Connect with us

COVID-19

FDA Hid COVID Shot Side Effects—Congressional Report

Published

10 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Bonner R Cohen

The Biden administration “pressured the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to go beyond its regulatory authority to change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and authorize boosters”

A congressional investigation has found evidence the Biden administration pressured drug regulators to cut corners in authorizing COVID-19 shots and boosters.

An interim staff report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust concluded the Biden administration “pressured the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to go beyond its regulatory authority to change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and authorize boosters,” states the subcommittee’s press release on the publication of the report, on June 24.

“This approval enabled the Biden administration to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine, despite concerns that the same vaccine was causing injury among otherwise healthy young Americans.”

KIN, JAPAN – APRIL 28: United States Marines queue to receive the Moderna coronavirus vaccine at Camp Hansen on April 28, 2021 in Kin, Japan. A United States military vaccination program aiming to inoculate all service personnel and their families against Covid-19 coronavirus is under way on Japans southernmost island of Okinawa, home to around 30,000 US troops and one of the largest US Marine contingents outside of mainland USA. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

‘Politics Overruled Science’

“In August 2021, when the Pfizer shots received FDA licensure, and just before the booster received EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], FDA vaccine reviewers with decades of experience announced they were leaving the agency,” said subcommittee Chairman Thomas Massie (R-KY), in a statement. “During the pandemic, politics overruled science at the government institutions entrusted with protecting public health.”

The 29-page report, “Politics, Private Interests, and the Biden Administration’s Deviation from Agency Regulations in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” traces the FDA’s approval process for COVID-19 vaccines and boosters from the last year of the Trump administration, 2020, through the Biden administration’s implementation of its own policies in 2021-22. Development of COVID-19 vaccines began in April 2020 under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which followed the FDA’s standard EUA process.

Emergency Factor

The report says the FDA and manufacturers are supposed to monitor and communicate findings on effects related to a lower standard under an emergency declaration.

“The Biden administration, however, pivoted away from this important requirement and sought to ensure the EUA vaccine received full licensure as a way to support vaccine mandates,” states the report. “While the vaccine approval process can be robust and lengthy, the Biden administration through Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock sought to move on an arbitrary political timeline and pressed the FDA to ignore its regulations in the approval process.”

“During this time,” the report states, “the administration ignored or silenced voices that questioned the merits of universal vaccination and downplayed the serious injuries from the EUA vaccine.”

BRENTWOOD, NEW YORK – APRIL 12: Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks with students from Suffolk County Community College after getting vaccinated during a press conference on coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination at Suffolk County Community College on April 12, 2021 in Brentwood, New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo held a press conference at Suffolk County Community College, a mass vaccination site, announcing that the state will be sending the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine to colleges and universities across New York to encourage college students to get vaccinated before heading home for the summer. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Dissent from Within

Subcommittee investigators also examined how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) characterized the efficacy of the vaccine, the FDA’s active promotion of the vaccine in 2021 and 2022, and the CDC’s conduct related to reporting on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

“The transcribed interviews and internal FDA documents revealed that, despite evidence of harms from the EUA vaccine, the Biden administration sought to fully approve the Pfizer vaccine through the Biologics Licensing Application (BLA) process,” the report said. “The BLA approval occurred despite the objections of the FDA’s experts in vaccine development who were concerned about risks for healthy young people caused by the Pfizer vaccine, particularly the risk of myocarditis.”

Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., head of the FDA’s Center for Biological Evaluation and Research, testified to the subcommittee that, in rushing approval of the Pfizer vaccine, “he was seeking to appease outsiders who wanted to have an approved vaccine that gave them ‘more confidence’ in a vaccine, even though it was the exact same vaccine already on the market under the EUA.”

“Unless changes are made to improve the FDA’s once-robust vaccine approval process,” the report states, “future vaccines approved by the FDA may be met by an American public with increased skepticism and elevate the potential for higher vaccine hesitancy.”

Opened Pandora’s Box

The report’s findings were bolstered by pharmaceutical toxicologist Helmut Sterz, Ph.D., who served for eight years as CEO of global research and development at Pfizer’s lab in Amboise, France. In a July 8 post on Substack by Peter McCullough, M.D., and John Leake, Leake recounted a recent conversation with Sterz.

“Dr. Sterz confirmed that Pfizer-BioNTech did not perform proper toxicology studies on its COVID-19 mRNA ‘vaccine’ prior to its injection into hundreds of millions of people,” wrote Leake. “Those responsible for this undertaking created the Pharma Lab equivalent of a Pandora’s Box that has released a host of sickness and death on mankind.”

SEATTLE, WA – JUNE 21: A two-year-old wears a bandage after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination at UW Medical Center – Roosevelt on June 21, 2022 in Seattle, Washington. Covid-19 vaccinations for children younger than 5 began today across the U.S. (Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)

Rush to Mandate

Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, says she is not surprised by the report’s findings.

“The FDA’s regulatory process was clearly short-circuited. Americans have cause to seriously distrust the agency,” said Orient. “Many products, including vaccines, have been pulled from the market because of serious adverse responses, while reports of thousands of adverse effects associated with COVID injections are downplayed or suppressed.”

Orient added, “The people in charge of the rushed approval, such as Janet Woodcock, were also responsible for suppressing early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, as shown in AAPS v. FDAThe FDA failed to note a change in the manufacturing process that introduced DNA contaminants, which remained in impermissible quantities. Long-term effects such as cancer, birth defects, and infertility cannot yet be known.”

Joel Zinberg, M.D., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and director of the Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative at the Paragon Health Institute, also points to the harm resulting from the FDA’s actions.

“The rush to approve the vaccine and mandate its use put otherwise healthy young people who have a virtually non-existent risk of severe COVID-19 illness at risk for little benefit,” said Zinberg. “However, it is in stark contrast to what then-candidates Biden and Harris said in 2020 when they discouraged people from taking ‘Trump’s vaccines.’”

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X