The Defender | September 23, 2022
The U.S. has long had the dubious distinction of trailing other wealthy nations in infant and child mortality.
Shamefully, it is not just babies and young children who are at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in peer nations, but also American moms-to-be and new moms, with the U.S. having the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country.
In countries like New Zealand, Norway and the Netherlands, there are three or fewer maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, versus about 17 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S.
America also is the only high-income nation where pregnancy-related deaths have, since 2000, been increasing rather than declining.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks moms’ deaths both short-term and longer-term, looking at maternal deaths that occur within six weeks (42 days) of the end of pregnancy, and deaths that occur up to a year after the end of pregnancy, some of which are referred to as “late maternal deaths.”
“Late” deaths are yet another area in which the U.S. is an outlier compared to its sister nations.
For both the short-term and longer-term measures, the cause may be “any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”
In lower-income nations, hemorrhage, infections and delivery-related complications are some of the leading contributors to maternal mortality.
But according to a new CDC report, in the U.S., the picture is quite different.
The CDC report analyzed about 1,000 deaths from 36 states for the 2017-2019 period — that is, the time frame before restrictive COVID-19 policies and vaccines introduced new risks.
Noting that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths (53%) in America take place well after delivery — anywhere from one week to one year postpartum — the CDC report highlights mental health and cardiovascular conditions as the top two “underlying causes of pregnancy-related death,” albeit with stark differences by race/ethnicity.
For white and Hispanic women, it’s the mind
Among non-Hispanic white and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic women, mental health conditions top the list of apparent underlying causes, with the CDC attributing more than a third of pregnancy-related deaths (35%) in the former group to that category and about 1 in 4 deaths (24%) in the latter group.
The CDC defines mental-health-related deaths among pregnant women and new moms as “deaths of suicide, overdose/poisoning related to substance use disorder, and other deaths determined … to be related to a mental health condition, including substance use disorder.”
It should be noted that some researchers believe published data sources on maternal mortality vastly underestimate deaths from suicide and overdose.
Up to 17% of women, according to some sources, experience postpartum anxiety, a fact that long ago prompted experts to flag suicide risks in postpartum women as a “public health priority.”
In 2018, Stanford authors also linked major depression during pregnancy — reportedly experienced by up to 13% of expectant women — to increased risks of “maternal self-harm or suicide.”
However, the go-to “treatments” for postpartum blues — anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants — are in and of themselves linked to increased suicidality, not to mention being of unproven efficacy.
WebMD, which blithely encourages women experiencing postpartum depression to consider antidepressants, says nothing about suicidality as a potential side effect, merely telling women the drugs “should help you feel more like yourself” and if they don’t, suggesting “a different dosage” or a “combination of medicines.”
Likewise, a 2018 article in HuffPost connected no dots when it told the story of a two-time mom who committed suicide shortly after initiating anti-anxiety medication.
A 2021 meta-analysis assessing 1.45 million patients produced far more assertive findings, showing that all types of antidepressants — whether commonly prescribed SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs (e.g., Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, Pexeva, Prozac, Zoloft) or non-SSRI medications (e.g., Effexor, Remeron, Wellbutrin, Zyban) — are associated with a significantly increased risk of suicide.
Commenting on the 2021 study, the organization Mad in America noted, “Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were far more likely to find lower suicide rates than studies performed by independent researchers,” with non-industry-beholden researchers reporting a doubling of suicide risk in adults taking antidepressants.
An 11-year analysis of prescription medications found a statistically significant association with increased suicide attempts for the anti-anxiety drugs Xanax and Valium — both widely prescribed to new moms and both in the highly addictive benzodiazepine family — as well as for the opioid Vicodin, which combines the narcotic hydrocodone with acetaminophen.
In fact, both depression and suicidal symptoms are potential “side effects” of more than 200 common drugs used by one-fourth to one-third of all Americans — “an important reminder that the drugs a person takes for one health condition may be making them sick in other ways.”
All of these data are left unmentioned when the CDC and other researchers lament substance use disorders as a risk factor for pregnancy-related death.
At best, they pay lip service to the fact that such disorders may involve legal drugs and medications in addition to illicit substances.
Medical sites are equally selective in the facts they choose to emphasize regarding opioid use disorder in pregnant and postpartum women.
For example, few dwell on the hefty incentives that have encouraged providers to widely prescribe opioids for these and other patient groups.
Describing overprescribing of opioids after childbirth, and particularly after cesarean surgery, a 2019 study noted that “the absolute number of women who are exposed to opioids after childbirth and become chronic opioid users every year is very large.”
The same study also highlighted the association between chronic opioid (mis)use and depression.
For Black women, it’s the heart
Among non-Hispanic Black women — who are two-and-a-half times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than white women — the CDC’s latest findings highlight cardiovascular problems rather than mental health issues as the leading mortality contender.
By the CDC’s accounting, problems ranging from “cardiac and coronary conditions” to cardiomyopathy (heart muscle weakness) to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (forms of high blood pressure predictive of future heart attacks) to strokes and blood clots are responsible for almost 6 in 10 pregnancy-related deaths (58%) in Black women, with a paltry 7% of deaths attributed to mental health challenges.
Recent research indicates Black moms who experience high blood pressure during pregnancy actually face a significantly increased all-cause mortality risk for at least five years after delivery.
Notably, Black women’s heart risks appear to be impervious to socioeconomic status or level of education.
In fact, a Commonwealth Fund report published in late 2020 noted the “startling” fact that education “exacerbates rather than mitigates Black-White differences in maternal deaths,” with college-educated Black mothers being at greater risk of pregnancy-related death than white mothers of any education level.
Many experts profess to be baffled about the root causes or “driving mechanisms” of Black-white cardiovascular disparities.
One factor could be obesity — affecting 57% of Black women versus 40% of white women — but typically, individuals with more education are less likely to be obese, so this can’t completely account for the findings pertaining to college-educated Black women.
Regarding both obesity and related chronic diseases like diabetes, other researchers have speculated that Black Americans “consume significantly more added sugars … than Whites,” noting that diabetes went from being far less to far more common in Blacks versus whites concurrently with the exponential rise in added sugar (and notably, soft drink) intake.
A third factor that has long garnered attention is that of stress and what are referred to as social determinants — “the complexity of factors germane to the environment (that) predisposes people to a burden of cardiovascular disease” — although researchers who vaguely blame “multifactorial” causes ranging from “the individual level to the social environment” have not been particularly helpful in pinpointing meaningful solutions.
Vaccines: an invisible factor affecting both mind and heart
No discussion of threats to the health of pregnant and postpartum women would be complete without noting the alarming loosening of former prohibitions against vaccination during pregnancy.
Vaccine package inserts list nearly 400 possible adverse events — including death and every single “mental health,” cardiac or vascular condition reported by the CDC as an “underlying cause” of pregnancy-related death.
However, the CDC will never investigate the role of this influential variable. On the contrary, the nation’s lead public health agency is the ringleader for vaccination of pregnant women, aggressively recommending inactivated flu shots since around 2006, and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccines since about 2011, despite an utter lack of data supporting their safety.
By April 2020, three out of five pregnant women (61%) were receiving flu shots and nearly that many (57%) were getting Tdap vaccines, with the CDC celebrating large year-over-year increases in flu shot coverage for non-white women, in particular.
The CDC now also recommends that all pregnant women get COVID-19 shots, and in addition advises five vaccines — hepatitis A and B, meningococcal vaccines (ACWY or B), and polio — either “in some circumstances,” or based on “risk vs. benefit,” or “if otherwise indicated” or “if needed.”
For travel purposes, the CDC gives a thumbs-up to pregnant women for anthrax vaccines (if there is a “high risk of exposure”), rabies (“if otherwise indicated”), typhoid (“if needed”), smallpox (if “post-exposure”) and yellow fever (“if benefit outweighs risk”).
The agency takes an agnostic position (either “no recommendation” or “inadequate data for specific recommendation”) on the PCV13, PPSV23 and zoster vaccines, which leaves only four vaccines — human papillomavirus (HPV), live influenza, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella (chickenpox) — that the CDC either does not recommend or considers “contraindicated” for pregnant women.
When the CDC and other public health officials opened the floodgates to vaccination of pregnant women — a group historically considered to require heightened research protections — it was clear they were turning a blind eye to known risks to the developing fetus, including miscarriage, subsequent neurodevelopmental disorders arising from an inflammatory response called “maternal immune activation,” birth defects and preterm delivery.
But it was with the rushed authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women — “based on [an] unreviewed study [and] unverifiable data” — that public health and government hypocrisy with regard to pregnant women came under the brightest spotlight.
As thousands, if not millions, of women and their babies suffer serious adverse events from the COVID-19 jabs, the CDC’s crocodile tears about 1,000 or so pregnancy-related deaths over a three-year period are hard to take seriously.
If the agency wants to stop pregnant women and new moms from dying, a good start would be to halt all vaccination during pregnancy and take a cold, hard look at the pharmaceutical pill-pushing and other social-environmental factors that ensnare so many women trying to do right by their babies.
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 a failure! Nobody wants the “8-mice boosters”
By Igor Chudov | September 23, 2022
An incredibly uplifting WSJ article. Apparently, the hyped bivalent boosters tested on 8 mice, are not finding as much reception as the vaccine promoters were hoping for. Out of 330,000,000 Americans, only 4.4 million people got the bivalent booster. This works out to be only 1.3% of the US population.
The Journal gives a bunch of reasons why nobody is taking the boosters. Such as “people are tired of them”, “most had Covid despite boosters” etc.
The article does not mention “8 mice” on which the boosters were tested.
Health authorities are trying to “get more information out”, but it is not working well. They paid for 171 million doses, but only 4.4 million took the shots!
Health authorities had looked to the new round of doses as an opportunity to improve boosting rates, saying people who were open to vaccinations but hadn’t gotten a booster may want a retooled shot.
“If we do a good job with getting information out, it might help people make a more realistic risk assessment,” said Jennifer Dillaha, the director of the Arkansas Department of Health.
“Maybe call it Omicron Plus”
Maybe Ms. Dillaha should instead admit that the vaccine is a scam and does not work.
By Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, and Jason Oke | Trust the Evidence | September 21, 2022
Two weeks ago, we reported that EUROMOMO (the European mortality monitoring site) data showed an excess of 800 deaths for 2022 in children aged 0 to 14.
An eagle-eyed subscriber alerted us to a strange phenomenon: in the latest report (week 36), 355 excess deaths have seemingly disappeared. Note the numerical change on the vertical axis in the graphs below.
This is what it looked like two weeks ago – just above 800 (see here)
We emailed EUROMOMO asking to explain what happened in the two most recent reporting weeks to cause the “disappearance”.
The answer was, “as you can read in our weekly bulletin and on the webpage for “Graphs and maps”, Spain did not participate in the EuroMOMO output in week 36, due to an adjustment process related with mortality data source”.
We can rest easy then (well, sort of): 355 child excess deaths took place in Spain over a 1-2 week period, and the non-reporting accounted for the dramatic fall in excess mortality. Moreover, such a notable fall caused the readjustment of the Y axis on the graph (note from 800 to 400).
The Spanish government should investigate matters urgently. Or maybe, EUROMOMO data managers should look carefully at what they publish. We are puzzled over how many excess deaths in Europe occur in children. In the meantime, we’ll keep digging.
By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | September 21, 2022
A June interview with the Moderna Chief Medical Officer has surfaced where he concedes the spike protein from the COVID vaccine can interact with and damage heart cells, vindicating Dr. Byram Bridle, a Canadian doctor who warned about the vaccine over a year ago.
“We know so much more about myocarditis today than we did a year ago,” said Dr. Burton.
“I do believe that it is the spike protein . . . that either causes a little bit of direct damage to the heart, or antibodies that are produced that react with the heart cells,” he said.
Dr. Bridle, a defamed viral immunologist professor at Guelph University in Ontario, responded in his substack on Monday.
“Are people going to accuse the manufacturer of spreading misinformation?” he asked.
In June of 2021, Bridle expressed concerns that the spike protein in the COVID vaccine could travel throughout and damage the body.
Subsequently, “my life exploded into a storm of harassment, accusations, and censorship,” Bridle said.
Bridle is still unable to practice in his research lab at Guelph University. He must work from home and is an outcast at his university.
A slanderous website was launched to pop under search results for Bridle. The website claims “the mRNA vaccine is injected into the upper-arm (the deltoid) muscle. There is no spike protein in the mRNA vaccines.”
Canadian health officials accused experts who raised safety concerns about the COVID vaccine of spreading disinformation. Those claims went largely unchallenged by mainstream media, who pushed for more lockdowns and restrictions in their questioning.
Bridle said being vindicated with the Moderna admission comes with “mixed emotions” since he’s suffered “irreparable damage” to his career and reputation.
“I wonder if the naysayers will listen to the COVID-19′ vaccine’ manufacturers as they now confirm this 1.5-year-old message.”
In July, Ontario Chief Medical Officer Kieran Moore announced that a fourth vaccine is now available for everyone 18+ but said not everyone should get it due to the risk of myocarditis.
Vaccines continue to be recommended for healthy babies in Canada and children, even though many countries have stopped offering vaccines to kids.
By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 20, 2022
It is hard to know if these are the end days for monkeypox, but I think they are. One of the main drivers, if not the sole driver, for pushing the monkeypox agenda was Big Pharma and the likely profits it would make from manufacturing a monkeypox vaccine. But with the imminent retirement of the representative of Big Pharma on earth, Anthony Fauci, to his $350,000 per annum package (and continued Covid infection and Paxlovid treatment ‘rebound’) and the start of the exposure of its high priest Bill Gates in the mainstream media, we can but hope the vaccine pushers may no longer prevail.
The exposure I refer to is an astonishing in-depth investigative article, published by the hitherto pro-vaccine Politico, entitled ‘How Bill Gates and his partners used their clout to control the global Covid response – with little oversight’ which reveals the extent of this one man’s control over the production and distribution of vaccines.
The disclosures will come as little surprise to readers of TCW, where Gates’s Covid vaccine development role has been under the microscope since December 2021. They will know already from TCW reporting that in March 2020 Gates stepped down from his position on the Microsoft board of directors, citing his desire to concentrate on Covid-19, that a month later he pledged to make Covid-19 vaccines available to 7billion people (the global population was estimated at 7.8billion last year) and that in December 2020 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation committed $1.75billion to develop Covid-19 tests and vaccines, making itself the self-appointed leader of the global response to Covid-19. They will know, too, that this comes on the back of his hubristic long-term total global vaccine project.
What the Politico article makes clear is that all the major bodies involved in unleashing the scourge of Covid-19 vaccines on the world such as Gavi, a global ‘vaccine alliance’ instigated by Bill Gates, the World Health Organisation, the Wellcome Foundation and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) were all receiving substantial funding from Bill Gates. This is exemplified by the fact that in 2021 the funding received by the WHO from Gates exceeded the contribution of the United States. Politico, with the German newspaper Die Welt, examined meeting minutes and thousands of pages of financial disclosures and tax documents, which revealed that the groups have spent nearly $10billion since 2020 in one of the first comprehensive accountings of expenditures by global health organisations on the global fight against the pandemic.
What the Politico article also shows is that Covid vaccine process spearheaded by Gates has been, from the perspective of the poorer parts of the world, a complete failure. In managing Covid-19, Politico argues that in the early days there was ‘a steady, almost inexorable shift in power from the overwhelmed governments to a group of non-governmental organisations’. These organisations ‘took on roles often played by governments – but without the accountability of governments’.
In her investigative reports for TCW into the guilty men behind global lockdown and the fast-tracked gene therapy vaccines, Paula Jardine casts an even more sinister light on this process. Her analysis points to the operation of CEPI (‘cross-populated’ with several men associated with or employed by BMGF, Wellcome and Gavi) a self-appointed international cabal that both engineered the crisis and the solutions to it, and to how it successfully sought to influence and control Covid policies – from lockdown to vaccination – round the world, deliberately panicking and pressuring governments.
The Politico investigation by contrast focuses on the disturbing and influential role played by one man, the man with the money, that great ‘philanthropist’ Gates, who refused to suspend intellectual property rights which Doctors Without Borders, questioning the undue influence of Gates, stated emphatically was ‘protecting the interests of pharmaceutical giants over people living in poorer nations’. An unnamed former senior US health official is reported to have said: ‘You have to remember that when you’re dealing with the Gates Foundation, it’s almost like you’re dealing with another major country in terms of their donations to these global health organisations.’
Health fascists and medical meddlers have started to lose credibility in face of ‘operation backtrack’ over the damaging effect of lockdowns; the question is when backtrack will start in earnest over vaccines. Despite abundant evidence for, on the one hand, the ineffectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines and, on the other hand, their harmful side-effects, is there yet enough scepticism amongst the mass vaccinated to knock Gates, the vaccine architect, off his powerful pedestal?
That Politico and Die Welt – the latter also pro-Covid – had not been critical of Bill Gates up to this point gives a glimmer of hope. If other MSM follow where they lead, the tables could start to turn on Gates and spell the end of his role as the world’s leading vaccine cajoler; the end of a ‘vaccine for every ill’ global health culture, at the expense of all other public health measures, whether they are needed or not or do more harm than the diseases they were meant to prevent. We can but hope.
New Japanese Study
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | September 19, 2022
Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) was an early concern for many scientists who weren’t fixated on giving Covid vaccines to everyone. However, anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines weren’t a gift from God was dismissed. Worse than that, it wasn’t even studied or looked at.
ADE occurs when suboptimal antibodies, acting almost like a Trojan Horse, bind a virus and enhance its entry into cells. This can happen in both natural infection and vaccination and can result in more severe disease.
Now, a new Japanese re-evaluation of ADE of infection in Nature Scientific Reports confirms that ADE could be causing adverse effects.
These novel mRNA vaccines have been developed to target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-protein). The authors say that whilst the preventative and therapeutic effects of vaccine antibodies are obvious, little attention has been paid to the influence of the remaining and dwindling anti-S-protein antibodies. They found that, whilst mRNA (Moderna) antibodies initially exhibited neutralising activity, a dominance of ADE activity was observed over time.
When examining how long neutralising or ADE activities lasted, they found that no neutralising activity was detected 27 days after first vaccination. The highest concentration of neutralising activity was detected on days 20 – 52 after the second vaccination.
ADE activity was also detected at diluted concentrations. After day 98 of the second vaccination, no neutralising activity was detected, however clear ADE activity was maintained.
Taken together, these results demonstrate that after vaccinations, neutralizing antibodies are induced and persist for a long time in some individuals, but ADE-causing antibodies also exist from the early stage and persist for a longer period than do neutralizing antibodies in some individuals. It is noteworthy that ADE observed at a higher concentration of serum, that is at low dilution (1/100), might mean a more vulnerable stage in terms of susceptibility to infection, because no neutralizing activity was detected.
Next, the authors of the paper examined the effect of vaccination against Omicron. They found that whilst some samples maintained neutralising activity against the original strain on day 175 after vaccination, there was no neutralising activity against Omicron. One sample still exhibited ADE activity.
It is suggested that the rapid spread of Omicron around the world may be in part due to the lack of cross-neutralisation against Omicron and some ADE activity after vaccination.
They conclude by saying that their study shows that mRNA vaccination targeting the S-protein has potential to cause ADE. Their experiments show that the opposing activities of neutralisation and ADE are exhibited by the same antibodies.
Interestingly, the amount of virus seemed to be unrelated to the development of ADE. Infection was enhanced even with an extremely low dose of virus. They also suggest that ADE-causable antibodies are not the only critical factor that results in the development of ADE.
Whilst it is plausible that unfavourable ADE causing antibody concentrations may not be reached until the virus has been cleared from the body, the authors say it is still important to pay attention to the possible adverse effects caused by remaining or diminishing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
Furthermore, due to the protective effects of T-cell immunity it might make it more difficult to recognise ADE in reinfections.
Antibodies raised by double vaccination (at least on day 175 after the second vaccination) are less effective against Omicron as reported, and suggest that the Omicron strain has acquired the ability to escape attack by pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 Abs and in part can utilize infection-enhancing mechanisms, possibly including ADE, as a means of survival.
It leads one to wonder how many people experienced ADE after vaccination from small amounts of virus, which would not have caused a problem if they had remained unvaccinated. How many people may have died as a result of ADE? All speculation but speculation which is supported by this Japanese study. Speculation, which if left uninvestigated, may cause similar or worse problems in future vaccination campaigns.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 20, 2022
Just when you thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration couldn’t possibly get any worse, they prove you wrong. Here are two recent COVID booster campaign messages tweeted out by the FDA:
“It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.”1 “Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.”2
FDA Now Pushes Transhumanist Pipe-Dream
That’s right. The FDA now wants you to believe that your immune system is something that needs to be “recharged,” as if it were a battery, or “updated” with mRNA injections like a piece of software.
This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology or physiology, and proves beyond doubt that the FDA is fully onboard with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy pushed by the globalist cabal. The human body is basically viewed as nothing more than a biological platform equipped with genetic software that can be altered and updated at will.
The problem, of course, is that your body doesn’t work that way. You cannot turn your body into a “bioreactor”3 or an internal “vaccine-production facility”4 and expect it to work as intended. The massive increase in disability and sudden death among COVID jab recipients is a testament to the fact that allowing Big Pharma to play God is a bad idea.
Transhumanism as a whole is a pipe-dream, as it fails to take into account just about everything that actually makes us human, including the nonlocality of consciousness, which they irrationally believe can be uploaded to a cloud-based system and merged with AI, or downloaded into an artificial body construct, such as a synthetic body.
False Advertising
The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for addressing fraudulent advertising. According to law, an ad must be “truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”5 The FDA itself also requires drug ads to be “truthful, balanced and accurately communicated.”6
“Balanced” refers to promotional materials that include efficacy and benefit claims, which must include a balance between benefit information and information about risks. In my view, the FDA’s most recent COVID booster ads are clear examples of false advertising, because:
Was No-Test Drug Approval the Plan All Along?
While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from then-President Trump’s health and defense departments to expedite the development of a COVID-19 vaccine8 — may have been intended to normalize the approval of drugs without proper testing.
Even if the normalization of expedited drug approval wasn’t originally intended, it certainly has been used and abused to that aim since. In June 2022, the FDA quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme9 to speed up the delivery of COVID boosters. This is what allows for the authorization of reformulated COVID shots without human trials.10,11,12
The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can be updated and released without testing.
The idea here is that the safety of the mRNA COVID shots has already been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or killed no one. Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.
In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud, antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab’s ability to protect against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.
I have no doubt this “Future Framework” will also, over time, be widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to tinker with. It may even lower standards for drug trials in general, which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase testing.13 The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated.
Analysis of US Booster Policy
In a September 12, 2022, article, Kaiser Health News raised several questions about the FDA’s authorization of the new bivalent COVID boosters:14
“… in the real world, are the omicron-specific vaccines significantly more protective — and in what ways — than the original COVID vaccines so many have already taken? If so, who would benefit most from the new shots? Since the federal government is purchasing these new vaccines … is the $3.2 billion price tag worth the unclear benefit? …
The FDA could have requested more clinical vaccine effectiveness data from Pfizer and Moderna before authorizing their updated omicron BA.5 boosters. Yet the FDA cannot weigh in on important follow-up questions: How much more effective are the updated boosters than vaccines already on the market? In which populations?
And what increase in effectiveness is enough to merit an increase in price (a so-called cost-benefit analysis)? Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, perform such an analysis before allowing new medicines onto the market, to negotiate a fair national price …
As population immunity builds up through vaccination and infection, it’s unclear whether additional vaccine boosters, updated or not, would benefit all ages equally … The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices considered limiting the updated boosters to people 50 and up, but eventually decided that doing so would be too complicated.”
Shocking Jab Study Decimates Safety Claims
In related news, a shocking risk-benefit analysis15 looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that:
That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm.” The authors also stress that “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.” The authors go on to state that “University booster mandates are unethical because:”16
“1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.”
Government Study Reveals COVID Jab Problems
A small observational study17,18 led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health also brings bad news, as they found “a variety of neuropathic symptoms” occurring within three to four weeks of COVID injection:
“We studied 23 patients (92% female; median age 40 years) reporting new neuropathic symptoms beginning within 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 100% reported sensory symptoms comprising severe face and/or limb paresthesias, and 61% had orthostasis, heat intolerance and palpitations …
Biopsies from randomly selected five patients that were evaluated for immune complexes showed deposition of complement C4d in endothelial cells. Electrodiagnostic test results were normal in 94% (16/17). Together, 52% (12/23) of patients had objective evidence of small-fiber peripheral neuropathy …
This observational study suggests that a variety of neuropathic symptoms may manifest after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and in some patients might be an immune-mediated process.”
FDA Refuses to Release Key COVID Jab Safety Analyses
In July 2022, The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release “all analyses performed by the agency for the COVID-19 vaccines using … Empirical Bayesian data mining, which involves comparing the adverse events recorded after a specific COVID-19 vaccine with those recorded after vaccination with non-COVID-19 vaccines.”19
The FDA has so far refused, claiming the data is tied to “internal discussions protected by law.” September 10, 2022, The Epoch Times reported:20
“According to operating procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 202121 and February 2022,22 the FDA would perform data mining ‘at least biweekly’ to identify adverse events ‘reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.’ The agency would perform the mining on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
In a recent response, the FDA records office told The Epoch Times that it would not provide any of the analyses, even in redacted form. The agency cited an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that lets the government withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters ‘that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.’
The agency also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which says that ‘all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.’
It’s not clear why the FDA could not produce copies of the analyses with non-factual information redacted. The Epoch Times has appealed the determination by the records office.”
CDC Also Refuses to Release Its Safety Analyses
According to the VAERS standard operating procedures cited above, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also required to perform data mining analyses, using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining. PRR23 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
When The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its results, it too refused. According to The Epoch Times, the CDC “has also twice provided false information when responding to questions”:24
“The agency initially said that no PRR analyses were done and that data mining is ‘outside of th[e] agency’s purview.’ The agency then said that it did perform PRRs, starting in February 2021. Later, the agency acknowledged that wasn’t true.
The agency did not begin performing PRRs until March 2022, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times. Roger Andoh, a records officer, gave the initial response, citing the CDC’s Immunization and Safety Office. Dr. John Su, a CDC official, gave the second response.
It remains unclear with whom the information originated. The Epoch Times has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for internal emails that may provide answers.”
So far, the FDA has insisted the data show no evidence of serious adverse effects from the COVID jab. The only possible signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature. In the article, The Epoch Times cites several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claim their data mining efforts have come up empty handed.
But if that’s true, why the reluctance to release the data? Don’t they want us to be reassured that these shots are as safe as they claim them to be? Why sit on exculpatory evidence? Unless, of course, the data proves the FDA and CDC have been lying all along.
Senators Calling for Special Grand Jury
In other related news, naturopath Henry Ealy and two Oregon state senators, Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, have been trying since March 2022 to compel the impaneling of a special grand jury to investigate decisions by federal officials that “significantly compromise[d] the accuracy and integrity of COVID-related data.”25
According to the March 7, 2022, petition,26,27 filed in Portland, Oregon, the 30 defendants manipulated statistics to create “a significant hyperinflation of COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death counts,” which in turn resulted in $3.5 trillion in fraudulent taxpayer expenditures.
Defendants specifically named28 are former CDC director Robert Redfield and current CDC director Rochelle Walensky, former Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Alex Azar, HHS director Xavier Becerra, and National Center for Health Statistics director Brian Moyer.
As explained by Ealy in the video update above, the defendants were given 60 days to reply to the March 7 petition. As it happened, the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Scott Asphaug, was assigned by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be the defending attorney — an interesting choice, considering Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum had in 2021 asked Asphaug to investigate the listed defendants, which he refused to do.
Asphaug immediately filed for an extension, which gave them another 60 days. The defendants now had until August 26, 2022, to respond. Suddenly, July 13, the DOJ reassigned Asphaug to Nairobi, Kenya. Asphaug resigned from his post as U.S. attorney, effective July 17, at which point U.S. Attorneys Natalie Wight and Dianne Schweiner took over the CDC’s defense.
When the defendants missed the August 26 deadline, Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum filed for default judgment.29 Two days later, August 29, Wight and Schweiner opposed default judgment.30
Schweiner’s excuse for missing the deadline was that she’d been busy caring for her acutely sick dog. As noted by Linthicum in his newsletter,31 “no self-respecting sci-fi editor would allow something this outlandish past his desk when trying to make a story about integrity and transparency sound believable.”
Ealy is now convinced the CDC is feeling the heat, and urges Americans to sign Stand for Health Freedom’s petition to convene a special grand jury to investigate the CDC’s conduct during COVID-19.
The more signatures there are on this petition, the stronger the argument that the court must order a grand jury investigation, as it demonstrates that this investigation is important to the American public, and isn’t just some pet grievance by Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum.
As noted by Ealy, the CDC has committed criminal data fraud. There are laws prohibiting data manipulation by federal agencies, and laws meant to prevent it from happening in the first place.
The CDC violated those laws, not just once, but repeatedly, and those in charge must be held accountable. We cannot have a public health agency flouting data laws in order to justify harming the public. So, please, add your name to the grand jury petition.
Sources and References
“Suri had a bad stomach ache that turned out to be myocarditis”
By Steve Watson | Summit News | September 16, 2022
The New York-Presbyterian Hospital is running a commercial in an effort to raise awareness of myocarditis in children, seemingly suggesting that inflammation of the heart in children is a common condition.
The video, titled “Pediatric Patient Story – Suri” tells the story of a child who “had a bad stomach ache that turned out to be myocarditis, a serious inflammation of the heart.”
The video caption states that “Our multidisciplinary pediatric critical care team worked to regulate her heartbeat – and got her back to feeling like herself.”
Watch:
Myocarditis cases in children are rare, with studies indicating that in children there are 1 to 2 per 100,000, usually stemming from cold viruses. The majority of those cases resolve on their own or with treatment.
So why the sudden need to raise awareness?
Likely because data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows how reports of myocarditis and pericarditis related to vaccines exploded in 2021 and 2022.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Daniel Ken | TCW Defending Freedom | May 20, 2023
Over more than two decades in the classroom I’ve taught thousands of children and teenagers: some were lovely and lots were hard-working. On the other hand, quite a number were disruptive and argumentative, and a number were violently opposed to learning. But I don’t think I’ve taught more than a handful of kids who could be properly described as having the symptoms of ADHD. And that handful could just as easily have had something else wrong with them. Because here’s the thing: despite the fact that the best part of a million children are medicated for the condition, ADHD doesn’t exist.
There’s no definitive medical test for it, experts can’t agree on what it actually means, and most of the symptoms disappear if the child in question has lots of exercise, good diet and, crucially, a set of clear behavioural boundaries, preferably set early in childhood and, for the boys at least, enforced by a stable adult male living at home. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 