Tag: vaccines

BARDA Awards $9.27 Million Contract to Evaluate Oral Pill COVID Vaccine

Biotechnology firm Vaxart, Inc. announced on Jan. 19, 2024 that it received a $9.27 million contract from the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to fund preparations for a Phase IIb clinical trial to evaluate the company’s oral pill XXB COVID-19 vaccine candidate. The trial is expected to involve 10,000 participants and will compare Vaxart’s oral pill vaccine candidate to an approved mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) biologic.1 2 3 4

“We are very honored to receive this BARDA award, which will support the innovative approach of our oral pill vaccine platform,” said Michael Finney, PhD, Vaxart’s interim chief executive officer. “We believe our oral pill vaccine platform may ultimately hold the promise of revolutionizing how we fight pandemics and how we vaccinate against several infectious diseases.”2 4

According to Vaxart’s chief medical officer, James Cummings, MD, the company’s oral pill vaccine could improve existing COVID biologics in “two important ways”…

First, a thermostable pill vaccine such as Vaxart’s offers the chance to overcome needle-phobia, a documented obstacle to vaccination, and offers the potential to make it easier to vaccinate more people faster than with traditional injected vaccines. Second, our previous research on other vaccine constructs found Vaxart’s oral pill vaccine to be cross-reactive against all tested SARS-CoV-2 variants and to trigger long-lasting immune responses, potentially offering broader, longer protection than the current first-generation vaccines. We believe our vaccine does this by triggering both a systemic and mucosal response.2 4

Additionally, Vaxart’s oral pill vaccine platform eliminates the need for refrigeration during storage and transportation, allowing more convenience and flexibility to those delivering and administering the drug. It also eliminates the risk of “needle-stick injury.”1 3

Keep reading

CRIMINAL FDA DECLARES INFORMED CONSENT NULL AND VOID

If we’ve learned one thing over the last three years, it’s that abiding by centuries-old medical ethics, like asking questions, is what White Supremacists™ and domestic terrorists do.

Via the soon-to-be-memory-holed American Medical Association webpage on informed consent:

“Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making.

The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.”

That was then.

This is now, when respecting the Science™ requires that you shut your filthy masked mouth and do whatever corporate media news actors and Public Health™ technocrats tell you to do.

Via Federal Register:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). This final rule allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects. The final rule permits an institutional review board (IRB) to waive or alter certain informed consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, under limited conditions, for certain FDA-regulated minimal risk clinical investigations.”

Branch COVIDians surely don’t care about any of this, as they gave up long ago exercising their former right to be fully informed of medical experimentation risks anyway. In fact, they brag about their ignorance and apathy and doglike obedience as if they are virtues.

Listen to the New York NAACP lady explain:

“We must take the vaccine. Now, I’m going to tell you a personal story off script. So, today right after this I am going to have an infusion, and I’m going to have an infusion because I want to make sure that the cancer that was in my body does not return. I’m not asking what’s in the infusion, I’m not looking up all of the ingredients in the infusion, I am sticking out my arm and I am taking the infusion, and that’s what we have to do.” [seal-like clapping from the masked retards behind her]

Keep reading

A summary of the evidence against the COVID vaccines

Here is a short list of reasons that everyone should be concerned about the COVID vaccine. This is not an exhaustive list.

  1. Doctors are told to trust the FDA and CDC when prescribing vaccines. All the post-marketing safety data is kept hidden by health authorities so not even doctors can look at the data themselves to find out if any vaccine is safe. Doctors thus have no choice but to trust the authorities since the data is kept secret. They are essentially told: “do what we tell you to do, do not question authority or we will take away your license.”
  2. The CDC itself doesn’t have the data to make a post-marketing independent vaccine safety assessment and they are not interested in obtaining the data either! The CDC relies on the FDA who relies on the manufacturer to test the product. The CDC could ask states for vaccination records tied to death records, but they don’t want to even ask because if they did a safety analysis, it could be discovered in a FOIA request. The CDC basically has no interest whatsoever in verifying what the actual safety data is. When I offered to show them the NZ data before I published it (so they would finally have record level data), they declined to look at it.
  3. Lack of transparency by health authorities. Not a single health authority anywhere in the world has ever released anonymized record-level patient data for independent researchers to assess the safety of any vaccine. There isn’t any paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that health outcomes are improved if public health data is kept secret.
  4. Lack of interest in data transparency by the medical community. Can you name a single high-profile pro-vaccine member of the medical community who has called for data transparency of public health data? Time-series cohort analyses can be easily produced by health authorities and published for everyone to see. These would show safety signals and do not jeopardize patient privacy. These are always kept hidden. The lone exception is the UK ONS, but they made their “buckets” so large that you cannot see the impact of the vaccine. When I asked them to redo their analysis with smaller buckets, they stopped responding to me.
  5. We aren’t allowed to see even the simplest of charts. Wouldn’t it be great to define two cohorts on July 1, 2021: COVID vaccinated vs. COVID unvaccinated. Then you simply record the deaths from that point forward and plot them. Why isn’t this being published?

Keep reading

Department of Defense Inks $235.8 Million Contract for Anthrax Vaccines

Biopharmaceutical company Emergent BioSolutions (EBS) signed a massive $235.8 million contract with the Department of Defense to supply the U.S. military with its BioThrax anthrax vaccine.

Yahoo Finance reported the Biothrax anthrax vaccine is expected to be used by all branches of the U.S. military.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the FDA approved Emergent BioSolution’s Cyfendus anthrax vaccine for adults 18-65 in July of last year.

Just months later after its approval, Emergent BioSolutions announced that the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) “exercised an option valued on an existing deal to procure additional doses of its recently approved anthrax vaccine Cyfendus (AV7909).”

Emergent BioSolutions EBS signed an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) procurement contract for a maximum value of up to $235.8 million with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to supply its anthrax vaccine BioThrax.

The vaccine is intended for use by all branches of the United States military as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for anthrax disease.

The procurement contract consists of a five-year base agreement ending on Sep 30, 2028, with an option to extend the contract for an additional five years to Sep 30, 2033.

Before the end of the initial five-year base period, the DoD should place a minimum guaranteed purchase order for $20.1 million worth of the vaccine product. For the following years, the annual order size should be at least $20 million for a total value of up to $235.8 million.

In recent months, the Federal governmet and state officials have been preparing for a possible anthrax outbreak.

Keep reading

Email Reveals Why CDC Didn’t Issue Alert on COVID Vaccines and Myocarditis

The nation’s top public health agency did not send an alert on COVID-19 vaccines and heart inflammation because officials were concerned they would cause panic, according to an email obtained by The Epoch Times.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2021 drafted an alert for heart inflammation, or myocarditis, and the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. Officials prepared to release it to the public, taking steps including having the agency’s director review the language, internal documents show.

The alert would have been sent through the CDC’s Health Alert System (HAN) network, which goes to state and local officials, as well as doctors, across the country.

The alert was never sent.

In the May 25, 2021, email, exclusively obtained by The Epoch Times, a CDC official revealed why some officials were against sending the alert.

“The pros and cons of an official HAN are what the main discussion are right now,” Dr. Sara Oliver, the official, wrote in the missive. “I think it’s likely to be a HAN since that is CDC’s primary method of communications to clinicians and public health departments, but people don’t want to appear alarmist either.”

Keep reading

Vaccine-injured Canadians have received $11.2 million in compensation for COVID jabs

Vaccine injured Canadians have been compensated more than $11 million after suffering adverse reactions from the COVID jab.

The Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) processes claims in which “the injury is serious and permanent or has resulted in death,” it said. They accepted 1,825 of 2,233 claims for processing as of December 1, 2023.

VISP defines a serious or permanent injury as “a severe, life-threatening, or life-altering injury that may require in-person hospitalization or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulting in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death.”

It began accepting claims in June 2021 after the federal government announced the program the previous December. A doctor applies on behalf of a claimant, and then a VISP doctor reviews it and requests further medical records as required. 

Of those claims, the Medical Review Board approved 138 for compensation, totalling $11,236,314, reported Blacklock’s Reporter.

Keep reading

128 Pregnant Women, 25 Tots Under Age 2 Given Wrong RSV Vaccines, CDC Says

Nearly 130 pregnant women and 25 children under age 2 were given the wrong respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The children were mistakenly administered either Pfizer’s Abrysvo or GSK’s (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) Arexvy RSV vaccines. Both are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adults ages 60 and older — but not for children or babies.

For babies, the CDC recommends a monoclonal antibody — nirsevimab (Beyfortus) — produced by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. The CDC also recommends Beyfortus for children ages 8-19 months who are at increased risk of severe RSV.

Although Arexvy and Abrysvo are approved for older adults, only Abrysvo is approved for pregnant women to prevent RSV in their babies. All of the 128 pregnant women who received the wrong vaccine were administered Arexvy.

RSV is a common respiratory virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms.

Keep reading

CDC Labeled Accurate Articles As Misinformation, Documents Show

The top U.S. public health agency labeled multiple news articles as misinformation even though the articles were accurate, according to internal emails and experts.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) added the misinformation labels to articles from The Epoch Times in widely-circulated internal messages, according to copies obtained by The Epoch Times.

One of the articles reported on a peer-reviewed paper that found heart inflammation, or myocarditis, was more common after COVID-19 vaccination than after COVID-19 infection.

Nordic researchers reviewed electronic health records and counted 109 cases of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection compared to 530 after vaccination. Their study was published by the British Medical Journal.

An internal CDC email said that the study “has been picked up by anti-vax proponents as evidence that vax was more likely to cause myocarditis than COVID-19 infection,” and provided a hyperlink to The Epoch Times article.

The Feb. 7, 2023, email listed the article under “points of confusion/potential rumors/misinformation.”

The CDC did not list any data or other information supporting its label.

“The Epoch Times article should not be labeled as misinformation,” Dr. Tracy Hoeg, a physician-scientist at the University of California-San Francisco, told The Epoch Times via email.

Dr. Hoeg said the Nordic study aligned with earlier research, including a paper published by JAMA Cardiology that found myocarditis rates were higher among some populations after vaccination compared to after infection.

Another CDC email claimed a story reporting on how the U.S. government was receiving royalty payments from Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine was inaccurate or misleading.

The Epoch Times article reported on how Moderna officials disclosed in an earnings call that the company entered a patent agreement with the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), sent a payment of $400 million, and would be paying additional royalties in the future.

“Anti-vax proponents question Moderna’s new patent agreement with NIAID, citing catch up payments and royalties as a ‘conflict of interest,” the CDC email, dated March 1, 2023, stated.

The Epoch Times article quoted Dr. Lawrence Tabak, the director at the time of the NIAID’s parent agency, as admitting royalty payments in general present “an appearance of a conflict of interest.”

The CDC defines employees taking part in matters in which they have a financial interest as a conflict of interest, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent agency of the CDC, says that financial conflicts of interest can compromise honesty “especially if the financial interests are significant.”

“It is certainly interesting that, confronted with possible ethics concerns, the CDC doesn’t address them but dismisses them as ‘misinformation,’” Michael Chamberlain, director of the nonprofit Protect the Public’s Trust, told The Epoch Times via email.

The CDC also labeled an Epoch Times video featuring a doctor describing data on COVID-19 vaccines negatively impacting gut health as misinformation, the emails show, even though the video was based on published research.

“The information contained in these documents illustrates how federal health officials so rapidly squandered the trust of the American public, and it shows the danger of government setting itself up as an arbiter of truth,” Mr. Chamberlain said.

“The agency is quick to slap a derogatory label on any statements that don’t fit its preferred narrative, and just as quick to impugn the motives of anyone who dares make those statements. This is not government working for the people, it is government as adversary to the people.”

Keep reading

BMJ Report Recommends “Behavioral Interventions” To “Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy Driven by Misinformation on Social Media”

The BMJ is not short for “Behavioral Medical Journal” – but it might as well be.

Now this publication, owned by the British Medical Association, is exploring how to deploy no less than “behavioral interventions” to bring about less “vaccine hesitancy.”

And the article doesn’t stop at medical arguments. The hesitancy here is specifically linked with social media driven “misinformation.”

The recommendations don’t differ greatly from what those Big Tech social subsidiaries have been including for years in their policies – and these “guidelines” were probably cooked in the same kitchen, so to speak.

Things like, boosting the visibility of “reliable health information” and more “pro-action” on these platforms “in dealing with the proliferation of misinformation.”

First, the authors of the piece seek to define the way in which social media affects vaccination campaigns. The take is basically entirely negative – asserting that this effect amounts to misinformation only.

Paying lip service to genuine safety concerns playing a role in low uptake, the BMJ instantly switches back to playing up the danger of hesitancy.

Thus – there’s been a “return of measles” as of late. And, the implication is, the World Health Organization (WHO) used that among other things to issue an extreme “decree” to the world – that vaccine hesitancy is “among the greatest threats to global health,” WHO said.

And while the article positions the concern about vaccination in general – including decades-long used and tested ones – the highly controversial Covid jab eventually makes an appearance.

And it is mentioned as that point where this general “hesitancy” gained momentum, with the social media – rather than the sketchy nature of these particular vaccines – to blame.

Now for the “solutions,” specifically those based on behavioral interventions methods, or let’s say, “reprogramming.”

Keep reading

WEF: Biometric Digital ID Cards Could Track Vaccination Status, Dutch Queen Máxima Says at Davos

The introduction of biometric digital identity cards could be used by governments to track “who actually got a vaccination or not,” Queen Máxima of the Netherlands said at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos this week.

Queen Máxima, a longtime social justice campaigner who has served as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development (UNSGSA) since 2009, urged for the wider adoption of biometric digital ID cards globally during a WEF panel discussion titled “Comparing Notes on Financial Inclusion” on Thursday.

“When I started this job, there were actually very little countries in Africa or Latin America that had one ubiquitous type of ID, and certainly that was digital and certainly that was biometric… We’ve really worked with all our partners to actually help grow this, and the interesting part of it is that yes, it is very necessary for financial services, but not only.”

Aside from financial services, the Argentinian-born Dutch Queen went on to argue that the use of digital IDs could be used to keep track of “school enrolment” and to help people to receive welfare from the government.

In addition, Queen Máxima argued that digital IDs are “good for health” in that governments could use the system to track “who actually got a vaccination or not”.

The Dutch Queen has also been one of the leading proponents of the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to increase “financial inclusion”. While CBDCs function similarly to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, they are not based on a decentralised network but rather controlled by a central bank, which critics argue could potentially give the government the ability to track all financial transactions made by the public.

Keep reading