When The Government Interferes With Medical Treatment

On Monday, Townhall reported on a lawsuit filed by a group of doctors against the Food and Drug Administration.

The article reports:

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of doctors sued the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services for “unlawfully” interfering with their ability to practice medicine and prescribe ivermectin for use in Covid-19 patients.

Specifically, the three doctors—Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul E. Marik—argue the FDA can’t ban use of an approved human drug for “off-label” use. 

“The FDA also can not advise whether a patient should take an approved drug for a particular purpose. Those decisions fall within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship,” the complaint says. “Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states.”

The article concludes:

In a statement, Bowden said “fighting the system has been a much bigger challenge than fighting the disease.

“Despite my excellent track record treating COVID patients, the FDA’s smear campaign against ivermectin continues to be a daily hurdle to overcome,” she said. “I am fighting back – the public needs to understand what the FDA has done is illegal, and I hope this suit will prevent them from continuing to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.”

The government’s handling of the use of ivermectin in concerning. It was proven early on that if you administered ivermectin to Covid patients early, the results were positive. The fact that the government opposed the use of ivermectin is puzzling. Hopefully the disclosure portion of this lawsuit will shed some light on that.

Information We All Need

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about Monkeypox. The article provides a brief summary of the things the public needs to know.

Here are some excerpts:

In total, 92 cases of monkeypox have been confirmed so far, with another 28 suspected cases, according to the World Health Organization. Most of the cases in the U.K. and Europe have been in young men with no history of travel to Africa and who were gay, bisexual, or had sex with men.

…All of the cases that have been confirmed through a PCR test were infected by the strain native to West Africa, but only one case has a direct tie to the region. The first to be confirmed in the U.K. was a person who had traveled from the U.K. to Nigeria and back. The person was immediately isolated upon return, and “the risk of onward transmission related to this case in the United Kingdom is minimal,” the WHO said. But that still leaves open the question of where the dozens of other cases came from.

A leading adviser to the WHO, Dr. David Heymann, told the Associated Press that sexual transmission at two raves in Belgium and Spain appear to have been major catalysts for the spread of the virus in Europe.

…There is not currently a vaccine made specifically to prevent monkeypox infection, but smallpox vaccines have proven to be at least 85% effective in preventing monkeypox. Experts also believe that administering a smallpox vaccine after a monkeypox exposure may help prevent the disease or make it less severe.

The article concludes:

Infectious disease experts said this outbreak is very different from COVID-19, which caught the U.S. public health infrastructure off guard. Unlike symptoms of COVID-19 infection, symptoms of monkeypox are visual and cases are easier to trace. Monkeypox is also far less transmissible than COVID-19. And unlike COVID-19, monkeypox is not an airborne pathogen.

“Contact tracing COVID-19 is a nightmare, and I don’t want to say it’s a piece of cake, but it’s a much more straightforward proposition [to trace monkeypox],” said Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

The Food and Drug Administration has also approved several antiviral medications to treat smallpox and diseases like it.

“That’s why I’m pretty optimistic that we’ll be able to contain it because the overall level of transmissibility is low, the incubation period is longer, and in about two weeks, the characteristic rash makes contact tracing easier, and we already have vaccines and antiviral drugs ready to go. … [COVID-19 is] really just the opposite of monkeypox,” Hotez told the Washington Examiner.

At least there is some good news.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Missed This Story

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Pfizer hired 600 employees in the months after its COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the United States due to the “large increase” of reports of side effects linked to the vaccine, according to a document prepared by the company.

Pfizer has “taken a multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports,” according to the document. “This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.”

At the time when the document—from the first quarter of 2021—was sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer had onboarded about 600 extra full-time workers to deal with the jump.

“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021,” Pfizer said.

The document was titled a “cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of Pfizer’s vaccine received through Feb. 28, 2021. It was approved by the FDA on April 30, 2021.

The document was not made public until the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA after the agency claimed it needed decades to produce all the documents relating to the emergency use authorization granted to the company for the vaccine.

Under an agreement reached in February, the FDA must produce a certain number of pages each month.

The article concludes:

Pfizer did not respond to emailed questions, including how many workers it has onboarded to deal with adverse events.

The companies that manufacture the other two COVID-19 vaccines that U.S. regulators have cleared, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, did not respond when asked if they have seen an increase in adverse events and if they have hired more employees to deal with reports.

The number of post-vaccination adverse event reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has spiked since the vaccines were first cleared.

Problems linked to the vaccines include heart inflammation, blood clotting, and severe allergic shock.

Federal officials say the vaccines’ benefits outweigh the risks, but some experts are increasingly questioning that assertion, particularly for certain populations.

People should have been made aware of this as the vaccine was being pushed by the government. A vaccine that doesn’t prevent the illness and has serious side effects does not seem to be the answer to the pandemic. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If you are not yet vaxxed, you might not want to rush out to receive the vaccination.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

A Constitutional Republic Will Only Stand As Long As Its Citizens And Voters Are Able To Stay Informed

On Tuesday, The Western Journal posted an article about the lack of transparency and misinformation coming out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the past two years or so.

The article notes:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is being called out for not sharing the vast quantities of data it had been gathering during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some medical experts are speculating that the reason why is the fear the data will be “misinterpreted” and used as justification not to follow the agency’s guidelines regarding vaccination and other matters.

“Tell the truth, present the data,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, The New York Times reported.

…Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the CDC, told the news outlet the reason much of the data has been withheld is “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.”

Bureaucracy is another reason.

The CDC is weighed down by multiple layers of bureaucracy, including a requirement to first run information to be released through the Department Health and Human Services and the White House.

“The CDC is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute, the Times reported.

“The steps that it takes to get something like this [covid data] released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the CDC.”

The article concludes:

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal last month, Makary (Dr. Marty Makary, a professor and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) contended that another topic the CDC has been reluctant to address is natural immunity.

“For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused,” he wrote.

“Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination,” he continued.

Makary further noted the National Institutes of Health resisted acknowledging natural immunity.

“Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99 percent of them up to nearly two years after infection,” he wrote.

Makary argued the failure of the CDC to release the data sooner meant many who had previously recovered from COVID and had better immunity than those were just vaccinated needlessly lost their jobs.

He concluded that they should be hired back.

There was a political agenda here and a monetary agenda here. The CDC is too closely tied financially to the drug companies. There was more money in vaccines than there ever was in ivermectin!

The Case Against Vaccine Mandates

On Wednesday, The Epoch Times posted an article about a recent statement by Dr. Peter McCullough.

The article reports:

COVID-19 vaccine mandates “have to be repealed” as the vaccines are “still in research” and “people cannot be mandated to participate in research,” says Dr. Peter McCullough.

McCullough, a cardiologist, epidemiologist, and internist who manages COVID-19 patients with heart-related complications and patients who become ill after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, contends that COVID-19 vaccine mandates violate the Nuremberg Code.

“When it comes to research, research can only be voluntary. And under no circumstances can anyone receiving pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal cannot violate the cornerstone of ethics unethical, is immoral to do that,” he says.

McCullough notes that the CDC and FDA have yet to publish “their first monthly safety report” on the vaccines, and that as of Dec. 17, the CDC’s VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) has reported 20,622 deaths post-vaccination globally and over 983,000 adverse events.

The article includes a statement about the accuracy of the VAERS data:

…a June 2021 analysis of VAERS COVID-19 vaccine death reports led by the University of London’s Scott Mclachlan. Mclachlan found that “contrary to claims that most of these reports are made by lay-people and are hence clinically unreliable,” health service employees were the reporters at least 67 percent of the time, and “there were only 14 percent of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.”

The article concludes:

A lawsuit was recently filed against the FDA by a medical transparency group, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) formed by a group of doctors and scientists, including Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.

The FDA has asked a judge to grant it 75 years to fully release the documents in its possession tied to the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, on Dec. 8 wrote, “If you find what you are reading difficult to believe—that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

Since its initial announcement of vaccine mandates in both the federal and private sectors, the Biden administration has emphasized that “vaccines are safe, free, and the most effective way for workers to be protected from COVID-19 transmission at work.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the CDC and the White House for comment.

If someone wants to get the vaccine, let them. However, vaccine mandates are simply not the right thing to do. They are unconstitutional and violate the civil rights of Americans. The government has no right to tell you that you have to take a drug or put something into you body against you will.

 

Actually Following The Science

On December 21st, The New York Post posted an article titled, “Biden needs to tell the FDA to stop blocking lifesaving COVID treatments.”

The article lists a number of treatments for COVID that have been tested scientifically and proven to be effective:

Fluvoxamine, a commonly available medication, reduced COVID deaths by 91 percent in a randomized controlled trial conducted with impeccable methodology and recently published in The Lancet. This study affirms another trial on the drug published last spring in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The drug is safe, has a plausible mechanism of action, costs $10 and has no contrary studies that might challenge the breathtaking results published. Yet I’ve never heard our public-health officials mention fluvoxamine.

…Merck’s lifesaving drug molnupiravir received an up-vote from the FDA’s external experts three weeks ago, yet the agency has not authorized the drug. Pfizer’s Paxlovid drug cut COVID deaths to zero (compared with 10 deaths in the control group), yet in the five weeks the FDA has been sitting on the application the agency has not even scheduled an advisory meeting to review it. Maybe functionaries don’t want to change their holiday plans.

The article also notes that the outbreak of the Omicron variant of COVID may actually contain some good news:

We also need straight talk when it comes to Omicron. Now 73 percent of new US COVID infections are from Omicron, a strain resulting in more mild illness. A University of Hong Kong study found that Omicron is one-tenth as infective in lung cells compared with the Delta variant. That explains why Omicron patients report far fewer cough and fever symptoms and far fewer people develop severe illness. Instead, the vast majority of Omicron-infected people get common-cold symptoms.

The fear headline is that Omicron partially evades antibody immunity. That’s true; so did Delta. But, also like Delta, Omicron does not escape existing T-cell immunity, according to a new Johns Hopkins study, which is consistent with mounting population data. Cases from the epicenter in Gauteng, South Africa, are plunging, down 44 percent Monday from the prior day. According to South African Health Minister Dr. Joe Phaahla, only 1.7 percent of COVID cases were hospitalized the second week of the Omicron-dominant wave, compared with 19 percent the same week of the Delta wave.

We now have laboratory data, epidemiological data and bedside observations to conclude that Omicron is a milder variant. We are witnessing how pandemics end — a virus mutates down and becomes endemic as population immunity increases.

There is a light at the end of this tunnel, but our government bureaucrats keep putting it out.

The Facts Are Slowing Coming Out

On Thursday, The Patriot Daily Wire reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released more information about the possible side effects of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.

The article reports:

As the FDA prepares to approve Pfizer’s new pill for treating high-risk patients infected with COVID, more information about dangerous side effects tied to its vaccine are coming to light.

Just yesterday, we reported another death tied to the vaccine in New Zealand. Now, documents released by the FDA reveal that drugmaker Pfizer recorded nearly 160K adverse reactions to its COVID vaccine in the initial months of its rollout.

The data were obtained by a group of doctors, professors, and journalists calling themselves Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. They filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDA asking for their release. And the first tranche of documents revealed that, as of February 2021, when Pfizer’s shot was being rolled out worldwide on an emergency basis, the drugmaker had compiled more than 42K case reports detailing nearly 160K individual adverse reactions to the vaccine.

The data show the bulk of the adverse event cases, both serious and non-serious, were classified as “general disorders”.

You shouldn’t have to file a Freedom of Information request to get this data–it should be given to everyone who is considering getting the vaccine.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes the complete breakdown of data from Public Health and Medical Professionals For Transparency. There has to be a risk/benefit analysis when considering getting the vaccine. There also needs to be a discussion about how effective the vaccine actually is.

A Professional Stating The Obvious

Despite being part of the Trump administration, Dr. Ben Carson is not a political animal. He tends to speak his mind regardless of the political winds. On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about his views on the coronavirus pandemic.

The article notes:

“We’ve been having tunnel vision” dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Ben Carson told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

“Let’s throw the politics out. We could solve this problem pretty quickly,” he stated in an interview that will premiere on Dec. 18 at 7 p.m. New York time.

…“Let’s look around the world at things that work. Let’s look at the fact that on the western coast of Africa, there’s almost no COVID. And let’s ask ourselves, why is that? And then you see, it’s because they take antimalarials, particularly hydroxychloroquine. Let’s study that. Let’s see what’s going on there.

“Let’s listen to these physician groups who’ve had incredible success with ivermectin. Let’s look at the results with monoclonal antibodies. Let’s look at all of these things. Let’s put them all in our armamentarium so that we don’t have a one-size-fits-all system.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at one time had authorized hydroxychloroquine for treating certain COVID-19 patients but quickly revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) in June 2020, claiming no data showed its effectiveness.

The FDA hasn’t approved or issued an EUA for ivermectin to treat COVID-19, citing the same reasons.

Using hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients has been highly controversial. Some studies show, and some doctors claim, that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin can effectively treat COVID-19 patients. A vaccine confidence insight report (pdf) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labeled such claims as misinformation or disinformation.

“COVID is a virus. Viruses mutate. That’s what they do. And they will continue to mutate,” Carson said.

Carson pointed out that fortunately, most of the time, viruses become a little weaker with each mutation.

The article concludes:

“We have a situation where you have the government advocating that children be vaccinated, even though the risk for death for a child with COVID is 0.025 percent, essentially the same as it is for seasonal flu. You don’t see us doing all this every year for seasonal flu,” Carson stated.

“The risk of mortality for a healthy child is approaching zero, and yet we’re saying do this without knowing what the long-term risks are?” he said. “And why would you subject an innocent child to a lifetime of unknown risk? It just makes absolutely no sense.

“We need to have faith in our government. We need to have faith in our health care systems. And by injecting politics into it, I think we have put ourselves behind the eight ball. It’s going to take a while to reestablish that trust,” he said.

“Why not learn how to look at what’s logical and what makes sense? And why not encourage discussion of those things, rather than everybody getting their respective corners and shooting hand grenades at each other?”

The way out is real leadership, he said.

“The only path is strong leadership. We don’t have that.”

As I have previously stated, “How many of our CDC officials and government officials own stock in pharmaceutical companies?”

Concerning Numbers

On Wednesday WND posted an article about a study of the number of deaths caused by the Covid vaccine.

The article reports:

The CDC’s latest count of deaths attributed to COVID-19 vaccines is nearly 20,000, but a study by researchers at Columbia University estimates the actual number is 20 times higher.

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS, reports 19,886 deaths, 102,857 hospitalizations and a total of 946,461 adverse events due to COVID-19 vaccines through Dec. 3.

The article notes:

The Columbia researchers method of estimating underreporting was to use the regional variation in vaccination rates to predict all-cause mortality and non-COVID deaths in subsequent time periods, based on two independent, publicly available datasets from the U.S. and Europe.

They found that more than six weeks after injection, vaccination had a negative correlation with mortality. But within five weeks of injection, vaccination predicted all-cause mortality in nearly every age group, with an “age-related temporal pattern consistent with the U.S. vaccine rollout.”

Comparing the study’s estimated vaccine fatality rate with the CDC-reported rate, the researchers concluded VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20, which is “consistent with known VAERS under-ascertainment bias.”

The article notes the impact of some of the research and the reluctance of Pfizer to release all of the information about the vaccine and some of the problems caused by it:

Files obtained from the Food and Drug Administration in November through a Freedom of Information lawsuit recorded 158,893 adverse events from the Pfizer vaccine in the first two and a half months of distribution, including 25,957 incidents of “nervous system disorders.”

The lawsuit was filed by a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, comprised of more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown. As WND reported, in court papers filed in December, the FDA proposed that it be given 55 years to release all 329,000 pages of documents related to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine requested by the group. The FDA has now modified that request, asking a judge for a delay of 75 years.

I am beginning to wonder how many of our government health officials own stock in the companies that are manufacturing the vaccines.

The Search For Transparency

On Wednesday, NewsMax posted an article about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) timeline in releasing data on the Pfizer vaccine.  The FDA has requested 75 years to produce the data.

The article reports:

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the data, which the FDA at first said would take 55 years to produce at 500 pages per month for the entire 329,000 page cache of documents.

Now the FDA is asking a judge to give it 75 years to produce the data, saying there’s over 59,000 more pages than weren’t mentioned in the first request. That would take the full release to 2096, wrote Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case.

“If you find what you are reading difficult to believe — that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure,” he wrote.

The medical group is suing to speed things up.

The group says the data should be made public quickly because the FDA spent only 108 days reviewing it before granting emergency use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — and because vaccine mandates are being issued by local and federal entities, Epoch Times reported.

The article concludes:

On Dec. 2, Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., introduced a bill calling for the head of the FDA to release all records about the vaccine in 100 days.

“Since the Biden administration is hell-bent on forcing these vaccine mandates on us, the public has every right to know how this vaccine was approved, especially in such a short amount of time,” he said in a statement. “After all, the FDA managed to consider all 329,000 pages of data and grant emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine within just 108 days.”

The article cites what I think is one of the most important issues here:

that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure

That should not happen in a free country.

 

Your Children As Guinea Pigs

On Tuesday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the move to approve Covid vaccines for children.

The article reports:

The FDA panel has voted 17 to 0 to approve the Pfizer vaccine for 5 to 11-year-olds.  One of the FDA Panelists, Dr. Ruben, outlined his support by saying We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That’s the way it goes.” 

Another panelist noted that 700 young people under the age of 18 have died ‘with‘ COVID, or COVID related symptoms in the past two years.  With the full support of the FDA panel, the large scale rollout of the vaccine in young children will now head to the CDC for final approvals. 

The statement We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That’s the way it goes.”  concerns me a great deal. It seems to me that children should not be the medium that the vaccine is tested on to determine if it is safe–it should have been tested to prove it is safe before it is used on children.

The article includes the following chart which illustrates why children do not actually need to be vaccinated:

Why is there such a rush to vaccinate children, when they are at very little risk of serious complications from the coronavirus?

 

What Is Going On Behind The Scenes

Project Veritas has a track record of revealing what is being said behind closed doors. They faced serious litigation after they revealed that Planned Parenthood was in the business of selling aborted baby body parts. What they reported was true, but the lawsuits followed in an effort to keep Americans in the dark about the grisly side of abortion. They are now revealing some of the scary aspects of what is going on behind closed doors at the Food and Drug Administration.

The Patriot Daily Wire is reporting today on some rather shocking statements made by an official at the Food and Drug Administration regarding the coronavirus vaccine.

The article reports:

An undercover video released Tuesday by conservative investigative journalist James O’Keefe shows what appears to be an official with the Food and Drug Administration calling for forced COVID-19 vaccinations, and even a “Jewish star” registry for those who are unvaccinated.

Thus far, videos from the Project Veritas #CovidVaxExposed series investigation have shown that officials within federal agencies don’t care about adverse vaccine reactions.

One whistleblower, a nurse working with the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a video that dropped on Monday that physicians have not been reporting instances of vaccine complications.

The article includes an undercover video regarding the vaccine (the video includes rough language).

The article also includes a video of an employee suggesting something similar to yellow stars for the unvaccinated.

The article reports:

On Tuesday, in a separate undercover video release, a reported FDA official joked about treating millions of unvaccinated Americans as if they were Jews in Nazi Germany.

Project Veritas reported that Taylor Lee, who is an economist with the agency, jocularly floated the idea of forcing vaccines on people while using Adolf Hitler’s Germany as a road map.

“Go to the unvaccinated and blow it [the COVID vaccine] into them. Blow dart it into them,” a man said to be Lee stated on video.

“Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do [forced vaccinations]. It’ll cost a ton of money,” the man said in one clip.

“But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very Germany.”

The reported FDA official explained his idea further in another interview, saying, “Nazi Germany … I mean, think about it like the Jewish star.”

The thought of the government having that kind of power is frightening. The push for more vaccines is also interesting considering the fact that the number of coronavirus cases in America has been trending down for the past few weeks, peaking on August 31. (See chart here.) It’s time for the vaccine tyrants to go away.

We Need More Of This

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has warned Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM), located at the University of Louisiana-Monroe, that he will sue the college if it doesn’t change its vaccination policy.

The article reports:

“As I have previously stated, I intend to pursue legal action to protect the rights of Louisiana residents attending VCOM who have declared their objections to the coercive mandate to be vaccinated with an EU-approved [Emergency Use] vaccine,” he said.

Landry maintains that vaccine mandates violate state and federal law. He approached the college’s administration after several students said they were retaliated against for refusing to get vaccinated.

“These complaints have included recordings of conversations with VCOM staff engaging in harassing and coercive conduct targeting students who have exercised their right to opt-out of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The medical school disputes the attorney general’s characterization of events and says it has acted in accordance with the school’s health and legal obligations.

“The intention of VCOM’s coronavirus vaccine policy, is and always has been the safety of our students, the safety of our employees and workplace, as well as the safety of the patients being cared for by our students, faculty and staff,” VCOM said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, the policy was not accurately described in the letter, which was the first communication VCOM received from the Attorney General’s office,” the statement said. “From the beginning, VCOM has committed to remain compliant with the laws of Louisiana.”

The article concludes:

“The LSU Faculty Senate requests that PS–72 be revised to require COVID-19 vaccinations for all eligible students wishing to enroll in in-person classes or other events on campus or implement a similar requirement via another administrative policy or procedure,” the resolution reads.

Landry confronted LSU’s then-interim President Thomas Galligan and asserted state university employees and students are protected against mandated coronavirus vaccines because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not officially approved them.

The FDA is streamlining its vaccine approval process though it’s unlikely a finalized approval will come prior to LSU’s fall semester, which begins Aug. 9. ULM’s fall semester begins Aug. 16.

Landry gave VCOM until Friday, July 30, to respond to concerns outlined in his recent letter.

“It is my understanding that VCOM has advised it will determine whether the students’ objections meet VCOM’s standards sometime in the next two weeks. I would like to have an answer by close of business Friday or I will join in seeking legal protection for the students,” he said.

One important fact here is that the coronavirus vaccine does not have full approval by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration although it is approved for emergency use. What I expect to see now is a rush to approve the vaccine fully before the epidemic ends. It is puzzling to me why the government is so determined to give every American the vaccine when there is ample evidence that those who have recovered from Covid do not need it and the virus is not life-threatening to most Americans.

Pressuring People To Be Part Of An Experiment

One thing to remember as we continue to deal with the coronavirus is that the current vaccines all have emergency approval from the Food and Drug Administration. No one of the current vaccines has full approval for general use. That should prevent companies from requiring employees to be vaccinate, but evidently it doesn’t. One of my daughters has recently resigned a position with the New York Rangers hockey team because she refused to get one of the current coronavirus vaccines. Unfortunately, she is not alone in being put in the position of taking an experimental vaccine or losing her job.

The New York Post reported yesterday that Minnesota Vikings Assistant Coach Rick Dennison has refused to get the coronavirus vaccine and is currently ‘holding discussions’ with the team to see what can be worked out.

The article reports:

Amid reports Friday that the two sides had split over Dennison’s refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine, the Vikings released a statement saying they’re continuing to “hold discussions” with the offensive line coach and run game coordinator.

“The Vikings continue to hold discussions with Offensive Line Coach Rick Dennison regarding the NFL-NFLPA COVID-19 Protocols for training camp and preseason games,” the statement read. “At this time, Coach Dennison does not have an exemption to the vaccination requirements of those protocols. We will adhere to the requirements of the protocols and of applicable law.”

Dennison is considered a “Tier 1” employee and would be required to get the vaccine in order to work directly with players on the field, in meeting rooms, or elsewhere. The league has also said any unvaccinated Tier 1 member has to provide a religious or medical reason to not receive the vaccine. Anyone who doesn’t would be stripped of top-tier status and would face extreme protocols throughout the season.

This is the prelude to vaccine passports, a major loss of freedom for Americans. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says the government can require Americans to undergo a government-mandated medical procedure or be forced by the government to take a drug. The vaccine requirements being implemented in some companies need to be met with lawsuits quickly. This is not a good think for our country.

 

Standing Up For Those Who Helped In A Crisis

When the nightmare of lockdowns, masks, and hand sanitizer began in February, some of the small breweries stepped up and stopped making alcohol to drink and made hand sanitizer instead. Unfortunately, those who wrote the stimulus bill for Congress were ungrateful.

Today The Federalist is reporting the following:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is overriding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made a surprise announcement Tuesday that any distillery that switched to producing hand sanitizer this year during the pandemic will owe thousands of dollars in fees and could be charged twice if they do not cease production immediately.

HHS Chief of Staff Brian Harrison announced Thursday: “Small businesses who stepped up to fight COVID-19 should be applauded by their government, not taxed for doing so. I’m pleased to announce we have directed FDA to cease enforcement of these arbitrary, surprise user fees. Happy New Year, distilleries, and cheers to you for helping keep us safe!”

The article explains the history of the fees:

The early and uncertain days of the pandemic created a high demand for hand sanitizer. Many craft-brewing distilleries, which found their regular operations at a standstill due to COVID shutdowns, pivoted to making sanitizer to stay financially afloat and help with the sudden shortage. More than 800 distilleries shifted from spirits to sanitizer, offering it for sale and even donating it to their communities.

How were the distilleries rewarded for their swift, resourceful, and admirable actions? The FDA slapped them with a notice that they owed an unexpected fee to the government of more than $14,000. Any facility described as an “over-the-counter drug monograph” facility would be subject to a $14,060 Monograph Drug Facility Fee.

The CARES Act, passed into law earlier this year as an initial round of COVID-19 spending defined all distilleries producing hand sanitizer as such facilities. Under the now-voided rule, distilleries would have been forced to shut down production of hand sanitizer and notify the federal government of their change in status in order to avoid having to pay the same fee in 2022.

For the blindsided distilleries, the unexpected fee would have been devastating in an already financially difficult year.

This is another example of things hidden in bills passed by Congress that hurt American businesses. It is time we limit Congressional bills to five pages and require that they deal with one subject only. Right now the lobbyists are writing the bills and hiding things in them that hurt Americans. It’s time to make some changes in the way Congress operates.