Tag: covid-19

What Is the PREP Act?

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to Covid, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

What the PREP Act Says

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d – Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

  • Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent, or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product, or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

  • Scope of claims for loss:
    • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.
    • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.
  • The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population, and geographic area specified in the declaration.
  • For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

  • The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).
  • In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.
  • The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.
  • The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures
  • No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration
  • No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Keep reading

VAX EYE SYNDROME: Pfizer COVID vaccine spike prions enter the EYES and CORNEA, causing serious damage

The researchers focused on the corneal endothelium, the innermost layer of the cornea responsible for maintaining corneal clarity by pumping out excess fluid. Using specialized tools such as specular microscopy and Sirius corneal topography, they observed changes in corneal thickness, a decline in endothelial cell count and alterations in cell size and shape — indicators of stress or damage to this delicate structure.

Specifically, corneal thickness increased by approximately 14 micrometers (a 2 percent rise), which in itself is not harmful but could signal inflammation or fluid retention. More concerning was the eight percent drop in endothelial cell density — from 2,597 to 2,378 cells per square millimeter — still within the safe range for healthy individuals, but potentially risky for those with already compromised eye health.

The study also found that the vaccine led to increased variability in cell size, known as the coefficient of variation, which rose from 39 to 42. This suggests some cells may have died and others stretched to fill the gaps, a typical response to stress. Additionally, the percentage of hexagon-shaped cells, which are vital for maintaining a healthy endothelial layer, dropped slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent.

Although none of the participants reported noticeable vision issues during the two-month follow-up, scientists caution that these microstructural changes could have long-term consequences, especially for people with existing eye problems or a history of eye surgeries such as corneal grafts. If the damage to the endothelium is permanent or worsens over time, it could result in conditions like corneal edema, bullous keratopathy or corneal decompensation — disorders that may lead to chronic vision impairment or even blindness if untreated.

Despite these findings, the researchers did not advise against COVID-19 vaccination. They emphasized the need for ongoing monitoring and further long-term studies to determine if the observed changes persist or resolve over time. Importantly, the study confirmed a high likelihood that the changes were directly associated with the vaccine and not random occurrences.

This research adds to a growing list of safety concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. In May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded warning labels on Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to more clearly highlight the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men aged 16–25.

While the short-term effects of the Pfizer vaccine on eye health appear to be mild, the study underscores the importance of ongoing post-vaccination surveillance and personalized medical care for individuals at risk. As evidence continues to evolve, health agencies and physicians may need to consider more tailored guidance for those with existing ocular conditions.

Keep reading

Everyone Should Be Closely Watching This VAERS Whistleblower Case

A significant COVID-19 accountability case is heading to discovery, establishing critical legal precedents regarding the requirement to report adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) while receiving federal funding. The COVID jabs have caused harm, including death, to millions, making this a crucial case to watch. Whistleblower Deborah Conrad, a dedicated Physician Assistant, was fired in 2021 by her employer, United Memorial Medical Center (Rochester Regional Health), for purportedly spreading “vaccine misinformation” and “over-reporting” of adverse events following the experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections. But hold on a second—upon examining the entire situation, it appears evident that Deb was, quite simply, “doing the right thing” and reporting adverse events to VAERS.

Nonetheless, Deb was fired in October 2021. She was unexpectedly chaperoned into a conference room, where she was interrogated and then escorted out without due process. Deb and her attorney, Warner Mendenhall, are currently suing Rochester Regional Health for damages, including back pay and civil penalties in violation of the False Claims Act. On June 11, 2025, in a triumph for those who have fought hard throughout the COVID-19 tyranny to protect their patients, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a landmark ruling in favor of Deb, denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss the core claims in Deb’s False Claims lawsuit. This move opens the door for Deb’s case to proceed to discovery.

As highlighted by Mendenhall, the court determined that Rochester Regional Health had a significant obligation under its CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement to report serious adverse events to VAERS (never mind that the CDC itself looked the other way regarding injuries reported in its V-safe app). Indeed, the hospital’s failure to comply with this requirement—instead literally blocking Deb from reporting serious adverse events after the COVID-19 jab—while continuing to seek federal reimbursement constituted potential fraud against the government. Additionally, the court agreed that the detailed allegations provided by Deb sufficiently met the stringent legal standards for fraud claims, despite her lacking access to internal billing records. Furthermore, the court found that her retaliation claim could proceed, as it was likely she was terminated for attempting to expose the hospital’s non-compliance with adverse event reporting. Mendenhall wrote:

“This ruling is significant beyond just Deborah’s case. It establishes that 1) healthcare providers cannot ignore federal safety reporting requirements while continuing to collect taxpayer money; 2) the False Claims Act can be used to hold institutions accountable for COVID-related misconduct; and 3) whistleblowers who expose these practices have legal protection.

We estimate over 500,000 were killed by the shots, millions lost their jobs for refusing them, and Big Pharma received billions for dangerous and experimental treatments. This case reveals a legal pathway to begin holding the system accountable.

The case now moves to discovery, where we will seek the hospital’s internal “vaccination,” treatment, and billing records to uncover the full scope of unreported adverse events, which we believe are in the 1000s in this hospital system alone.”

Incredibly, while successfully managing to submit 160 VAERS reports, Deb’s case involves a shocking 170 serious adverse events that the hospital allegedly stopped her from reporting. Again, under the terms of their vaccine provider agreement and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, all COVID-19 vaccine providers were legally bound to report adverse events related to the jabs to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, when Deborah observed several adverse events, including fatalities, following COVID-19 injections in both her own patients and in the patients of her peers, she took the initiative to compile and submit patient reports to VAERS in her spare time.

However, she soon faced pressure from Rochester Regional Health to “dial it back” and was advised to limit her reporting to only her own patients, excluding those treated by other providers. But the hospital didn’t stop there. It further urged her to “toe the company line” by supporting the experimental vaccine to minimize vaccine hesitancy, despite the hospital’s legal duty, again, under its agreement with the CDC in order to receive federal funding during the pandemic, to report vaccine-related injuries.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading

Florida Surgeon General Highlights Vaccine Injuries, Calls on NIH to Act

At a press conference at Florida State University in Tampa, Florida, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo made an urgent call for the NIH program funding to help Americans injured by Covid-19 vaccines and expressed support for the May federal changes in the HHS’s restrictive Covid-19 vaccine recommendations.

On the Ground in Tampa: What Ladapo Really Said

I was invited to Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s press conference in Tampa on July 17, 2025. In contrast to how some mainstream outlets later portrayed it, the event centered on a call to recognize and research Covid-19 vaccine injuries, rather than a mere anti-vaccine screed. Dr. Ladapo – a physician and Florida’s top health official since 2021 – emphasized the urgent need to support those suffering adverse effects from mRNA Covid-19 shots. He praised recent federal moves to scale back mRNA vaccine recommendations for certain groups, but went further by asserting that these products “should not be used in any human beings,” given their safety profile. From my front-row perspective, Dr. Ladapo’s tone was measured yet resolute. He recounted how unusual it is, in his experience, to encounter so many post-vaccination issues. “When was the last time that you had a vaccine that literally almost every single person knows someone who had a bad reaction from it?” Ladapo asked pointedly.

Before the Covid era, he noted, he never personally knew a patient who was clearly vaccine-injured. “Now,” he continued, “there are very few people that I run into who either themselves have not had a bad reaction from these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, or who don’t know someone who’s had a bad reaction.” 

This was a striking report that hung in the air – one supported anecdotally by nods from some attendees sharing their own stories. Dr. Ladapo stressed that adverse reactions have become distressingly commonplace, and he even bluntly called the Covid shots “terrible vaccines” as a result.

Keep reading

Ghost Shot: Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines

The August 23, 2021 FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was a cause for celebration. Marked as a turning point in the battle against COVID19, the announcement was highly publicized by the Biden Administration with the clear intention to extinguish “vaccine hesitancy” and boost uptake.

It was celebrated as a cause for national relief, and many Americans arrived at their local pharmacies under the impression, via government and pharmaceutical propaganda, that they were receiving an FDA-approved COVID vaccine. Yet that legally distinct product, as we know it, never existed. And now we know, via Pfizer, that it will never exist.

For the uninitiated:

Comirnaty is a legally distinct product from the emergency use authorization (EUA) shots, and It has never made its way to market. For months on end, no such vaccine has ever become available. Those who received the “Pfizer shot(s)” have been injected with the emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shots.

Keep reading

3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates

Three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims are asking to join a Dutch lawsuit against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants, alleging they misled the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed last year by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, one of whom has since died.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Peter Stassen, the three new victims “were healthy people” who began experiencing health problems after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“The applicants are of the opinion that the serious side effects that occurred after having the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are the direct result of the content / composition of these Covid-19 (mRNA) injections,” the filing states.

Doctors have repeatedly refused to diagnose a link between vaccination and their injuries, Stassen said.

During a hearing today at the District Court of North Netherlands in Leeuwarden, Stassen also asked the court to approve five expert witnesses who will testify about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 shots:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Another proposed witness, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., who agreed in January to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, has since died. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Keep reading

FDA Rejects Moderna Jab for Healthy Children

For years, it’s been common practice at the FDA to routinely approve upgraded versions of existing vaccines with an oversight process best described as rubber stamping.

But the days of the FDA quietly approving vaccines may be over – bright news for activists from the Medical Freedom Movement.

Earlier this week, Dr. Vinay Prasad, the man who replaced Peter Marks, the FDA’s controversial vaccine official, boldly overruled FDA regulators who had recommended all three COVID vaccines for all age groups, including healthy children.

While the approval process for vaccines gives regulatory bodies the opportunity to scrutinize products before they hit the market, in reality, this hardly ever happened. Today, however, FDA leadership is empowered to scrutinize vaccines to insure their safety.

More importantly, the current FDA is challenging the past orthodoxy of a “one-size-fits-all” approach. In its place: the empirical “gold standard” scientific analysis that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had been promising.

Dr. Prasad, the new head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) – which regulates vaccines, blood products and more – explained this new approach both online and in a detailed memorandum.

In his memo, Dr. Prasad writes that in considering the approval of Moderna’s updated mRNA COVID vaccine (“SPIKEVAX”), the FDA must weigh the benefits of the product against its risks. Only then can a specific approval process result in a scientifically sound recommendation. “FDA has a statutory mandate to only approve products when we have substantial certainty that benefits outweigh harms,” Prasad writes in his memo. Referring to Moderna’s submission, he adds, “We do not have substantial certainty [that] benefits outweigh risks of healthy children.”

Dr. Prasad elaborates: “First, consider that COVID-19 severe disease, hospitalization, and death are extremely low at pediatric ages and have fallen, according to US CDC data from 2021-22 to the present.”

Dr. Prasad continues, “These rates are lower in healthy children than in children with risk factors. Notably, the applicant has agreed to a revised submission that focuses on children with risk factors, and FDA CBER has granted this approval.”

Keep reading

Canada’s COVID jab injury payouts triple in two years, reaching $18 million

Payments to COVID jab-injured Canadians have tripled in the past three years.

According to information recently published by Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), payments to COVID-injured Canadians have totaled $18,140,998, nearly triple the $6,695,716 paid in 2023.

The statistics, which reflect numbers from when the program was launched in 2020 until June 1, 2024, showed that only 234 out of 3317 claims have been approved.

However, the claims do not represent the total number of Canadians injured by the allegedly “safe and effective” COVID shots, as inside memos have revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) officials neglected to report all adverse effects from COVID shots and even went as far as telling staff not to report all events.

The PHAC’s downplaying of jab injuries is of little surprise to Canadians, as a 2023 secret memo revealed that the federal government purposefully hid adverse effect so as not to alarm Canadians.

Canada’s VISP was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

To date, the health department does not have an estimate on how many compensation claims will be filed.  Officially, in Canada, there have been 442 deaths linked to the COVID shot, and Canada’s Public Health Agency data claims that 98.2 million jab doses have been administered.

Earlier this week, Conservatives demanded an official investigation into the Liberal-run vaccine injury program, which has given more to VISP administrators than injured Canadians. Notably, there have been no press releases regarding the contracts on the Government of Canada website nor from Carney’s official office.

An explosive Global News report found that Oxaro Inc., the company contracted for $50 million to run the program, misallocated taxpayer funds and disregarded many jab-injured Canadians.

Of the $50.6 million that Oxaro Inc., has received, $33.7 million has been spent on administrative costs, compared to only $18.1 million going to jab-injured Canadians.

Keep reading

The Telegraph alters headline to note that the harms caused by covid injections have been catastrophic

On Sunday, The Telegraph published an article describing their interview with Dr. Aseem Malhotra. By Tuesday, the paper had changed its headline to highlight Dr. Malhotra’s statement that the covid vaccines had caused catastrophic harms. This could be an indication that the noose controlling the “safe and effective” narrative is loosening further.

As well as the newly appointed chief medical adviser to the US’s MAHA Institute, Dr. Malhotra is a consultant at the HUM2N longevity clinic, which offers biohacking services.

On Tuesday, Dr. Aseem Malhotra alerted the public to a change in one of The Telegraph’s headlines to read: ‘Aseem Malhotra: ”The harm caused by covid vaccine has been catastrophic”’.

We couldn’t establish when the headline was changed because The Telegraph only shows an uploaded date and time for their articles and not a “last edited” date and time.  However, below are screenshots of the two headlines that were archived on 13 July (the day the article was published) and 15 July.

Keep reading