Tag: vaccine injury

WHISTLEBLOWER: Should the New VA Secretary Remove a ‘Fraudulent SOP Note,’ Every Service Member Injured by the Once-Mandated COVID-19 Shot Could be Compensated

With bipartisan support in 2022, the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act pledged compensation for veterans exposed to toxic substances like burn pits and hazardous chemicals. Two years later, the act was cited for contributing to a historic budget shortfall with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

With millions of veterans’ benefits at risk, Congress has been compelled to take action.

Most recently, according to a February 5 press release from the office of Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), “[Legislation is being offered] to establish greater accountability and oversight of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after a stunning multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall in 2024 followed by a multi-billion-dollar surplus two months later.”

The member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (SVAC) and 10 additional senators introduced the Protecting Regular Order (PRO) for Veterans Act to address the “budget debacle.”

As noted by the press release, “The Pro VETS Act will institute a three-year requirement for the VA to provide quarterly, in-person budget reports to Congress to encourage greater oversight and financial accountability, and also withhold bonuses for senior VA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) personnel if there are future financial shortfalls.”

In an attempt to deflect blame away from mismanagement last year, the agency was quick to cite the PACT Act as the key driver of the budget shortfall. VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said, “Right now, due in large part to the historic PACT Act, VA is delivering more care and more benefits to more veterans than ever before.”

For many veterans, like Fleeman and Navy veteran Dr. Crisanna Shackelford, accountability and transparency are required of an agency running itself into the ground.

Keep reading

Czech Republic: Women who are covid vaccinated are 66% less likely to give birth

Data from the Czech Republic shows that covid vaccinated women are 66% less likely to give birth compared to unvaccinated women. 

During 2023, even though only about a third of Czech women were unvaccinated, most births were among unvaccinated women.  The birth rate among vaccinated women aged 18-39 was 42 per thousand, while unvaccinated women had a birth rate of 114 per thousand.

Despite this significant difference, the Czech corporate media has not reported on it and the Prime Minister has called it a “conspiracy theory.”

“In the meantime, our CDC keeps recommending the covid shots for pregnant women here in the US,” Steve Kirsch writes.

Keep reading

Vaccine safety alert: Jab rolled out to millions ‘could cause neurological illness’, health chiefs warn

A new vaccine offered to millions of pensioners and pregnant women could trigger a serious neurological condition, officials have warned.

The alert, issued by US health chiefs, concerns a jab that protects against respiratory syncytial virus (or RSV), which was rolled out to vulnerable people in Britain for the first time last year.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said results of an American study suggested two types of RSV jab carry a significant increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome — a disabling condition that causes damage to nerves — 42 days after vaccination.

While still recommending the jabs for eligible adults, the FDA officials said Guillain-Barré syndrome would now be listed as a risk in leaflets given to patients.

In the UK, the condition is already noted as a potential complication in patient information, however not all of those who receive the jab will be warned verbally of the risks. 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a bug that causes coughs and colds in most people, but can be potentially deadly for the elderly as well as young babies. 

RSV, which is spread by coughs and sneezes, hospitalises about 30,000 children and 18,000 adults in the UK every year, due to serious breathing complications like pneumonia.

Around 100 children die from the virus each winter. It’s also estimated to contribute to the deaths of 8,000 adults over the same period due to the increased strain the infection puts on patient’s hearts, causing the organ to fail.

Keep reading

Mortality Rates Among Young Adults Spiked During Pandemic — But Why?

Mortality rates among adults ages 25-44 spiked between 2020 and 2023, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a paper published today in JAMA Network Open.

The paper examined excess mortality among early adults in the U.S. from 1999 to 2023 and concluded that early adult mortality has “risen substantially” in two stages, from 2011 to 2019 and 2020 to 2023.

Excess mortality among this group peaked during the pandemic years and then decreased, but not to pre-pandemic levels.

The biggest driver of excess mortality by 2023 was “drug poisoning,” they reported. However, they said that “other external and natural causes exceeded what prior trends would have projected.”

The authors concluded there is a “worsening” mortality crisis among this age group and policy conclusions ought to address the intensifying causes of excess mortality — which they said were opioid use, alcohol consumption, traffic safety and dietary risks.

They also noted that the two “distinct phases” of increased mortality before and after 2020 “may also suggest” a “need to attend to the ongoing consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic,” which they said were long-term effects of infection, medical disruption and social dislocation.

Dr. Pierre Kory, who has written several op-eds calling attention to the explosions in excess mortality and their temporal associations with the vaccine rollout slammed the paper for not mentioning the likely impact of the vaccines.

Keep reading

Emails reveal FDA refused to monitor select COVID-19 vaccine injuries from select vaccine manufacturers

In the first 18 months following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detected consistent safety alerts for the Janssen vaccine but largely overlooked similar risks for Pfizer and Moderna shots, according to newly released emails. These records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), reveal a troubling pattern of oversight gaps in the federal government’s monitoring of vaccine injuries. Despite over 1.4 million adverse event reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s data analysis failed to flag widely recognized risks like myocarditis and pericarditis for mRNA vaccines. The revelations raise critical questions about the adequacy of the government’s safety monitoring and its commitment to transparency during the pandemic.

The FDA emails, posted on the agency’s website, detail weekly data mining of VAERS reports from January 12, 2021, to July 5, 2022. The analysis, known as Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining, showed consistent alerts for serious adverse events linked to the Janssen vaccine, including deep vein thrombosis and death. However, the same analysis yielded almost no alerts for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, even for well-documented risks like myocarditis and pericarditis.

For example, the FDA noted an alert for “death” associated with the Janssen vaccine on March 8, 2022, and in every subsequent email. In contrast, the agency flagged only a handful of administration-related issues for Pfizer and Moderna shots, such as “mechanical urticaria” and “exposure via breast milk.” This discrepancy is striking, given that VAERS received over 15,000 myocarditis reports and 10,000 pericarditis reports for mRNA vaccines during the same period.

Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to CHD, criticized the FDA’s approach, stating, “The emails are further evidence of the federal government’s failure to make good on its promises to use VAERS as an ‘early warning system’ to detect and act on risks associated with the new vaccines.”

Keep reading

Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Irrefutable Evidence Supporting Immediate Market Withdrawal of COVID-19 “Vaccines”

The McCullough Foundation study, authored by epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, and Dr. Peter McCullough, titled, Review of Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify: Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits, was just published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law:

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccination campaigns around the globe have failed to meet fundamental standards of safety and efficacy, leading to mounting evidence of significant harm. More than 81,000 physicians, scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professional public health and physician organizations, 2 State Republican Parties, 17 Republican Party County Committees, and 6 scientific studies from across the world have called for the market withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines. As of September 6, 2024, the CDC has documented 19,028 deaths in the United States reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the product is related to the death. The total number of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS (37,544 among all participating countries) have far exceeded the recall limits of past vaccine withdrawals by up to 375,340%. The criteria for an FDA Class I recall, which applies to products with a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death, have been far exceeded. Excess mortality, negative efficacy, widespread DNA contamination, and a lack of demonstrated reduction in transmission, hospitalization, or mortality have undermined the rationale for continued administration. These unified requests for regulatory action underscore substantial shortcomings in data safety monitoring and risk mitigation. Immediate removal of COVID-19 vaccines from the market is essential to prevent further loss of life and ensure next steps are taken for accountability of the harm incurred.

Keep reading

Fatal Post COVID mRNA-Vaccine Associated Cerebral Ischemia

Background

Venous thromboses have been linked to several COVID-19 vaccines, but there is limited information on the Moderna vaccine’s effect on the risk of arterial thrombosis. Here we describe a case of post-Moderna COVID-19 vaccination arterial infarct with vaccine-associated diffuse cortical edema that was complicated by refractory intracranial hypertension.

Case Summary

24 hrs after receiving her first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, a 30-year-old female developed severe headache. Three weeks later she was admitted with subacute headache and confusion. Imaging initially showed scattered cortical thrombosis with an elevated opening pressure on lumbar puncture. An external ventricular drain was placed, but she continued to have elevated intracranial pressure. Ultimately, she required a hemicraniectomy, but intractable cerebral edema resulted in her death. Pathology was consistent with thrombosis and associated inflammatory response.

Conclusion

Though correlational, her medical team surmised that the mRNA vaccine may have contributed to this presentation. The side effects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination are still incompletely understood. Though complications are rare, clinicians should be aware of presentations like this one.

Keep reading

The 99th Congress That Called Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe”

Meet the original “Conspiracy Theorists,” Ronald Reagan and the members of the 99th Congress, who, in 1986, passed into law the “medical misinformation” that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and potentially caused autism.

Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, a scathing letter accusing him of, among other things, “dangerous views on vaccine safety” and “false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” The letter included 175 questions that she said he should be prepared to answer at his Senate confirmation hearings. But in her letter, she exposes her own ignorance of federal vaccine policy and the laws passed by her own legislative branch.

In 1986 the House of Representatives passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) by a voice vote. Senator Warren should know that her current Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was, at the time, a member of the House and should presumably know that the bill that was passed to give vaccine makers liability protection from civil claims when a child was killed or seriously injured by a vaccine, and placed all vaccines administered to children in the legal category of “unavoidably unsafe” medical products, which means a product that cannot be made safe for its intended use.

In 2018, Mary Holland, JD, then the Director of the Graduate Legal studies program at New York University School of Law, and now Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by Kennedy, remarked on the legal standing of the safety of vaccines:

The key language about “unavoidable” side effects comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22, re manufacturer responsibility (see bold text below).

That language was based on language from the Second Restatement of Torts (a legal treatise by tort scholars), adopted by most state courts in the mid-1960’s, that considered all vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” products. The Restatement opined that such products, “properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

Further the 2011 SCOTUS ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case interpreted the highlighted text below from the National Vaccine Injury Act to find that it did not permit design defect litigation – that issue had been unclear since 1986, and different state high courts and federal circuits had decided the issue differently. So, [it] is correct that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) never decided that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” directly, but it acknowledged that Congress considers them to be so.

Sec. 300aa-22. Standards of responsibility

(a) General rule

Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.

(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings

(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-supreme-court-did-not-deem-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe-congress-did.html

Keep reading

A new paper finds vaccinations increase the likelihood of autism by 4.4 times; a “noted expert in covid” makes a poor attempt to debunk

Last Thursday, a peer-reviewed paper was published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.  The objective of this study was to determine the association between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders in 9-year-old children enrolled in the Medicaid programme from birth.

The researchers analysed claims data for 47,155 nine-year-old children.  They found that children with just one vaccination visit were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) than the unvaccinated.  Shockingly, children with 11 or more visits were 4.4 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD

The reviewing editor was James Lyons-Weiler, PhD.  Dr. Peter McCullough is not mentioned in the paper but is on the editorial board for the Clinical Research section. 

In an effort to debunk the paper’s findings, a Substack page titled ‘Unbiased Science’ said the paper should be disregarded because it was published on a “WordPress blog” and peer-reviewed by Dr. Peter McCullough, “a known promoter of medical misinformation.”

Science, Public Health Policy and the Law is a science-based knowledge, not narrative-dictated knowledge journal that works to make sure that only objective knowledge is used in the formation of medical standards of care and public health policies.

Unbiased Science is led by its founder  Dr. Jess Steier, a “public health scientist” and co-founder of Vital Statistics Consulting.  She has developed “multiple modes of scientific communication on covid.” According to her biography:

Dr. Steier is a noted expert in COVID-19. She has designed and led multiple COVID-19 related research projects for the largest FQHC [Federally Qualified Health Centre] in New York State, and has developed multiple modes of scientific communication of COVID-19 related information, including diagnostic and antibody testing, population health outcomes, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Dr. Steier hosts The Unbiased Science Podcast, the goal of which is to dispel misinformation and misconceptions across an array of science and public health topics.

She holds a Certificate in Patient Safety, as well as a Certificate in COVID-19 Contact Tracing from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She also holds COVID-19 Certifications (in Psychological Health First Aid for COVID-19 and Returning to Work: Safe Work Practices) from the American Red Cross.  

For someone who is a “noted expert” there is surprisingly little about her to be found from an internet search.  In fact, the only websites that appear to mention her are her own.  As for her claims that she has developed “multiple modes of scientific communication,” we can only guess what her turn of phrase actually means but it sounds like psychobabble for “covid propaganda.” Regardless, it seems she has a vested interest in keeping the false covid narrative alive, which even with a good dollop of imagination cannot be described as “unbiased.”

Keep reading

‘COVID jabs may be to blame for increase in excess deaths’ – UK Telegraph

An article in the UK’s Telegraph overnight says further research is warranted into the relationship between the COVID jab rollout and the contemporaneous unprecedented rise in excess deaths across the world.

At first the legacy media told citizens it was ‘safe and effective’. Then it was ‘you might get myocarditis, but it’s very rare.’ Now one of Britain’s main media outlets is saying the jab could be killing us, as evidenced in the millions of excess deaths seen all across highly vaccinated countries. That’s the conclusion of a paywalled article in the UK Telegraph by science editor Sarah Knapton.

According to the article, researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures. They described the figures as “unprecedented,” raising serious concerns, and called on governments to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Writing in BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, stated: “Although Covid-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the Covid-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well. Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”

Keep reading