Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Mandating COVID shots ‘one of the greatest mistakes,’ former CDC chief says

Published

4 months ago

12 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By John-Michael Dumais, The Defender

In a Senate hearing July 11, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are ‘toxic’ and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research.

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing on July 11, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated.

Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.

The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide.

“It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”

Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate.

The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.

mRNA vax ‘should have been open to personal choice’

During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety.

Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”

He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead.

Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting concerning data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing over 37,000 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination, with 24 percent occurring within two days of injection.

Redfield acknowledged there was “not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts to “underreport any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.”

‘FDA should release all of the safety data’

Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) handling of vaccine safety information.

“The FDA should release all of the safety data they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to hear that they were planning to hold on to that until 2026. That really creates a sense of total lack of trust in our public health agencies towards vaccination.”

Johnson echoed these concerns, revealing his frustration with the lack of follow-through by health agencies and the committee itself.

“I’m not getting cooperation out of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation to issue subpoenas to get this,” Johnson said, referring to unreleased data and documents.

The senator displayed a chart comparing adverse event reports for various drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these therapeutics – with COVID-19 vaccines showing significantly higher numbers – fueled Johnson’s demand for more transparency.

“As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there’s a lot more that’s being covered up,” Johnson asserted. “The public has a right to know. We pay for these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.”

Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, stating that withholding the information is “counterproductive.”

Redfield doubtful of ‘any benefit from [gain-of-function] research’

Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause on gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly.

“I’m not aware of any advanced therapeutic or vaccine that has come to pass because of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I do think there has to be a very aggressive debate of whether there’s any benefit from that research.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) seized on this point, introducing his Risky Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding for high-risk life sciences research.

“If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it might have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement.

MIT’s Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D., inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns.

Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment where his team – with FBI approval – successfully ordered DNA fragments of the 1918 influenza virus from 36 of 38 providers.

“Everything that we did and the companies did was entirely legal,” Esvelt said, underscoring the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has requested congressional regulation.”

The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses for stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security.

Redfield reaffirms COVID lab-leak theory

The hearing reignited debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in the lab-leak theory.

“Based on my initial analysis, I believe then, and I still believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and subsequent lab leak,” Redfield stated.

This assertion led to a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D., former chief of staff to then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab-leak theory.

“Your office, Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and others tried to actively censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this paper was the center of, and now everybody says, ‘Oh, well, we just weren’t sure at the time.’”

Hawley referred to the 2020 “Proximal Origin” paper that argued against the lab-leak hypothesis.

Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions. “I do not believe censorship took place, sir.” She maintained that discussions about the virus’s origins were part of normal scientific discourse.

Redfield, however, criticized the lack of thorough investigation into both natural origin and lab-leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this didn’t happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there’s no meaningful evidence supporting a natural origin.

The former CDC director also revealed that he did not learn about concerning biodistribution studies of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until as late as the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials.

‘Biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat’

Redfield emphasized the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense.

“In 2024, 2025, biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat,” Redfield stated. “You need to think of it the same way we thought about the verge of nuclear atomic [sic] in the late ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s.”

He called for a proportional response to the threat, suggesting the creation of a dedicated agency within the U.S. Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns.

“We have a $900 billion Defense Department for the threat of China, North Korea, and Russia,” Redfield noted. “We don’t have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat.”

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) echoed this sentiment. “In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China’s military threat to us.”

Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for enhanced oversight, recommending “an independent authority to consolidate secure functions in a single entity with a dedicated mission.”

The hearing also touched on the potential for future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warnings about the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu.

As the hearing concluded, senators from both parties expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk research.

Paul summarized the sentiment: “We cannot stand idly by. We must demand accountability, strive for transparency, and ensure the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 1 hour ago

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Business / 4 hours ago

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Energy / 4 hours ago

Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale

COVID-19

Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman

Published on November 16, 2024

By

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks to reporters

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

“I think we’re on the cusp of, really, the beginning of uncovering what happened with COVID”

Rand Paul is set to become chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee beginning in January, putting him in a position to more doggedly investigate the government’s role in covering up the truth about the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I chose to chair this committee over another because I believe that, for the health of our republic, Congress must stand up once again for its constitutional role,” Paul told the New York Post. “This committee’s mission of oversight and investigations is critical to Congress reasserting itself.”

“I think we’re on the cusp of, really, the beginning of uncovering what happened with COVID,” the Kentucky senator said. “The biggest item of the COVID cover-up is that for years, we’ve known there is this dangerous research.”

“We are going to, hopefully, have a friendlier administration, and we’re hoping that there will be a friendly person at (the Department of Health and Human Services), and we’re hoping they’ll be friendly at (the National Institutes of Health),” he added.

With President-elect Donald Trump’s appointment yesterday of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Paul has likely gotten his wish.

The Bluegrass State senator has long suspected that the accepted official narrative asserting that the COVID-19 virus did not originate in a Wuhan, China lab was intended to obscure the U.S. government’s role in developing the virus and conducting dangerous “gain of function” experiments with the deadly virus.

Paul recently told Fox News that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and HHS “have refused to turn over the documents as to why Wuhan got this research money and why it wasn’t screened as dangerous research. I’m looking forward to getting those (documents), mainly because we need to try to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

“The cover-up went beyond public statements. Federal agencies and key officials withheld and continue to conceal crucial information from both Congress and the public,” Paul said in his opening remarks at a Senate hearing in June dedicated to COVID’s origins. “This has been a deliberate, prolonged effort to deceive the committee about certain gain-of-function research experiments that the agencies have been withholding. What we have found as we’ve gone through this is at every step there’s been resistance.”

“So the hearing today is to try and find out whether or not we can get to the truth,” Paul said at the time. “Do we know for certain it came from the lab? No, but there’s a preponderance of evidence indicating that it may have come from the lab. Do we know viruses have come from animals in the past? Yes, they’ve come from animals in the past. But this time, there’s no animal reservoir. There’s no animal handlers with antibiotics. There’s a lot of reasons why there are indications that this could have come from the lab.”

And it seems that Sen. Paul has infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man who quickly emerged as a central figure at the very start of the pandemic, in his sights as well.

Paul and Fauci have long had a combative relationship as exemplified in several committee hearings over the last few years.

Paul has said multiple times that Dr. Fauci should “go to prison” for lying to Congress.

A year ago, Paul told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “We now have proof in Anthony Fauci’s own words, we have his emails.”

“In public he’s saying, ‘Oh, if you say it came from the lab, you’re a conspiracy theorist, you’re crazy, it’s a fringe theory,’” Paul said. “But in private, he’s saying, ‘We’re very concerned because the virus appears to be manipulated. And we’re also very concerned because we know they’re doing gain of function research in Wuhan.’”

A post on X by an RFK Jr. parody this morning said, “Dear Dr. Fauci, I’m still looking for you.”

Sen. Paul reposted it, saying, “I bet we find him.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Peer-reviewed study finds over 1,000% rise in cardiac deaths after COVID-19 shots

Published on November 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A new study published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine by a team of McCullough Foundation doctors reports significant links ‘between excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.’

A new peer-reviewed study reports that it has found a more than 1,000 percent increase in heart-related deaths among a large pool of people who have taken the COVID-19 shots.

On October 24, the Journal of Emergency Medicine published a study by a team of McCullough Foundation doctors who reviewed the annual reports of cardiopulmonary arrests, survival rates, and emergency medical services (EMS) incidents from King County, Washington, from 2016 to 2023. The county presented a “unique opportunity” for analysis because nearly the entire population (an estimated 98%) had received at least one COVID shot dose.

“As of August 2nd, 2024, there have been approximately 589,247 confirmed COVID-19 cases in King County,” the study found.

“In 2021-2022, Total EMS attendances in King County sharply increased by 35.34% from 2020 and by 11% from pre-pandemic years. Cases of ‘obvious death’ upon EMS arrival increased by 19.89% in 2020, 36.57% in 2021, and 53.80% in 2022 compared to the 2017-2019 average. We found a 25.7% increase in total cardiopulmonary arrests and a 25.4% increase in cardiopulmonary arrest mortality from 2020 to 2023 in King County, WA.”

“Excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests were estimated to have increased by 1,236% from 2020 to 2023, rising from 11 excess deaths (95% CI: -12, 34) in 2020 to 147 excess deaths (95% CI: 123, 170) in 2023,” the study continued. “A quadratic increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality was observed with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates. The general population of King County sharply declined by 0.94% (21,300) in 2021, deviating from the expected population size. Applying our model from these data to the entire United States yielded 49,240 excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests from 2021-2023.”

The authors concluded that there was a “significant ecological and temporal association between excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign,” but allowed that “COVID-19 infection and disruptions in emergency care during the pandemic” could be an alternative explanation.

To more fully understand the problem, they called for “continuous monitoring and analysis of cardiopulmonary arrest data to inform public health interventions and policies, especially in the context of vaccination programs,” as well as for the “U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 vaccination administration data [to] be merged with all death cases so that the vaccine type, dose(s), and date of administration can be analyzed as possible determinants.”

The study adds to a large body of evidence linking significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed jab mandates and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists similarly inclined.

Continue Reading

Trending

X