Tag: big pharma

FDA Approves Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine for Adults 50 and Older

FDA Approves Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine for Adults 50 and Older

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine, mFLUSIVA, for adults aged 50 and older, marking the first time the agency has licensed an mRNA vaccine for seasonal influenza, according to a company statement reported by The Epoch Times [1]. Moderna said the FDA granted traditional approval for adults aged 50 to 64 and accelerated approval for adults 65 and older.

The approval followed a unanimous 9-0 recommendation from the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [2]. The FDA had initially declined to review the application over concerns about trial design before reversing course after a high-priority meeting, according to a report by NaturalNews.com [3]. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel called the approval “our fourth approved product in the United States and the first mRNA-based flu vaccine” [4].

Approval Conditions and Trial Data

Moderna said the approval was based on a late-stage trial of more than 40,000 adults aged 50 and older that found the shot was 26.5 percent more effective than a licensed standard-dose flu vaccine. The company agreed to run an additional study and submit further data on adults 65 and older to demonstrate the vaccine’s benefit in that age group, and Moderna also submitted separate late-stage data showing stronger antibody responses than Sanofi’s high-dose flu vaccine in adults 65 and older after problems with the phase 3 trial methodology, according to The Epoch Times [1].

The vaccine uses mRNA technology intended to prompt the body to produce influenza antigens and trigger an immune response. Scientists said the approach could allow faster updates of the shot to match circulating strains [1]. In a 92-page review document, FDA reviewers said the trial’s use of a standard-dose comparator limited interpretation of clinical benefit for adults 65 and older. “This limitation affects interpretation of the net clinical benefit in the 65 and older population and is a key issue for Advisory Committee deliberation,” the reviewers wrote [1].

Adverse Events, FDA Review and Disclosures

The trial found higher rates of adverse events among mFLUSIVA recipients than among recipients of the comparator vaccine, with side effects including fatigue, headache, and muscle pain, according to FDA reviewers cited in The Epoch Times report. Serious adverse events occurred in 2.2 percent of mRNA vaccine recipients, with three events considered vaccine-related, compared with 1.9 percent in the comparator group [1].

A French peer-reviewed study published in 2022 concluded that mRNA COVID-19 shots increased the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in adolescent and young adult males after a second dose, the report said [1]. The report also noted that multiple FDA advisory committee members who voted in favor of the flu vaccine had connections to Moderna, including El Sahly and Dr. Flor Munoz, who was a Moderna adviser from 2022 to 2024 [1].

Regulatory and Policy Context

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the FDA, announced in August 2025 that the Department of Health and Human Services was winding down mRNA vaccine development under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Kennedy said funding would be redirected toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate” [1]. In July 2026, HHS said Kennedy had signed determinations terminating the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization declarations for drugs, biological products, and medical devices [5].

Several FDA officials who had voiced opposition to mRNA vaccines have recently departed the agency, according to The Epoch Times [1]. An investigation by TrialSite News reported that regulators reviewing COVID-19 mRNA vaccines possessed data showing the products could travel throughout the body, even as the public was told the vaccines stayed “in the arm” and disappeared within a day or two [6]. Moderna withdrew its application for a COVID-flu combination shot last year after the FDA sought additional evidence, and European regulators approved the combination shot in April, the report said [1].

Keep reading

Sanofi Made False Claims About RSV Shot for Infants, FDA Says

In a letter to the drugmaker, the FDA said the agency approved Beyfortus, an RSV monoclonal antibody, as a defense against RSV lower respiratory tract disease — but that Sanofi has been claiming it protects broadly against RSV disease, which occurs in the lower and upper tracts. Beyfortus has come under scrutiny following reports of at least two infant deaths during clinical trials for the drug.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is accusing Sanofi of making false or misleading promotional claims about Beyfortus, a preventative treatment for RSV, Fierce Pharma reported.

In a letter to the drugmaker, the FDA said it approved Beyfortus specifically as a defense against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) lower respiratory tract disease — but that Sanofi has been claiming it protects broadly against RSV disease, which occurs in the lower and upper tracts.

The company has sent providers emails urging them to give the shot to “help prevent RSV disease in infants.”

The promotional materials included other similar statements, including, “Beyfortus is a monoclonal antibody that helps prevent RSV disease starting from Day 1 after injection,” and “Your efforts in immunizing infants against RSV disease can impact the population health burden in your community.”

The FDA said that language creates the “misleading impression” that the drug prevents RSV disease generally.

FDA asks Sanofi to take immediate action to stop misbranding RSV shot

Beyfortus, a monoclonal antibody manufactured by Sanofi and AstraZeneca, was approved by the FDA in 2023. Unlike a vaccine, monoclonal antibodies provide passive immunity by delivering laboratory-produced antibodies designed to protect infants against severe RSV disease.

The FDA emphasized that Beyfortus is specifically approved for the prevention of RSV lower respiratory tract disease — not RSV infection or upper respiratory tract illness generally.

The agency noted that while the promotional emails later referred to protecting infants from “RSV-LRTI,” lower respiratory tract infection,  that clarification did not adequately correct the overall impression created by the broader claims appearing earlier in the communications.

“By failing to adequately communicate the indication for Beyfortus, the emails create a misleading impression about the drug’s FDA-approved indication,” the letter states.

The agency concluded that the promotional materials “misbrand Beyfortus” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

The FDA requested that Sanofi take immediate action to stop disseminating the promotional communications or other materials containing similar representations.

The agency also instructed the company to submit a written response within 15 working days detailing all Beyfortus promotional communications containing comparable claims, along with its plan to discontinue or correct them.

If Sanofi believes its promotional materials do not violate federal law, FDA said the company may provide its reasoning and supporting evidence as part of its response.

Keep reading

Moderna Has Found Another Virus to Monetize

Moderna is back at the public trough with another experimental mRNA vaccine, this time targeting the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola. CBC reports that Health Canada has authorized a Phase 1 trial of mRNA-1469 at three Canadian sites involving about 80 adults. Canada has never recorded a single Ebola case, and its government admits the risk to the general population is low, yet healthy Canadians will supply the human data for a product intended primarily for a third-world African nation.

As of August 1, there were 3,748 confirmed cases and 1,657 deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is no approved vaccine specifically targeting Bundibugyo Ebola, but Moderna is not financing this humanitarian venture alone. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations has pledged up to $50 million for preclinical research, Phase 1 testing, and manufacturing doses before the early trial is even complete.

This is public risk and private reward dressed up as charity. If the product fails, outside funding absorbs much of the loss. If it succeeds, Moderna gains another proprietary vaccine and governments or international organizations will purchase the doses. Moderna promises to make at least 500,000 doses available to poorer countries at “access pricing,” but it has not told the public what that price will be, or who will ultimately pay the bill.

COVID was perhaps the most profitable virus in pharmaceutical history. Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were once projected to generate between $93.2 billion and $124 billion in combined vaccine sales during 2022. Taxpayers helped finance development, governments guaranteed purchases, mandates manufactured customers, and Big Tech silenced those who questioned the arrangement. The corporations kept the profits while politicians treated the population like an obedient herd.

Keep reading

If You Want to Live, Stop Trusting the FDA, CDC, Corporate Media, and Jab-Pushing Doctors

If You Want to Live, You Have to Think For Yourself

I recently posted a flippant comment about not trusting the judgment of people who took the COVID jabs. The backlash was immediate and furious, and it only confirmed what I’ve known for years: too many people have outsourced their thinking to authorities who lie to them for a living.

The anger proves my point. When you confront people with evidence that their trusted institutions deceived them, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather defend the authority that misled them than admit they were used as guinea pigs in a mass medical experiment. That’s not stubbornness; it’s deep psychological conditioning.

I make one exception: the active-duty military personnel who were physically coerced into taking the shots. The United States Coast Guard members who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Biden administration over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were victims of medical assault, not naive volunteers. [1] Their “choice” was discharge, career destruction, and public humiliation. I have nothing but respect for the people who fought back.

The ‘I Trusted My Doctor’ Excuse Is Not a Defense

The most common justification I heard from angry commenters was some variation of “I trusted my doctor, the FDA, the CDC, the media, Fauci.” And that is exactly the problem. Your doctor was not the one who authorized an experimental gene therapy with zero long-term safety data. Your doctor was just the final delivery mechanism for a system that had already abandoned real science.

The Biden administration pressured the FDA to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, according to a congressional report. [2] Emergency use authorization was never meant to bypass the entire clinical trial process, yet that is precisely what happened. Experts said that properly analyzing millions of pages of individual participant data would have required at least six months, so they skipped it entirely. [3]

Pfizer’s own whistleblower, Brook Jackson, testified that trial data were falsified, patients were unblinded, poorly trained personnel administered injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed. [4] Anyone with internet access could have found all of this information in real time from independent voices. Ignorance was a choice, and for too many people, it was a fatal one.

Keep reading

How Obamacare Pushes Big Pharma To Overcharge You For Prescriptions

As if our health care “system” wasn’t already complicated enough, here’s example No. 9,572.

I spent the better part of one year trying to ask a prescription drug provider one simple question about my prescription. Even as someone who works in health policy and with advocates on my behalf, I kept getting the run-around.

Unfortunately, as I found out firsthand, big conglomerates — in this case, CVS Health — make profits by keeping the system complicated, bureaucratic, and opaque. But (eventually) I found out there’s a simple solution: returning to good, old-fashioned cash transactions.

Mail Order Madness

The saga started last summer, when my physician prescribed a maintenance medication to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones. My doctor sent a prescription to CVS Caremark, requesting a 90-day mail-order supply of the drug. CVS is the pharmaceutical benefits manager (PBM) that administers my prescription.

When it arrived, I received the following note:

We filled your prescription with a smaller quantity than what your doctor prescribed. Your prescription plan has limits on the amount of your medication it will cover. We filled your prescription according to these limits. [Emphasis original.]

For the better part of 12 months, I communicated with CVS staff, trying to figure out the reasons for this decision. I also asked a representative from the District of Columbia’s Office of Health Care Ombudsman to investigate on my behalf. Every time my physician prescribed a 90-day supply of this medication, CVS Caremark sent me a 30-day supply of the drug, along with the same note described above.

A few weeks ago, I finally spoke with a CVS representative who could tell me the reason. While my prescription plan covered the drug, it did not cover it as a maintenance medication. This explained why CVS Caremark kept lowering the medicine supplied from 90- to 30-day supplies.

The representative informed me I could use an exceptions process, through which my physician could send a form to CareFirst (my insurer) providing clinical justification to use the drug for maintenance purposes. If approved by CareFirst, then CVS Caremark would honor the 90-day prescription, and provide me with a three-month supply of the drug going forward.

This annoyed me, because I had mentioned the exceptions process (which I know about from working in health policy) while speaking to CVS personnel last summer. That individual never provided me the information I had asked for, which could have saved me months of hassle.

I contacted CVS’ corporate office to ask two simple questions: why did the notices I received refer to “your prescription plan” — a wording that seems deliberately vague as to whether my insurer (CareFirst) or the PBM (CVS Caremark) made the coverage decision; and why didn’t those notices also include specific, written instructions on how request an appeal or exception for longer-term coverage of the drug?

CVS’s communications team sent back this response:

CareFirst is the plan sponsor, and CVS Caremark helps support the administration of the plan’s pharmacy benefit. This CareFirst plan relies on an expert third-party vendor, Medispan, to determine which medications are considered maintenance drugs versus acute. Because Medispan lists potassium citrate as a non-maintenance drug, it is subject to the CareFirst plan’s non-maintenance day supply limit of 30 pills. Members have access to an exceptions process, which is administered directly by CareFirst.

This response didn’t answer my questions about notice wordings. In fact, it suggests that a heretofore undisclosed third party (Medispan) made the decision that limited my prescription. Given CVS’s non-answer, a cynic would suggest the obvious yet unstated reason the notice omitted information about filing an appeal or exceptions request: If people knew about an exceptions process, they might use it.

Keep reading

RFK Debunks Sen. Warren’s Hypocritical Attack on His Supposed Big Pharma ‘Conflict of Interest’

Reuters and Washington Post have a new deceptive report out claiming that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has financially benefited from a settlement with a top pharmaceutical company. But they left the crucial context out that showed he personally received not a dime.

Democrats are never ones for context. They love to have reasons to pretend they are destroying corruption when they are really going after personal political opponents. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for instance, had her warpaint and Tomahawk out as she screeched, “Is RFK Jr.’s son getting a cut of a $50 MILLION settlement that his dad could have influenced? I’m investigating.” Naturally, she needs something to investigate to avoid investigating Anthony Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies that pushed COVID vaccines that we now know, courtesy of Fauci‘s journal, were quite ineffective and sometimes injurious.

Kennedy responded to Warren and the lefty media outlets at the same time. “The Washington Post editorial board accuses me of a conflict of interest that might bias me against Big Pharma, whose interests they apparently seek to protect,” he posted on X, highlighting the irony of media and politicians rushing to defend monopolistic businesses. “The alleged conflict comes from money I supposedly made from a settlement in a lawsuit against Merck for injuries caused by its Gardasil vaccine.”

He emphatically stated: “The problem is that I never received a penny from the Merck Gardasil settlement, and neither has my son nor anyone else in my family.” So Warren et al. are smearing Kennedy with — surprise, surprise — lies.

Kennedy explained further, “Before taking office, I relinquished any interest in potential Gardasil fees back to the Wisner Baum law firm, which publicly confirmed this during my confirmation process. Yet @SenWarren, @Reuters, and @washingtonpost editorial board — in their ardor to protect Big Pharma — continue to push a false narrative that makes Big Pharma the victim and me the mendacious villain.”

For yet more interesting context, according to a Fox News report from last year, Warren received a whopping $5 million from Big Pharma during her 2020 presidential bid. And the Washington Post freaked out when Kennedy proposed limiting pharmaceutical ads. Always follow the money.

Keep reading

Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds in Poland and Romania Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute

Pfizer has frozen funds owed to air traffic control agencies in Poland and Romania as part of a contract dispute over COVID-19 vaccine deliveries, according to a report published July 31 by Children’s Health Defense [1]. The freeze followed an April 1 ruling by a court in Brussels that ordered Poland to pay about $1.5 billion and Romania about $640 million, plus interest and fees, for vaccine doses ordered under a 2021 European Union contract.

Polish and Romanian authorities stopped accepting further deliveries in 2022, citing falling demand. Both governments have said they will appeal the ruling. The enforcement action has raised questions about the financial stability of the two countries’ air navigation agencies, which rely on the funds.

Contract Origins and Refused Deliveries

The contract was signed between the European Commission and Pfizer in 2021, and it obligated participating member states to purchase additional doses. By 2022, Poland and Romania refused scheduled deliveries as demand declined. Poland cited financial pressure from hosting refugees fleeing Ukraine. Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldoveanu said Romania ordered 120 million doses despite a population below 20 million and had one of the European Union’s lowest vaccination rates.

Pfizer filed suit in 2023 after the countries did not pay for doses they declined to accept. Earlier contract terms had already drawn criticism. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in February 2021 that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits [2].

Legal Enforcement and Appeals

Because the contract is governed by Belgian law, the case is being heard in Brussels. Polish public broadcaster TVP World reported that Poland asked the Belgian court to delay enforcement while it appeals, but the request was rejected.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst called the action “outrageous and unethical” and said it could endanger flights. Lukasz Wojdyga of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute said the creditor has a legal right to enforce the judgment but called targeting air-safety funding “disproportionate and irresponsible.” Both governments have said they will protect the financial stability of the agencies and keep services running.

Transparency and Contract Scrutiny

The dispute has revived scrutiny of the EU vaccine procurement. Brussels Signal reported the EU-Pfizer contract was worth 35 billion euros ($40 billion), one of the largest contract awards in EU history. Governments and Pfizer have declined to release contract terms, saying the information is commercially confidential [3].

The European Court of Justice ruled in 2024 that the European Commission violated EU law when it denied The New York Times’ request to review text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla [4]. In 2025, a court ordered the disclosure of concealed texts related to the deal [5]. European Parliament member Gheorghe Piperea said the contract “ought never to have existed” because the EU exceeded its treaty powers. Transparency activist Frederic Baldan said von der Leyen negotiated directly with Bourla through self-destructing Signal messages, and that a Belgian Federal Police anti-corruption report found sufficient elements to establish offenses. Baldan said the European Public Prosecutor’s Office moved to have the investigation annulled.

The scale of the purchases also drew criticism from public health writers. Michel Chossudovsky questioned how a vaccine that normally takes years to develop was launched within months [6]. Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins noted that the trials’ only criterion of success was a reduction of moderate to severe symptoms, not prevention of infection [7].

Keep reading

The bone density fraud: How a flawed test and toxic drugs created a multi-billion dollar medical myth

The medical screening that labels healthy aging as disease

A 65-year-old woman learns from a DEXA scan that her T-score is -2.3, labeling her osteopenic. She leaves with a bisphosphonate prescription, told it will strengthen her bones. What she won’t hear: her bone density is normal for her age. The T-score system was never meant for clinical diagnosis. And the drug—originally developed to soften water in orange grove irrigation systems—works by poisoning the cells that keep bones resilient.

How normal aging became a disease

In 1994, a WHO study group proposed diagnosing osteoporosis at 2.5 standard deviations below a healthy 30-year-old’s bone density, calling the cutoffs “somewhat arbitrary.” These criteria were intended only for research. But the meeting was funded by Rorer Foundation, Sandoz and SmithKline Beecham—companies that would profit immensely from turning aging into a treatable condition. Today, 52% of white women over 50 qualify as osteopenic, and 28% as osteoporotic. Only 20% have “normal” bones.

The toxic history of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates were first used to prevent calcium scale in irrigation pipes. They work by poisoning osteoclasts, the cells that break down old bone. After three to five years, bone density rises, but the bone is brittle—old, weak tissue accumulates beneath new growth. Fracture rates often increase. Side effects include intestinal perforation, liver and kidney damage, atrial fibrillation, spontaneous fractures and irreversible jawbone degeneration. The FDA warns of severe bone, joint and muscle pain that may never resolve.

What the data actually shows

The T-score does not predict fractures. A 2019 study of 3,700 adults found that only 16% of fractures in women and 15% in men were linked to low bone density. Nearly 73% of women and 94% of men who broke a bone had normal scans. In 1996, the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment concluded that bone density cannot identify fracture risk and recommended against screening. Yet 18 million Americans carry an osteopenia diagnosis. A 2014 study found that repeating DEXA scans after the first provided no useful information over eight years.

The real causes of bone loss

Bone health requires more than calcium. Weight-bearing exercise signals the body to maintain bone. Astronauts lose up to 10% of bone density in six months. Acid-blocking drugs (PPIs) increase hip fracture risk by 26%. Fluoride in water produces structurally inferior bone. Environmental toxins like BPA, lead and mercury inhibit bone formation. Even soda consumption raises fracture risk.

The safe path to strong bones

Magnesium activates vitamin D for calcium absorption; deficiency itself is a risk factor. Vitamin D with K2 increases bone strength and reduces fractures. Vitamin C supports bone formation at the genetic level. Strength training produces bone that bends rather than breaks—unlike bisphosphonates, which increase density at the cost of quality.

Reclaiming bone health from the marketing machine

The current osteoporosis approach is a marketing triumph. A drug designed for irrigation pipes became standard treatment. The T-score, known for decades to fail at predicting fractures, still drives overdiagnosis. But patients can reclaim bone health through nutrition and exercise. The question is whether medicine will treat the patient or the arbitrary number on a scan.

Keep reading

Pharma Looks to Cash in on Psychedelics as Patients Seek Alternatives to Psychotropic Drugs for Depression

Eli Lilly’s multibillion-dollar acquisition of AtaiBeckley marks the largest pharmaceutical investment yet in psychedelic medicine, signaling a new phase for an industry once relegated to the margins of scientific research.

The deal, valued at approximately $2.8 billion upfront with up to $1 billion in additional milestone payments, gives Lilly control of AtaiBeckley’s experimental psychedelic therapies, including BPL-003, a fast-acting nasal spray containing N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) being studied for treatment-resistant depression.

AtaiBeckley announced in October 2025 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted BPL-003 Breakthrough Therapy designation, a status intended to accelerate development of treatments for serious conditions when early evidence suggests substantial improvement over existing options.

“Millions of people are still searching for relief and desperately need a therapy that works,” said Dr. Carole Ho, president of Lilly Neuroscience. Advancing AtaiBeckley’s therapies, she said, gives Lilly “a real chance to change that.”

The company’s purchase comes as pharmaceutical companies increasingly move into a field that has attracted growing scientific interest but remains controversial because of questions surrounding commercialization, access, intellectual property — and whether corporate development will preserve the therapeutic models that shaped psychedelic research.

A turning point for psychedelic medicine

The Lilly-AtaiBeckley acquisition follows another major pharmaceutical investment in the sector. In 2025, AbbVie agreed to acquire Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals’ experimental depression treatment Bretisilocin (GM-2505) in a deal worth up to $1.2 billion.

Bretisilocin targets the brain’s 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, the same receptor involved in the effects of classic psychedelics such as psilocybin and LSD.

Together, the deals suggest that major drugmakers increasingly view psychedelic compounds as a potential new category of mental health treatments.

Rayyan Zafar, Ph.D., a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London and member of the Centre for Psychedelic Research and Neuropsychopharmacology group, said the Lilly acquisition could help move psychedelics closer to popular medical use by making them “de-risked” for mental health utilization.

Pharmaceutical investment could extend past drug development by encouraging dialogue about insurance coverage and healthcare infrastructure needed to deliver new treatments, Zafar said.

“Beyond psychedelic clinical trials, it could also help stimulate broader discussion around reimbursement pathways and stimulate other public healthcare systems to begin preparing for rollout,” he added.

Keep reading

Another MAHA Betrayal: Trump’s Nominee for CDC Director Calls mRNA Technology ‘Safe and Effective’

When asked at a U.S. Senate hearing whether she thinks mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director nominee Dr. Erica Schwartz replied, “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”

Both the question and the answer show a serious lack of scientific understanding.

Here’s the scientifically accurate answer to the question: We don’t know the full safety profile of either of the two types of approved mRNA vaccines or the technology. First, It’s all too new. Second, we’re not even collecting the full data.

Read on for details.

According to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists and other experts in the field, comprehensive safety data isn’t known until a new drug (including vaccines) has been on the market and in widespread use for 7-12 years.

Even now, we aren’t getting full information on safety profiles because the data isn’t even being collected in the comprehensive manner required for accurate analysis.

The established scientific process requires that all illnesses after vaccination be meticulously recorded regardless of whether a patient or doctor thinks the illness is actually connected to the vaccine.

Most doctors are not following the process. Some misunderstand. Others are willfully ignoring. And no authority is ensuring they do their job.

Doctors typically aren’t even asking their ill patients whether they had an mRNA vaccine (for COVID-19 or RSV), which one(s), and when. So they aren’t collecting that crucial data.

Most people, including physicians, don’t understand that patients being treated for any illness are supposed to be queried.

This means, for example, someone who comes to the ER with a retinal detachment should be asked if he had a COVID-19 vaccine, which one, how many, and when, and then the data should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Same with someone who becomes sick with a rash, headaches, tendon rupture, stiff neck, depression or chest congestion. Everything.

Even when patients do tell a physician they think an illness might be vaccine-related, the physician frequently, improperly, determines on the front end that he doesn’t need to report the possible adverse event to the established database unless he thinks it’s connected to the vaccine. That’s not how the system works.

Keep reading