America’s COVID Response Was Based on Lies

America’s COVID Response Was Based on Lies

On 3/6/23 at 6:00 AM EST

Almost all of America’s leaders have gradually pulled back their COVID mandates, requirements, and closures—even in states like California, which had imposed the most stringent and longest-lasting restrictions on the public. At the same time, the media has been gradually acknowledging the ongoing release of studies that totally refute the purported reasons behind those restrictions. This overt reversal is falsely portrayed as “learned” or “new evidence.” Little acknowledgement of error is to be found. We have seen no public apology for promulgating false information, or for the vilification and delegitimization of policy experts and medical scientists like myself who spoke out correctly about data, standard knowledge about viral infections and pandemics, and fundamental biology.

The historical record is critical. We have seen a macabre Orwellian attempt to rewrite history and to blame the failure of widespread lockdowns on the lockdowns’ critics, alongside absurd denials of officials’ own incessant demands for them. In the Trump administration, Dr. Deborah Birx was formally in charge of the medical side of the White House’s coronavirus task force during the pandemic’s first year. In that capacity, she authored all written federal policy recommendations to governors and states and personally advised each state’s public health officials during official visits, often with Vice President Mike Pence, who oversaw the entire task force. Upon the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci became chief medical advisor and ran the Biden pandemic response.

We must acknowledge the abject failure of the Birx-Fauci policies. They were enacted, but they failed to stop the dying, failed to stop the infection from spreading, and inflicted massive damage and destruction particularly on lower-income families and on America’s children.

More than 1 million American deaths have been attributed to that virus. Even after draconian measures, including school closures, stoppage of non-COVID medical care, business shutdowns, personal restrictions, and then the continuation of many restrictions and mandates in the presence of a vaccine, there was an undeniable failure—over two presidential administrations—to stop cases from rapidly escalating.

Numerous experts—including John Ioannidis, David Katz, and myself—called for targeted protection, a safer alternative to widespread lockdowns, in national media beginning in March of 2020. That proposal was rejected. History’s biggest public health policy failure came at the hands of those who recommended the lockdowns and those who implemented them, not those who advised otherwise.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 09: White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx speaks as (L-R) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia listen during the daily coronavirus briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on April 09, 2020 in Washington, DC. U.S. unemployment claims have approached 17 million over the past three weeks amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The tragic failure of reckless, unprecedented lockdowns that were contrary to established pandemic science, and the added massive harms of those policies on children, the elderly, and lower-income families, are indisputable and well-documented in numerous studies. This was the biggest, the most tragic, and the most unethical breakdown of public health leadership in modern history.

In a democracy, indeed in any ethical and free society, the truth is essential. The American people need to hear the truth—the facts, free from the political distortions, misrepresentations, and censorship. The first step is to clearly state the harsh truth in the starkest possible terms. Lies were told. Those lies harmed the public. Those lies were directly contrary to the evidence, to decades of knowledge on viral pandemics, and to long-established fundamental biology.

Here are the 10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America’s public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics:

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude.

2. Everyone is at significant risk to die from this virus.

3. No one has any immunological protection, because this virus is completely new.

4. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread.

5. Locking down—closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel—will stop or eliminate the virus.

6. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.

7. The virus is known to be naturally occurring, and claiming it originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory.

8. Teachers are at especially high risk.

9. COVID vaccines stop the spread of the infection.

10. Immune protection only comes from a vaccine.

None of us are so naïve as to expect a direct apology from critics at my employer, Stanford University, or in government, academic public health, and the media. But to ensure that this never happens again, government leaders, power-driven officials, and influential academics and advisors often harboring conflicts of interest must be held accountable. Personally, I remain highly skeptical that any government investigation or commission can avoid politicization. Regardless of their intention, all such government-run inquiries will at least be perceived as politically motivated and their conclusions will be rejected outright by many. Those investigations must proceed, though, if only to seek the truth, to teach our children that truth matters, and to remember G.K. Chesterton’s critical lesson that “Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.”

Scott W. Atlas, MD is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Co-Director of the Global Liberty Institute, Founding Fellow of Hillsdale’s Academy for Science & Freedom, and author of A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (Bombardier Press, 2022).

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.


URGENT: mRNA Jabs May Have Caused Millions of Serious Conditions.

Peer Reviewed Study Finds New Health Problems

Adults have sharply higher risks of being diagnosed with heart, skin, and psychiatric conditions for at least 90 days after they receive Covid jabs, a peer-reviewed study of almost 300,000 people in California has shown.

The researchers examined new diagnoses given to the same people before and after they were vaccinated to see whether the shots changed the risk of new health problems.

They found that people were about 21 percent more likely to receive a new diagnosis in the three months after a shot, compared to the three months before. With almost 240 million American adults jabbed, the rise translates into millions of extra new medical problems found in the months after vaccination, and tens of millions worldwide.

Serious conditions such as hypertension were about 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed in the three months following a shot than the three months before, the researchers found.

Depression, eczema, diabetes, and cellulitis were 10 to 20 percent more likely.

Myocarditis diagnoses had the highest additional risk. They were about 2.6 times as likely overall, with an even higher risk in men. Myocarditis is a known side effect of the mRNAs, so the fact it had a particularly high rate of extra diagnoses provides strong evidence that the signal the researchers found was real.

Overall, the researchers reported that the 284,000 Covid-vaccinated adults they examined received almost 6,000 additional diagnoses of health conditions in the 90 days after being jabbed compared to the 90 days before.

With about 237 million American adults vaccinated, that estimate would translate into about 5 million extra diagnoses for problems like diabetes in the three months following the shots. Worldwide, the number could be up to 25 million.

In the chart below, the blue column is the risk someone will be diagnosed with a new condition following vaccination, compared to the risk before.

For example, about 2,560 out of the 284,000 people were diagnosed with hypertension up to three months after vaccination, compared to 2,080 of the same people up to three months before. The extra 480 cases translated into a 23 percent higher risk of hypertension following vaccination. Because the number of cases was so high, the risk was highly statistically significant, meaning the finding probably was not due to chance.

(Apologies for the laptop screenshot)


The study’s researchers are a group from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a big hospital system in Los Angeles. Their findings were published in Nature Cardiovascular Research in December. But the paper has received almost no attention, a common response to reports that raise questions about the safety of the vaccines.

The researchers also noted that in a smaller sample of adults infected with Covid, new diagnoses for health conditions rose about 40 percent in the three months after infection compared to the three months before.

That fact should come as no surprise. Viral infections are both a marker for and a potential cause of ill-health. Further, people are likely visit their doctors both while they are sick with Covid and shortly after they recover. Those contacts provide a chance for them to receive new diagnoses.

In contrast, people generally receive Covid shots at clinics or pharmacies, not from their doctors, so the chance that the process of receiving a new shot will lead to a diagnosis is minimal.

Thus, if Covid jabs are not harmful, mass vaccinations should not impact the timing of illnesses or their diagnoses. New diagnoses should be scattered randomly before and after the shots.

In fact, people who are feeling ill when they are due for a vaccination may be likely to delay the jab and go to a physician instead. They may then receive a diagnosis that would be counted as occurring before the shot, not after.

This “healthy vaccinee bias” should mean that new illness diagnoses are less likely for a few days after vaccination than before, even if the shots have no effect. As a result, the 20 percent increase in common diagnoses after vaccination is particularly stunning.

Meanwhile, researchers in Hong Kong independently found an even sharper increase in autoimmune “flares” following Covid shots.

The risk of new episodes of lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other serious autoimmune conditions roughly doubled following the shots in a group of 562 patients with those conditions they followed, compared to 1,055 who did not. The paper was published February 17 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Immunology.


But not all vaccines carried the autoimmune risk.

Only mRNA shots did. Chinese-style inactivated virus vaccines did not. Hong Kong used both types of jabs, making a direct comparison possible. The researchers suggested that the mRNA shots cause the flares by stimulating a specific immune receptor that causes the release of inflammatory cytokines.

“Risk-benefit considerations in patients with active rheumatic disease may favor inactivated virus rather than mRNA vaccines to avoid the risk of flare-ups of any severity,” the researchers wrote.

Americans do not have that option, as the United States does not allow the use of Chinese inactivated Covid vaccines.

Original post from:

React19 Research: VAERS Audit – React19

React19, a patient advocacy organization representing more than 20,000 Covid vaccine-injured individuals, reviewed 126 VAERS report numbers filed by 103 independent Covid vaccine-injured individuals. We conducted this audit due to concerns raised by members that they never received permanent VAERS report Identification Numbers, they could not find their VAERS reports after published on the website, and/or their reports had been altered, combined with previous reports, or removed. The scope of the audit was to understand how CDC and FDA are following up with VAERS reports filed by those who continually suffer after their Covid vaccine injury.

We recruited React19 members to the audit between October 17 and November 7, 2022. We advertised this through a support group. React19 individuals who agreed to the audit provided their name and report number(s). The audit (conducted by Alberto Benavides, Brianne Dressen, Joel Wallskog, MD, Linda Wastila, PhD) captured the following information: Temporary ID, Link to the live VAERS report, VAERS permanent ID, State, Age, Gender, Vaccination Date, Symptom on-set date, Date entered, date published, date deleted, and any commentary by injured who filed the report.

Audit Results:

Of 126 verified true VAERS reports of Covid-19 vaccine injury or death:
61% of the reports were logged and published in the VAERS system correctly (provided a permanent ID#);
22% of the reports do not have a permanent ID and, therefore, are not publicly visible;
12% of the reports have been outright deleted and, therefore, not publicly visible;
5% could not file a report or their report number remains unknown.

Medical status of the 15 deleted reports:
53% are Reports of Permanent Disability
27% are Reports of ER/Hospital
20% are “Other”
Medical status of the 79 reports currently visible in the VAERS system:
23% are Reports of Permanent Disability
38% are Reports of ER/Hospital Visits
39% are “Other”
Individuals who received only temporary IDs (their reports are not visible to the public) reported that they were not aware that their report was not officially in the system, nor were they aware VAERS would need to issue a 2nd permanent ID. During the audit, these individuals were encouraged to call the VAERS office to inquire about the status of their report. Examples of the responses follow. Individuals whose reports were deleted called the VAERS office as well.
Sample responses of calls to the VAERS system:

Call log from individuals asking VAERS about their temporary reports:

“Basically, she didn’t have an answer why some of us are stuck in temporary mode. She said when we filed originally, we should have gotten an email as an acknowledgment letter with a permanent ID. Seems it’s up to us to know that, look out for the email and if we don’t get one, we are to call them to figure it out. As of now she says two of my temp IDs will be merged into one and I should get an email from them in the next week that will have my permanent ID.”

“I called VAERS and they were cagey when I said I heard my report was deleted. After being placed on hold while she checked, I was told they had my info. Neither denied or confirmed my report was deleted. Told me they would contact me if they need anything. Basic response each time I dug for more details.”

Example of investigation of 2 reports, with one deleted:
Report 1 not updated: “I called, emailed, and faxed updates as they instructed when I repeatedly reached out to update the lot# and medical diagnostics. Nothing was ever updated. I tried every possible avenue even though my hands didn’t work. Months later I got the standard automated updated request from them which I always filled out and again, no update to anything. I called again and they said you cannot update any reports at all ever, I must put in a new report.”

“Report 2 deleted: They instructed me to file this report when refusing to do updates to report #1. My report #2 has my medical proof of SFN (small fiber neuropathy), bilateral ulnar neuropathy on EMG, brain spots on MRI, and the lot #. The second report is clearly more important and shows specific medical findings. Yet they silently deleted it, and never updated the misleading and weak first report which was too early for diagnostics.”

Example of death report NOT listed as a death report: (2 reports filed)

–       1st Report after HLH diagnosis classified as “life threatening”

–       2nd Report filed after his death classified as “hospitalized”

Family called to request a correction to the 2nd report to be fatality and was instructed to file another report, and was sent a form condolence letter from the CDC. (fatality was May 2021, form letter received December 2022.
After their initial complaint inquiring about why his report is not indicated as a death, they subsequently received the following email:
“Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) program.  Thank you for taking the time to file the report.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.
You can find the above information on our website at Should you require assistance in the future please visit our website or contact us.
 Sincerely, VAERS Staff”

Example of death report not followed up on:
“My condolence letters from the cdc. Despite claims of safety monitoring they never contacted me, never asked for death certificate, autopsy report, medical records. They were not looking for any “signals”. I called several times to ask why no one had contacted me to investigate why a young healthy 34 year old passed 2 weeks after  Pfizer vaccine and the only thing I got was those insulting letters.”
Our audit found that 1 in 3 reports are either not processed through the system for the public to review due to lack of assignment of a permanent ID and/or deletion after original publication. This lack of public visibility is psychologically hurtful and disrespectful to the injured and their families who filed the reports. A ratio of 1 in 3 reports not being visible to the public due to being deleted or incorrectly processed in the VAERS system is far above the margin of error anyone would expect. It also suggests problems of omission, data, and under-reporting of VAERS reports may be even greater than estimated.(1-3) In sum, our audit illustrates a wide-spread issue with reports not being processed by the CDC appropriately.

The VAERS system insists they have the information for each report, but when asked they do not provide the information, only stating that they can see it on the private side and that it is combined with the original report. This makes it impossible for submitters to verify and/or validate their reports. The original report in public-facing VAERS does not reflect any updates given. This also illustrates the lack of transparency of the VAERS system, co-managed by the FDA and CDC.
We are requesting the immediate release of the non-public VAERS reports that the CDC has combined, and a comprehensive audit of the VAERS system by external reviewers.
We also request answers to the following questions:

How many VAERS reports have been “combined” in the non-public facing VAERS system?

How many VAERS reports have been deleted?

What are the criteria for VAERS reports to be deleted?

Why are follow-up reports with more specific findings and specific diagnoses and more likely to show permanent disability NOT visible to the public, despite the CDC’s encouragement that individuals file these subsequent reports whenever possible?

How many of these follow-up reports with more specific findings and diagnoses are only visible internally and not to the public?

Why is there an existence of a public VAERS system and a non-public VAERS system?

What communication is provided to the individual who filed the report when their VAERS report is deleted or not given a permanent ID designation?

Rose J. Critical appraisal of VAERS pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a functioning pharmacovigilance system? Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law. October 2021;3:100-129.

Click to access Pharmacovigilance%20VAERS%20paper%20FINAL_OCT_1_2021.pdf

Kirsch S, Rose J, Crawford M. Estimating the number of COVID vaccine deaths in America.

OpenVaers Newsletter. How to calculate the URF in V-Safe and VAERS. November 15, 2022.
Wondering what happened to your VAERS report?
Look up your report at the and comment below!
— Read on

To share this legal update, please use this link:

Here’s How the U.S. Government Is Tracking the Unvaccinated • Children’s Health Defense

Story at a glance:

The U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The program was implemented on April 1, 2022, and adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the U.S. until January 2023.
Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code, so that they can be tracked inside and outside of the medical system.
These new ICD-10 codes are part of the government’s plan to implement medical tyranny using vaccine passports and digital IDs.
They’re also tracking noncompliance with all other recommended vaccines using new ICD-10 codes, and have implemented codes to describe WHY you didn’t get a recommended vaccine. They’ve also added a billable ICD code for “vaccine safety counseling.”

As recently discovered and reported by Dr. Robert Malone, the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The program was implemented on April 1, 2022, but didn’t become universally adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the U.S. until January 2023.

Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as the ICD-10 code, without their knowledge or consent so that they can be tracked — not just within the health care system but outside of it as well.

Secret tracking program revealed

The new ICD codes were introduced during the Sept. 14-15, 2021, ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting. The ICD committee includes representatives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the NCHS.

Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda distributed during that meeting.

According to the NCHS, “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized,” and they figured out a way to do just that, by adding new ICD-10 codes.

As you can see below, ICD-10 code Z28.310 identifies those who have not received a COVID jab and Z28.311 identifies those who are not up-to-date on their shots.

As noted by Malone:

“Code Number Z28.310 listed above is not a code for an illness or diagnosis, but rather for non-compliance of a medical procedure … Once a person’s vaccination status is coded and uploaded into large data base, it can be accessed by government and private health insurers alike.

“The administrative state officers at the CDC have not made immunization status a reportable disease (yet) but immunization status is listed as one of the reasons for mandatory reporting. They are just one step away from being able to collect this information without your permission. Ergo: vaccine passports made easy. In this country, not having your vaccine records ‘up-to-date’ might mean:

    • The government will not restrict your travel, airlines will.
    • The government will not restrict your travel, other nations will.
    • The government will not restrict your travel, auto rental companies will.
    • The government will not restrict your travel, public transport will.
    • The government will not restrict your travel, private companies will.”

World Health Organization signed off on tracking codes

The ICD codes were created by the World Health Organization (WHO) and doctors — with the exception of those in private practice who don’t accept insurance — are required to use these codes to describe a patient’s condition and the care they received during their visit.

As noted by Malone, the fact that the ICD system is run by the WHO is an important detail, as this means the WHO had to authorize the CDC to add these new codes. The implication is that these codes may be in use internationally; we just don’t know it yet.

The codes are entered into your electronic health record and used by insurance companies for billing purposes. They’re also used by statisticians who track and analyze national and global disease trends such as cancer and heart disease rates over time.

Over the past decade, these statistical analyses have gotten easier to do, thanks to the transition into electronic record keeping. In the U.S., the ICD coding system has been fully integrated into the electronic health record system since 2012.

Within the ICD-10 codes, there’s a category called ICD-10-CM, and this is the category the CDC is now using to track the unvaccinatedwith specific codes for “Unvaccinated for COVID-19” and “Partially Vaccinated For COVID-19.”

Gross violation of medical privacy rights

Since there’s no billing or payment involved with being unvaccinated, and since being unvaccinated is extremely unlikely to be part of your disease profile, there’s no valid reason to record anyone’s vaccine refusal. It’s also a violation of medical privacy, as the records can be accessed by a variety of individuals and not just your personal doctors.

As noted by Malone, a person’s decision to get a vaccine or not is a private matter, and your privacy rights are enshrined in the Privacy Act of 1974. However, during the COVID pandemic, medical privacy rights have been repeatedly violated and broken.

Children’s vaccination statuses were shared with schools and employers were granted the “right” to know the jab status of their employees. Private venues were even permitted to demand proof of vaccination status — all this without a single word of the law having been revoked or amended.

They’re tracking reasons for jab refusal too

If you need proof that these codes will be used for reasons unrelated to your health, consider this: They’re also using codes to describe WHY you didn’t get the primary series or stopped getting boosters.

Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Underimmunization Status.

2 underimmunization status

The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.” Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but someday, it probably will be.

All missed vaccinations will be tracked

Another tipoff that these codes are part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid is the fact that code Z28.39 — “Other underimmunization status” — is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”

As detailed on the American Academy of Family Physicians website:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have announced three new diagnosis codes, including two for COVID-19 immunization status …

3 new diagnosis codes immunization status

“According to ICD-10-CM guidelines, clinicians may assign code Z28.310, ‘Unvaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has not received a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.

“Clinicians may assign code Z28.311, ‘Partially vaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has received at least one dose of a multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimen, but has not received the doses necessary to meet the CDC definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ at the time of the encounter … New code Z28.39 is for reporting when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”

In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.

Vaccine passports are a fait accompli — unless we act now

As noted by Malone:

“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …

“They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking vaccine status on individuals.

“They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there, or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”

You can now be billed for immunization safety counseling

As if all of that weren’t tyrannical enough, they’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling.” That’s right. If you’ve decided you’re not willing to partake in the mRNA experiment, or you just don’t think you need some other vaccine that’s recommended, your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating the WHO’s vaccine propaganda.

This may become more or less automatic because, again, they have codes identifying whether you declined the COVID jab and/or any other vaccine, and for each vaccine refusal, there’s a code detailing why you declined it. “Belief or group pressure” is one of those, and you can bet that code, Z.28.1, will automatically qualify you for immunization safety counseling, whether you want it or not.

They also intend to indoctrinate your children and make you pay for it. The immunization safety counseling code, Z71.85, was described in the September 2021 issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Coding Newsletter.

You have to be a member to read the entire article, but here’s the publicly available preview:

“Reporting Encounters for Immunization Safety Counseling.

“As physicians and other qualified health care professionals field increasing numbers of concerns about immunization safety, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification(ICD-10-CM) offers a new code, Z71.85, for identifying immunization safety counseling as a reason for an encounter provided on or after October 1, 2021.

“Use this code when reporting counseling provided to patients and caregivers who are vaccine hesitant, wish to follow an alternative immunization schedule, or otherwise require time spent in counseling at lengths beyond that typical of routine immunization counseling.

“Code Z71.85 may be reported to indicate the principal or first-listed reason for an encounter or as a secondary reason.

“Documentation of time spent in preventive medicine counseling and separate time spent in immunization administration counseling should be explicit in the encounter note to support that the preventive medicine counseling was significant and separately identifiable.”

Unjabbed teachers flagged

In related news, in early February it was revealed that New York City teachers who did not get the jab were “flagged” with a “problem code” in their personnel files, triggering their fingerprints to be sent to the FBI and the New York Criminal Justice Services.

The purpose of this is unclear, but former public school teacher Michael Kane, founder of Teachers for Choice, believes “that unvaccinated NYC educators were being set up to be viewed as ‘right-wing extremists’ or even ‘terrorists.’”

Kane was among those who got fired for refusing the COVID jab. The revelation that teachers’ fingerprints were illegally entered into not just one, but two, criminal databases “are certain to open up a new round of lawsuits,” Kane writes.

Call to action

Knowing all of this, what can you do about it? How do we stop this madness? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Demand Congress finish what the Senate started by declaring the public health emergency over and done with. Jan. 17, 2023, HR 382, a bill “To terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19” was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill must be passed.

2. Contact your Congressional representative and let them know you:

  • Support the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government’s investigation.
  • Want Congress to reject all attempts by the administrative state, the U.N., the WHO, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Biden administration to require a vaccine passport or a digital ID.
  • Expect them to work to ensure the freedom of travel for all citizens.
  • Expect them to protect Constitutional rights.
  • Expect them to protect all rights to privacy, including and especially medical privacy, and since these new ICD-10 codes are in violation of your right to privacy, you want them to take immediate action to ensure the codes are revoked.

With respect to what you can do to protect your medical privacy on a personal level, keep in mind that independent doctors are not required to use ICD codes unless they accept insurance. So, by choosing a doctor who is in private practice, you can avoid getting tagged and trapped in the system.

Originally published by Mercola.
— Read on

New Research Links COVID-19 Infection – and Vaccination – to a Debilitating Heart Condition

Smidt Heart Institute researchers show the risk of developing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, is five times higher after COVID-19…

New Research Links COVID-19 Infection – and Vaccination – to a Debilitating Heart Condition

Smidt Heart Institute researchers show the risk of developing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, is five times higher after COVID-19 than after vaccination.

A team of investigators from the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai has published research in the journal Nature Cardiovascular Research that confirms a connection between Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) and both COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination.

The study suggests that a small proportion of individuals who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 may develop POTS, which is a debilitating heart condition characterized by an abnormal increase in heart rate upon standing. Furthermore, their findings indicate that people diagnosed with COVID-19 are five times more likely to develop POTS after contracting the virus than after vaccination, emphasizing the importance of receiving the vaccine.

“The main message here is that while we see a potential link between COVID-19 vaccination and POTS, preventing COVID-19 through vaccination is still the best way to reduce your risk of developing POTS,” said Alan C. Kwan, MD, first and corresponding author of the study and a cardiovascular specialist at Cedars-Sinai.

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome is a nervous system-related condition that most commonly affects young women of childbearing age. The most identifiable POTS symptom is a rapid increase in the heartbeat of more than 30 beats per minute or a heart rate that exceeds 120 beats per minute, within 10 minutes of standing.

Other symptoms include fainting, dizziness, and fatigue, although some patients with severe disease may also experience migraine, increased urination, sweaty extremities, anxiety, and tremor.

To validate their findings, the study authors used data from 284,592 vaccinated patients treated within the broader Cedars-Sinai Health System between the years 2020 and 2022, as well as 12,460 Cedars-Sinai patients with COVID-19.

“From this analysis, we found that the odds of developing POTS are higher 90 days after vaccine exposure than the 90 days prior to exposure,” said Kwan. “We also found that the relative odds of POTS were higher than would be explained by increases in visits to physicians after vaccination or infection.”

Kwan emphasizes that despite this finding, the rates of POTS after vaccination were much lower than rates of new POTS diagnosis after COVID-19.

“This knowledge identifies a possible—yet still relatively slim—association between COVID-19 vaccination and POTS,” said Kwan.

Many patients—especially those who developed POTS prior to the COVID-19 pandemic—spent years trying to get properly diagnosed. This is because many healthcare providers are unfamiliar with the disease and its symptoms, which often can be incorrectly attributed to chronic fatigue syndrome or other conditions. However, COVID-19 has expanded the medical field’s understanding of POTS.

“In an unexpected but important way, the COVID-19 pandemic brought a great deal of awareness to POTS—both to patients and providers,” said Peng-Sheng Chen, MD, an expert on the condition who leads one of only a few POTS specialty clinics in the nation. “Given a broader understanding of the disease, many patients can be diagnosed more quickly permitting earlier interventions that can greatly improve their symptoms.”

Many effective interventions involve lifestyle modifications, Chen says, including avoiding triggers such as prolonged standing, extreme heat, extreme cold, and alcoholic beverages. Additional recommended measures may include eating a high-sodium diet and wearing abdominal or lower-body compression garments. Certain medical therapies can also be considered.

Patients treated for POTS at the Smidt Heart Institute often are encouraged to join the cardiac rehabilitation program, which aims to strengthen the body and heart.

While the Nature Cardiovascular Research study sheds important light on vaccinations and POTS, researchers say it has its limitations. The hope, however, is this new knowledge will help improve conversations around COVID-19 and vaccines.

“We recognize as clinicians that side effects from vaccines can vary in type and severity, even if still uncommon overall. We hope that clearer data and improved understanding will eventually enhance medical trust and quality of care as well as communications around vaccines,” said Kwan. “Ultimately, our goal is to optimize vaccine uptake.”

Reference: “Apparent risks of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome diagnoses after COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-Cov-2 Infection” by Alan C. Kwan, Joseph E. Ebinger, Janet Wei, Catherine N. Le, Jillian R. Oft, Rachel Zabner, Debbie Teodorescu, Patrick G. Botting, Jesse Navarrette, David Ouyang, Matthew Driver, Brian Claggett, Brittany N. Weber, Peng-Sheng Chen and Susan Cheng, 12 December 2022, Nature Cardiovascular Research.
DOI: 10.1038/s44161-022-00177-8

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2.

Shuangshi Weia,1, Shengbao Duana,b,1, Xiaomei Liua, Hongmei Wanga, Shaohua Dinga, Yezhou Chen a, Jinsong Xie a, Jingjing Tian a, Nong Yu c, pingju Ge d, xinglin Zhang d, Xiaohong chend, Yong Lia,, Qinglin Menga,
a CAS Key Lab of Bio-Medical Diagnostics, Suzhou Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Suzhou, China b University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
c Department of Laboratory Medicine, The People’s Hospital of Suzhou New District, Suzhou, China
d Acrobiosystems Inc, Beijing, China
Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies IgY
Spike protein variants Neutralizing agent

Perhaps this might explain a few chicken and egg issues?

“Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2.”


The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.

  1. Introduction
    The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a novel strain of coronaviruses, has rapidly spread and evolved since the end of 2019 [1]. To date, SARS- CoV-2 accounts for more than 40 million infections and more than 1.1 million COVID-19 – related deaths worldwide. Worryingly, there are still no available vaccines or antiviral drugs against the SARS-CoV-2.
    Previous studies have demonstrated that the spike (S) glycoprotein homotrimer on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 plays an essential role in human ACE2 receptor binding and virus invasion [2]. Therefore, neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein present the most promising approach against COVID-19. Besides, several neutralizing antibodies that target the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 have been isolated from convalescent patients [3]. Despite the advancements, the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of COIVD-19 faces a wide range of safety threats that are yet to be addressed [4]. Besides, the high production cost and low yield might complicate the use of the neutralizing antibodies, especially in the developing world. Therefore, there is need to explore other strategies that might be more economically suitable and feasible in the fight against COVID-19 prevention and control.
  2. The first report about Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against tetanus toxin was published in 1893 [5]. Three years later, Behring and S. Kitasato discovered the diphtheria antitoxin (the 1901 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine). The use of IgYs did not gain clinical significance and wide application until the advent of the 3Rs principle that was first described by Russell and Burch in 1959, The IgYs gained more attention for their stable chemical properties, low cost, high yield, and improved animal welfare. More importantly, IgYs neither bind the human rheumatoid factors, nor activate the human complement system, which minimizes the risks of inflammation [6]. As a passive immune agent against viral and bacterial diseases, IgYs have the potential to make functional foods and new drugs. Several IgY formu- lations have been approved to treat goose plague, duck plague, and other diseases by China Veterinary Pharmacopoeia. IgY antibodies have
  3. Corresponding authors at: CAS Key Lab of Bio-Medical Diagnostics, Suzhou Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 88, Keling Road, Suzhou New District, Jiangsu Province, China (Y. Li). Suzhou Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sci- ences, No. 88, Keling Road, Suzhou New District, Jiangsu Province, China (Q. Meng).
    1 E-mail addresses: (Y. Li), (Q. Meng). The first two authors contributed equally to this paper.
    Received 15 September 2020; Received in revised form 24 October 2020; Accepted 30 October 2020
    Available online 3 November 2020
    1567-5769/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
  4. S. Wei et al. International Immunopharmacology 90 (2021) 107172
  5. Fig. 1. (Below) Luminescence inhibition rate curve of the anti-(SARS-Cov-2) IgY (blue) and normal (control) IgY (red) from the pseudovirus neutralization assay. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)also been applied to combat human viral infections such as the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza virus, and Coxsackie virus. In one study, anti-SARS coronavirus IgYs were purified from chicken that were immunized with inactived SARS coronavirus, and the IgY antibodies were able to neutralize the SARS coronavirus both in vitro and in vivo [7].
  6. Here, we purified anti-spike-S1 IgYs from hens that were immunized with the S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and interrogated their ability to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus using Hela cells with overexpressed human ACE2. In addition, we used competition ELISA assays to validate the IgY’s competitive binding to various SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein mutants, as well as the SARS-CoV Spike protein.
  7. Materials and methods
    2.1. Preparation and quantification of anti-S1 IgY
    DNA sequence encoding S1 of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein was codon- optimized and synthesized by GenScript USA, Inc (Supplementary Ma- terials). The gene was then subcloned into pFastBac1 vector for Insect cell expression using Bac-to-Bac® Baculovirus system. The codon- optimized SARS-CoV-2 Spike-S1 was expressed in Sf9 insect cells using the baculovirus/insect cell expression system (Fig. S1). The purified recombinant SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was mixed and emulsified with Freund’s immune adjuvant in equal volume and then used as an
    immunogen. Each hen was injected (intramuscular) with 150 μg of the recombinant spike protein under the wings, once a week for 4 weeks, and then IgY was extracted and the titer evaluated. Here, we adopted an improved extraction as described by Sock HweeTan [8], with slight modification for subsequent processing. We removed lipids and lipo- proteins, and then precipitated the supernatant with a final concentra- tion of 15% cold ethanol, instead of ammonium sulfate. The purity of the extracted IgYs was more than 80%, without the ammonium sulfate residue and the process took less than 2 h (Fig. S2). Moreover, centri- fugation could also be replaced with filtration, which makes the extraction process more suitable for large-scale industrial production. The extracted IgYs titer was quantified by indirect ELISA. Briefly, the ELISA plate wells were coated with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Spike- RBD protein expressed in HEK 293 cells, then serial dilutions of IgYs were added to the wells, and 1:10000 dilution of HRP-conjugated goat anti-IgY antibody was added.
    2.2. Pseudovirus neutralization assay
    The blocking potency of IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus was evaluated by luciferase-generated luminescence. Here, Hela monoclonal cells with overexpressed ACE2 were infected with the lentivirus carrying SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the luciferase reporter gene (GenScript Co., Nanjing, China). The IgYs’ ability to neutralize the antigen was
    Fig. 2. Competitive inhibition of the eight coronavirus spike protein mutants as determined by competitive ELISA. 2
  8. S. Wei et al.
  9. evaluated by performing the pseudovirus neutralization assay, as re- ported by the luciferase reporter gene (Supplementary Materials).
  10. 2.3. Competition ELISA
  11. We used a competition ELISA to evaluate the ability of the IgYs to inhibit binding of eight different coronavirus spike protein mutants (including seven SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins and one SARS-CoV spike protein) to the human ACE2. The SARS-CoV-2 RBD or RBD mutants (Table S2) were incubated overnight at 4°C in high bind 96 well plate. A serial dilution of purified the IgY and 0.3 ng/well Fc tagged human ACE2 (Cat. No. AC2-H5257, ACROBiosystems) were added into the coated plate and then incubated for 1 h at 37 °C. HRP-conjugated anti- human Fc (1:20000) (Cat. No. 109-035-098, Jackson ImmunoResearch) was added as the secondary antibody. The OD450 were read by plate reader. All data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 8.
  12. Results
    The results showed that the ELISA titer of IgYs reached 2 [10] after the third booster. The pseudovirus neutralization assay data showed that the IC50 values for the anti-(SARS-Cov-2) IgYs was 270.5 μg/mL, with maximum inhibition of 75.86%. On the other hand, the control IgYs had no obvious inhibitory effect, indicating that the anti-(SARS-Cov-2) IgYs had a neutralizing activity (Fig. 1). However, compared with the re- ported monoclonal antibodies, the IC50 value for the IgYs was relatively high. We associated this phenomenon with the fact that, like the other polyclonal antibodies, only about 10% of the IgYs specifically recog- nized SARS-CoV-2, and the proportion of IgYs with neutralizing activity was even lower. Whereas the IC50 for the polyclonal IgYs was high, theoretically, the IgYs should have multiple sites for the neutralizing activity.
    Anti-(SARS-Cov-2) IgYs showed obvious competition with ACE2 in binding both the wild type SARS-Cov-2 (IC50 = 309.9 μg/mL) and SARS-Cov (IC50 = 617.9 μg/mL) spike proteins. Besides, IgYs also showed competitive binding to the six SARS-Cov-2 spike protein mutants [9] (W436R, R408I, N345D, V367F, N345D/D364Y, and the more dominant mutant D614G) [10] with an IC50 range of 324.0− 490.9 μg/ mL (Fig. 2).
  13. Conclusion
    In summary, the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various S mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. However, the safety and efficacy of the IgYs still needs further interrogation in animal models.
    At present, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading around the world, and there is much to be done to prevent and control the pandemic. The use of IgYs in aerosol or spray formulations on the respiratory tract, the oral cavity, and even the digestive tract may be a worthwhile strategy. It
    International Immunopharmacology 90 (2021) 107172
    might prevent the invasion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus through the natural infection route. Long-term control of the SARS-CoV-2, however, will require a combination of active and passive immunization tools, drug therapy, and other preventive measures.
    This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foun- dation of Jiangsu Province (Grants No BK20180224) and Natural Sci- ence Foundation for Young Scientists of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20160362).
    CRediT authorship contribution statement
    Shuangshi Wei: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition. Shengbao Duan: Meth- odology, Writing – review & editing. Xiaomei Liu: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Hongmei Wang: Software. Shaohua Ding: Software. Yezhou Chen: Validation. Jinsong Xie: Software. Jingjing Tian: Validation. Nong Yu: Resources, Methodology, Investigation. pingju Ge: Methodology. xinglin Zhang: Investigation. Xiaohong chen: Validation. Yong Li: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Qinglin Meng: Methodology, Funding acquisition.
    Appendix A. Supplementary material
    Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107172.
    [1] P. Zhou, et al., A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin, Nature 579 (2020) 270–273.
    [2] R. Yan, et al., Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by full-length human ACE2, Science 367 (2020) 1444–1448.
    [3] P.J.M. Brouwer, et al., Potent neutralizing antibodies from COVID-19 patients define multiple targets of vulnerability, Science (2020), c5902.
    [4] X. Cao, COVID-19: immunopathology and its implications for therapy, Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20 (2020) 269–270.
    [5] F. Klemperer, Uber natirliche Immunitat und ihre Verwertung fur die Immunisierungs-therapie, Arch. Expl. Pathol. Pharmakol. 31 (1893) 356–382.
    [6] A.T. Abbas, S.A. El-Kafrawy, S.S. Sohrab, & Azhar, E, IgY antibodies for the immunoprophylaxis and therapy of respiratory infections, Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 15 (2019) 264–275.
    [7] C.Fu,etal.,Preparationandevaluationofanti-SARScoronavirusIgYfromyolksof immunized SPF chickens, J. Virol. Methods 133 (2006) 112–115.
    [8] S.H. Tan, A. Mohamedali, A. Kapur, L. Lukjanenko, M.S. Baker, A novel, cost- effective and efficient chicken egg IgY purification procedure, J. Immunol. Methods 380 (2012) 73–76.
    [9] Q.Q.Li,J.J.Wu,J.H.Nie,L.Zhang,etal.,TheimpactofmutationsinSARS-CoV-2 spike on viral infectivity and antigenicity, Cell 182 (2020) 1284–1294.
    [10] B. Korber, W.M.F.S., Hengartner, E.E.G.T., Partridge, C.M.E.T. & A. Moon-Walker, S.P.W.C, Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell 182 (2020) 812–827.
Figure 1

Figure 2

Pfizer CEO Made ‘Misleading’ Statements on Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19: UK Watchdog

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has made “misleading” and unsubstantiated statements on the merit of giving COVID-19 vaccines to young children, according to a case report published by a UK pharmaceutical watchdog on Jan. 27.

During an interview with the BBC published on Dec. 2, 2021, Bourla was asked whether he believed it was likely that 5- to 11-year-olds in the UK and Europe would be vaccinated against COVID-19 and whether it was a good idea.

The interview was published after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorised the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for young children, but the UK’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), didn’t approve the product for the same age group until Dec. 22, 2021.

While acknowledging that it was up to the UK authorities to decide whether or not to approve and deploy the vaccines, Bourla replied, “I believe it’s a very good idea.”

He cited disruptions in education and the potential of developing so-called long-COVID, saying, “so there is no doubt in my mind about the benefits completely are in favour of doing it.”

Syringes in front of displayed Biontech and Pfizer logos on Nov. 10, 2020. (Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters)

Following complaints from UsForThem—a children’s welfare campaign group founded in response to the COVID-19 lockdowns—a panel from the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) ruled that Bourla’s statements breached a number of rules in the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) code of practice.

After Pfizer appealed against the ruling, an appeal board upheld five counts of breaches of three ABPI codes that require information and claims to be accurate, balanced, capable of substantiation, not raising unfounded hopes of successful treatment, and not be misleading with respect to the safety of the product.

The PMCPA described Bourla’s statements as being of a “strong unqualified nature.” It also said they inferred there was “no need to be concerned about potential side-effects of vaccination in healthy children aged 5-11” and that the implication was “misleading and incapable of substantiation.”

The PMCPA said it has received an undertaking from Pfizer to prevent similar breaches in the future.

Code breakers are charged for administrative costs, but the self-regulatory body does not have the power to impose fines or other legal sanctions.

Bourla was initially found to have also breached the code for promoting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the 5–11 age group when it was not authorised by the MHRA, but the appeal board overturned the ruling, agreeing with Pfizer that its CEO was asked a specific question and it was not unreasonable to talk about the issue in principle. The board also noted that two other COVID-19 vaccines were also under investigation for the age group.

The appeal board also overturned previous rulings that said Pfizer had failed to maintain high standards and brought discredit upon the industry.

Most Serious Rulings

Pfizer didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment. In a previous statement to The Telegraph in November 2022, when the newspaper obtained the unpublished ruling, a spokesman for Pfizer said the company was “committed to the highest levels of integrity in any interaction with the public.”

“We are pleased the UK’s PMCPA Appeal Board found Pfizer to have maintained high standards and upheld confidence in our industry, the two most serious rulings in this complaint from a UK campaign group,” the statement reads.

“In the UK, we have always endeavoured to follow the principles and letter of our industry Code of Practice throughout. We will review the case report in detail when we receive it, to inform future activity,” it added.

Speaking to The Epoch Times on Tuesday, Ben Kingsley, head of legal affairs at UsForThem, said he was “thrilled” the regulator ultimately agreed with them that the Pfizer CEO’s statements were misleading and unsubstantiated after the pharmaceutical giant opposed their claims “with all of the resources at its disposal” throughout the process.

Commenting on Pfizer’s previous statement on the ruling, Kingsley said the group “found it quite surprising” that Pfizer would consider the rulings about maintaining high standards and upholding confidence in the industry the “most serious” of all.

“I think to the average member of the public, we’d regard misleading us about the safety of their product to be plenty more serious than bringing the repute of the pharmaceutical industry down,” he said.

“So I think it tells you something about the mindset and the priorities of pharma executives that they regard the abuse of the industry as being a more serious matter than misleading the public.”

(L-R) Professor Wei Shen Lim, chair of JCVI’s COVID-19 subcommittee; Professor Jonathan Van Tam, deputy chief medical officer for England; and Dr. June Raine, chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, attend a media briefing at Downing Street Briefing Room in London on Nov. 29, 2021. (Stefan Rousseau/WPA Pool/Getty Images)

n June 2021, the UK government’s advisory body on vaccines, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), declined to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children aged between 12 and 15, given the “marginal” benefits young teens would get from the vaccines and the lack of long-term data on the side-effects, including myocarditis.

But the vaccines were later offered to the age group after UK chief medical officers made a recommendation based on wider considerations, including the disruption to children’s education—attributed by some to COVID-19 and by others to the political decision to make children who test positive stay out of school.

The JCVI later recommended a one-off “non-urgent offer” to vaccinate 5- to 11-year-olds. The offer ended in August last year.

In is most recent recommendation, the JCVI said under–50s who are at lower risk of getting seriously ill with COVID-19 will soon be unable to get a booster shot. The offer of primary doses will also end for low-risk people in all age groups.

Resource of Article: Pfizer CEO Made ‘Misleading’ Statements on Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19: UK Watchdog


80X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Influenza Vaccines 2020 through 2022

December 18, 2022

80X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Influenza Vaccines 2020 through 2022

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

An examination of the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System(VAERS) reveals that since the Fall of 2020 through today, people injected with COVID-19 shots die 80 times more frequently following those shots, than people who die after being injected with the flu shots.

Also, people receiving a COVID-19 shot suffer side effects 40 times more frequently than people who are injected with flu shots.

Here are the current stats in VAERS for people receiving a COVID-19 shot since they were issued an emergency use authorization in December of 2020. (Source.)

Here are the stats for the flu shots since September of 2020 (beginning of the “Flu season”.) (Source.)

To determine the rate of side effects and deaths suffered from these shots, we need the number of doses distributed for these time periods, and we find those numbers on the CDC website.

Total doses of COVID-19 shots distributed to date are 931,341,585. (Source.)

Total doses of flu shots distributed from September 2020 through December 10, 2022 are 527,610,000. Number of doses for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 flu seasons are found here, and total doses for the current 2022-2023 flu season through December 10, 2022 are found here.

Based on these numbers supplied by the U.S. Government, one person dies for every 2,284,026 flu shots, while one person dies for every 28,370 COVID-19 shots, which is a rate 80 times higher than the flu shots.

One person is suffering a side effect for every 25,217 flu shots, while one person is suffering a side effect for every 629 COVID-19 shots, which is a rate 40 times higher than the flu shots.

What is interesting about the CDC’s report on doses of COVID-19 shots distributed, is that even though 931,341,585 doses have been distributed, only 660,400,812 doses have been administered. So only 70% of the COVID-19 “vaccines” the U.S. Government has purchased have actually been injected into people. The other 30% presumably were discarded, or will be discarded after they reach their expiration date.

That of course makes the rate of people dying and suffering injuries following injections of COVID-19 shots even higher!

  • 1 death per 20,117 shots
  • 1 side effect per 446 shots

I do not know if statistics exist for the ratio of shots distributed to shots administered for the flu shots, which is why for comparison purposes we need to use the “shots distributed” statistics.

Governor DeSantis, Dr. Ladapo, and Other Florida Doctors are LYING About the Safety of Childhood Vaccines!

How about other vaccines that are approved by the FDA and part of the CDC childhood vaccination schedule?

At a recent event in Florida with Governor Ron DeSantis and his Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, several other doctors sat a round table to discuss how COVID-19 shots were harmful and should NOT be recommended for children. See:

Why Hasn’t Governor DeSantis Stopped the COVID Vaccines in Florida When He Admits They are Killing People?

However, some of these doctors that sat at the table told parents to not stop injecting their children with other vaccines, and told them that these vaccines were “safe and effective.” One doctor, Dr. Joseph Friaman, even emphatically stated that other childhood vaccines had nearly no side effects. He said that they were rare, “1 in a million.”

Listen to their own words:

Let’s “fact check” this.

The U.S. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program keeps stats on the number of doses distributed for all FDA-approved vaccines that are on the CDC childhood vaccination schedule. You can view those stats covering the time period of 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2021 at the U.S. Government website here.

During those years, there were over 4 billion doses of vaccines distributed (4,093,221,119).

Next, we can do a search in VAERS to see how many deaths and side effects were recorded from these vaccines during that same time period. The results are here.

During these years, there were 553,216 injuries and deaths recorded in VAERS from all non-COVID vaccines. That means a side effect from these vaccines was recorded in VAERS for about every 7,400 shots distributed.

That’s a lot more than 1 out of a million, as Dr. Friaman claimed! And of course the actual numbers are much HIGHER than this, because a report contracted out by the U.S. Government in 2011 found that less than 1% of all vaccine injuries are ever reported to VAERS. (Source.)

Here is the list of the vaccine manufacturers from VAERS that produced these vaccines that caused all these injuries and deaths, and each of these companies, especially the ones at the top of the list, have a criminal rap sheet where they have paid out $BILLIONS in criminal settlements.

So these doctors admit the COVID shots are bad, but they want you to trust them that all other vaccines, produced by the same corrupt companies, are somehow “safe”?

They can’t even prove these vaccines are effective! Dr. Bhattacharya mentioned the polio and MMR vaccines, and these are two of the biggest scams in the history of vaccines!

No child is dying in the U.S. today from measles, but many do die and are injured from the measles (MMR combo vaccine) vaccine.

All cases of polio today come from the vaccines. Please educate yourself on these non-COVID vaccines and the tremendous fraud surrounding them.

Here is an article I published earlier this year on the polio vaccine, and when you listen to Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ presentation on the history of the polio vaccine, you will see much of the same fraud we just observed with the COVID shots. The playbook doesn’t change much over the years.

The Polio Scam Makes a Comeback to Scare More Parents into Vaccinating Their Children – Vaccines NEVER Eradicated Polio: Vaccines CAUSE Polio

Also, the CDC has refused over the years to study the health of children who follow the CDC childhood vaccination schedule and are fully vaccinated versus parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, and for good reason, because unvaccinated children are clearly much healthier. See:

Unvaccinated Children are Healthier than Vaccinated Children – Most Censored Topic in the U.S.?