Connect with us

COVID-19

‘We need to ask these questions’: Experts accuse government, Pharma of covering up vaccine risks

Published

14 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

Medical experts, political figures, journalists and whistleblowers today accused public health agencies and the mainstream media of censoring and covering up information relating to COVID-19 vaccine injuries and adverse events during a U.S. Senate roundtable discussion.

Sen. Ron Johnson hosted the discussion – “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” – which his office said was intended to “expose the truth about how the COVID cartel – federal health agencies, Big Pharma, legacy media, and Big Tech – engaged in censorship and coverups.”

“It was heartening to hear these courageous experts willing to risk careers and reputations in order to tell the truth despite tremendous pressure to look the other way,” said Laura Bono, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) vice president.

Bono, who attended the roundtable, added:

We can’t ensure that the global devastation caused by the COVID crisis will never occur again unless we are able to analyze what happened and speak about it freely. We are immensely grateful to Senator Johnson for presenting this crucial discussion to the American public.

The discussion focused on six topics: COVID-19 vaccine issues, the history of vaccine injury cover-ups, the corruption of medical research and federal public health agencies, media censorship and propaganda, the COVID-19 response in other countries and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD chief scientific officer, told The Defender he was “riveted listening to the panelists during the entire four-hour session.”

Hooker, co-author with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak, participated in the roundtable, highlighting the health risks posed by vaccines and the lack of adequate testing by federal health agencies.

HHS never submitted required vaccine safety report to Congress

In his testimony, Hooker said, “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] has never tested the cumulative effect of the vaccine schedule on childhood health outcomes.”

He referenced several scientific studies to support his testimony.

Vaccinated children were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. The likelihood of an asthma diagnosis among the vaccinated group was four-and-a-half times higher than the unvaccinated group,” he said.

Hooker said unvaccinated children have shown “incidence rates between 4-20 times lower” than vaccinated children for autoimmune, neurodevelopmental and other disorders.

He also referred to the sharp rise in myocarditis diagnoses following COVID-19 vaccination.

“Myocarditis is a serious disorder and 76% of all cases following COVID-19 vaccination, as reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], required emergency care and/or hospitalization,” he said. Yet, the “CDC significantly downplays myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine.”

Further highlighting government inaction in studying and responding to vaccine injuries, Hooker said:

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety in the U.S. every two years.

Yet HHS has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress,” he said.

Big Pharma ‘controls the levers of power,’ suppresses unprofitable treatments

Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock executive who has extensively studied the increase in excess deaths during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, also participated in the roundtable.

Dowd, author of Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022, said that government and WHO statements claiming the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” have “been proven false.”

“It has become clear that the U.S. government, along with the health regulators, do not desire an honest accounting of … policies that were imposed mostly under federal mandates,” he said, noting that this has resulted in high human costs.

Dowd told the panel:

The total excess deaths since the rollout of the vaccine in the U.S. is approximately 1.1 million for 2021, 2022 and 2023. We estimate the economic cost of productive working age people dying at $15.6 billion [and] estimate 28.4 million individuals are chronically absent, resulting in an estimated economic cost of $135 billion since 2021.

Jessica Rose, Ph.D., an immunologist and biochemist, told The Defender in advance that her testimony would focus on an “Analysis of the VAERS pharmacovigilance database in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products,” which “has revealed strong emergent safety signals – from myocarditis to death – that are not being acknowledged by the owners of the data.”

“This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the question: Why?” she said.

Rose also referred to recent revelations, later confirmed by Canadian public health authorities, about the contamination of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

“Is there a risk associated with DNA insertion in the context of the modified mRNA shots? Yes,” she said.

Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, discussed the suppression of potentially effective treatments by public health agencies.

“We are only now beginning to understand that many long-established drugs may have other uses that we don’t even know about, effectively treating diseases we never imagined using them against,” he said. “So why on earth aren’t we systematically testing them for potential new uses?”

Kory told the panel:

The ugly truth is it’s not profitable. Big Pharma makes money on complicated new drugs, and it controls the levers of power. Nearly half of FDA’s [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] budget is bankrolled by the drug industry, and its tentacles are deep in academia, medicine and other regulatory agencies like the NIH [National Institutes of Health].

He cited ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as examples of treatments that were suppressed during the pandemic despite evidence they were effective.

 

Johnson: Those who ask questions ‘vilified,’ ‘ridiculed’

In an interview with The Gateway Pundit Sunday, Johnson discussed adverse events related to the COVID-19 vaccines, the discovery by embalmers of “strange white fibrous clots” in bodies of the deceased since the vaccine rollout began in late 2020 and efforts to suppress ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatments.

Referring to the clotting phenomenon, Johnson said, “What’s unfortunate is the medical establishment in general, and certainly, our federal health agencies, are discouraging autopsies. So, the only evidence we’re getting of this is from embalmers that are having a difficult time getting embalming fluid into [the] cadavers.”

Johnson suggested that Big Pharma and government health agencies promoted mRNA vaccines because of a profit motive.

He said:

They’ve had this mRNA platform. It never succeeded in animals, but they knew how profitable a platform it could be. They’ve already found out how profitable vaccines are because there’s no worry of liability. You just get those things on the childhood vaccine schedule, and you just start printing money.

Nobody can question the efficacy. Nobody can question the safety of them. So, vaccines are highly profitable for pharmaceutical companies, so they’re going to push them. And of course, they’ve got their individuals in government that push them right along with them.

Again, our health agencies have been completely captured by Big Pharma.

Johnson also questioned the addition of an increasing number of vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S.

“With the number [of vaccines] we administer to children now, gee, what could go wrong?” he said. “Every time you inject a child with a vaccine, you’re messing with their immune system. Is that why autoimmune diseases are up?”

“We need to ask these questions,” Johnson said. “My problem is we’re just not even able to ask questions, and those who ask questions, those who put forward evidence are immediately ostracized, criticized, vilified, ridiculed – and that’s not science.”

Johnson also implied that some of his congressional colleagues have sustained injuries related to the COVID-19 vaccines but are not speaking out.

“My guess is they understand how people that do question this stuff are ridiculed and vilified. And they just don’t want to put up with the hassle,” he said.

Johnson also spoke out against pharmaceutical company advertising, suggesting it should be subject to a government ban.

“Pass a law,” he said. “We are one of the very few countries that allow that.”

Johnson said that while he is “a free-market guy” who usually “would not be on the side of imposing that kind of government restriction on business,” he said that having seen how Big Pharma “spends the billions and how they use that to capture the narrative and destroy anybody who questions the narrative,” he believes “that’s got to stop.”

Participants at the roundtable included:

Several of the participants – and Sen. Johnson – previously spoke at this past weekend’s International Crisis Summit in Washington, D.C., which Malone organized. Rep. Greene recently spoke in support of vaccine injury victims at a U.S. House of Representatives vaccine safety hearing.

Watch Sen. Johnson’s roundtable discussion here:

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.

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

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X