Is COVID a Real Virus Created in a Lab or a Mind Virus Created to Control People? David Icke says COVID is a ‘Meaningless New Name for an Old Familiar Cluster of Seasonal Flu-Like Symptoms’

Like “authority,” “government,” “race,” and “money” (monetized debt), the mind virus COVID-19 is a granfalloon enslaving and ensnaring mankind.

FUNKTIONARY explains;

mind viruses – memes with both the anchor and carrier embedded into its payload. Mind viruses are stealth psychopathogens in that they can mutate to penetrate our natural defenses undetected, pretend to be part of us, and compel us to spread them further.(See: Memes, Memetics, Evolution, Religion, Government, Corporate State & Taxation)

Granfalloon – an empty representation, of which one cannot even positively aver that it is even a concept. All Corporate State fictions (stationary bandits) are “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery. The Constitution is a putative agreement or covenant to which you were neither a signatory nor interested party. The Constitution made provisions for the establishment of a Congress. Congress never formally created the so-called Internal Revenue Service as a duly formed agency of the United States of America. The Secretary of the Treasury never created revenue districts in the States of the Union. Internal Revenue Service was never granted authority to tax income of American citizens (or citizens of the United States of America, not U.S. citizens or subjects of Congress) earning money within the 50 States of the Union. The word “income” is not explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code (although it is implicitly defined by the most basic of accounting principles, i.e., cost. The income (“money”) that you earn is simply hypothecated “credit” created as iconic numbers within yet another fictitious corporate entity known as a bank. When every foundation is imaginary, alienation becomes desirable but impossible. You can elude the “authorities” but you cannot escape that which simply isn’t real or has no reality to begin with—so just what are any so-called “authorities” agents of anyway? Where are the office and the oath of office? Never fight (oppose) things that are not or ‘what is not’—as you will stratify your energy and dissipate your life-force while paradoxically strengthening what-is-not. Determine whether something has a real existence or whether it is just an absence. If it is an absence—a granfalloon—then don’t fight with “it,” seek the thing of which it is the absence (for), find it and handle your business accordingly. (See: Reification, Stationary Bandits, Territorial Gangsters, Voting, Doggy, Somnamnesiac, Sleepwalking, Corporate State, Income, “Government,” President, SimCult, Authority, Grand Juries, Tax Invasion, “Credit,” Hegelian Banking, Holodeck Court, Judicial Victimization, Statutory Oppression & The Flag)

DC Forces Genocidal COVID Shots on Kids Ages 12+. Law Destroys Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment and Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines. Falsely Claims Vax Slows Spread, Disproportionately Affects Blacks

COVID Injections Don't Immunize or Stop Spread. They're Treatments (Not Vaccines) that feed the Virus and Facilitate its Development into More Variants. The Government IS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

From [HERE] and [HERE] D.C. schools have a new mandate requiring all students 12 and up to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine before returning to school this fall.  

In a July 19 press release, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education directed that all students eligible for COVID-19 vaccines according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must receive their vaccines for the 2022-2023 school year.  

The mandate extends to all schools, including private, parochial, and independent. Students must verify their vaccine status as part of enrollment and attendance requirements.  

According to the mandate, all students 12 and up, unless exempted, must have received a series of COVID-19 shots or begun the process of vaccination before the start of the school year. Pursuant to implementing regulations, “School authorities may exclude from regular instruction a student who is not immunized and provide for special instruction for the student.” DCMR 5- 5300.13

With regard to exemptions the new law states, § 38–506. Exemption from certification.

“No certification of immunization shall be required for the admission to a school of a student:

(1) For whom the responsible person objects in good faith and in writing, to the chief official of the school, that immunization would violate his or her religious beliefs; or

(2) For whom the school has written certification by a private physician, his or her representative, or the public health authorities that immunization is medically inadvisable.” D.C. Code § 38–506.

It makes no exception for children with natural immunity.

The legislative record indicates that DC lawmakers were explicitly warned that COVID injections are dangerous to all people. The liberal puppeticians were also aware that the mandate will disproportionately impact Black people. The record states, “In a school system made up of mainly Black students, this Council is determined to override the decision‐making of Black parents about the medical care of their own children. This is pure white supremacy.“ [MORE]

The mandate is part of the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination law passed in D.C. last year. The law required all eligible teachers and students to receive the experimental vaccines.  

NO FULLY APPROVED COVID SHOTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE US. Despite evidence showing the vaccine is more dangerous to children than the virus on July 7th the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) recently approved the experimental shots for children as young as six months old.  

However, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

That is, all all the shots are Emergency Use, which are legally distinct, not interchangeable w/comirnaty. As such, the only way to comply with the D.C.’s mandate will be children are injected with a shot under an EUA. This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available. The FDA said earlier this month that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.” The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender. “The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.” [MORE]

Apparently in the recent case NFIB v. OSHA before the US Supreme Court, it was undisputed by the government that “Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States.”

The distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.'' [MORE] and [MORE]

An amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in NFIB v. OSHA importantly pointed out the following;

Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

“There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval. And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''

The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine. Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product.

Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

The EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted, while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product. There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020). [MORE]

COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission. As such, they are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection.

At any rate COVID injections are not actually vaccines because they do not create immunity. The injections are treatments. As such, individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Prosecute Now explains, The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'

The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. [MORE]

in August of 2021, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" from "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.’'

However, this newly created CDC definition conflicts with the statutory criteria for a vaccine, which focuses solely upon immunity. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1, which established "a National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization " (emphasis added). Clearly, from both a public health standpoint as well as from a legal standpoint, immunization is the intended sine qua non of vaccination.

That is, the CDC eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” The CDC apparently did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19. Since they do not create immunity, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, the so called Covid-19 vaccines are treatments, not vaccines.

Even the FDA has classified them as "CBER-Regulated Biologics" otherwise known as "therapeutics" which fall under the "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.’'

The medical community, the relevant agencies, and both Pfizer and Moderna -- the manufacturers of the dominant injections -- recognize that the so-called vaccines are therapeutics, or medical treatments. Since they do not achieve immunization, this conclusion is also consistent with Congress' definition of vaccines in establishing the National Vaccine Program in 1986: the "prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization.''

This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which individuals have a fundamental human right to refuse. [MORE]

As explained by Dr. Devan Griner’s complaint against the CMS mandate,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).

It further explained,

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.” [MORE]

Eight-year-old Boy Dies after Receiving COVID Injection in Mexico

From [HERE] An eight-year-old boy reportedly died on Sunday July 10, after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine five days earlier in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca.

The family of the eight-year-old boy reported the child died after receiving the COVID vaccine on July 5, resulting in symptoms such as a fever, that got progressively worse.

Due to his deteriorating health, an ambulance was called, which took him to a nearby hospital, where hours later, his death was announced.

Family members claim that the child died as a result of the vaccine and the symptoms he had suffered.

The death was confirmed by the Secretary of Health of the state of Oaxaca, Virginia Sanchez, and reported that “there is already an investigation to find out the causes of the child’s death”.

“It is several days after the child received the vaccine, so there will be a thorough investigation into what really caused his death,” she added.

The epidemiology unit will carry out a full autopsy as well as an investigation in to the death of the young child.

The news follows the FDA granting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine full approval for use in adolescents, on Sunday, July 10.

The FDA said the approval followed a rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data conducted. [MORE]

'We See People with Bad Colds. None with Severe COVID Disease.’ LA Hospital Officials say Media Reports About a Rising Threat and Hospitalizations are Inaccurate; 90% of COVID Positive Not Admitted

From [HERE] Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC) officials Thursday slammed claims that COVID hospitalizations are rising, a claim being used by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to likely return to mask mandates by the end of the month. 

“With the coronavirus resurgent and cases and hospitalizations on the rise, Los Angeles is poised to become the first Southern California county to reinstate mandatory public indoor masking,” reported the Los Angeles Times Friday. 

But LAC+USC Chief Medical Officer Brad Spielberg says that as far as hospitalizations go, everything is pretty much the same at the 600-bed hospital. 

“It’s just the same,” he said in a video alongside LAC+USC CEO Jorge Orozco and epidemiologist Paul Holtom. “It’s been the same. It’s been like two months of the same.” Spielberg shared graphs showing how hospitalizations have largely plateaued, even though cases are going up. 

“The numbers at LAC: COVID-positive tests continue to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease getting admitted.” 

In fact, said Spielberg, not only are very few patients being admitted due to COVID, but even those few are not being put on ventilators.  

“We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care or ED who do not get admitted, and of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to COVID,” he continued. “Only 10% of our COVID-positive admissions are admitted due to COVID. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They’re not intubated . . . we haven’t seen one of those since February. It’s been months." 

“It is just not the same pandemic as it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary,” he confirmed. “A lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.” 

“I’m going to really have to work to burst that soothiness bubble,” Holtom then chimed in. “Maybe we can turn to the media which is trying to burst that bubble by talking about a new variant in India that is sweeping the country.” 

Holtom echoed Spielberg’s statement that cases are going up due to more people testing positive, but cautioned against taking the numbers too seriously. 

“Although, we have to understand that first of all, most of that data is completely incomprehensible because at the moment many, many people are testing at home and most people are not reporting those tests in. So no one has any idea actually how many people are testing positive at any point.” 

“We’re just seeing nobody with severe COVID disease,” he continued. "As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to COVID. Nobody in the hospital. We have 24 people who have tested positive for COVID but nobody, nobody who had COVID-19 disease as we would see in the past." 

Rule Thru Fabricated Emergency: Without Public Input, Review or Vote an Unelected Health Director in LA Uses Her Unilateral Authority to Declare a Useless Mask Mandate Using Science-Free Metrics

From [HERE] Los Angeles County health director Barbara Ferrer just declared that the county was in a “high” level of Covid transmission. She is an unelected administrative official who was appointed to her position. Apparently, she has the unilateral authority to declare “an emergency” and then issue orders to the public without any public input or review. As with all laws, the public has a moral and legal duty to obey or face some form of punishment for non-compliance. Apparently, “the emergency rule” will last as long as she deems fit.

While health officers nationwide are largely shying away from new restrictions Los Angeles County health officials hope that forcing people to mask up will curb the virus’s spread as well as growing hospitalization and death rates.

Ferrer has declared that the mask mandate will take effect July 29 absent a sudden turnaround in Covid tracking metrics. It would apply to indoor shops, offices, events, schools and more. The order would be rescinded once case levels begin to drop again.

At a recent press conference, Brad Spellberg, chief medical officer of Los Angeles County and epidemiologist Paul Holtom rebuked the corporate media and took a swipe at the government’s terror tactics.

“It is just not the same pandemic that it was, despite all the media hype to the contrary… Spellberg said. “I mean – a lot of people have bad colds is what we’re seeing.

one day after Barbara Ferrer tried to con Los Angeles into further oppression, epidemiologist Paul Holtom spoke at a press conference, rebuking the narrative. “As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to Covid. Nobody in the hospital….NOBODY.”

Chief Medical Officer Brad Spellberg presented the actual case data and hospital admission data. “The numbers at [LAC+USC] Covid-positive tests have continued to go up, but this isn’t because we’re seeing a ton of people with symptomatic disease being admitted,” Spellberg said. “We’re seeing a lot of people with mild disease in urgent care and [emergency department] who go home and do not get admitted.”

“Of those who are admitted, they’re 90% of the time not admitted due to Covid. Only 10% of our Covid-positive admissions are admitted due to Covid. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU, it is not for pneumonia. They are not intubated.”

Spellberg iterated that it has been “months” since the hospital has seen a COVID cases that requires ICU admission. He said the COVID ICU admissions usually present with an “auto-immune attack of the nerves that may or may not be Covid-driven.”

Hospital administrators have complied with a fraudulent narrative for far too long

When covid-19 propaganda and medical tyranny first swept the nation, hospital CEOs and administrators largely kept their mouths shut. Lock downs ensued, and people across the nation did not receive critical health care services in their time of need. Patients were unduly isolated from their families and subjected to deadly remdesivir, sedation and ventilator protocols. These issues are still taking place in hospitals nationwide.

A “national state of emergency” allowed hospitals to enjoy financial incentives every time a fraudulently-calibrated PCR test presented false evidence for a covid-19 diagnosis. Under this medical tyranny, a patient’s true cause of death does not matter. If covid-19 is “suspected” or “could not be ruled out,” it is codified as the cause of death. Worse, this ongoing “national emergency” allows hospital staff to enjoy indemnity from medical error and iatrogenic death — which is one of the top causes of death in the US.

The PREP Act enabled the Department of Health and Human Services to issue broad immunity protections to health care professionals who administer or use countermeasures during the national state of emergency. The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided federal liability protections for volunteer health care professionals. The Biden regime renewed the medical tyranny and signed a new decree in February of 2022, allowing the national state of emergency and all of its liability protections to persist. [MORE]

MASKS ARE USELESS AND MAY HARM YOU

The evidence that masking healthy people in community settings reduces viral transmission is – at best – weak and contradictory. Face masks do not reduce covid cases. [MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE] At least 400 studies show face masks don’t work, meaning they are useless [MORE] and [MORE] New studies show masks may harm people by making COVID worse [MORE]

It is intriguing that a sphere of society where one might reasonably expect a reliance upon evidence-based practice is now the outlier in persisting with the unscientific and pervasively damaging mass-masking phenomenon. After all, a piece of ill-fitting cloth or plastic does not transform into an impermeable viral barrier, or shed its associated harms, by virtue of crossing the threshold of a hospital or health centre. It seems that doctors, nurses and allied-health professionals are becoming culturally wedded to masks, a symbolic gesture to demonstrate a united team – patient and staff – fighting against a virus. It is hugely concerning that this ideological trend ignores a fundamental tenet: a positive relationship between professional and patient is a necessary ingredient of a healing environment, and such a therapeutic alliance is much more difficult to achieve when access to facial expressions is denied.[MORE]

Prior to facemask mandates as an alleged preventive for Covid infection and transmission, such masks were infrequently worn in hospitals and other medical facilities. They were only used in operating theatres or for visiting seriously ill patients in order to prevent infection from spit or droplets into open wounds or to partially protect visitors from acquiring and transmitting pathogens more dangerous than Covid.

No studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.

There has been an international flood of lies about mask wearing in order to justify the bizarre and disturbing situation we have today of almost everyone wearing masks in many regions, inside and outside healthcare facilities, in schools with children of all ages, during sports events, in churches, in grocery stores and all commercial facilities, while driving and walking, and long after peak infection has passed. [MORE]

Dr. Michael Yeardon explains, masks are “mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others' masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you're told, even if the measure is useless.

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don't stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of "source control" catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

It's not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don't do anything.

Many don't know that blue medical masks aren't filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that's all. [MORE]

Researchers Find High Bacterial, Fungal Counts in Face Masks - fungi continues to grow and accumulate with usage

From [MERCOLA] and [HERE] In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers found high counts of both fungi and bacteria on face masks worn by the study subjects. On the face side, bacterial colonies were found in 99% of the samples. On the outer side, bacterial colonies were found in 94% of samples.

Researchers found fungal colonies in 79% of the face-side samples and 95% of the outer sides. While the bacteria tended to die off after the masks were removed, the fungi continued to grow and accumulate with usage.

Bacterial counts also were higher in males’ masks than females’.

Researchers said, “Since masks can be a direct source of infection to the respiratory tract, digestive tract, and skin, it is crucial to maintain their hygiene to prevent bacterial and fungal infections that can exacerbate COVID-19.” [MORE]

Did the US Government Remove and Reclassify 52,000 Death Records to Conceal Deaths Caused by COVID Injections?

According to Leaked Documents U.S. and European Authorities Pressured Drug Regulators to Rush Approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID Vaccine Despite Safety Concerns

From [CHD] U.S. and EU government officials pressured European drug regulators to rush approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns, according to leaked documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The EMA is the European equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The documents, first reported on by Trial Site News, include emails, a PowerPoint presentation and a confidential Pfizer report from the Nov. 10-25, 2020, time period —  just weeks before European, U.K. and U.S. regulators authorized the vaccine for emergency use.

Key revelations from the documents include:

• A rush to quickly approve the vaccine, which was “pushed hard” by government figures in the U.S. and Europe.

• Pressure on European regulators to approve the Pfizer vaccine despite experts’ concerns about the vaccine’s safety.

• Significant differences in mRNA efficacy between vaccine trial batches and commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, raising safety concerns.

• “No major interest” from the FDA regarding these discrepancies.

• The lowering of the acceptable threshold of mRNA integrity, shortly before the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received regulatory approval in the U.K., U.S. and EU.

• Direct lobbying by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to the president of the EU Commission and a high-level FDA regulator.

Political figures ‘pushed hard’ to ‘rush’ approval of Pfizer vaccine

A Nov. 16, 2020, email from Marco Cavaleri, then head of the EMA’s biological health threats and vaccines strategy, stated that “[Alex] Azar and US GOV [sic]” had “pushed hard” to “rush into EUA [Emergency Use Authorization].”

Azar at the time was secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

In a Nov. 19, 2020, email, Noel Wathion, then deputy executive director of the EMA, referenced a “TC” — shorthand for teleconference — “with the commissioner,” referring to European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen.

During the call, which Wathion described as “rather tense, at times even a bit unpleasant,” von der Leyen warned the EMA what might happen “if the expectations are not being met” to quickly issue a CMA [Conditional Marketing Authorization] for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, “irrespective if such expectations are realistic or not.”

In the same email, Wathion wrote:

“The political fall-out seems to be too high, even if the ‘technical level’ … could defend such a delay in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible. …

“Although we know that whatever we do (speeding up the process to align as much as possible with the ‘approval’ timing by FDA/MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] versus taking the time needed to have robust assurance in particular as regards CMC [Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls guidelines] and safety) EMA will have a very big challenge addressing questions and criticism from various parties … in case of a delay of several weeks.”

The “various parties” Wathion referenced included the European Commission, the European Parliament, the media and the general public.

Wathion went on to argue that “CMC, responsibility and accountability are certainly elements to be considered in my view.”

In a later email, dated Nov. 22, 2020, Wathion further revealed the pressure the agency was facing to issue a CMA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, writing:

“The likelihood that FDA (and also MHRA) will issue an EUA before a CMA is granted is extremely high. So we have to prepare for this.”

However, Wathion expressed concerns in the same email that such preparation might come at the expense of a proper scientific assessment of the Pfizer vaccine.

“We are speeding up as much as possible but we also need to make sure that our scientific assessment is as robust as possible,” Wathion wrote.

Wathion also said, “the lay public and the media will not understand the nuance” between an EUA or CMA on the one hand, and full authorization on the other. “For them, an ‘authorization’ is an authorization.”

In fact, the media often refer to the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines as “approved” when in fact, in the U.S., they are being administered under EUA.

Wathion suggested it was necessary “to address this going from damage limitation to proactive expectation management,” in reference to the possibility that U.S. and U.K. regulators would issue an EUA before the EMA issued its own CMA.

Did concerns about integrity, consistency of vaccine batches lead to lowered standards?

Other leaked documents reveal discrepancies in the consistency of the Pfizer vaccine batches and other safety concerns.

A Nov. 10, 2020, email from Cavaleri revealed the FDA was, at that time, aware of “some issues on CMC to be sorted out,” and concerns that “CMC will end up being the difficult bit.”

In the same email, he said the FDA may grant its EUA by Christmas 2020, and inquired whether the EMA could grant its own CMA “at the same time.”

The “issues” Cavaleri referred to pertained to a significant discrepancy in the mRNA integrity between the clinical batches and the proposed commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

In a Nov. 23, 2020, email Evdokia Korakianiti, a scientific administrator with the EMA, addressed those issues, writing:

“Issue: A significant difference in %RNA integrity/truncated species has been observed between the clinical batches (~78% mRNA integrity) based on which the Interim analysis was performed and the proposed commercial batches (~55%).

 “The company claims that the efficacy of the drug product is dependent on the expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.”

This had as-yet-unspecified implications for the safety of the product, as Korakianiti later explained in the same message:

 “The root cause for the lower %RNA integrity at [sic] commercial batches has not yet been identified.

 “The potential implications of this RNA integrity loss in commercial batches compared to clinical ones in terms of both safety and efficacy are yet to be defined.”

A confidential 43-page Pfizer report, also part of the leaked documents, provided further insight into the significance of this discrepancy.

According to the report, Acuitas Therapeutics, the company that developed the lipid nanoparticle platform used by the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, had set “a minimum threshold” of mRNA integrity of “approximately 70%.”

The report states:

“The efficacy of the product is dependent on expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.”

In a Nov. 24, 2020, reply to Korakianiti’s email, Veronika Jekerle, head of the EMA’s pharmacy quality office, described these concerns as part of “a number of major concerns [that] remain that impact the benefit/risk of the vaccine (efficacy/safety).”

Jekerle said, “these concerns are shared by most member states” of the EU.

However, Jekerle suggested “an approval by the end of the year could potentially be possible if these concerns + GMP [good manufacturing practice] will be resolved.”

In an apparent contradiction, and perhaps revealing a shifting stance on the part of the EMA, a Nov. 23, 2020, email by Cavaleri stated: “…the issue on the mRNA content [is] not perceived as major.”

The same email also strongly implied the FDA felt similarly, as Cavaleri wrote there was “no major interest from [the] FDA.”

A Nov. 25, 2020, email from Jekerle further confirmed the lack of interest on the part of several regulators, including the FDA, regarding the mRNA integrity issue.

Jekerle wrote:

“FDA and Health Canada [HC] indicated that the safety concerns associated with variable species of mRNA/protein are more of a theoretical concern…

 “FDA/HC/EMA agreed that alignment on specifications %B mRNA integrity are key in order to avoid that one regions [sic] gets all the suboptimal material … specifications should be clinically qualified.”

The above passage appears to indicate that specific vaccine batches would be “suboptimal” as a result of this discrepancy in mRNA integrity.

Jekerle’s Nov. 25, 2020, email also revealed further potential safety concerns — namely, that the “applicant has shared with FDA and us/MHRA only today an issue with visible particles in the DP [drug product] (appears to be lipid nanoparticle components).”

In other words, Pfizer, the “applicant,” revealed the concerns to regulators only on Nov. 25, 2020 — shortly before U.S., U.K. and EU regulators granted Pfizer the emergency and conditional approvals.

For instance, the MHRA approved the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 2, 2020.

Concerns about mRNA integrity discrepancies appear to have been overcome, not by altering the product under consideration, but by changing the acceptable RNA integrity specification.

A leaked PowerPoint presentation that refers to a Nov. 26, 2020, meeting between the EMA and Pfizer, which took place just one day after Jekerle’s email, states:

“… we [the EMA] are revising the RNA integrity specification for drug substance to >=60%, drug product release to >=55%, and drug product shelf life to >=50%.”

These changes were made despite a mention in the same slide of “uncertainties as regards product safety and efficacy of the commercial product.”

Another slide in the same presentation stated:

“Truncated and modified RNA species should be regarded as product-related impurities.

 “In addition, the possibility of translated proteins other than the intended spike protein (S1S2), resulting from truncated and/or modified mRNA species should be addressed and relevant protein characterization data for predominant species should be provided, if available.”

Pharma execs lobby regulators for quick approval

The leaked documents revealed intense lobbying from high-level pharmaceutical and political figures in favor of a quick approval of the vaccine, despite the sentiment among EMA experts that a more robust scientific assessment of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was needed.

For example, another email from Cavaleri explicitly mentions Pfizer’s direct lobbying of Dr. Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

Cavaleri wrote:

“Pfizer CEO lobbied Peter Marks telling him EMA wants the data earlier!!”

The same email mentioned that “colleagues” at the EMA “are pushing hard to compress [the] review timeframe” for Pfizer’s vaccine.

According to Trial Site News, such lobbying “could be interpreted as highly controversial.”

“Pfizer’s apparent access into the federal watchdog raises significant questions at the least,” Trial Site News reported, and “introduces the possibility for disturbing entanglements between industry and a purportedly independent, scientific federal agency.”

Trial Site News also referred to calls, in February 2022, on the part of independent members of the European Parliament for von der Leyen to resign, following revelations she had exchanged private text messages with Bourla.

While “only a small portion of these texts were ever disclosed,” Trial Site News said, the ones that were released “revealed her negotiating portions of a European-wide vaccine deal, unilaterally with Bourla, via a series of texts!”

'Do You Believe the Expert Liars or Know From Seeing It with Your Own Eyes? Israel is Suffering Worse COVID than Palestine Due to Higher Vaccination Rates; More COVID Injections Caused More Deaths'

FUCK BELIEFS WHEN YOU CAN SEE AND KNOW.

From [JOEL SMALLEY] The undeceiver and expert statistician explains,

COVID Deaths

The magnitude and distribution of COVID deaths is somewhat similar in both countries apart from a double peak in Palestine in March and April ‘21, and a substantially larger peak in Israel in Feb ‘22 (Figure 2)

COVID “Vaccines”

Israel has “vaccinated” much more than Palestine. Palestine didn’t inject anyone until April ‘21, coincidentally just before their second deaths peak. They vaccinated almost at the same rate as Israel between August and November ‘21 but since then appear to have gotten wise to the dangers while their neighbour suffered the consequences of not. (Figure 3)

The Results

If we plot Israel minus Palestine deaths and “vaccines”, what do we get? Certainly not a picture of Safe & Effective™, that’s for sure! (Figure 4)

In fact, what is quite apparent is that relatively higher COVID deaths in Israel can be explained by relatively higher “vaccinations”.

You can believe the expert liars and the official dogma. Or, you can believe your own eyes.

Haiti Didn't Participate in the Plandemic and Remains Unaffected; Poor Country w/11M People Didn't Socially Distance, Wear Masks and 1% Injected. Hospitals Aren't Full of COVID Patients, Only 837 Dead

From [HERE] Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) showed only 837 people have died in Haiti since the pandemic began, with a vaccination rate of 1.4% of the 11.6 million population.

“In Haiti, from 3 January 2020 to 5:03 pm CEST, 7 July 2022, there have been 31,703 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 837 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 24 June 2022, a total of 342,724 vaccine doses have been administered,” according to the data from WHO.

As of June 24, only 1.4% of the population was fully vaccinated. Haiti had a population of 11,681,526 people as of Thursday, July 7, 2022, according to the data from Worldometers.

In contrast to countries that vaccinated the majority of their populations, Haiti has survived the impacts of Covid-19.

Haiti did not vaccinate its citizens. Their current vaccination rate is 1.4% of the population.

Haiti has not been effected by covid while the countries who did vaccinate the majority of their populations are struggling, and telling their citizens they need repeated injections. pic.twitter.com/23cBJBKqb7

— Frank Grimes Jr. (@FrankGrimes_Jr) July 5, 2022

In December 2021 a reported observed, “The term physical distancing has completely disappeared from discourse in Haiti. In both public and private institutions, people no longer wear masks and containers for washing hands have disappeared.

As a result, people live in total oblivion of the existence of the disease. Only some commercial banks, supermarkets and stores continue to demand the use of masks, in a context in which even the government authorities speak very little about the disease.” [MORE]

the Miami Herald reported: In Haiti, they are acting like COVID-19 doesn’t exist. Mask-wearing is an exception and not the norm; bands are playing to sold-out crowds; and Kanaval, the three-day pre-Lenten debauchery-encouraging street party is back on for February. . .

Across the border in the neighboring Dominican Republic, with roughly the same population, the pandemic has killed almost ten times the number, 2,364. Jet off to Miami-Dade County, home to one of the larger Haitian communities in the United States, and the death toll is even higher: 4,002 in a population of 2.7 million.

Haitians rejected the COVID injections and have returned hundred of thousands of unused doses donated by the U.S. The U.S. donated 500,000 doses of the Moderna Inc vaccine to Haiti in July 2021 through COVAX -- an abbreviation for COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access. According to Haiti’s health ministry, fewer than 66,800 doses were administered and only 20,354 people in the Caribbean nation of 11.4 million are fully vaccinated. [MORE]

DOCTOR SAYS HOSPITALS ARE NOT OVERRUN WITH COVID PATIENTS IN CROWDED, POOR, UNVACCINATED COUNTRY NOT PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING OR WEARING MASKS

Report Shows Pfizer Ignored Deaths that Occurred During Its COVID Shot Clinical Trial, Failed to Fully Investigate in order to Provide a Misleading Picture of Safety

From [HERE] and [MORE] Three participants in the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial died shortly after vaccination and their deaths were not fully investigated, it has been revealed. 

The revelations come in a report from Pfizer released on July 1st by court order as part of the documents which the U.S. FDA relied on to grant emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine in December 2020. They add to worries that adverse effects of the vaccine in the clinical trials were not properly documented, giving a potentially misleading picture of the drug's safety. 

One of the deceased participants, a 56-year-old woman known as subject #10071101, was given two doses of the vaccine on July 30th and August 20th 2020 and died from a cardiac arrest two months later. In Pfizer's report on the participant it says: 

In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention of clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2. Pfizer concurred with the investigator's causality assessment. 

However, it's not clear how the investigator and Pfizer can be so sure the death was unrelated to the vaccine when there was no autopsy and no thorough medical assessment. As Sonia Elijah, who has analysed the report and summarised parts of it for Trial Site News, comments: 

The conclusion that "there was no reasonable possibility" the vaccine could have caused the fatal cardiac arrest because "death occurred two months after receiving Dose 2" is not only presumptuous but also lacks a robust medical assessment. This is evident by the further comment that "it was unknown if an autopsy was performed". Why was there no follow up or inquiry into whether an autopsy was performed?

A second deceased participant was a 60 year-old man known as subject #11621327, who died three days after his first dose of vaccine, given on September 10th 2020. The report says that the "probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease". However, the subject had no known history of the condition (though was reported as obese). While the investigator deemed there to be "no reasonable possibility" of a link with the vaccine, seeing that it happened three days after the injection and "autopsy results were not available at the time" of the report, again, it's hard to see what that conclusion is based on.

A third deceased participant was a 72 year-old man known as subject #11521497, who received the first vaccine dose on October 7th and 19 days later, on October 26th, was admitted to hospital because "he fainted in the middle of the night". Reported as a syncope (temporary loss of consciousness usually related to insufficient blood flow to the brain), 16 days later, on November 11th, he died. The investigator claimed there was "no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention" and Pfizer said the syncope was "most likely coincidental". But again, it's unclear what this assessment is based on as the cause of death was reported as "unknown" and neither the investigator nor Pfizer attempted to investigate.

There were also a number of serious but non-fatal adverse events among trial vaccine recipients, but oddly, in every case where the trial investigator deemed it to be possibly related to the vaccine, Pfizer "did not concur", according to Sonia Elijah.

For example, a 71-year-old woman known as subject #11421247 developed severe ventricular arrhythmias in the evening following her second dose on October 14th 2020. The trial investigator wrote that "there was reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention [vaccine]". However, Pfizer stated there was "not enough evidence to establish causal relationship". This was despite arrhythmia being one of the adverse events of special interest (AESI) listed by Pfizer in its analysis of post-authorisation adverse event reports. [MORE]

Former Big Pharma Executive says FDA Colluded with Moderna to Bypass Vaccine Safety Standards. 'FDA Whitewashed Serious Signs of Health Damage and Lied to the Public on Behalf of the Manufacturers'

From [CHD] According to an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.

Alexandra Latypova has spent 25 years in pharmaceutical research and development working with more than 60 companies worldwide to submit data to the FDA on hundreds of clinical trials.

After analyzing 699 pages of studies and test results “supposedly used by the FDA to clear Moderna’s mRNA platform-based mRNA-1273, or Spikevax,” Latypova told The Defender she believes U.S. health agencies are lying to the public on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.

“It is evident that the FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] colluded with Moderna to subvert the regulatory and scientific standards of drug safety testing,” Latypova said.

“They accepted fraudulent test designs, substitutions of test articles, glaring omissions and whitewashing of serious signs of health damage by the product, then lied to the public on behalf of the manufacturers.”

In an op-ed on Trial Site News, Latypova disclosed the following findings:

1. Moderna’s nonclinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.

2. Moderna claims the active substance — mRNA in Spikevax — does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.

3. Moderna’s nonclinical program consisted of irrelevant studies of unapproved mRNAs and only one non-GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] toxicology study of mRNA-1273 — the active substance in Spikevax.

4. There are two separate investigational new drug numbers for mRNA-1273. One is held by Moderna, the other by the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, representing a “serious conflict of interest.”

5. The FDA failed to question Moderna’s “scientifically dishonest studies” dismissing an “extremely significant risk” of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.

6. The FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

“Moderna’s documents are poorly and often incompetently written — with numerous hypothetical statements unsupported by any data, proposed theories, and admission of using unvalidated assays and repetitive paragraphs throughout,” Latypova wrote.

“Quite shockingly, this represents the entire safety toxicology assessment for an extremely novel product that has gotten injected into millions of arms worldwide.”

Finding 1: Moderna’s non-clinical summary contains mostly irrelevant materials.

According to Latypova, about 80% of the materials disclosed by HHS that FDA considered in approving Moderna’s Spikevax pertain to other mRNA products unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

“Approximately 400 pages of the materials belong to a single biodistribution study in rats conducted at the Charles River facility in Canada for an irrelevant test article, mRNA-1674,” Latypova said. “This product is a construct of 6 different mRNAs studied for cytomegalovirus in 2017 and never approved for market.”

Latypova said the study showed lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) distribute throughout the entire body to all major organ systems.

Latypova found it odd the study protocol, report and amendments related to the study were copied numerous times throughout the HHS documents, suggesting Moderna may have been trying to meet a minimum word count.

In between the repetitive copies of the “same irrelevant study,” Latypova found “ModernaTX, Inc. 2.4 Nonclinical Overview” for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine with the investigational new drug application reference IND #19745.

Module 2.4, she said, is a standard part of the new drug application and is supposed to contain summaries of nonclinical studies.

Latypova wrote:

“There are three separate versions of Module 2.4 included and many sections appear to be missing. It is not clear why multiple versions are included and there is no explanation provided as to which version specifically was used for the approval of Spikevax by the FDA.”

Latypova noted all three copies of Module 2.4 appear to have the same overview but reference a different set of statements and studies.

Latypova said the description of the finished supplied product differs between the two versions:

“Version 1 (p. 0001466) [says] mRNA-1273 is provided as a sterile liquid for injection at a concentration of 5 mg/mL in 20 mM trometamol (Tris) buffer containing 87 mg/mL sucrose and 10.7 mM sodium acetate, at pH 7.5.

“Version 2 (p. 0001499) [says] the mRNA-1273 Drug Product is provided as a sterile suspension for injection at a concentration of 20 mg/mL in 20 mM Tris buffer containing 87 g/L sucrose and 4.3 mM acetate, at pH 7.5.”

“It appears from reading section 2.4.1.2 Test Material (p.0001499) that Version 2 of the drug product had been used for manufacturing the Lot AMPDP-200005 which was used for nonclinical studies,” Latypova said. But “there is no explanation given for why the drug product in version 1 is different, and no comparability testing studies between the two product specifications are provided.”

Latypova pointed out that the package insert for FDA-approved Spikevax does not contain any information regarding the concentration of the product supplied in its vials.

Finding 2: Moderna said Spikevax mRNA does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.

Latypova alleges Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen — manufacturer of the Johnson & Johnson shot — along with the FDA, have been deceptive in their assertions claiming the risks of COVID-19 vaccines are associated with the LNP delivery platform, and therefore, the mRNA “payload” does not need to undergo standard safety toxicological tests.

The documents state:

“The distribution, toxicity, and genotoxicity associated with mRNA vaccines formulated in LNPs are driven primarily by the composition of the LNPs and, to a lesser extent, by the biologic activity of the antigen(s) encoded by the mRNA. Therefore, the distribution study, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant toxicology studies, and in vivo GLP-compliant genotoxicity study conducted with mRNA vaccines that encode various antigens developed with the Sponsor’s mRNA-based platform using SM 102-containing LNPs are considered supportive and BLA-enabling for mRNA-1273.”

Moderna is “claiming that the active drug substance of a novel medicine does not need to be tested for toxicity,” Latypova said. “This is analogous to claiming that a truck carrying food and a truck carrying explosives are the same thing. Ignore the cargo, focus on the vehicle.”

Latypova called the claim “preposterous,” as mRNAs and LNPs separately and together are “entirely novel chemical entities” that each require their own IND application and data dossier filed with regulators.

“Studies with one mRNA are no substitute for all others,” she added.

According to the European Medicines Agency, this chemical entity is entirely novel:

“The modified mRNA in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is a chemical active substance that has not been previously authorized in medicinal products in the European Union. From a chemical structure point of view, the modified mRNA is not related to any other authorized substances. It is not structurally related as a salt, ester, ether, isomer, mixture of isomers, complex or derivative of an already approved active substance in the European Union.

“The modified mRNA is not an active metabolite of any active substance(s) approved in the European Union. The modified mRNA is not a pro-drug for any existing agent. The administration of the applied active substance does not expose patients to the same therapeutic moiety as already authorized active substance(s) in the European Union.

“A justification for these claims is provided in accordance with the ‘Reflection paper on the chemical structure and properties criteria to be considered for the evaluation of new active substance (NAS) status of chemical substances’ (EMA/CHMP/QWP/104223/2015), COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is therefore classified as a New Active Substance and considered to be new in itself.”

“The reviewers specifically stated ‘modified RNA’ and not just the lipid envelope constitute the new chemical entity,” Latypova said. “All new chemical entities must undergo rigorous safety testing before they are approved as medicinal products in the United States, European Union and the rest of the world.”

Latypova said Moderna failed to cite any studies showing “all toxicity of the product resides with the lipid envelope and none with the payload” of the type and sequence of mRNA delivered to various tissues and organs.

“It is also not a matter of a mistake or rushing new technology to market under crisis conditions,” she added. “This scientifically fraudulent strategy was not only premeditated, it was also never really concealed.”

Latypova gave the example of a 2018 PowerPoint presentation by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel at a JP Morgan conference where he stated: “If mRNA works once, it will work many times.”

“This describes the deception practiced by the manufacturers, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH and every government health authority or mainstream media talking head who participated in it,” Latypova said.

She continued:

“Imagine Ford Motor Company claiming that its crash testing program should be contained to the vehicle’s tires and that one test is sufficient for all vehicle models.

“After all both F150 and Taurus have tires, what’s in between the tires ‘worked once and will work again,’ and therefore it is inconsequential to safety, does not need to be separately tested and can be replaced at the manufacturer’s will with any new variation.

“This is the claim that Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen and other manufacturers of the gene therapy ‘platforms’ have utilized. Unlike Ford’s products, theirs have never worked as none of their mRNA-based gene therapy products have ever been approved for any indication. The fact that the regulators did not object to this argument raises an even greater alarm.”

“There is no question of incompetence or mistake,” Latypova said. “If this represents the current ‘gold standard’ of regulatory pharmaceutical science, I have very bad news regarding the safety of the entire supply or new medicines in the U.S. and the world.”

Finding 3: Moderna’s nonclinical program included only one non-GLP toxicology study of the active substance in Spikevax. 

According to Latypova, a non-clinical program for a novel product usually includes information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety pharmacology, toxicology and other studies to determine the carcinogenicity or genotoxicity of a drug and its effects on reproduction.

The more novel the product, the more extensive the safety and toxicity evaluations need to be, she said.

In Module 2.4 described above, Latypova was able to identify 29 unique studies but only 10 were done with the correct mRNA-1273 test particle. The other studies were conducted using a “variety of unapproved experimental mRNAs unrelated to Spikevax or COVID illness.”

For example, the in-vivo genotoxicity studies included an irrelevant mRNA-1706 and a luciferasemRNA that is not in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Of the 10 studies using mRNA-1273, nine were pharmacology (‘efficacy’) studies and only one was a toxicology (‘safety’) study,” Latypova said. “All of these were non-GLP studies, i.e., research experiments conducted without validation standards acceptable for regulatory approval.”

There was only one toxicology study included in Moderna’s package related to the correct test particle mRNA-1273, but the study was non-GLP compliant, was conducted in rats and was not completed at the time the documents were submitted to the FDA for approval.

The results of the study were indicative of possible tissue damage, systemic inflammation and potential severe safety issues — and they are also dose-dependent, Latypova said. Moderna noted its findings but “simply moved on, deciding to forgo any further evaluation of these effects.”

Regarding reproductive toxicology, the only assessment was conducted on rats.

Pharmacokinetics — or the biodistribution, absorption, metabolism and excretion of a compound — were not studied with Moderna’s Spikevax mRNA-1273.

“Instead, Moderna included a set of studies with another, unrelated mRNA-1647 — a construct of six different mRNAs which was in development for cytomegalovirus in 2017 in a non-GLP compliant study,” Latypova said. “This product has not been approved for market and its current development status is unknown.”

Moderna claimed the LNP formulation of mRNA-1647 was the same as in Spikevax, so the study using this particle was “supportive of” the development of Spikevax.

“This claim is dishonest,” Latypova said. “While the kinetics of the product may be studied this way, the toxicities may not!”

She explained:

“We do not know what happens with the organs and tissues when the delivered mRNA starts expressing spike proteins in those cells. This is a crucial safety-related issue, and both the manufacturer and the regulator were aware of it, yet chose to ignore it.

“The study demonstrated that the LNPs did not remain in the vaccination site exclusively, but were distributed in all organs analyzed, except the kidney. High concentrations were observed in lymph nodes and spleen and persisted in those organs at three days after the injection.

“The study was stopped before full clearance could be observed, therefore no knowledge exists on the full time-course of the biodistribution. Other organs where vaccine product was detected included bone marrow, brain, eye, heart, small intestine, liver, lung, stomach and testes.”

Given that LNPs of the mRNA-1647 were detected in these tissues, it’s reasonable to assume the same occurs with mRNA-1273 and “likewise would distribute in the same way,” Latypova said. “Therefore the spike protein would be expressed by the cells in those critical organ systems with unpredictable and possibly catastrophic effects.”

“Neither Moderna nor FDA wanted to evaluate this matter any further,” she added. “No metabolism, excretion, pharmacokinetic drug interactions or any other pharmacokinetic studies for mRNA-1273 were conducted,” nor were safety pharmacology assessments for any organ classes.

Finding 4: ‘Serious conflict of interest’ exists between Moderna and NIH.

According to Latypova, Moderna’s documents contain a letter from the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases authorizing the FDA to refer to IND #19635 to support the review of Moderna’s own IND #19745 provided in “Module 1.4.”

Although Module 1.4 was not included in the documents provided by HHS, the FDA on Jan. 30 revealed the following timeline for Moderna’s Spikevax.

According to the FDA, Spikevax has two sponsors of its IND application package, including the NIH division that reports to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden.

The date of the pre-IND meeting for Spikevax was on Feb. 19, 2020. The IND submission for the NIH’s IND was on Feb. 20, 2020, while Moderna’s own IND was submitted on April 27, 2020.

According to the CDC, as of Jan. 11, 2020, Chinese health authorities had identified more than 40 human infections as part of the COVID-19 outbreak first reported on Dec. 31, 2020.

The World Health Organization on Jan. 9, 2020, announced the preliminary identification of the novel coronavirus. The record of Wuhan-Hu-1 includes sequence data, annotation and metadata from the virus isolated from a patient approximately two weeks prior.

Latypova said this raises several questions warranting further investigation:

• Preparation for a pre-IND meeting is a process that typically takes several months, and is expensive and labor-consuming. How was it possible for the NIH and Moderna to have a pre-IND meeting for a Phase 1 human clinical trial scheduled with the FDA for a vaccine product a month before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared?

• “How was it possible to have all materials prepared and the entire non-clinical testing process completed for this specific product related to a very specific virus which was only isolated and sequenced (so we were told) by Jan. 9, 2020?”

• Ownership of the IND is both a legal and commercial matter, which in the case of a public-private partnership, must be transparently disclosed. “What is the precise commercial and legal arrangement between Moderna and NIH regarding Spikevax?”

• “Does NIH financially benefit from sales of Moderna’s product? Who at NIH specifically?”

• “Does forcing vaccination with the Moderna product via mandates, government-funded media campaigns and perverse government financial incentives to schools, healthcare system and employers represent a significant conflict of interest for the NIH as a financial beneficiary of these actions?”

• “Does concealing important safety information by a financially interested party (NIH and Moderna) represent a conspiracy by the pharma-government cartel to defraud the public?”

Latypova further noted that immediately after the pre-IND meeting with the FDA, an “extremely heavy volume of orders for Moderna stock” began to be placed in the public markets.

This warrants an “additional investigation into the investors that were able to predict the spectacular future of the previously poorly performing stock with such timely precision,” she said.

Finding 5: FDA failed to question Moderna’s ‘scientifically dishonest studies’ dismissing an ‘extremely significant risk’ of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.

Moderna, prior to 2020, had never brought an approved drug to market.

“Its entire product development history was marked by numerous failures despite millions of dollars and lengthy time spent in development,” Latypova said. “Notably, its mRNA-based vaccines were associated with the antibody-dependent-enhancement phenomenon.”

For example, Moderna’s preclinical study of its mRNA-based Zika vaccine in mice showed all mice “uniformly [suffered from] lethal infection and severe disease due to antibody enhancement.”

The scientists were able to develop a type of vaccine that generated protection against Zika that “resulted in significantly less morbidity and mortality,” but all versions of the vaccine unequivocally led to some level of antibody-dependent-enhancement.

The Primary Pharmacology section for Spikevax includes nine studies evaluating immunogenicity, protection from viral replication and potential for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease.

“These studies included the correct test article (mRNA-1273), however, all were non-GLP compliant,” Latypova said. The results of these studies are briefly summarized in the text of the document package, yet the study reports are not provided.

In the disclosed documents, Moderna claims “there were no established animal models” for SARS-CoV-2 virus due to its extreme novelty.

Yet, in the next sentence, “despite the extreme novelty of the virus,” Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina possessed an already mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 virus strain and provided it for some of Moderna’s studies, Latypova said.

According to Latypova’s assessment, there were other numerous contradictions in Moderna’s documents, and when enhanced disease risk was revealed in assays, the company waived off its own results with a statement regarding the invalidity of the assays and methods they used.

“As SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are, to this point, still highly variable and in the process of being further developed, optimized and validated, study measurements should not be considered a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, especially in the absence of results from a positive control that has demonstrated disease enhancement,” Moderna said.

“Clearly, both Moderna and FDA knew about disease enhancement and were aware of numerous examples of this dangerous phenomenon, including Moderna’s own Zika vaccine product of the same type,” Latypova said. “Yet, the FDA did not question Moderna’s scientifically dishonest ‘studies’ that dismissed this extremely significant risk without a proper study design.”

Finding 6: FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.

Although the FDA recommends Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant and lactating women, Moderna conducted only one reproductive toxicology study in pregnant and lactating rats using a human dose of 100 mcg of mRNA-1273.

Although the full study was excluded, a narrative summary of Moderna’s findings state, “high IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S-2P were also observed in GD 21 F1 fetuses and LD 21 F1 pups, indicating strong transfer of antibodies from dam to fetus and from dam to pup.”

Latypova said safety assessments in the study are very limited, but the following findings are described by Moderna:

“The mothers lost fur after vaccine administration, and it persisted for several days. No information on when it was fully resolved since the study was terminated before this could be assessed.”

In the rat pups, the following skeletal malformations were observed:

“In the F1 generation [rat pups], there were no mRNA-1273-related effects or changes in the following parameters: mortality, body weight, clinical observations, macroscopic observations, gross pathology, external or visceral malformations or variations, skeletal malformations, and mean number of ossification sites per fetus per litter.

“mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules.

“Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses.”

Moderna related the skeletal malformations to days when toxicity was observed in the mothers but waived away the finding as “unrelated to the vaccine,” Latypova said.

The FDA then “lied on Moderna’s behalf” in its Basis for Regulatory Action Summary document(p.14) stating “no skeletal malformations” occurred in the non-clinical study in rat pups despite the opposite reported by Moderna.

“No vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effect on postnatal development were observed in the study. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to the pre-fusion stabilized spike protein antigen following immunization were observed in maternal samples and F1 generation rats indicating transfer of antibodies from mother to fetus and from mother to nursing pups.”

“In summary, the vaccine-derived antibodies transfer from mother to child,” Latypova said. “It was never assessed by Moderna whether the LNPs, mRNA and spike proteins transfer as well, but it is reasonable to assume that they do due to the mechanism of action of these products.”

Latypova said studies should have been done to assess the risks to the child by vaccinating pregnant or lactating women before recommending these groups receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We should ask the question why are they concealing the critical safety-related information from public, and making the product look better than the manufacturer has admitted,” Latypova said.

“The FDA did not have any objective scientific evidence excluding the skeletal malformations being related to the vaccine,” she added. “Thus, the information should have been disclosed fully in the label of this experimental and poorly tested product — not hidden from the public for over a year and then disclosed only under a court order.”

Latypova said FDA reviewers should have “easily seen through the blatant fraud, omissions, use of inadequate study designs and general lack of scientific rigor.”

The fact that more than half of the document package contains non-GLP studies for irrelevant, unapproved and previously failed chemical entities alone should have been sufficient reason to not approve this product, she added.

It would appear the FDA based its decision that the product is safe to administer to thousands of otherwise healthy humans on two studies in rats, Latypova said. The rest of the 700-page package was deemed to consist of “other supportive studies.”

The FDA noted studies were conducted in “five vaccines formulated in SM-102 lipid particles containing mRNAs encoding various viral glycoprotein antigens” but “failed to mention that these were five unapproved and previously failed products,” she said.

The regulators then concluded that using novel unapproved mRNAs in support of another unapproved novel mRNA was acceptable.

“The circular logic is astonishing,” Latypova said. Regulators allowed and personally promoted the use of failed experiments in support of a different and new experiment directly on the unsuspecting public.

Latypova called for the FDA, pharmaceutical manufacturers and “all other perpetrators of this fraud to be urgently stopped and investigated.”

David Martin, PhD., Presents Evidence that COVID Shots are Not Vaccines, but are an 'mRNA Spike Protein Instruction' that Tell the Body to Produce a Toxic Bioweapon, for Genocide and Depopulation

From [MERCOLA] In this revealing interview with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com, David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population.1

In March 2022, Martin filed a federal lawsuit against President Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services alleging that COVID-19 shots turn the body into a biological weapons factory, manufacturing spike protein. Not only is the term "vaccination" misleading when referring to COVID-19 shots, it's inaccurate since they are actually a form of gene therapy.2

"And we are not only not going to be sued for, you know, any libel or misinformation, we are actually holding people criminally accountable for their domestic terrorism, their crimes against humanity and the story of the coronavirus weaponization that goes back to 1998," Martin says.3

SARS-CoV-2 Has Been in the Works for Decades

Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world's largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.4

According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.

Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.5 Martin explained:6

"I think it's important for your listeners and viewers to remember that it was 1999 when Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill decided to start weaponizing coronavirus they patented in 2002 — and you heard that date correctly, that's a year before the SARS outbreak in China.

The first time they patented what they called an 'infectious replication defective chimera' of coronavirus. And let's unpack what that means. 

Infectious means that it actually is more lethal to the target. Replication defective means its damage is primarily to the target and not to the target's family or friends or community or anything else. And in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented the replication defective infectious coronavirus chimera, which then became the first instance of SARS. 

And it was perfected in 2013 to 2016 during the gain of function moratorium, where the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was given an exemption from the gain of function moratorium so they could continue to weaponize the virus to the point where in 2016, Ralph Baric published a paper in which he said the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one, coronavirus, was 'poised for human emergence,' so they knew this all along. 

You know, they knew it was a bioweapon since 2005. They knew it was effective at taking out populations, harming populations, intimidating and coercing populations. And they did that all very intentionally for the purpose of destroying humanity."

COVID-19 Shots Are an 'Act of Bioterrorism'

According to Martin, the spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. "It is, in fact, not a coronavirus vaccine. It is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half," he said.7

Rather than being a public health measure as they were widely campaigned to be, COVID-19 shots are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism. Martin shared that in 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, stated:8

"We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process."

Daszak, who Martin refers to as "the money launderer in chief," "actually stated that this entire exercise was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept the universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon. And that is their own words, not my interpretation," Martin said.9

Martin: 100 Million May Die Due to COVID Shots

Both Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 shots contain nucleic acid sequences that are not part of nature and have not been previously introduced to the human body. This amounts to a genetic engineering experiment that did not go through animal studies or clinical trials.

However, already people are dying from the shots and, Martin states, "many more will" due to issues such as blood clots, damage to the cardiovascular system and problems with liver, kidney and pulmonary function.10

An onslaught of reproductive and cancer cases related to the shots are also anticipated. "The fact of the matter is an enormous number of people who are injected are already carrying the seeds of their own demise," Martin said.11 As for how many may die, Martin believes the numbers may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their "decade of vaccination":12

"Based on their own 2011 estimate, and … this is a chilling estimate, but we just have to put it out there … When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chinese CDC, the Jeremy Farrar Wellcome Trust and others published The Decade of Vaccination for the World Health Organization back in 2011 their stated objective was a population reduction of 15% of the world's population. 

Put that in perspective, that's about 700 million people dead … and that would put the U.S. participation in that certainly as a pro rata of injected population somewhere between 75 and 100 million people."

When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested "there's a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it's between now and 2028."13 This is because of "a tiny little glitch on the horizon" — the projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028.

"So the fewer people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better," Martin said. "Not surprisingly, it's probably one of the motivations that led to the recommendation that people over the age of 65 were the first ones getting injected."14 Other populations at risk are caregivers, including health care providers, and others in the workforce who were forced to be injected, such as pilots.

"Why is it that we're suddenly having 700 flights a day being canceled because, allegedly, airlines don't have pilots? … the dirty secret … is there a lot of pilots who are having microvascular problems and clotting problems, and that keeps them out of the cockpit, which is a good place to not have them if they're going to throw a clot for a stroke or a heart attack," Martin said.

"But the problem is we're going to start seeing that exact same phenomenon in the health care industry and at a much larger scale, which means we now have, in addition to the problem of the actual morbidity and mortality, meaning people getting sick and people dying.

We actually have that targeting the health care industry writ large, which means we are going to have doctors and nurses who are going to be among the sick and the dead. And that means that the sick and the dying also do not get care."15

Why COVID Shots May Change Your DNA

It's been stressed by the media and public health officials that COVID-19 shots do not alter DNA. However, Martin brings attention to a little-known grant from the National Science Foundation, known as Darwinian chemical systems,16 which involved research to incorporate mRNA into targeted genomes. According to Martin:17

"Moderna was started … on the back of a 10-year National Science Foundation grant. And that grant was called Darwinian chemical systems … the project that gave rise to the Moderna company itself was a project where they were specifically figuring out how to get mRNA to write itself into the genome of whatever target they were going after. 

That could be a single-celled organism, it could be a multi-celled organism or it could be a human. And the fact of the matter is Moderna was started on the back of having proven that mRNA can be transfected and write itself into the human genome." 

It is completely unknown what the short- or long-term effects of the spike protein analog that's inside people who received COVID-19 injections will be. But with respect to alteration of the genome, Martin states that data show mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of humans, and "as such, the long-term effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The long-term effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered."18

Fraud Removes Big Pharma's Liability Shield

The 2001 anthrax attack, which came out of medical and defense research, led to the passage of the PREP Act, which removed liability for manufacturers of emergency medical countermeasures.

This means that as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 "vaccines" are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they're "vaccines." If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy. Further, lawsuits that can prove the companies engaged in fraud will also negate the liability shield. Martin states:19

"One of the convenient things about the PREP Act is the immunity shield from liability actually is only as good as the absence of fraud. Because if there was fraud in the promulgation of the events, leading to an emergency use authorization, then all of the immunity shield gets wiped out. 

So the reason why it is so important for conversations like the one we're having to actually be promoted and be advanced is because the pharmaceutical companies — and this includes Pfizer and Moderna and J&J — know they are perpetuating a fraud. The great thing about this is when that fraud is established, 100% of the liability flows back to them.

… when a fraud was the basis for a fraud, then we actually have a number of other legal remedies that allow you to pierce that veil. So in the end, there's no question … and it's quite evident based on the current mortality and morbidity data that given the fact that when it comes to biological weapons and bioterror each count comes with $100 million penalty. That's what the federal statute gives us. 

The penalty for corporate domestic terrorism, when you have per count $100 million a pop liabilities — that is an existential threat that takes a company like Pfizer or takes a company like Moderna out of existence. And that is what we're working for every day."

If you'd like to follow the progress of the ongoing legal cases seeking to expose the truth — that a criminal organization is seeking to obtain control over the global population via the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections — you can find all the details at ProsecuteNow.io, a website compiled by Martin and colleagues.20

- Sources and References

• 1 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022

• 2 Europe Reloaded March 23, 2022

• 3 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 1:21

• 4, 5 Substack July 24, 2021

• 6 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 9:52

• 7, 8, 9 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 3:26

• 10, 11 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 6:22

• 12 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 7:58

• 13, 14 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 12:40

• 15 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 13:38

• 16 National Science Foundation, Darwinian Chemical Systems

• 17, 18 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 17:21

• 19 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 52:01

• 20 Prosecute Now

Authorities Force So-Called "COVID Positive” Citizens to Wear Ankle Bracelet Trackers to Monitor Their Movements in Hong Kong (a more secure free-range prison) Along with their "Cell Phones"

From [HERE] The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) apparently still exists in Hong Kong, where residents who are deemed to be “infected” are now being forced to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and “quarantine” at home like a criminal.

Health authorities announced that the measures, scheduled to commence on July 15, are absolutely necessary to stop the spread, flatten the curve, and achieve a “zero COVID” policy of no more “cases” of the disease.

Communist China has a “zero COVID” policy as well, which is why the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) imposed an indefinite lockdown in Shanghai after a few people tested “positive” using the fraudulent PCR test.

“Zero-COVID’s premise is to track down every single infection and thus achieve control and maximum suppression,” reports Reclaim the Net. “In doing so, the authorities deploy a variety of tracing and tracking technology, border closures, and quarantine, as well as strict lockdowns.”

Living with the virus works much better than trying to achieve the impossibility of covid zero

For more than two years now, China and Hong Kong have had a covid zero policy in place, but the measures have done nothing to stop people from testing positive.

A recent “spike” of the disease in Hong Kong, where new cases reached 2,000 per day, prompted the added measure of ankle bracelets, which we are told will stop the virus in its tracks.

“The policy – the opposite of which is ‘living with the virus’ has come under criticism as ultimately failing to deliver on its goal, and being harmful to the economy and people’s health outside of coronavirus concerns,” Reclaim the Net adds.

Unfortunately for Hong Kong, Lo Chung-mau, the country’s health secretary, is a full-fledged covid zero cultist who claimed in the past that “living with the virus will get us all killed.”

How the new bracelets will function and how long people will have to wear them remains unknown. Those details are sure to come once Lo and his fellow covid believers come up with a strategy.

Back in 2020, Hong Kong forced people to wear tracking wristbands as well as quarantine for two weeks. Since that imposition clearly failed, now they are trying ankle bracelets instead, and probably many more weeks of quarantine than just two.

“The wristbands contained a QR code and were paired with a phone app, and were designed to track people’s movements,” reports explain. “Some Hong Kong residents who test positive are directed to quarantine in special facilities, while others are allowed to do this at home.”

Fortunately for the West, there are no such measures being imposed, especially this late in the game when covid is clearly over and done. Perhaps China and Hong Kong will eventually come to the realization that trying to eliminate covid entirely is a fool’s game and stop tyrannizing their people? [MORE] [the answer is the statist’s question]

IsrAlien Authorities Caught Hiding Children's COVID Injection Injuries. Leaked documents show government keeping data from public while approving children’s boosters

From [HERE] Children aged 5-11 are suffering vaccine injuries, including neurological adverse events, at about 6 times the rate of 12-17 year old children. 

Raw data - 2x the injury rate of teens

Israel’s Ministry of Health commissioned a study analyzing reports of adverse events from Pfizer's COVID vaccine to the nation’s vaccine database, known as the Nahlieli system, between December 2021 and May 2022. The research team was headed by Professor Matti Berkowitz, director of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Unit at Assaf Harofeh Hospital (Shamir).

In raw numbers, Berkowitz found that children in the 5-11 age group had twice as many adverse events following the Pfizer shot as children in the 12-17 age group. That doubling of vaccine injuries is, in itself, extremely disturbing, and should have been immediately brought to the attention of the nation’s parents.

Worse - 6x the injury rate of teens

Unfortunately, the doubling of adverse events is only the beginning of the bad news. Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz, a health and risk communication researcher at the University of Haifa and at Reichman University (IDC Herzliya), notes that the 2-dose immunization rate for 5-11 year olds is less than 18%, while older children have rates of 55-72% (3-4 times higher).

All things being equal, the young children would thus be expected to have ⅓-¼ of the number of adverse events experienced by the older children, not twice as many. This means that the adverse event rate for young children is actually 6-8 times that of the older children, i.e., at 600-800% of the baseline injury rate!

While there are slightly more children in the 5-11 year old group than in the 12-17 age group, it does not come close to accounting for the mind blowing rate increase in the younger group.

New vaccine injuries not included in Pfizer's leaflet

The findings by Professor Berkowitz were presented to the Ministry of Health’s Department of Epidemiology about three weeks ago, in early June 2022, together with graphs depicting the severity of the data, broken down by injury types, as well as additional alarming information: 

. . . the team identified and characterized neurological symptoms that were not previously known and are not mentioned in the physician's leaflet of Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine, including Hypoesthesia (partial or complete decrease in skin sensitivity), Paraesthesia (abnormal skin sensation such as numbness, tingling, stinging or burning), tinnitus, dizziness and more. [Emphasis added].

Changes to menstrual cycle are long-lasting

Dr. Shir-Raz reports that Pfizer representatives have claimed to have “no knowledge of long-term adverse events.” The research team found, however, that many side-effects of the vaccine are indeed long-term. In the case of changes to the menstrual cycle, 90% of the women reported the change to be long-lasting. Thus,

the research team made it clear to the Department of Epidemiology that Pfizer needed to be notified regarding the long-term adverse events identified. [Emphasis added].

Pfizer should be informed, but not the public?

What you don’t know can hurt you

When some three weeks passed without the Health Ministry making these findings public, those privy to the information became concerned that parents were not being given the information necessary to act with “informed consent” in determining whether to inject their own children. 

Leaked documents

The concerned individuals then leaked the data and graphs, which eventually came into the hands of the Professional Ethics Front, an independent Israeli group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, and researchers, who “aim to address the ethical issues related to the COVID-19 crisis in Israeli society.” This watchdog group addressed a letter and follow up correspondence to the official State Comptroller of Israel, Matanyahu Englman, a Knesset appointee charged with overseeing the legality and ethical conduct of public sector institutions:

The findings have been brought to our attention, and they are serious and indicate a risk to children, and in particular to young children aged 5-11 … 

The group argued that the information should be disclosed, even if the data is still expected to go through additional analysis,

Out of fear that there is a blatant violation of parents' right to informed consent, and because it constitutes gross negligence, and puts children and infants at risk”. 

Too busy to respond?

Despite Israeli law making it clear that the State Comptroller act independently of the executive branch, they have not responded in any way to the group’s requests, prompting the group to file a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) to get the full report to the public with an acknowledgement of its authenticity. This delay in response comes even as Israel has just approved booster shots for young children and stands poised to add babies and toddlers to the COVID vaccination schedule.

Matches previous reports on danger to small children

This passive monitoring analysis (based on reports initiated by parents) matches the alarming findings from an active monitoring study of adverse events in children aged 5-11 in Israel (tracking every child in the study), which “also demonstrated acute safety signals.”

Matches findings of danger to babies

If small children are having difficulty absorbing the contents of the COVID vaccines, one might expect babies and toddlers to also face dangers from the injections That is just what Dr. Shir-Raz found in an analysis she conducted with her colleague Ranit Feinberg, of Pfizer data on children under 4:

. . . contrary to the FDA's briefing document claiming that the majority of adverse events in Pfizers' clinical trial were non-serious – at least 58 cases of life-threatening side effects in infants under 3 years old who received mRNA vaccines were reported. For some, it is unclear if they survived …

Shir-Raz found the most common serious adverse events to be

life-threatening bleeding, anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, encephalitis, hypoglycemia and neuroleptic syndrome. In most of the reported cases, these are multi-system injuries.

In one egregious case, with no indication of whether the baby was enrolled in a Pfizer experiment and lacking any other explanation about how a baby just a few weeks old received the COVID shot, Shir-Raz reports,

"Chest pain; cardiac arrest; Skin cold clammy". This short description of a cardiac arrest, which occurred one hour after receiving a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, is taken from the VAERS system - the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (case number 1015467), and it does not refer to an elderly person, nor to a young adult, or even a teenager. It is hard to believe, but this report refers to a two-month-old baby.

Ominously, this infant’s outcome is labelled unknown. 

This case was reported as serious with seriousness criteria-life threatening from HA. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected.

Macron's Minority Government Defeated on Genocidal "Vaccine" Passports

From [HERE] French President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating setback in parliament after his vaccine passport scheme was defeated.

Macron's minority government wanted to extend the policy whereby anyone entering France has to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test.

However, the right-wing populist National Rally (RN), the hard-left La France Insoumise (LFI) and the right-wing Republicains (LR) all united to vote against the policy.

Macron's government lost the vote by a margin of 219 votes to 195.

"The bill's defeat was met with wild cheering and a standing ovation from opposition lawmakers, in footage that was widely circulated on social media," reports the Telegraph.

The bill was one of the first put to parliament by the new minority government, highlighting how Macron will find it incredibly difficult to get new laws passed in the country. Elisabeth Borne, the French Prime Minister, condemned the vote.

"The situation is serious. By joining together to vote against the measures to protect the French against Covid, LFI, LR and RN prevent any border control against the virus. After the disbelief on this vote, I will fight so that the spirit of responsibility wins in the Senate," she tweeted.

As we previously highlighted, the French Minister of Health admitted that vaccine passports are a "disguised" form of mandatory vaccines, despite President Macron claiming vaccine mandates "will not be compulsory."

On the first day the new program was in place, police in Paris were visibly patrolling bars and cafes demanding customers show proof they've had the jab.

Mark Zuckerberg Caught on Video Warning COVID Injections are experimental and 'we don’t know the long-term side-effects of modifying people’s DNA and RNA and if it causes mutations, other risks'

From [HERE] A leaked video of Meta Platforms, Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed him cautioning his inner circle of the unproven effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines he called “experimental gene technology.”

Aware of the unsubstantiated curing effects and potential dangers of the vaccines, the tech giant chief felt compelled to alert his people regarding the shots on July 16, 2020 – five months before the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.

“I just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side-effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA to directly encode in a person’s DNA and RNA basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream,” Zuckerberg said in the leaked video, which was taken during an internal meeting at Facebook (FB).

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe noted during the release of the video last year that Zuckerberg would have been “censored on the platform” if what he said to his staff in July was posted on Facebook. He would be “basically violating his own code of conduct,” O’Keefe said.

“It is yet another case of ‘one rule for thee, and another for me’ that the elite use to control the masses,” news website News Punch said.

Back in 2019, the media magnate spoke in front of students at Georgetown Universityabout the importance of protecting free expression. He highlighted his belief that giving everyone a voice gives power to the powerless and pushes society to be better over time– a belief that is at the core of Facebook, he said.However, the freedom to express has been throttled on Facebook and the other major social media platforms in recent years.

Meta had censored 20 million posts since start of pandemic

Last year, FB and Instagram (IG), which is also under the Meta Platforms umbrella, banned major groups, accounts and IG pages for speaking out and raising concerns and doubts about the vaccines’ adverse effects.

According to a Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior Report last year, FB removed 65 of its own and 243 IG accounts for spreading “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccines. They have removed more than 20 million individual posts since the start of the pandemic.

In an interview with CBS in August last year, TV anchor Gayle King asked Zuckerberg to release information on how many people have viewed and shared FB posts containing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

He admitted that FB has removed millions of posts containing misinformation from their website, but failed to answer when pressed by the host on how many people viewed or shared these posts.

“I think, to some degree, there are also different definitions that people have over what misinformation is. A lot of the stuff that’s actually the hardest for us to really address is not what I would call ‘misinformation’ but instead another category that I would call ‘hesitancy,'” he said at the time. (Related: House Republicans demand Zuckerberg surrender all communications with Fauci over covid-19 and “vaccine hesitancy” censorship.)

One of the well-known personalities that have been banned from social media is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer who emerged as one of the most influential voices during the early days of the pandemic.

Kennedy Jr., who describes himself as a vaccine safety advocate, was not impressed with Bill Gates’ track record of pushing vaccines on vulnerable populations, causing serious health problems in some cases. Subsequently, Meta “fact-checkers” banned Kennedy Jr. from Instagram for speaking out about vaccine safety.

Father’s 20-Year Battle on Behalf of Vaccine-Injured Son Exposes Travesty of Liability-Free Vaccines

From [CHD] In a riveting legal battle spanning two decades, William Yates Hazlehurst (“Yates”) on Feb. 2, 2022, became the first vaccine-injured person with a diagnosis of autism to reach a jury since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) became law.

In a medical malpractice case filed in the Madison County Circuit Court in Tennessee, attorneys for Yates argued the clinic and physician who administered Yates’ vaccines, including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on Feb. 8, 2001, should be held liable for medical malpractice and the neurological injuries Yates developed after being vaccinated.

Although the jury decided in favor of the physician — who Yates’ father said failed to adequately inform the parents of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had an active ear infection — the case exposed major flaws in a system designed to protect children and shield pharmaceutical companies and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries.

“In the fight to end the autism epidemic, we were all hoping for the one knockout punch that would bring the truth to light and help end the autism epidemic,” Yates’ father, Rolf Hazlehurst, said.

“This medical malpractice trial was the only opportunity in the last 35 years for a jury to hear evidence in a court of law regarding whether a vaccine injury can cause neurological injury, including autism.”

Hazlehurst, who is a senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “unless the Vaccine Act is repealed, my son is probably the only vaccine-injured child with a diagnosis of autism who will ever reach a jury.”

The Hazlehurst case was a medical malpractice case against the doctor who administered the pediatric vaccines that, in the opinion of the world’s top experts, sent Yates, now 22, spiraling into the depths of severe, non-verbal autism.

Although the case was originally filed in 2003, it didn’t receive its day in court for 19 years because a separate case involving Yates’ injury first had to work its way through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

When Yates’ medical malpractice case was finally heard, the trial exposed alarming evidence about autism and vaccines, the low standard of care practiced by physicians administering pediatric vaccines and financial conflicts of interests between pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines and government agencies entrusted with vaccine safety.

During the trial, the world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorderexplained how the administration of “routine” childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and many other disorders.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, autism is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn and behave. Symptoms can be severe and usually manifest before a child turns 3, which coincides with the age children receive the most childhood vaccines.

Increasing evidence indicates a significant proportion of individuals with autism have concurrent diseases such as mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormalities of energy generation, gastrointestinal abnormalities and abnormalities in the regulation of the immune system.

Yates’ medical malpractice trial illuminated how vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial disorder and showed how the Vaccine Act — which is designed to ensure informed consent and compensation to injured children — is an abject failure because it’s largely unenforceable.

Yates was normal until he received his 12-month vaccines

During the first year of his life, Yates developed typically and met all of his developmental milestones.

“He was a happy, healthy and normal child,” his father said.

After his 6-month shots, Yates experienced a severe screaming episode approximately 24 hours after receiving the DTaP, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines.

In the days following his vaccinations, Yates began to experience seizure-like shaking episodes.

But his parents didn’t realize their son’s symptoms were consistent with a severe vaccine adverse reaction because they were not given a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at their pediatrician’s office.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a VIS is an information sheet produced by the CDC that explains both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to recipients.

“Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines,” the CDC website states.

Instead of providing the VIS, Yates’ physician told his parents any adverse event to a vaccine would be “almost immediate” — within 5 to 15 minutes after vaccination.

Before Yates’ first birthday, his mother and aunt took him to the doctor because he had been sick, and his parents wanted to make sure it was okay for Yates to have a birthday party.

Hazlehurst told The Defender this appointment was not a scheduled well-child check. It was a sick visit. At the appointment, Yates was diagnosed with an ear infection and prescribed an antibiotic.

As the pediatrician turned to leave, he stated Yates would receive his shots, as it was close to his first birthday. A woman returned to the room who portrayed herself to be a nurse, but Hazlehurst later found out was only a medical assistant.

Yates’ mother asked the “nurse” whether their son should receive his shots despite being sick and was told he should.

Once again, they were not given a VIS form informing them of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had a fever and an active ear infection.

“By administering vaccines to a sick child, the doctor and his clinic could charge a “modified double bill” Hazlehurst said.

That day, on Feb. 8, 2001, Yates received the MMR, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines. Twelve days later, Hazlehurst said his son experienced a high fever, rash and vomiting consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction.

Hazlehurst called the clinic where his son received his vaccine and talked to the doctor on call who asked him which vaccines Yates received. Hazlehurst responded, “whatever you get when you’re a year old.”

Hazlehurst was told his son was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and the doctor wrote him a prescription for a different antibiotic and an anti-fungal medication.

Soon after, Yates began to lose the skills he once had and began developing abnormally. He lost his speech, started running wild, was constantly on the go and would knock things off the table.

“He was visually ‘stimming’ off the falling objects and running with his head down for the visual stimulation,” Hazlehurst said.

He explained:

“It was not like he got the shots and boom, the next day he was autistic. That’s not the way it happened. The mitochondria produce the energy to the connecting tissue in the cells in the brain, and if they don’t get enough energy for a short period of time (as short as 6 seconds), cellular death occurs.

“The brain keeps developing, but it cannot develop normally because the connecting cellular tissue has been damaged. That’s why it takes time to manifest. It’s like watching grass grow. It’s happening, but you don’t realize it’s happening.”

Yates’ condition worsened. He developed an obsession with spinning objects, became a picky eater, started hand-flapping and toe-walking, became unable to sleep and exhibited gastrointestinal and multiple other medical and neurodevelopmental issues, Hazlehurst said.

On June 3, 2002, Yates was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

Hazlehurst searches for answers to his son’s autism

According to federal law, there are specific recording requirements for vaccine medical records, and healthcare providers must provide records to a parent upon request.

Hazlehurst, on June 21, 2002, requested a copy of his son’s original vaccine records so other physicians could evaluate, diagnose and treat Yates.

Hazlehurst had questions about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ standard of care and wanted to know why his son was vaccinated while he was sick with a fever.

In response to Hazlehurst’s request and questions about Yates’ care, the pediatrician rushed out of the room and called his attorney, Hazlehurst said.

The doctor and clinic denied Hazlehurst’s requests to review and receive copies of his son’s original vaccine records, forcing him to petition the court for Yates’ records.

The court granted the request, and the local sheriff’s department seized Yates’ medical records from the doctor’s clinic.

Hazlehurst quickly realized there were problems with his son’s vaccine record, which was on an unsigned consent form that had a billing code sticker placed over the language regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines and vaccine information materials.

Hazlehurst said he never received a VIS form and Yates had been vaccinated without informed consent.

Hazlehurst files claim with the NVICP for son’s vaccine injury

Hazlehurst, like many parents of vaccine-injured children, pursued a claim with the NVICP as federal law requires. The process took nine years — from 2002 to 2011.

In order to bring a case in a court of law, the parents of a vaccine-injured child must first file their case with the NVICP.

The NVICP is a special, no-fault tribunal housed within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that handles injury claims for 16 federally recommended vaccines. To date, the court has awardedmore than $4 billion to thousands of people for vaccine injuries.

In the NVICP, America’s legal system is replaced by a “special master.” The special masters who review claims are government-appointed attorneys, many of whom are former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys.

Under the NVICP, the parents of vaccine-injured children are forced to sue the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for compensation. HHS is represented by DOJ attorneys.

It is exceptionally difficult to obtain compensation within the NVICP, Hazlehurst said. The proceedings are often turned into drawn-out, contentious expert battles and the backlog of cases is substantial. Because of this, a single case can drag on for over a decade.

Payouts, including attorneys’ fees, are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine. There is a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering and death benefits.

The Vaccine Act established the NVICP, and the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al later guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators almost always have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government-recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death, Hazlehurst said.

The NVICP ultimately denied Yates’ claim, but his case against HHS became a central part of the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.

Yates’ case in the NVICP was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), in which 5,400 claims submitted to the NVICP were consolidated to determine if vaccines cause autism and if so, under what conditions.

“HHS whittled down the thousands of cases to six “test cases,” one of which was Yates’ case,” Hazlehurst said. “If HHS could find a way to deny NVICP compensation to the test cases, the agency would be able to deny compensation to all 5,400 families.”

Hazlehurst said HHS and the DOJ “took advantage of the fact that the rules of evidence, discovery and civil procedure mechanisms available in a regular court do not apply in the so-called vaccine court, and perpetrated fraud upon the special masters, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The special masters on Feb. 12, 2009, in the so-called vaccine court, denied Yates’ petition for compensation and those of the five remaining OAP “test cases” involving children who developed autism after receiving their pediatric vaccines.

HHS makes key concession in Hannah Poling case

The potential fourth test case — Hannah Poling’s — was quietly conceded in 2007, in a corrupt coverup to conceal the opinion of the HHS expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the world’s leading expert in autism research, Hazlehurst said.

When Poling was 19 months old, she was vaccinated against nine diseases at one doctor’s visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and Haemophilus influenzae type b. In total, she received five vaccines.

Prior to receiving her vaccines, Poling was described as normal, happy, healthy, interactive, playful and communicative. But two days after being vaccinated, she was lethargic, irritable and febrile, and within 10 days she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced chicken pox.

Over the course of several months, Poling stopped eating, didn’t respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, developed neurological and psychological disorders and was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by an underlying mitochondrial disorder.

In 2003, Poling’s father, Jon, a physician and trained neurologist, and mother, Terry, an attorney and nurse, filed an autism claim against HHS under the NVICP for their daughter’s injuries.

Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and in essence had it sealed.

During the OAP, in the Poling case, the government quietly conceded vaccines caused “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

According to CBS News, Poling received more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care, lost earnings and pain and suffering for the first year alone. After the first year, the family was supposed to receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Poling’s care, which is estimated to amount to $40 million over her lifetime.

Jon Poling on March 6, 2008, said, “the results, in this case, may well signify a landmark decision with children developing autism following vaccinations.”

Prior to the Poling case, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public vaccines didn’t cause autism. The Poling case challenged that narrative, which is why the case was conceded and in essence sealed.

HHS’ concession that Poling developed autism as a result of a vaccine injury briefly became international news. Yet, only a handful of people knew why the government conceded Hannah’s case.

When news of the concession in Poling v. HHS was made public in March 2008, Dr. Julie Gerberding, then-director of the CDC, in an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta said:

“We all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids, so if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, then if you are predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage — some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

If HHS had not conceded her case, the truth as to how vaccines cause autism in some children with an underlying mitochondrial disorder would have been exposed by the world’s leading expert witnesses in the spotlight of the OAP, Hazlehurst said.

The concession document in the Poling case states:

“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

Zimmerman was an expert witness for the government defending vaccines in the NVICP. In 2007, during the hearing in the first test case, he told the government vaccines could cause autism in “exceptional” cases, but said the government later hid that information and misrepresented his expert opinion.

In a 2018 letter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Hazlehurst meticulously described the DOJ’s fraud pertaining to the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s opinions in the OAP and requested an investigation.

“The Office of Inspector General passed the buck to the DOJ Department of Ethics,” Hazlehurst said. “The DOJ investigated itself and wrote a highly misleading letter absolving itself of any wrongdoing.”

Zimmerman said in a signed affidavit:

“Shortly after I clarified my opinions with the DOJ attorneys, I was contacted by one of the junior DOJ attorneys and informed that I would no longer be needed as an expert witness on behalf of H.H.S. The telephone call … occurred after the above-referenced conversation on Friday, June 15, 2007, and before Monday, June 18, 2007. To the best of my recollection, I was scheduled to testify on behalf of H.H.S. on Monday, June 18, 2007.”

As a result of his firing, Zimmerman was not present for the Hazlehurst OAP proceedings, which allowed DOJ attorneys to misrepresent Zimmerman’s statements related to a separate autism case and apply them to all cases of autism, including Yates’ case.

Over the years Hazlehurst has repeatedly stated, “I want to be very clear, neither the Polings nor Dr. Zimmerman did anything wrong.”

“But,” he added, “if I did to a criminal, in a court of law, what the United States Department of Justice did to vaccine-injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be facing criminal charges.”

Zimmerman did testify as an expert witness on behalf of Yates in the medical malpractice case filed against Yates’ doctor, which was finally heard by a Tennessee court in February 2022.

Research by Zimmerman and others determined that at least 30%-40% of children with a diagnosis of regressive autism suffer from a mitochondrial disorder, which is a condition with which Yates was later diagnosed.

Yates in ‘perfect position’ to file lawsuit after exhausting remedies in NVICP

After exhausting all remedies under the NVICP — a process that took 25 years — the legal floodgates were then open, Hazlehurst said.

But because no one could sue the vaccine manufacturer, the only vaccine-injured child — out of thousands of cases originally included in the OAP — left with legal standing was Yates Hazlehurst and his claim of medical malpractice against the pediatrician who oversaw the administration of his vaccines.

Ultimately, the same medical experts, including Zimmerman and Dr. Richard Kelley, former director of the Genetics Department at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute  — whose testimony HHS and the DOJ relied on in the Poling concession — concluded that what happened to Hannah Poling is what also happened to Yates Hazlehurst.

In an affidavit which was not admissible in the 2022 medical malpractice trial, Kelley stated:

“I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body.”

Zimmerman’s expert opinion on the cause of Yates’ neurological condition was consistent with Kelley’s opinion. [MORE]