COVID-19
Mandating COVID shots ‘one of the greatest mistakes,’ former CDC chief says
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.
“I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should have never been mandated. It should have been open to personal choice.”
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.”
I truly appreciated Dr. Redfield’s honesty at the hearing today. pic.twitter.com/X06znrxe12
— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) July 12, 2024
‘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.
Business
Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’
From LifeSiteNews
A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’
A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.
MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.
“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.
The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”
As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”
Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.
Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.
As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.
Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’
Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.
“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”
The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”
“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”
LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.
The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.
The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.
Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
COVID-19
Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots
From LifeSiteNews
A jury ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan committed religious discrimination against 30-year IT specialist and Catholic Lisa Domski when it denied her a religious accommodation from the company’s COVID shot mandate.
A former IT specialist for Blue Cross Blue Shield has been awarded $12 million in damages and lost wages for her lawsuit over being fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot, in a major victory for religious liberty.
Newsweek reports that the insurance company fired 30-year employee Lisa Domski in 2021 after she sought a religious exemption to their jab mandate and was turned down. The insurer reportedly questioned the sincerity of her religious objections as a Catholic, but denied religious discrimination in the trial.
Domski further maintained that the rationale behind mandating the shot didn’t apply in her case, as 75% of her work was remote before the pandemic and had shifted to fully remote during it, meaning she could not possibly have endangered others even if the shot did prevent transmission, which has since been admitted to not be the case.
“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion,” declared her attorney Jon Marko. “Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience. Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan] that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”
In response, the company said it was “disappointed” in the jury verdict and would be “reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”
Many religious and pro-life Americans like Lisa Domski have a moral objection to using medical products whose existence is owed in some way to abortion.
According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design and development and production phases. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science has admitted the same, and even the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes acknowledges the statement “that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate.”
Moral qualms are just one of the reasons for the ongoing controversy, next to a large body of evidence identifying 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.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs and offered several theories for a causal link.
All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team 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 mandating them and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists favorably inclined to the rights of employees in similar lawsuits.
Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Popular Casino Games at 1Red
-
National2 days ago
Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election
-
Digital Currency1 day ago
Conservatives urge Canadians to reject mandatory digital IDs proposed by Liberal gov’t
-
Education2 days ago
Too many bad ideas imposed on classroom teachers
-
National2 days ago
Former BC Premier John Horgan passes away at 65
-
COVID-192 days ago
Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots
-
DEI2 days ago
TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance
-
COVID-192 days ago
Easy Day 1 victory for Trump: Take COVID shots off schedule for kids