Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Consent of the Governed, Where Art Thou?

Published

22 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Robert MaloneROBERT MALONE  

The essay was prompted by a midnight Saturday evening Zoom call with a Canadian physician who was pleading for me to help intervene with the Canadian authorities overseeing the “vaccine” campaign.

I am often asked some form of the question “What caused you to come out of the closet and start criticizing the vaccines?” On a related note, when interviewed by a reporter from the infamous Atlantic August 2021 hit piece, Stan Gromkowski (a former Vical colleague of mine) prophetically opined, “He’s fucking up his chances for a Nobel Prize.”

The answer to this persistent question is nicely summarized in the first essay which I wrote in objection to what was being done, titled “COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.” published in Trial Site News on May 30, 2021 (three months before the defamatory Atlantic attack). I guess that article struck a nerve, because it currently has over 19,000 likes; pretty good for an article on a specialty paid site targeting the clinical research industry.

The essay was prompted by a midnight Saturday evening Zoom call with a Canadian physician who was pleading for me to help intervene with the Canadian authorities overseeing the “vaccine” campaign. This specific physician later had his office raided and office computers damaged by the Canadian government for prescribing early treatment and writing vaccine exemptions, and has now being required to submit to the Canadian government re-education and contrition program for his sins if he wishes to retain the ability to practice medicine, just as has been required of Jordan Peterson. But that was all in the future.

Talking until midnight Saturday, he had described what was being done in Canada to force toxic COVID “vaccines” on an unwitting population including children, imploring me to somehow intervene with Health Canada to stop the madness. I told him I did not have the necessary connections, and there was nothing much I could do to help.

Waking early the following Sunday, I realized there was something I actually could do to advance his cause. I could dip into my extensive training in bioethics and write about the fundamental breaches of established biomedical ethics that were going on in Canada, and would soon migrate to USA, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and across the western “democracies.”

The following is the core of my argument back then (May 2021), which I assert has withstood the test of time much better than the notorious Atlantic hit piece published three months later.

I believe that adult citizens must be allowed free will, the freedom to choose. This is particularly true in the case of clinical research. These mRNA and recombinant adenovirus vaccine products remain experimental at this time. Furthermore, we are supposed to be doing rigorous, fact-based science and medicine. If rigorous and transparent evaluation of vaccine reactogenicity and treatment-emergent post-vaccination adverse events is not done, we (the public health, clinical research and vaccine developer communities) play right into the hands of anti-vaxxer memes and validate many of their arguments.

The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.

In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial. And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research – written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.

There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects. The human subjects – you, me, and the citizens of these countries – must be informed of risks. As a community, we have already had a discussion and made our decision – we cannot compel prisoners, military recruits, or any other population of humans to participate in a clinical research study. For example, see the Belmont report, which provided the rationale for US federal law Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A), referred to as “The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the “Common Rule”).

Quoting from the Belmont Report:

“Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Information, comprehension, and voluntariness. To my eyes, it appears that in many regions public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built. I believe that this must stop. We must have transparent public disclosure of risks – in a broad sense – associated with these experimental vaccines. It is either that, or the entire modern bioethical structure which supports human subjects research will have to be re-thought.

This was not a major intellectual leap. It was a simple restatement of the training in clinical research bioethics which I had received and which had been repeatedly reinforced over the prior decade. No big deal, except that few if any were willing to make such a statement at that time. Long before the infamous Dark Horse or Rogan podcasts.

The failure to disclose the risks of the gene therapy-based COVID vaccines by the US and other “Western” governments became widespread, chronic, and well-documented. Fast forwarding to the present, on December 22, 2023 investigative journalist Greg Piper of the alternative “Just The News” published yet another chapter in the abundant library of documented government withholding of key information concerning COVID genetic “vaccine” harms.

Misinformation for thee, not me? FDA had similar concerns as COVID vaccine skeptics, docs suggest

FOIA production shows the agency wasn’t impressed by Pfizer’s plan to mitigate “endotoxins,” complained about insufficient cleaning in manufacturing, and had no basis to claim post-vax heart inflammation was rare.

If an outsider raises questions about contamination of COVID-19 vaccines or how closely the Food and Drug Administration monitors for severe adverse events, the agency considers it a boon to misinformation that lowers vaccine uptake and hence kills people.

If the FDA itself raises these issues, that’s a different story…

The FDA documents, some heavily redacted under the FOIA exemption for trade secrets, show less daylight than may be thought between the agency and critics of federal COVID policy such as Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo.

Mr. Piper went on to summarize a range of recent freedom of information act and court-ordered document disclosures which clearly demonstrate a systematic and intentional failure by the US Government to properly inform the public of the risks associated with accepting gene therapy-based COVID “vaccine” products.

  • The CDC had no scientific research to back its public claim in January that people can safely get their COVID, flu, and monkeypox vaccines “at the same time.”
  • “Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, didn’t just tell Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo last week his concerns about DNA contamination were “quite implausible” but also shamed him for feeding what he considered misinformation that will cause preventable deaths. Yet an Aug. 6, 2021 email to Pfizer from CBER Senior Regulatory Review Officer Mike Smith about “endotoxins” – potential contaminants introduced in pharmaceutical manufacturing – shows the feds had similar concerns as they considered full approval for Pfizer’s Comirnaty.”
  • “A month before then-acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock told the media that post-vaccination heart inflammation “appears to be very low,” a CBER “surveillance” scientist made clear that the leader was not relying on the agency’s own data. Joyce Obidi reviewed how well CBER’s Sentinel Program, created under a 2007 law to monitor drug safety through electronic healthcare data, could “evaluate the serious risk for myocarditis and pericarditis” following Pfizer COVID vaccination in recipients 16 and older, the first population authorized for emergency use. “Post-authorization safety data identified serious risks for myocarditis and pericarditis after COMIRNATY, with increased risk in males under 30 years of age,” Obidi wrote in the May 18, 2021, memo, which is also buried in the agency’s 246-document public folder on materials related to Comirnaty’s approval.”
  • Obidi also stated that “Available data sources in the CBER Sentinel Program are NOT sufficient to identify the outcomes of myocarditis and pericarditis” and not “sufficiently powered to assess the magnitude of risk” for ages 12-30. She wrote. The program would need a minimum of 3-6 months follow up data to check for “long-term sequelae,” and it cannot study subclinical myocarditis “because of the absence of a definition of subclinical myocarditis and unknown background incidence of troponin abnormalities,” according to Obidi. Sentinel’s data sources at full approval of Comirnaty did not have “sufficient power to assess the magnitude of risk in patients 12-30 years of age” and hence cannot assess the “serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, and subclinical myocarditis” associated with the vaccine.”
  • “In another May 18, 2021, memo reviewing Pfizer’s proposed pharmacovigilance plan for its vaccine, Analytic Epidemiology Branch Medical Officer Deborah Thompson evaluated the company’s claim that “vaccine-associated enhanced disease” is just a “theoretical risk.” She cited Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System reports of deaths in “fully vaccinated” patients at that early stage of vaccination. “Severe manifestations and death from COVID-19 raise the possibility” of VAED because it has “overlapping clinical manifestations with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it difficult to differentiate VAED from severe” infection in VAERS reports.”
  • Despite assurances otherwise from Peter Marks in his letter to the Florida Surgeon General, major manufacturing process good practices were breached. “In a Form 483 to Pfizer following inspections that uncovered possible or actual product adulteration, FDA investigators made 13 observations about procedures at Pfizer’s Andover, Massachusetts, manufacturing facility. They include “insufficient data to support product quality prior to the release” of vaccine batch FA8057. The observation says “a deviation [redacted] was initiated due to the multiple control limit excursions during [redacted]” and the “affected batch was manufactured with a process that deviated from the validated process parameters” and was “not put on stability until July 22, 2021.” It was released on a redacted date. An observation on “inadequate quality oversight” implies that Pfizer was late in adding a notation to a batch record that        “[redacted] exceeded the allowable [redacted].” The company’s quality assurance does not review “electronic data/reports” from a redacted manufacturing process “during batch record review or prior to batch release.” <Note: No clinical trial I have ever been involved in has been associated with an FDA 483 warning letter. This is no small matter.>
  • Just the News asked the FDA prior to publication of this report on 22 December for its characterization of the FOIA-disclosed and related documents in light of Marks’ comments to Ladapo about feeding misinformation. A spokesperson responded two days later, saying the agency was working to provide an answer. As of 27 December, the FDA still has not provided a response.

At this point, the burden of publicly available documentation clearly demonstrates multiple examples of intentional breaches of informed consent by both the US government and the pharmaceutical industry manufacturers of these products. It is difficult to dispute that the US government and the pharmaceutical industry sponsors are colluding in a public-private partnership to suppress information concerning risks of these products. Likewise, there has been an agreement between the UK and US governments to suppress disclosure of information concerning risks and adverse events associated with these products.

In a normal, historic regulatory and bioethical environment, this breach of international bioethical norms concerning informed consent would rise to the level of a clear-cut crime against humanity. But in the “through the looking glass” world of COVID post-late 2019, established legal, moral, and ethical norms concerning patient and citizen rights to proper informed consent have all been turned upside down. All of these clear-cut breaches ostensibly being actively “justified” by mockingbird media, the massive censorship-industrial complex, and government officials as being in service of the public interest and the greater good.

The western Five Eyes alliance participants, deferring to the leadership of the US government, are all acting in coordination and cooperation to disregard and hide the implications and consequences of their illegal and unethical actions. This is being justified based on the following oft-repeated catechism, each element of which is demonstrably false or opposed to established Western bioethical consensus:

  1. COVID-19, the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2, is highly pathogenic with a case fatality rate of 3.4 %. <The actual case fatality rate was approximately 0.02% when this disease was first “modeled” in 2020 and is much lower now>
  2. The gene therapy-based COVID-19 “vaccines” are safe and effective, are effective as prophylactics, are effective in preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 disease, and if taken by a sufficient fraction of the population <a moving goalpost> can be used to achieve herd immunity. <all of these previous claims are now clearly demonstrated unsupported falsehoods>
  3. The gene therapy-based COVID-19 “vaccines” are effective at preventing severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2, and have saved 14 million lives. <this 14 million lives saved claim turns out to be based on flawed mathematics, and all cause mortality data analysis indicates something more like 17 million lives lost globally due to the products>
  4. Fully disclosing actual risks, morbidity and mortality data concerning the COVID-19 genetic vaccines will result in “increased vaccine hesitancy” and avoidable harm due to reduced “vaccine” (booster) uptake. <at this point in the outbreak, multiple data sources indicate that acceptance of boosters is associated with “negative effectiveness,” meaning that after a 2-3 month lag period (shorter in some studies) you are more likely to suffer death or severe COVID-19 disease – and other diseases- if you accept injection with these products than if you do not.>

This fourth point is a clear-cut example of flawed logic. Flawed both in terms of the data on morbidity, mortality, and immune imprinting, as well as flawed bioethical reasoning.

Think this through with me. The essence of the statement is essentially the governments’ assertions that “if the public knew about the risks that we know about, then they would choose not to accept those risks based on their assessment of the effectiveness of the product and the clinical risks of infection with the virus. Therefore there would be much more avoidable disease, disability, and death from COVID-19 than would be saved from vaccine products not administered.”

And on the basis of this ill-logic, governments and Pharma are withholding adverse event data, and thereby are unilaterally making medical decisions for sovereign individuals and their children. This is what we have come to. The ultimate embodiment of the nanny state, with corporatist allies. The State knows best, and will withhold medical information from the public which would cause members of that public to question its wisdom and decision-making.

Basically, the State is asserting that it has the right to sentence you to increased risk of death and disease by purchasing (using tax dollars), mandating (vaccines for children program), distributing, enticing, and marketing an injectable product while censoring or defaming (using modern psychological warfare technologies) any and all who disagree or even have the temerity to question the decisions and rights of the State to do so.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Robert Malone

    Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 2 hours ago

The tale of two teachers

Brownstone Institute / 16 hours ago

Did Lockdowns Set a Global Revolt in Motion?

Brownstone Institute

Pfizer Lied to Us Again

Published on

From Brownstone Institute

BY Ian MillerIAN MILLER 

There used to be a time where claims from pharmaceutical companies may have been treated with some degree of skepticism from major institutions and media outlets.

Yet in late 2020 and into 2021, suddenly skepticism turned to complete blind faith. But what changed? Why, political incentives, of course!

Initially, Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer were seen as dangerous and untested; they were considered a Trump vaccine that only idiots who were willing to risk their own health would take. However when the 2020 election had been officially decided, and Biden and his political allies represented the Covid vaccines as the pathway out of the pandemic, a moral choice that would help yourself and others, narratives and incentives changed dramatically.

Pfizer became a heroic symbol of virtue, and all questioning of Covid vaccines was grounds for immediate expulsion from polite society, regardless of the actual efficacy of Pfizer’s products.

Much of the blame for the vaccines’ underperformance could be placed on Pfizer itself; the company relentlessly promoted hopelessly inaccurate efficacy estimates and supported efforts to unnecessarily mandate mRNA shots.

Sure enough, on the back of progressive orthodoxy, corporate and institutional incompetence and media activism, they proudly reported record revenues.

We all know how that turned out in 2022 and 2023.

Skepticism towards Pfizer’s vaccine was obviously quite well warranted. And it turns out that now we, and of course, Pfizer’s chief promoters in the media and public health class should have been even more skeptical.

They weren’t.

Pfizer’s Claims On Covid Treatments Were Wildly Inaccurate

As the Covid vaccines failed spectacularly to stop the spread of infections and did nothing to lessen all-cause mortality or even decrease population level Covid-associated deaths in highly vaccinated countries, Pfizer saw another opportunity.

Sure, their signature product failed to perform as expected. So why not create another one as an antidote?

Enter Paxlovid.

Paxlovid, an antiviral drug, was supposed to help individuals with symptomatic Covid, who’d already been infected, recover more quickly and lessen the risk of severe illness. Sounds great right?

It would appear that it sure did to Anthony Fauci and the cadre of media-promoted “experts.”

Fauci praised Paxlovid in 2022, after the mRNA vaccines and booster doses failed to prevent him from contracting Covid. Bizarrely, Fauci implied that the same Pfizer products that he demanded everyone take would not have been enough to keep him healthy, saying that he believed Paxlovid had kept him out of the hospital.

Never mind, of course, that Fauci had a “rebound” case of Covid-19 after taking Paxlovid and getting vaccinated and boosted. Acknowledging imperfections would undercut his desire to get everyone to take more of his preferred products.

Paxlovid made headlines again later in 2022 as Rochelle Walensky also praised Pfizer’s efforts, despite once again testing positive for “rebound” Covid after Paxlovid treatments.

Even today, the CDC’s own website says Paxlovid is an “effective” treatment for those who’ve contracted the virus and want to avoid severe illness.

There’s just one problem; it’s not true.

A newly released study on Paxlovid on randomized adults with symptomatic Covid; one subset was given Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) or a placebo every 12 hours for five days, with the intent of determining how effective it was at “sustained alleviation” of Covid-19 symptoms.

In this phase 2–3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir–ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19–related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28.

Spoiler alert: it wasn’t effective at all.

Their measured results revealed that there was effectively no difference whatsoever in the “sustained alleviation” of symptoms between Paxlovid and a placebo. Those taking Pfizer’s miracle antiviral treatment saw their “signs and symptoms” resolve after 12 days, while the placebo recipients took 13 days.

The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P=0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, −0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −2.0 to 0.4).

This is the product that to this day is relentlessly promoted by the CDC, the media, and politicians as an effective tool to reduce the severity of symptoms and the length of illness. And it was virtually meaningless.

Even with regards to the most severe outcomes, hospitalization, and death, the difference was negligible. Confidence intervals for the difference in outcome even stretched to a positive relationship, meaning that it’s within the bounds of possibility that more people died or were hospitalized after taking Paxlovid than a placebo.

Succinctly, the researchers confirmed in their summary that there was no difference between the two treatments.

The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and those who received placebo.

But who are these researchers, you might ask…surely they’re fringe scientists, desperate to undercut a big, bad pharmaceutical company, right? How else could their conclusions so thoroughly undermine Pfizer?

Let’s take a look at the disclosure to see who funded this study, designed the trial, conducted it, collected the data, and analyzed the results. Surely, that will reveal the nefarious intentions behind this dastardly attempt to cut at the heart of Pfizer’s miracle drug.

Pfizer was responsible for the trial design and conduct and for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The first draft of the manuscript was written by medical writers (funded by Pfizer) under direction from the authors.

Oh. Oh no.

Pfizer created the trial, conducted it, collected the data, and analyzed it. And it found that Paxlovid made no difference to the resolution of symptoms or with keeping people alive or out of the hospital. That has to sting.

Even worse, Covid vaccination was once again proven to be almost entirely irrelevant where results were concerned. Results were the same between “high-risk subgroups,” meaning those who had been vaccinated but had an elevated risk for more serious symptoms, and those who had never been vaccinated or had received the last dose more than a year ago.

Similar results were observed in the high-risk subgroup (i.e., participants who had been vaccinated and had at least one risk factor for severe illness) and in the standard-risk subgroup (i.e., those who had no risk factors for severe illness and had never been vaccinated or had not been vaccinated within the previous 12 months).

So not only did Paxlovid not make a difference, but vaccination status AND Paxlovid wasn’t enough to create a sizable gap in outcomes between healthy, unvaccinated individuals.

But wait, there’s more.

Viral load rebounds were also more common in the Paxlovid group, and symptom and viral load rebounds combined were more common among those taking Pfizer’s treatment. While percentages were generally low, other studies have pegged Paxlovid-associated rebound as occurring nearly one quarter of the time.

So it’s not particularly effective at reducing symptoms or resolving them more quickly, doesn’t lead to statistically significant improvements in the most severe outcomes, and is more likely to result in a rebound case of the illness it’s supposed to be protecting you from.

Sounds exactly like the type of product that Fauci, Walensky, and the CDC would praise, doesn’t it?

Paxlovid is the entire Covid-pharmaceutical complex summarized perfectly. Created to solve a problem that was supposed to be fixed by another product…understudied, overhyped by the “experts,” and prematurely authorized by a desperate FDA…and ultimately shown to be mostly ineffective.

Once again, the actual science disproves The Science™. And once again, we’ll get no acknowledgment of it or apologies for the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted. Can’t wait to see what Pfizer does for an encore.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Japanese study finds ‘significant increases’ in cancer deaths after third mRNA COVID doses

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Cancer deaths started rising again in Japan in 2021, and one study concludes it ‘may be attributable to several mechanisms’ of the mRNA-based COVID vaccines.

A new study has found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after taking a third dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, according to a Japanese study published April 8 in the journal Cureus.

The study looked at age-adjusted mortality rates for multiple types of cancers from 2020 to 2022 in Japanese government data. “No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020),” it says. “However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.”

Notably, the rollout of the COVID vaccines coincided with an interruption and slowing of declines in cancer mortality rates that had been observed across all age groups over the span of the preceding decade. Third mRNA doses correlated with “significant excess mortalities” of all cancers, including breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer as well as leukemia. Almost all of the COVID vaccines at issue were mRNA-based, with 78% of those being from Pfizer and 22% from Moderna.

“For all cancers, we estimated the excess mortalities to be -0.4% (-0.9, 0.1), 1.1% (0.5, 1.8), and 2.1% (1.4, 2.8), respectively, indicating no excess in 2020 and statistically significant increases in 2021 and especially in 2022,” the authors write.

Changes in 2020 can be attributed to the height of the lockdowns forcing delays and cancellations of surgeries and other cancer treatments, but the researchers note several potential causal links between the vaccines and cancer deaths in 2021 and beyond.

“Some studies have shown that type I interferon (INF) responses, which play an essential role in cancer immunosurveillance, are suppressed after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccination,” they write.

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been shown to cause immunosuppression and lead to the reactivation of latent viruses such as varicella-zoster virus (VZV, human herpesvirus 3; HHV3) or human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8) in some cases,” the add. “These phenomena could also help explain the excess deaths from lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer in 2022 when mass vaccination with third and later doses was underway.”

The researchers conclude that “[t]hese particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. The significance of this possibility warrants further studies.”

“I have long suspected a cancer link to the vaccines just based on the science of immunology,” MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff told The Epoch Times in response to the study. “What I think is happening, broadly speaking, is that the vaccine is causing impairment of the innate immune response, which leads to an increased susceptibility to any infection, increased autoimmune disease, and accelerated cancer progression.”

In 2021, Project Veritas shed light on some of the reasons for such under-reporting with undercover video from inside Phoenix Indian Medical Center, a facility run under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Indian Health Service program, in which emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales laments that myocarditis cases go unreported “because they want to shove it under the mat,” and nurse Deanna Paris attests to seeing “a lot” of people who “got sick from the side effects” of the COVID shots, but “nobody” is reporting them to VAERS “because it takes over a half hour to write the damn thing.”

An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine–the largest analysis to date–“observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” Earlier this month, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions.

In Florida, a grand jury impaneled by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently investigating the manufacture and rollout of the COVID vaccines. In February, it released its first interim report on the underlying justification for Operation Warp Speed, which determined that lockdowns did more harm than good, that masks were ineffective at stopping COVID transmission, that COVID was “statistically almost harmless” to children and most adults, and that it is “highly likely” that COVID hospitalization numbers were inflated. The grand jury’s report on the vaccines themselves is highly anticipated.

Continue Reading

Trending

X