse to refer to opponents of Covid measures such as lockdowns and mass vaccination. ‘Quer-denker‘ literally means ‘oblique’ or ‘transverse’ thinker and has the connotation of non-conformist or dissident, i.e., someone who ‘thinks differently’. (Thus, the English ‘queer’ appears to be derived from the German quer or to share a common etymological root with it.) The term has somehow become a term of disparagement in contemporary German usage.
It should be noted that Germany’s “Protestant Newspaper”, needless to say, regularly runs articles from its Protestant news agency.
The disclaimer goes on to cite a ‘fact-check’ from Germany’s public health authority, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which virulently rejects any link between the vaccines and cancer and indeed goes on the attack against those suggesting there is one:
Alluding to such fears is a targeted strategy of opponents of vaccination, which is used again and again. They try to create an association between vaccinations and cancer using invented notions like ‘turbo cancer’.
“There is no scientific basis whatsoever for this supposed relationship,” the RKI concludes. Oddly enough, the RKI ‘fact-check’ makes no specific reference to mRNA vaccines here, even though it is obviously such vaccines which are at issue in this context. It only mentions the mRNA vaccines in passing later on, in order to praise the “ingenious idea” of using mRNA technology to fight cancer.
It should be noted that the original epd article already included contrary opinion, including from the German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which told the epd, somewhat elliptically, that it “has no indication that the COVID-19 vaccines authorised in Germany altered the human genome”.
Although the German public health authority is cited in the disclaimer, in response to a recent query by the German regional newspaper the Nordkurier, epd Editor-in-Chief Karsten Frerichs insisted that the agency had not come under any pressure from Government officials to withdraw the article, but merely reconsidered the wisdom of its publication after receiving inquiries from “private individuals”.
Peter Schleicher, the Munich-based immunologist cited in the article, calls its withdrawal “outrageous”, describing it as a “frontal assault on freedom of the press”. There is “a great deal of absolutely serious [scientific] literature which undergirds the suspicion” of a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer, he told the Nordkurier.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.
Moderna’s ‘Disinformation Department’ Monitors 150 Million Websites for ‘Anti-Vaccine’ Narratives
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 21, 2023
Moderna’s “disinformation department” partnered with an industry-backed nonprofit, the Public Good Projects (PGP), to monitor and suppress dissenting voices on COVID-19 vaccine policy, according to a new report by investigative journalists Lee Fang and Jack Poulson published Monday in UnHerd.
Over the last year, the “Twitter Files,” two lawsuits against the Biden administration and other investigations have exposed instances of collusion among government, social media and universities to suppress dissenting speech about COVID-19 policies, election fraud allegations and other topics.
This new report sheds light on Moderna’s behind-the-scenes strategy within this new media landscape. It exposes key actors and how they worked to monitor 150 million websites for the purpose of censoring speech that undermines the company’s COVID-19 vaccine narrative and actively shaping public discourse to benefit Moderna’s bottom line.
Great Barrington Declaration co-author and Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was blacklisted by Twitter, praised the new report in a tweet.
Moderna had never successfully advanced any product to market prior to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and was teetering on the edge of collapse when the pandemic was announced.
Its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine transformed the drugmaker into a $100 billion company almost overnight and turned its CEO, chairman and co-founders into billionaires.
Today, as public interest in taking yet another booster shot tanks and federal subsidies for the shot are disappearing, so are profits, leading the company to invest in new strategies — like a flashy marketing campaign — to stay afloat, Fang and Poulson reported.
Moderna also is doubling down on work started during the pandemic to attack dissent about vaccines and to direct vaccination policy, they found.
In fact, Moderna today employs former law enforcement agents, like Nikki Rutman, a 20-year FBI veteran who worked for the agency in Boston during Operation Warp Speed where her job was to conduct weekly cybersecurity meetings with Moderna.
Now she runs Moderna’s global intelligence division — part of the department spearheading Moderna’s work to stop “disinformation” — producing reports that flag “anti-vaccine narratives” online and recommending whether and how to address them, they wrote.
The department works with the PGP, largely funded through a $1.27 million donation from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a biotech lobbying group that represents Pfizer and Moderna.
Through PGP and Talkwalker, a “social listening” company, Moderna’s team monitors everything from mainstream news outlets to gaming sites, deploying artificial intelligence to monitor 150 million websites across the world for vaccine-related conversation.
The team issues reports to Moderna staff that color-code the “anti-vaccine narratives” by level of risk. Low-risk narratives “don’t currently warrant any action.” For the higher-risk narratives, the team “will notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” Lee and Poulson wrote.
Analyzing sample reports, the journalists discovered that examples of “high-risk” posts included a video posted by Elon Musk mocking myriad claims that the vaccines were “100% effective” along with a number of posts made by comedian and political commentator Russell Brand, whom they flagged in September for his “anti-vaccine” beliefs.
The Moderna team also raised concerns over the optics when tennis star Novak Djokovic, who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, won the Moderna-sponsored U.S. Open.
Lee and Paulson reported that Moderna was unconcerned with the truth of any of the claims made in the posts it flagged, only with their effects.
“None of the reports that we have seen makes any attempt to dispute the claims made,” they wrote. “Rather the claims are automatically deemed ‘misinformation’ if they encourage vaccine hesitancy.”
Moderna first began working with PGP in 2021-2022 on a program called “Stronger,” where the nonprofit “identified misinformation and shaped content decisions on social media.”
PGP could do this effectively because it had “backdoor access” to Twitter data, through a “firehose,” which provides real-time access to all tweets on the platform for large-scale data analysis and data mining.
PGP, which worked directly with Twitter to develop its policies around the pandemic, would send Twitter lists of accounts to amplify or censor.
Twitter’s general counsel also advised the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s task force on combating misinformation to work with PGP on COVID-19 speech-related issues.
Lee and Poulson also found that PGP distributed talking points and advice on how to respond to vaccine misinformation to a network of 45,000 healthcare professionals.
“[Moderna’s] intention, as we have gleaned from the emails exchanged, was not only to combat misinformation, but also to affect the content and tenor of public debate,” Fang and Paulson wrote.
This year, as the COVID-19 booster uptake numbers have collapsed, Moderna and PGP launched a new collaboration, this time working with the American Board of Internal Medicine, to develop a training program called the “Infodemic Training Program,” to train healthcare workers to identify “medical misinformation.”
Despite public outrage regarding social media censorship, a clear lack of interest in continuing to take booster shots and the official end of the pandemic announced in May by the Biden administration, Moderna continues to grow its surveillance operation.
Internal alerts analyzed by Fang and Poulson reveal the company is closely monitoring laws and politicians seeking to restrict vaccine mandates and that it continues to flag messages posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Musk, who Moderna notes, “increasingly uses that platform to elevate fringe vaccine opponents and conspiracy theorists.”
The authors wrote:
“The network of fact-checking nonprofits has grown at an industrial pace, providing opaque opportunities for private and public interests to take subtle control over the public discourse. Such sophistication in blending public-health messaging and corporate advertising should concern anyone with an interest in how government controls free speech.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Why were German politicians so eager to vaccinate children, and why are they lying about it now?
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | November 18, 2023
Here is a riddle:
Why were German politicians so eager, in summer 2021, to vaccinate children? Why did they place public pressure on vaccine regulators to recommend child vaccination?
Even a few months ago, I would’ve said this was no great mystery. Before August 2021, everybody still operated on the insane assumption that the vaccines would eradicate Covid. They believed (or professed to believe) that a vaccination rate in excess of some magic number would end the pandemic, and that magic number was presumed to be unachievable if children were spared the jabs. I’d still say that was the case, but a recent news story has caused me to consider this question more deeply. Where did the specific pressure come from? What drove, for example, random regional ministers of education to mount their own appeals to vaccinate schoolchildren? What did these dumb people ever know about viruses or reproduction numbers or population immunity? What was going on?
There has been a lot of talk in the German press about the need for an appraisal of pandemic policies. This talk has flowed in directly inverse proportion to anybody’s willingness to actually appraise anything. Almost the only exception is the state parliament of Brandenburg, where Alternative für Deutschland are strong enough to have forced the convening of a Corona Investigatory Committee. The revelations so far have been extremely eye-opening, despite the limitation of the inquiry to Brandenburg and substantial obstruction from the political establishment.
The Committee publishes no protocols, many of their sessions are closed to the public, and with a few exceptions the media studiously avoids reporting on their work. Nevertheless, every time its members meet, something new and very bizarre comes to light. During their third session, in October, the Committee summoned Britta Ernst, Minister of Education in Brandenburg from 2017 to 2023, and also since 1998 the wife of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At one point in the proceedings, Saskia Ludwig asked Ernst a very important question, namely the one that stands at the head of this post:
Why did Ernst advocate the vaccination of children in 2021?
The Nordkurier reports on the exchange that ensued:
Ernst had always campaigned in favour of vaccination and said in November 2021 that a “high vaccination rate” was “crucial for child welfare.” Ludwig asked … whether Ernst would repeat this statement given the current level of knowledge about the risk of side effects when vaccinating children against Covid.
Ernst … replied that the recommendation of STIKO [the Standing Committee on Vaccination] had been decisive for her.
STIKO “set the standard” and she had “no doubts about the work of STIKO,” which is why she had “naturally adopted their findings, which they make on a scientific basis.” Regarding her statement from November 2021, she said: “I suspect that this quote regarding the vaccination rate referred primarily to adults.” Ernst continued: “In addition, STIKO also recommended the vaccination of children and adolescents, and we followed this recommendation.”
In other words, Ernst was just Following the Science. She was just doing what the expert regulators of STIKO told her to do.
Except, that’s not true at all. Ernst was calling for the vaccination of teenagers as early as July 2021, well before that body had made any such recommendation. She was circulating flyers among Brandenburg schoolchildren that assured them they might even be able to get vaccinated without their parents’ permission. And what is more, she was even demanding that STIKO expand their recommendation to include everyone over 12 years of age.
From an rbb return-to-school article published on 29 July 2021:
The new school year begins in Brandenburg in just over a week. Primary school pupils will then be required to wear masks and there will continue to be plenty of ventilation. The Minister of Education believes that schools are in a good position – but there is still a need for action when it comes to vaccination.
Brandenburg’s Education Minister Britta Ernst (SPD) is calling for children and young people to be vaccinated from the age of 12 …
Until now, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) has advised that 12 to 16-year-olds should only be vaccinated if they have certain preexisting conditions. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has already approved the vaccines from Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer for this age group.
Ernst called on STIKO to issue a clear recommendation in favour of these vaccinations. The committee has already established that the incidence of infection among children is not dangerous and that illnesses among children are not severe. “This gives us further support in favour of opening schools,” Ernst said. A clear recommendation from STIKO, however, would be “helpful in any case, because many parents are naturally unsure how they should act.”
It wasn’t just Ernst. The day before, the Minister President of Brandenburg, Dietmar Woidke, had also renewed his demands that STIKO approve the vaccines for healthy adolescents:
On rbb television, Brandenburg’s Minister President Dietmar Woidke (SPD) once again called for the vaccination of children aged twelve and over to be considered. “STIKO already recommends vaccination for children with pre-existing conditions,” Woidke said. He would welcome it if … STIKO were to make a recommendation for the vaccination of adolescents in view of the spread of the Delta variant. According to Woidke, Delta has increased the risks for children and adolescents. STIKO must now weigh “the risk posed by Covid and the risk that vaccines may pose to younger age groups.”
Confronted with these contradictions at the Committee last month, Ernst became oddly evasive. She said vaguely that “many parents were waiting for a recommendation from STIKO” and that she “seem[ed] to remember that children in other countries were already vaccinated.” She did not refer to Woidke or describe any broader discussions within the Brandenburg government, although demands for child vaccination were clearly bigger than her. Nor did she refer to pressure from teachers’ organisations or any specific epidemiological goals.
The excuse about parental pressure is very strange and unsatisfying, when you think about it. First, the vaccines had already been approved by the EMA for the 12-and-up group. Parents who really wanted to jab their kids just had to find a willing doctor. Second, and more importantly, it is not the job of state education ministers to pass the concerns of local jab-crazed parents on to national medical regulatory bodies in the media. Why can’t Ernst clearly describe her motives? Where did the demand to vaccinate children come from?
At another revealing moment, Ludwig asked Ernst about a pro-vaccine flyer circulated among Brandenburg schoolchildren. This flyer assured kids that “There are hardly any long-term side effects; the vaccine is broken down quickly by the body.” It also enthused that “In some cases, you can even be vaccinated without your parents’ consent.” Here, too, Ernst had no good answers. She would say only that the flyer merely described “the legal situation” and “that underage girls are given contraceptives by doctors without parental consent.”
I looked into this flyer, which is a creepy exercise in marketing vaccines to children. The version that was circulated in Thüringen is still online:

Ernst couldn’t say much about its contents because it came from on high. The flyer was funded by the Thüringen Health and Education ministries, and masterminded by odious health communicator, Erfurt professor and villain-of-the-blog Cornelia Betsch. In later months, Betsch would go on to advise the government on how to nudge German vaccine uptake higher. We are dealing with the upper reaches of the German vaccinator-industrial complex here, in other words. The flyer was designed according to interviews its authors conducted with teenagers at the Henfling Gymnasium in Meiningen, for the purposes of figuring out out how best to manipulate kids into getting excited about vaccines.
There are two things about this document that make it extremely obnoxious. The first is that it is full of highly manipulative propaganda. It tells children that “The virus spreads primarily among the unvaccinated,” that “if you are not vaccinated, you have a greater risk of becoming infected,” that “the virus is becoming more contagious,” that “it is very rare to be infected despite vaccination and it is rare to infect others” and that “if you are vaccinated, you also protect others who can’t be vaccinated.” It contains a specific section explaining that the vaccines won’t impact fertility, and so I expect it was targeted specifically at girls, for whom the get-vaccinated-to-protect-your-family subtext would be especially effective.
The second obnoxious point is that this flyer, advising teenagers to seek the jabs even in the absence of parental permission and providing them with the contact information of local vaccination centres, was published on 14 July 2021. That is, it came out in advance of any official STIKO recommendation that this age group should be jabbed at all, and just two weeks before leading Brandenburg politicians like Ernst and Woidke began calling for STIKO to expand their recommendations to include teenagers.
There was, then, an unauthorised child vaccination campaign underway in summer 2021, which consisted of vaccine propaganda circulated to school children on the one hand, public pressure on vaccine regulators on the other hand, and who knows what else on however many other hands. It was timed around the summer holidays, for the clear purpose of scaring children into seeking the jabs before they returned to school. For some reason, Ernst will not tell the Brandenburg parliament why she participated in this campaign, and she will not say who its orchestrators were.
The scandal of excess death reporting (or lack thereof)
Imagine the noise if the unvaccinated were the ones dying…
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | November 16, 2023
In stark contrast to the 2020 relentless daily death counts, there has been a virtual media black-out on excess deaths since the vaccine rollout.
Waves of excess mortality were followed by a brand new medical product being rolled out to entire populations globally and then the excess deaths went up stepwise. Leaving aside for a moment that no proper follow-up was put in place, no pharmacovigilance, no monitoring of the group that chose not to have the injections, we are left with having to use our mathematical minds to prove that something very unsettling is happening which certainly won’t remain hidden forever. Death is not ambiguous.
If most of the excess deaths were in the unvaccinated group of the population, this would be a brilliant indicator of the amazing value of the ‘safe and effective’ injections. The media has had a clear editorial line for decades: “thou shalt not increase vaccine hesitancy.” The underlying quasi religious assumption is that any such hesitancy would be ‘catastrophic’ for society’s health. If, after the jab rollout, the unvaxxed were dropping like flies, you can bet your bottom dollar that the media jackals would be promoting this in lavish technicolour centrefolds. “As Jane drew her last breath, her final whispered words were, ‘I wish I’d just got the damned vaccine’”... and so on and so forth. The data would have been repeatedly promulgated ad nauseam, to prove what fools the unvaccinated were and how brilliant the vaccines are. But this is not what is happening, because it would be an outright lie. So instead, we have radio silence on the topic of excess deaths, to avoid uncomfortable questions being asked.
Key to understanding what is happening is in realising that the vast majority of those at most risk of dying have been vaccinated. Therefore, patterns in the overall population reflect what is happening among that majority. It is almost impossible for the minority unvaccinated group to be responsible for such an increase in mortality.
To use an analogy, imagine if 90% of cars were given a new device claimed not only to be effective at preventing extra accidents but also super safe. Afterwards, there’s a 10% overall rise in car accidents from 100 a month to 110. If all the extra accidents were happening in the 10% of unaltered vehicles that would mean that among this group were the 10 accidents that represent the background rate in 10% of the population plus the extra 10 accidents. That would imply the accident rate had doubled in the cars that had not been altered. If, however, the new innovation was responsible, then the 10 extra accidents would be added to the 90 background accidents in the altered group, which would make for an overall increased rate of 11%. The latter scenario is much more likely and is much easier to believe, mathematically speaking.
Thinking of that analogy, let’s look at what has happened to deaths after the vaccine rollout. Take the 50-64 year age cohort as an example. From July 2022-Sept 2023, there were 12.5% more deaths than expected in this group, some of which were attributed to covid. Even excluding excess deaths that were blamed on covid, there were still 8.8% more deaths than expected in this age group. If these deaths were happening to the unvaccinated (because they hadn’t received the miracle drug), the mortality rate would have had to have doubled in that group for eighteen months straight. To put that into context, the excess from March 2020 to December 2021 (during the height of BBC daily reporting on excess deaths) was 19% higher than baseline average.
This is a rather mathematically complicated way of saying that the deaths are clearly not happening predominantly in the unvaccinated cohort because mathematically speaking, it just doesn’t add up as a possible scenario.

Table 1: Percentage increase in deaths (July 2022-Sept 2023) by age group if all excess were in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. First two columns are for all cause deaths and the second two exclude deaths blamed on covid.
For the over 75 year olds the situation is the most ridiculous. Many old people have already died in excess in recent years, so now we ought to be seeing a deficit in deaths in this group. If there are extra deaths, they first have to make up for this deficit before they can count as “excess” deaths. If we assume the excess in among the vaccinated then the excess is indeed small at 5% for all cause deaths. However, if we attribute those excess deaths to the unvaccinated then that population is dying at three times the expected rate! Even if we exclude all deaths blamed on covid the unvaccinated would still have to be dying at double the expected rate. Why? What’s killing them?
Where’s the outcry?
Where are the weekly press conferences and the demand that we must make any sacrifice in order to save even one life?
Looked at in this way it is clear that the actual problem must lie in unexpected deaths among the vaccinated population.
Calls to ‘Stop the Shots’ Intensify
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 15, 2023
Activist groups, medical organizations and doctors around the globe are launching initiatives seeking to halt the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines or to have them pulled from the market altogether.
These efforts, including educational campaigns, legal challenges and petitions, cite the high number of adverse events and revelations regarding vaccine contamination as factors that may lead to the vaccines being recalled.
Several individuals involved with these initiatives told The Defender their efforts are beginning to make a noticeable difference — but that more work is needed.
“People are waking up to the fact that they were misled, and they are starting to demand answers from their elected officials and the safety and regulatory agencies that they trusted with the health of their children, but who lied to them,” said Janci Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services and co-founder of the We The People 50 — Recall The Shots campaign.
Bradford Geyer, an attorney with the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, which launched the We The People 50 initiative, told The Defender the response to the initiative has been supportive.
“Our movement is clearly growing, as Americans and citizens of other nations realize what governments and Big Pharma have done to them.”
COVID vaccines ‘must be stopped for the sake of humanity’
In the U.S., the We The People 50 initiative is calling for “the recall of the COVID-19 genetic ‘vaccines’ due to the large numbers of deaths, disabilities, and unreasonable harm they pose.”
The initiative is made up of doctors, scientists, attorneys, advocates, authors, researchers, victims and concerned citizens, according to Lindsay, who said the group’s mission is to save lives and protect the most vulnerable groups from these dangerous genetic vaccines.
“We are potentially contaminating the entire human gene pool with these reckless technologies, with almost zero oversight as to their consequences to humans, animals and the environment,” Lindsay said. “It must be stopped for the sake of humanity.”
The campaign was inspired by Dr. John Witcher, a Mississippi doctor who advocated for the recall of the COVID-19 vaccines in his state. Witcher, a former gubernatorial candidate in Mississippi, told The Defender his efforts began in September 2021, when he launched Mississippi Against Mandates.
Initially, the movement organized protests and rallies and a public awareness campaign, opposing vaccine mandates. “Our primary focus was to stop the mandates and be cautious of the shots,” Witcher said.
According to Witcher, a turning point came in late October 2021, when Dr. Peter McCullough spoke at a roundtable organized by the Mississippi group, during which he said the COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe for humans.
After that, Witcher said, the group “turned not just against the mandates but against the shots.”
In February, what was previously a statewide effort became a national initiative, following a meeting at the Mississippi Capitol where McCullough and other doctors, and several vaccine-injured individuals and their family members, spoke.
The We The People 50 campaign was spun off of the February event, Witcher said.
Lindsay said that based on Witcher’s efforts, she connected with Carolyn Blakeman, media director and task force coordinator of the FormerFedsGroup, to launch the campaign nationwide, seeking to “take this strategy of bringing a small group of testifying experts from all health disciplines, as well as vaccine-injured, to all 50 states.”
Recent research revealed that a significant percentage of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA and bacterial contaminants that can alter the human genome and trigger cancer and other serious conditions. Last month, Health Canada acknowledged the presence of such contamination in COVID-19 vaccines.
Genome integrity, informed consent, medical autonomy among key issues
“We have met with state legislators and with state attorneys and have spoken at multiple county commissioner meetings,” Lindsay said. “[We] helped draft laws around genetic vaccine safety, informed consent, medical autonomy, the right to maintain genome integrity, the right to be free from non-consensual transfection (shedding) and the right to deny coerced or forced medical treatments.”
According to Lindsay, the group “plans to leverage” consumer product protection statutes in several states “to get the shots pulled outright, or at the very least, to force the states to provide true informed consent.”
The initiative also calls into question the legal immunity of vaccine manufacturers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, on the basis of state consumer protection laws and willful misconduct laws.
Geyer said, “The basis for such action is that these vaccines are contaminated and adulterated and proven to be dangerous and deadly.”
A class-action lawsuit filed in California in September on behalf of two remdesivir victims and supported by the FormerFedsGroup is based on similar arguments — namely that Gilead, remdesivir’s distributor, may have violated California laws against using deceptive practices, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
“The end goal is to get these shots pulled out of the consumer product stream and the genetic vaccine platform, banned in its entirety and those who developed, manufactured and administered these shots under false pretext, held accountable,” Lindsay said.
Geyer added, “The ultimate goal of the initiative would be to pressure local and state governments to take action by denying the access of citizens, particularly children, to these gene therapies.”
“We realize that a lot of it’s a political battle,” Witcher said. “We have to get our politicians involved and turn the tide, and certainly we need lawyers involved. So we’re just trying to educate people and to advocate for and protect people.”
AAPS calls for COVID vaccine moratorium: ‘Numerous safety signals’ ignored
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), “a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country,” has called for a moratorium on COVID-19 shot mandates and genetic injections.
A March 2023 AAPS statement says: “Informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical ethics, yet millions of people have taken COVID-19 injections under duress,” even though “The long-term effects of the novel mRNA or DNA technology and the lipid nanoparticles involved in their administration … cannot possibly be known.”
“Numerous safety signals, including excess sudden deaths, that would in the past have prompted immediate withdrawal of vaccines or drugs from the market,” have been observed, according to the AAPS.
As a result, the AAPS states that “COVID-19 genetic injections should be withdrawn from the market” and “All mandates, including requirements for school attendance or work, should immediately be withdrawn.”
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, told The Defender that the organization’s call for a moratorium was prompted by the increase in vaccine mandates for uncommon, mild or treatable diseases. She said that “AAPS has always been against mass treatment that does not consider individual patients’ needs and [their] consent.”
Notably, in 2000, the AAPS issued a resolution opposing vaccine mandates, citing the importance of informed consent.
In November 2020, the AAPS said there were “many unknowns” related to the COVID-19 vaccines, including “long-term adverse effects,” adding that treatments like hydroxychloroquine have prevented COVID-19 deaths “without the adverse effects that could occur in vaccinating vast numbers of healthy people.”
When asked why other medical associations have not joined AAPS in calling for a moratorium on the COVID-19 vaccines, Orient cited conflicts of interest and fear of retaliation by government or private stakeholders.
World Council for Health: ‘Collateral damage’ of COVID vaccines unprecedented
Another organization calling for a moratorium on the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines is the World Council for Health (WCH), which last month convened an expert panel that discussed the presence of “cancer-promoting DNA contamination” in the vaccines.
According to the WCH, the panel concluded that “Covid vaccines are contaminated with foreign DNA and … SV40, a cancer-promoting genetic sequence,” and “qualify as GMO (genetically modified organism) products, which require approval in addition to that required for older, more traditional vaccines.”
“Informed consent for these products is impossible as the risks of the products have never been formally and transparently assessed by regulators and are not fully known,” the organization states.
As a result, the WCH called for “An immediate moratorium on these novel genetic ‘vaccines,’” in a statement which, according to Nic Robinson, the organization’s operations manager, was sent to U.K. members of Parliament.
Christof Plothe, D.O., a member of the WCH’s steering committee, told The Defender that “No medical intervention has ever created as much ‘collateral damage’ to the health of the people” as the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We now know that the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 and even dying of COVID-19 increases after each injection,” he said, adding, “In light of the unacceptable DNA plasmid contamination and the undeclared genetic sequences in the Pfizer vials, we have to fear integration of foreign genetic sequences, with unknown consequences.”
As a follow-up to last month’s panel of medical experts, the WCH will organize an expert international legal panel on Nov. 20, according to Robinson.
He added that the WCH has organized country councils, “a key strategic part of our plan to decentralize and inform individuals and communities and push back against centralized power and overreach, including COVID vaccine mandates and lockdowns.”
“The red line has been crossed, and every human being in charge of their distribution, whether in pharma, politics, medical regulatory bodies or the media, now has to say, stop the shots,” Plothe said.
The WCH has previously issued calls for the COVID-19 vaccines to be withdrawn, including in June 2022, based on the release of a WCH report on COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse reactions, and in September 2022, following the release of a peer-reviewed paper on such adverse events.
In June 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the WCH, called upon the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to immediately halt the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing a high number of deaths and injuries.
‘Few actions more necessary or noble’ than stopping mRNA COVID vaccines
A group of German doctors has also launched an initiative to end COVID-19 vaccinations — by reaching out to their colleagues in the medical profession.
An open letter authored by German doctors Uta Kristein Haberecht and Monika Grühn, and by Harald Walach, Ph.D., founder of the Change Health Science Institute in Germany and professional research fellow at Kazimieras Simonavicius University in Lithuania, is attempting to alert other doctors about the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The letter states:
“At the beginning of the pandemic, it was quite understandable that there were calls from various quarters to find a vaccine and distribute it quickly. It was assumed that the COVID-19 disease was dangerous to the general population, and that a vaccine could eliminate that danger. Therefore, regulatory hurdles for these substances were set low and potential danger signals were ignored.
“We have gained a great deal of new insights. … The vaccines offer much less protection than was originally anticipated … at the price of far more side effects than had been assumed and that one is willing to accept with other vaccines.”
The letter, which includes a scientific appendix with over 50 scholarly references, discusses concerns about the spike protein’s toxicity and its impact on fertility.
The letter calls for sharing differing scientific opinions and for public agencies and policymakers to conduct accurate surveys, investigations and audits through independent research.
“A dialogue at eye level is crucial for the preservation and maintenance of the medical ethos (Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Code),” the letter adds.
Grühn told The Defender :
“We critical thinkers often keep to ourselves, but many other doctors and healthcare professionals know very little about the dangers of the genetic vaccine platform, while being informed one-sidedly. Often, they do not have the time to do their own investigations.
“It therefore makes sense to approach them in a friendly and clear fashion and provide them with factual information so that they can form their own opinion.”
Walach told The Defender :
“There are now a lot of studies published that show the shots do not prevent infection. They do not prevent serious illness. They do not reduce mortality by any appreciable margin. But they produce many side effects.”
“Given that the benefits are very small to non-existent and the potential problems many, this must be stopped,” he said, adding “The mainstream press has not taken up any of these well-documented facts, and thus this is largely unknown to the public.”
In New Zealand, another doctor is also taking action. Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist who relocated from the U.S., has produced a petition calling upon the country’s government to ban all mRNA-based therapeutics.
According to the petition:
“mRNA therapeutics pose potentially catastrophic dangers; a recent study of the risks of mRNA vaccination shows that it can modify the human genome; many other aspects of mRNA-based therapies are unknown; the human genome is the very genetic blueprint of every individual, defines our health and well-being, and should be an inviolable entity.”
“In the past New Zealand has taken a pioneering position on the use of nuclear arms. We should do so now for mRNA-based interventions,” it states.
Writing on his Substack, Garcia said, “I can think of few actions more necessary or noble for a country to take at this time.”
The Malaysian Council for Health, the Malaysian Alliance for Effective Covid Control, and Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia issued a joint statement on Nov. 7 questioning the continued administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The statement references an increase in excess deaths in Malaysia and the contamination of the COVID-19 vaccines, stating that such contamination “has legal implications.” The statement suggests the legal immunity of vaccine manufacturers should “be nullified” on the basis that the contaminants are “undeclared ingredient[s].”
“Malaysian consumers would like to know if the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency … of our health ministry is aware of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contamination,” the statement says. “As this is both a very serious matter and alarming, the alleged malfeasance may also be a case of assisting and abetting.”
Legal cases worldwide target COVID vaccines
In Australia, attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens is seeking an injunction against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they are distributing products — their COVID-19 vaccines — containing GMOs, without a license to do so.
In a recent interview, Ashby-Koppens said, “The allegations are that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are genetically modified organisms by way of definition under the Gene Technology Act in Australia, as they are capable of transferring genetic material.”
“The fact that they are able to transfer genetic material means that those products should have been properly considered by the gene technology regulator in Australia. And they were not,” she added.
In Costa Rica, an ongoing court case will rule on a call to halt COVID-19 vaccines.
In a case filed by Interest of Justice (IOJ) against Costa Rica’s government, the country’s Administrative Contentious Court of Appeals, IOJ argues that authorities “lied” about COVID-19 vaccines being “safe and effective,” claiming they were aware the vaccines are “known to be harmful” and that “death is common.”
A hearing took place on Nov. 9 in which precautionary measures (akin to a temporary injunction) requested by IOJ were denied. However, according to IOJ, the judges appeared sympathetic and “extremely concerned” and granted IOJ the opportunity to submit a new filing, which will lead to a trial.
Experts including Dr. Mike Yeadon, former global head of respiratory diseases for Pfizer and current IOJ chief scientist, and internist Ana Mihalcea, M.D., Ph.D., testified remotely.
In South Africa, a lawsuit filed in January with the Pretoria High Court by three non-profit organizations seeks a moratorium on the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Shabnam Palesa Mohamed is the executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa and founder of the health advocacy organization Transformative Health Justice, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. She told The Defender they’ve called for COVID-19 shots to be stopped until a full and independent investigation is conducted into their safety and efficacy.
The lawsuit includes a letter signed by over 100 South African healthcare workers attesting to adverse events they have observed in patients who received the COVID-19 vaccines and references the death of 14-year-old Yamkela Seplan, who developed a severe lump on her arm post-vaccination and subsequently died.
The first part of the case was heard in September and a ruling is pending.
‘We should not lose any time’
Several experts expressed a sense of urgency. Walach told The Defender, “It is feared that the mod-RNA platform will be surreptitiously used for standard vaccines as well.”
“We should not lose any time, as the health and lives of many of our fellow human beings are at stake,” Grühn said. “The aim is to extend this hazardous modRNA technology to many other vaccines.”
In a recent interview, German-Thai microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi told The Defender that the present moment represents the best chance we’ve ever had to oppose continued administration of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“We need to grasp this chance” because of “the knowledge that is now available that these vaccines are condemning humanity to oblivion,” he said, adding they “contain substances that will alter you genetically. You will not be the same human.”
“These are gene-therapeutic preventive medications, and they should be called by their real name and not ‘vaccinations,’” Walach said. “As soon as this becomes clear, people might think twice.”
“The end goal is, of course, total control over us, meaning not only over our finances, but also over our genes,” Bhakdi said.
Experts also called for legal consequences for the agencies and individuals who authorized the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines to the public.
“More is needed. [We] demand that safety signals be investigated promptly and thoroughly, as has been customary and is required by law,” Orient said.
“Politicians and regulators that are responsible for this, and media that created the fear atmosphere that allowed for this to go unnoticed, should answer for this,” Walach said.
“The COVID response violated constitutional rights and medical ethics,” Orient said. “Officials need to be held individually accountable. Emergency powers need to be constrained. We need institutions independent of the medical-industrial-regulatory-censorship complex.”
“Our members and loved ones were grievously mistreated and betrayed by the nation’s public health agencies and they seek accountability and justice,” Geyer said. “Our movement is growing, and U.S. politicians of all stripes will find it increasingly untenable to ignore us. We look forward to the day when the guilty parties are held accountable.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
What does the WHO say about its power to enforce the Pandemic Treaty (and International Health Regulations)?
By MERYL NASS | NOVEMBER 12, 2023
Many people have insisted that the WHO could not make the US do anything. Let me remind those people that the US government under Biden is instrumental in pushing forward the WHO proposals, and so it will comply. Here is what the WHO says:

What is meant by a ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?
Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding.
Why did WHO’s Member States decide to create an accord for pandemic preparedness and response?
In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO’s 194 Member States established a process to draft and negotiate a new convention, agreement, or other international instrument (referred to in the rest of this FAQ, generally, as an “accord”) on pandemic preparedness and response. This was driven by the need to ensure communities, governments, and all sectors of society – within countries and globally – are better prepared and protected, in order to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The great loss of human life, disruption to households and societies at large, and impact on development are among the factors cited by governments to support the need for lasting action to prevent a repeat of such crises.
[Ho ho ho—Nass]
At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics (including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information and expertise) and access to health care for all people.
[If this were true, why do the treaty and amendments only discuss health “coverage” which means health insurance, rather than health care? The WHO knows the difference, but only demands “coverage”—a sop to the insurance industry.
Furthermore, the WHO demands censorship of information not in agreement with the WHO’s narratives, not free sharing of information—so much for information equity—and its so-called expertise was used to overdose hospitalized patients with HCQ without informed consent, when these unfortunates were enrolled in the WHO’s “SOLIDARITY” trial. Its expertise led to demanding that nations stop the use of HCQ and ivermectin for COVID and administer more shots. Who needs this expertise? —Nass]
Who else is involved in the process for the accord?
Besides WHO Member States, the process for developing a possible new accord is providing extensive opportunities for engagement with relevant stakeholders, including other United Nations system bodies, and a wide range of other non-State actors in official relations with the WHO, to ensure robust and inclusive participation in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. Furthermore, WHO is seeking complementary inputs through public hearings with stakeholders including: international organizations; civil society; the private sector; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical, public policy and academic institutions and other entities with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise.
[In other words, Bill Gates, who was the largest funder of the WHO the year Trump defunded the organization, gets the lion’s share of input, while we peons get none. Trump then turned around and funded Gate’s’ charity GAVI with the money, and GAVI turned around and gave it back to the WHO. That was our money, by the way.—Nass]
—There is more of this nonsense on this webpage, but you can go look it up yourself if you have the stomach for it.—Meryl



