Tag: vaccines

Court Upholds $7.8 Million Verdict For Transit Workers Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

A federal judge in California has rejected an effort by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to overturn a jury verdict that awarded $7.8 million to six former employees who were fired for refusing to comply with the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

In a Dec. 30 order, Judge William A. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California acknowledged minor “imperfections” in the jury trial—including flawed instructions to the jurors—and determined they were not severe enough to invalidate the jury’s October decision requiring BART to pay each of the six former workers between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.

Alsup denied BART’s post-trial motions to overturn the verdict and seek a new trial, saying that the agency failed to demonstrate that accommodating the employees’ religious objections would have posed an undue hardship.

“Simply put, on the instructions given and evidence received, a reasonable jury could have found that BART had not carried its burden of proving its affirmative defense,” Alsup wrote, referring to the fact that, in order to prevail in the case, BART had to prove that granting accommodations such as masking, testing, or remote work in lieu of vaccination would have imposed an undue burden on the agency.

BART’s defense relied heavily on expert testimony to argue that no alternative measures were as effective as vaccination against COVID-19, with the judge noting that the agency claimed it had presented “‘unrebutted’ scientific expert testimony” to that effect. However, Alsup noted that the jury was entitled to weigh the credibility of the experts, particularly given their financial ties to the agency.

“In light of the large sums paid to the experts by BART, our jury was entitled to find that they were ‘bought and paid for,’ were merely parroting the ‘company line,’ and were not credible in light of their bias, common sense, and other evidence,” the judge wrote. “An expert witness is like any other witness, and it is up to the jury to decide how much weight their testimony deserves.”

Keep reading

2025: Derailing Trump with Bird Flu & the Resurrection of the mRNA Vaccine

Over these last few days of 2024, there has been a plethora of news warning about a possible bird flu pandemic in 2025.

I know what you’re thinking. Karen, couldn’t you have picked a more positive topic for the last day of the year?

Maybe tomorrow.

We need to remind ourselves about mRNA vaccines and that pesky bird flu and a few of the crazy things that we’ve been subjected to so we can better face the crazy things to come.

So, let’s start with Magical mRNA.

“You can basically do anything with synthetic RNA/DNA. It’s like a computer program…. You could probably stop aging, reverse it if you want. You could turn someone into a frigging butterfly if you want with the right sequence. I mean, caterpillars do it.” ~ Elon Musk

As we go through this short piece, remember Musk’s words and remind yourself that it isn’t just about disease or even money, our conditioned obsession with heath and curing it with drugs is the most critical method transhumanists have to convince he masses to allow themselves to be experimented on.

Just yesterday, Newsweek warned:

The first severe human bird flu case in the United States was reported in Louisiana earlier this month.

Genetic analysis found the virus had mutated, making it more easily transmissible to humans, the CDC said.

The agency called the mutations “concerning’ and “a reminder that A(H5N1) viruses can develop changes during the clinical course of a human infection.”

For President Trump, this could be like Groundhog Day. Not only will he be expected to stop World War III; he might just need to save us from another pandemic.

Only this time, half the population isn’t going to believe any of it.

  • Will he order another “Operation Warp Speed?”
  • What if people really do start dying, not just the elderly, but young people. Children. Will he be blamed for how unprepared we are?
  • All those middle America folks who voted for Trump, all the farmers and laborers, how much will they suffer?
  • And if Trump starts deporting the illegals who work on the farms, will the farmers suddenly decide illegals aren’t so bad after all and turn against Trump?
  • Who will be willing to take the place of desperate illegal workers who work for low wages and are willing to put their health in danger?
  • Which experts will Trump choose to advise him? It won’t be Dr. Fauci. What will Robert Kennedy Jr recommend, will he suddenly start supporting vaccines?

A second pandemic doesn’t bode well for a nation so divided, especially when it was the first pandemic that made us this way. A pandemic that our government says it still doesn’t know where it came from.

“The Pandemic clock is ticking.”

So says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, urging officials to examine what they learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and use it to prepare for the next pandemic. That should set off all sorts of alarm bells.

Keep reading

PREP Act Empowers Gov’t to ‘Administer’ Drugs, Biological Products, Devices to Citizens in Secret

Big Picture: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d, grants the government extraordinary authority to deploy countermeasures during public health emergencies. These powers allow for sweeping actions that include administering drugs, devices, or biological products to populations—without requiring public knowledge or consent. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, as part of the Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863), the PREP Act was intended to prepare the nation for biological threats but has since raised questions about accountability and transparency.

Focus: The PREP Act’s language reveals how liability immunity, broad discretion for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and exemptions from disclosure requirements create an alarming framework for secretive government actions.

Keep reading

Researchers Funded by Bill Gates Turn Mosquitoes into ‘Flying Syringes’ to Deliver Vaccines

Researchers at Leiden University Medical Center, backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed a new method of delivering malaria vaccines using genetically modified mosquitoes as “flying vaccinators.”

The Blaze reports that in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists have demonstrated the effectiveness of using mosquitoes as “flying syringes” to vaccinate humans against malaria. The research, conducted at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in the Netherlands with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, represents a new and potentially worrying advancement in vaccine technology.

The study involved genetically modifying malaria parasites to stop developing after a certain period of time in the human body. The modified parasites, named GA1 and GA2, were designed to prime the immune system without causing a full-blown malaria infection. Researchers then infected mosquitoes with these engineered parasites and allowed them to bite human test subjects in a controlled setting.

Keep reading

30 Questions For an mRNA Shot Straddler

Remarkably, despite overwhelming evidence of harm, I still encounter the odd person expressing enthusiasm for getting their next mRNA injection. It’s like they’re waiting for a Toblerone bar in their Christmas stocking.

I used to think such an enthusiast was reachable.

I no longer believe so.

They will not be susceptible to any new information that makes them question their sacrament, even if that information is offered in the spirit of saving their lives.

A true believer would rather go to their grave than be wrong.

But I also encounter quite a few straddlers—those who are not particularly invested in a tribal-identity belief regarding their vax status but simply took an injection, or even a booster or two, because they wanted to fly somewhere on vacation, or see a concert, or because their employer said so, and they heard it was “Safe and Effective”, so what’s the harm?

These people, I believe, may be reachable with some strategic Did-You-Know questions.

Did-You-Know questions are respectful—you’re not insulting anyone’s intelligence by telling them they’re wrong, or telling them what to believe. Instead, you’re appealing to their intelligence by offering them something to consider on their own.

The point, as always, is not to convince anyone of anything. It’s to get them thinking for themselves.

Keep reading

Lockdown Fanatic Leana Wen Pushing Bird Flu Jabs Before Trump Takes Office

Leana Wen – the former Baltimore Health Commissioner who burst onto the scene during the Boston Marathon Bombing – only to recommend forcing the unvaccinated to remain indoors during the COVID pandemic – is now pushing the Biden administration to expedite the approval of a bird flu vaccine before Donald Trump’s inauguration.

During a Sunday interview with CBS News‘s “Face the Nation,” Wen said “There are two main things they should be doing in the days that they have left,” adding “The first is to get testing out there… we should have learned out lesson from Covid that just because we are not testing, it doesn’t mean the virus isn’t there.”

Wen then said that the “second very important thing” is that the Biden administration work to secure FDA authorization for the widespread use of bird flu vaccine, adding that Trump has “people coming in with anti-vaccine stance.”

Keep reading

Did COVID Vaccines Cost More Lives Than They Saved? Public Deserves a Rigorous, Truthful Evaluation

“Do you think there would have been less deaths overall if we hadn’t had a vaccine?”

This question was posed to Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Steven Bartlett during an interview on Bartlett’s podcast “Diary of a CEO.” To which Malhotra responded simply “Yes.”

Full Fact, a fact-checking organization, has written a verdict on Malhotra’s answer, claiming: “False. There is clear evidence that the vaccines saved far more lives than they cost.”

Part I: The illusion of certainty — Deconstructing claims of vaccine efficacy

The assertion that “There is clear evidence” of COVID-19 vaccines’ benefits outweighing their harms” exemplifies a dangerous oversimplification of complex medical realities.

This claim, often propagated by fact-checkers and mainstream narratives, fails to acknowledge the fundamental limitations in our current understanding and the methodological flaws inherent in much of the existing research.

The missing gold standard: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

In evidence-based medicine, properly conducted RCTs measuring all-cause mortality are the gold standard for determining an intervention’s overall impact. For COVID-19 vaccines, no such trials have demonstrated an all-cause mortality benefit.

The original trials were not designed or powered to detect differences in all-cause mortality, and follow-up periods were too short to capture long-term effects. Without this crucial evidence, claims of clear benefit are premature at best and misleading at worst.

The pitfalls of observational studies

In the absence of robust RCT data, fact-checkers often turn to observational studies. However, these studies are fraught with potential biases that consistently overestimate benefits and underestimate harm:

Selection distortion: Healthy user bias and time-dependent effects inflate apparent vaccine benefits and mask potential harms due to inherent differences in vaccinated groups and changing study conditions.

Temporal misclassification: Survivorship bias and miscategorization of vaccination status in early post-injection periods artificially inflate efficacy estimates and underestimate potential harms.

Classification bias: Vaccine status classification errors occur in a single direction, with the vaccinated often misclassified as unvaccinated. This results in infections and harms in the vaccinated being misattributed to the unvaccinated group, overestimating benefits and underestimating harms.

Reporting bias: Systematic underreporting of adverse events following vaccination due to factors like lack of recognition, dismissal of potential vaccine-related causes, or fear of professional repercussions leads to underestimation of vaccine risks and overstates safety.

Publication bias: The preferential publication and promotion of studies showing positive vaccine effects, coupled with the suppression or non-publication of studies showing no effect or negative effects, skews the overall body of evidence and public perception.

Keep reading

Key senator says U.S. vaccine safety system failing, urges reforms to testing and liability

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who next month will begin overseeing the Senate’s most powerful investigative body, says the government’s vaccine safety system is no longer protecting Americans adequately because of conflicts of interest and lack of transparency, and he is vowing to work with the incoming Trump administration to press for sweeping reforms.

Those reforms could range from changing the vaccine liability protections of drug makers to taxpayer funding and other changes to insure the independence of safety testing, he told Just the News.

“The best solution for this is actually make these products safer, and do real science to determine whether there are certain conditions that make you more vulnerable,” Johnson said in a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Asked whether the current safety system led by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was adequately protecting Americans, Johnson answered: “I would say absolutely not.”

Keep reading

Shocking report in the UK finds 95% of COVID-19 deaths were among the vaccinated

The devastating truth behind the worldwide rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines continues to come out, exposing a staggering reality that governments and corporations have either ignored or deliberately concealed. Official data released by the UK government has revealed an alarming surge in deaths among those who received the vaccination, starkly contrasting with the negligible impact on the unvaccinated population.

According to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), as of July 2022, over 18.9 million people had refused the first dose of the COVID-19 injection, with another 21.5 million people refusing the second dose. Furthermore, a significant portion of those who received the first dose later refused additional injections, with 2.6 million people refusing the second and 30.4 million refusing the third shot. These figures indicate a widespread rejection of the vaccine, yet the ramifications for those who did comply with this “lifesaving” intervention were ultimately catastrophic.

The data, published by the UK government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the “Deaths by Vaccination Status” dataset, is unequivocal. Between July 2021 and May 2023, there were 965,609 deaths among the vaccinated, compared to just 60,903 deaths among the unvaccinated. This stark disparity is a damning indictment of the policies that mandated and promoted these vaccines.

The UK’s vaccinated population, which accounted for 95% of all COVID-19 deaths, has suffered disproportionately high death rates in each age group since July 2021. The most dramatic increases were observed among the 80 to 89-year-old age group, with the highest number of vaccinated all-cause deaths soaring to 19,914 in December 2022.

Keep reading

DO VACCINES CAUSE CHRONIC DISEASE?

FIRST, let’s start with a few relevant indisputable widely known FACTS:

  1. There has been a rise in unexplained all-cause-mortality (deaths from all causes) since the rollout of the COVID-19 “vaccines” (but not in 2020 when the virus was most virulent and there were no COVID “vaccines”.
  2. Vaccines, in general, are not subjected to properly designed long-term clinical trials to determine if they actually do more harm than good and/or cause chronic disease and increased mortality.
  3. It is possible to design a clinical trial to claim a vaccine is safe when it is not.
  4. The assessment of vaccine safety falls mainly on prescribing doctors to voluntarily report safety issues post-vaccination but most doctors are reluctant to do so – the under reporting factor for vaccine adverse events could be as high as 100x.With regard to Point 1. (above), I have addressed this issue in many Substacks. Up to now, there is no plausible and credible explanation except that the COVID “vaccines” are to blame based on the timing of the rise of the Excess Deaths and the introduction of the “vaccines”, autopsy reports linking the vaccines to deaths and established pharmacological mechanisms of toxicity of the spike protein and lipid nanoparticle.

Keep reading