Just when you thought the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration couldn't possibly get any worse, they prove you
wrong. Here are two recent COVID booster campaign messages tweeted out
by the FDA:
"It's time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster."1 "Don't be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster."2
FDA Now Pushes Transhumanist Pipe-Dream
That's right. The FDA now wants you to believe that your immune
system is something that needs to be "recharged," as if it were a
battery, or "updated" with mRNA injections like a piece of software.
This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology
or physiology, and proves beyond doubt that the FDA is fully onboard
with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy
pushed by the globalist cabal. The human body is basically viewed as
nothing more than a biological platform equipped with genetic software
that can be altered and updated at will.
The problem, of course, is that your body doesn't work that way. You cannot turn your body into a "bioreactor"3 or an internal "vaccine-production facility"4
and expect it to work as intended. The massive increase in disability
and sudden death among COVID jab recipients is a testament to the fact
that allowing Big Pharma to play God is a bad idea.
Transhumanism as a whole is a pipe-dream, as it fails to take into
account just about everything that actually makes us human, including
the nonlocality of consciousness, which they irrationally believe can be
uploaded to a cloud-based system and merged with AI, or downloaded into
an artificial body construct, such as a synthetic body.
False Advertising
The Federal Trade Commission is
responsible for addressing fraudulent advertising. According to law, an
ad must be "truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by
scientific evidence."5 The FDA itself also requires drug ads to be "truthful, balanced and accurately communicated."6
"Balanced" refers to promotional materials that include efficacy and
benefit claims, which must include a balance between benefit information
and information about risks. In my view, the FDA's most recent COVID
booster ads are clear examples of false advertising, because:
- They're not truthful and accurate, as there's no basis for the claim
that your antibodies need to be updated with a drug, or the claim that
immunity must be recharged at regular intervals
- They're not backed by scientific evidence, as the FDA is a) ignoring
massive evidence of harm from the original shots, and b) the bivalent
boosters are being released based on data from a few mice alone. The FDA
is advertising the boosters for the prevention of disease, even though
it has zero data to prove it prevents anything
- They're not balanced, as the FDA fails to warn people about any of
the many side effects reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS)7
Was No-Test Drug Approval the Plan All Along?
While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed (OWS) —
devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from
then-President Trump's health and defense departments to expedite the
development of a COVID-19 vaccine8 — may have been intended to normalize the approval of drugs without proper testing.
Even if the normalization of expedited drug approval wasn't
originally intended, it certainly has been used and abused to that aim
since. In June 2022, the FDA quietly implemented a "Future Framework" scheme9
to speed up the delivery of COVID boosters. This is what allows for the
authorization of reformulated COVID shots without human trials.10,11,12
The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA
gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can
be updated and released without testing.
The idea here is that the safety of the mRNA COVID shots has already
been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or
killed no one. Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of
reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody
levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.
In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud,
antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab's ability to protect
against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines
and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.
I have no doubt this "Future Framework" will also, over time, be
widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to
tinker with. It may even lower standards for drug trials in general,
which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase
testing.13 The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated.
Analysis of US Booster Policy
In a September 12, 2022, article, Kaiser Health News raised several
questions about the FDA's authorization of the new bivalent COVID
boosters:14
"... in the real world, are the omicron-specific
vaccines significantly more protective — and in what ways — than the
original COVID vaccines so many have already taken? If so, who would
benefit most from the new shots? Since the federal government is
purchasing these new vaccines ... is the $3.2 billion price tag worth
the unclear benefit? ...
The FDA could have requested more clinical vaccine
effectiveness data from Pfizer and Moderna before authorizing their
updated omicron BA.5 boosters. Yet the FDA cannot weigh in on important
follow-up questions: How much more effective are the updated boosters
than vaccines already on the market? In which populations?
And what increase in effectiveness is enough to merit
an increase in price (a so-called cost-benefit analysis)? Other
countries, such as the United Kingdom, perform such an analysis before
allowing new medicines onto the market, to negotiate a fair national
price ...
As population immunity builds up through vaccination
and infection, it's unclear whether additional vaccine boosters, updated
or not, would benefit all ages equally ... The CDC's Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices considered limiting the updated boosters to
people 50 and up, but eventually decided that doing so would be too
complicated."
Shocking Jab Study Decimates Safety Claims
In related news, a shocking risk-benefit analysis15 looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that:
- Between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to
29) must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19
hospitalization
- For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98
serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 "booster-associated
myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3
reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities"
That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will
result in "a net expected harm." The authors also stress that "Given the
high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile
is even less favorable." The authors go on to state that "University
booster mandates are unethical because:"16
"1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are
not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient
effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle
because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably
compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider
counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show
that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support."
Government Study Reveals COVID Jab Problems
A small observational study17,18
led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health also
brings bad news, as they found "a variety of neuropathic symptoms"
occurring within three to four weeks of COVID injection:
"We studied 23 patients (92% female; median age 40
years) reporting new neuropathic symptoms beginning within 1 month after
SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 100% reported sensory symptoms comprising
severe face and/or limb paresthesias, and 61% had orthostasis, heat
intolerance and palpitations ...
Biopsies from randomly selected five patients that
were evaluated for immune complexes showed deposition of complement C4d
in endothelial cells. Electrodiagnostic test results were normal in 94%
(16/17). Together, 52% (12/23) of patients had objective evidence of
small-fiber peripheral neuropathy ...
This observational study suggests that a variety of
neuropathic symptoms may manifest after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and in
some patients might be an immune-mediated process."
FDA Refuses to Release Key COVID Jab Safety Analyses
In July 2022, The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release "all analyses
performed by the agency for the COVID-19 vaccines using ... Empirical
Bayesian data mining, which involves comparing the adverse events
recorded after a specific COVID-19 vaccine with those recorded after
vaccination with non-COVID-19 vaccines."19
The FDA has so far refused, claiming the data is tied to "internal
discussions protected by law." September 10, 2022, The Epoch Times
reported:20
"According to operating procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 202121 and February 2022,22
the FDA would perform data mining 'at least biweekly' to identify
adverse events 'reported more frequently than expected following
vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.' The agency would perform the mining
on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
In a recent response, the FDA records office told The
Epoch Times that it would not provide any of the analyses, even in
redacted form. The agency cited an exemption to the Freedom of
Information Act that lets the government withhold inter-agency and
intra-agency memorandums and letters 'that would not be available by law
to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.'
The agency also pointed to the Code of Federal
Regulations, which says that 'all communications within the Executive
Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are
subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure
except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in
accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public
disclosure.'
It's not clear why the FDA could not produce copies
of the analyses with non-factual information redacted. The Epoch Times
has appealed the determination by the records office."
CDC Also Refuses to Release Its Safety Analyses
According to the VAERS standard operating procedures cited above, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also required to perform
data mining analyses, using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data
mining. PRR23 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
When The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its results, it too
refused. According to The Epoch Times, the CDC "has also twice provided
false information when responding to questions":24
"The agency initially said that no PRR analyses were
done and that data mining is 'outside of th[e] agency's purview.' The
agency then said that it did perform PRRs, starting in February 2021.
Later, the agency acknowledged that wasn't true.
The agency did not begin performing PRRs until March
2022, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times. Roger Andoh, a records
officer, gave the initial response, citing the CDC's Immunization and
Safety Office. Dr. John Su, a CDC official, gave the second response.
It remains unclear with whom the information
originated. The Epoch Times has submitted Freedom of Information Act
requests for internal emails that may provide answers."
So far, the FDA has insisted the data show no evidence of serious
adverse effects from the COVID jab. The only possible signal they'd
found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature. In the
article, The Epoch Times cites several papers in which the FDA and/or
CDC claim their data mining efforts have come up empty handed.
But if that's true, why the reluctance to release the data? Don't
they want us to be reassured that these shots are as safe as they claim
them to be? Why sit on exculpatory evidence? Unless, of course, the data
proves the FDA and CDC have been lying all along.
Senators Calling for Special Grand Jury
In other related news, naturopath Henry Ealy and two Oregon state
senators, Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, have been trying since
March 2022 to compel the impaneling of a special grand jury to
investigate decisions by federal officials that "significantly
compromise[d] the accuracy and integrity of COVID-related data."25
According to the March 7, 2022, petition,26,27
filed in Portland, Oregon, the 30 defendants manipulated statistics to
create "a significant hyperinflation of COVID-19 case, hospitalization
and death counts," which in turn resulted in $3.5 trillion in fraudulent
taxpayer expenditures.
Defendants specifically named28
are former CDC director Robert Redfield and current CDC director
Rochelle Walensky, former Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Alex
Azar, HHS director Xavier Becerra, and National Center for Health
Statistics director Brian Moyer.
As explained by Ealy in the video update above, the defendants were
given 60 days to reply to the March 7 petition. As it happened, the U.S.
Attorney for Oregon, Scott Asphaug, was assigned by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to be the defending attorney — an interesting choice,
considering Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum had in 2021 asked Asphaug to
investigate the listed defendants, which he refused to do.
Asphaug immediately filed for an extension, which gave them another
60 days. The defendants now had until August 26, 2022, to respond.
Suddenly, July 13, the DOJ reassigned Asphaug to Nairobi, Kenya. Asphaug
resigned from his post as U.S. attorney, effective July 17, at which
point U.S. Attorneys Natalie Wight and Dianne Schweiner took over the
CDC's defense.
When the defendants missed the August 26 deadline, Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum filed for default judgment.29 Two days later, August 29, Wight and Schweiner opposed default judgment.30
Schweiner's excuse for missing the deadline was that she'd been busy
caring for her acutely sick dog. As noted by Linthicum in his
newsletter,31
"no self-respecting sci-fi editor would allow something this outlandish
past his desk when trying to make a story about integrity and
transparency sound believable."
Ealy is now convinced the CDC is feeling the heat, and urges
Americans to sign Stand for Health Freedom's petition to convene a
special grand jury to investigate the CDC's conduct during COVID-19.
>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
The more signatures there are on this petition, the stronger the
argument that the court must order a grand jury investigation, as it
demonstrates that this investigation is important to the American
public, and isn't just some pet grievance by Ealy, Thatcher and
Linthicum.
As noted by Ealy, the CDC has committed criminal data fraud. There
are laws prohibiting data manipulation by federal agencies, and laws
meant to prevent it from happening in the first place.
The CDC violated those laws, not just once, but repeatedly, and those
in charge must be held accountable. We cannot have a public health
agency flouting data laws in order to justify harming the public. So,
please, add your name to the grand jury petition.