BREAKING: Attorney Thomas Renz reveals DoD data proving covid vaccines WORSEN infections and hospitalizations

“60% of hospitalized cases are breakthroughs”

As more and more information comes out, even from the CDC, WHO, FDA, etc.’s own admission, it is getting harder and harder to refute the fact that the COVID vaccines are absolutely unnecessary and are, in fact, even more dangerous than “COVID” itself. There is no justifiable reason to continue this egregious mandatory farce, and those who keep endorsing this obvious malfeasance should absolutely be held complicit in these crimes.

The following interview expands upon the DoD documents which shows a trend that is now becoming common place (although HIGHLY condemned as “misinformation” at the beginning – though it is to be said, big tech and mainstream media is STILL labeling even information from the government and health agencies’ own websites as “misinformation”…) that shows that individuals who are fully vaccinated are more at risk for a “breakthrough infection”.

And keep in mind, as more data is coming out, showing that the COVID situation may have been pneumonia/flu, HCAP (healthcare associated pneumonia) all along (perhaps even brought about due to an organized experimental campaign) , disguised as a “new virus”, the vaccines themselves, therefore, are causing these legitimate various illnesses and diseases amongst those who have taken it.

The below video is a full transcript of the interview between Attorney Thomas Renz and Mike Adams discussing the DoD/Humetrix documents that was revealed to Attorney Renz through a whistleblower account. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Mike Adams: “Welcome to brighteon.tv. Mike Adams here. Today we’re going to be joined by attorney Thomas Renz from Renz Law.

He has breaking news about new aggregate data that was compiled by a branch, an artificial intelligence branch of the Department of Defense. It’s called the JAIC. It’s called Project Salus. And the aggregate data was brought in about 5.6 million medicare patients from a company called Humetrix, which runs the data analytics platform for medicare outcomes.

Now, this is bombshell information that obliterates the official narrative of Biden and Fauci, which falsely claims that we’re experiencing a pandemic of the “unvaccinated”. These data that you are about to see, we’re going to show you the slides, courtesy of Attorney Thomas Renz. These data blow that away. So stay with us, we’ll be right back with Thomas Renz. This is brighteon.tv.

All right, welcome back. Mike Adams here, thank you for joining me. We’re going to welcome Attorney Thomas Renz right now to the program.

Thomas, how are you doing today, sir? It’s great to have you on.”

Thomas Renz: “I’m – you know, I’m doing great, Mike. I really appreciate it. 

Mike Adams: “Well, absolutely. Now, you have this bombshell document from the Department of Defense; I gave a little bit of an intro there, but you want to go ahead and tell us the big picture of what we’re looking at?

Thomas Renz: “Yeah, so, in my whistleblower stuff that we’ve been talking about a lot lately – we say that the fact that in the prior FDA presentation, they had said that, you know, they were going to monitor CMS for outcomes and for vaccine safety and things like that. Well, it turns out that that is correct, apparently. That is exactly what we did. They’ve monitored CMS.

So using that same CMS data that we’ve just broke a whole bunch of information on, the Department of Defense, through Humetrix, put out something on the 28th of September. At least, that’s the date on the front of this, talking about these vaccines. There’s just an immense amount of stuff in here, talking about how their effectiveness wanes over time. But probably the biggest and most important thing in here is this, and I’m going to read this, it’s a direct quote: “60% of hospitalized cases are breakthroughs” after the delta variant hit 90%, right? “71% of COVID cases are breakthroughs”, and then we get delta at 90%.”

Mike Adams: “And just, let me just, for the audience, “breakthrough” means someone was previously fully vaccinated, and essentially breakthrough means vaccine failure. That they were infected anyway.”

Thomas Renz: “Yeah, yeah. So when Biden and his crew are telling us that this is a problem with the unvaccinated, why are 60% of the break- of the hospitalized people who are fully vaccinated? 60% are FULLY VACCINATED, in the hospitals. 

Now by the way, Mike, so within this document, it also makes really clear: until you are 14 days post full vaccination, you’re not counted. So what that means for the audience is, that if you got Pfizer or Moderna, you had to have both shots, if you had Janssen you only had to have the one, and then 14 days later. So if you only got one shot and got sick or got hospitalized, it doesn’t count. If you’ve had, you know, both shots but got sick within 14 days it doesn’t count. So still, despite all of that, we’re looking at a 60% hospitalization – 60% of the hospitalized cases. 60%!”

Mike Adams: “So… looking at slide 2, from this 17 slide set, I also want to bring attention to the summary, just to underscore what you just said, it outlines that the effectiveness of vaccines wanes over time. All the way out to 6 months, where a person who was previously vaccinated has a 2.5 times higher odds, they say – they use the word ‘odds’ – 2.5 times odds factor increase of being infected or hospitalized with COVID. So the vaccine actually makes outcomes worse over time.

And then the other bombshell from this, I think, though there are many, as you said, but one of them is that for, for those who are unvaccinated, their risk of infection and hospitalization is falling over time. Compared – even as delta is rising, the risk of unvaccinated people getting sick is falling, falling, falling, falling. So… wow! I mean, if these continue, look where it’s going.”

Thomas Renz: “Yeah, well, I mean, so if you look also on that second page, we got a couple of other really important things to look at there, right? So this statement, “Prior COVID-19 infection has a major protective effect” – MAJOR protective effect. That’s because as we all know, there is no stronger immunity than natural immunity. So once you’ve survived this, you’re golden. 

The other thing is, is it’s kind of interesting, because, you know, this really, I think, is very demonstrative. And we don’t have all their data. But based on what I’m seeing, this is really showing the ADE, right? This is showing that, or at least providing indication based on the overall analysis of this, that the people who are getting the vaccine, you know, instead of this disease getting less dangerous and more contagious, as usual, for some people, particularly it looks like the people who have gotten it, it looks like it’s getting more dangerous.

And I mean, you know typically when this started out according to the curve and what they’re saying, you know, you had a really high death and hospitalization rate when COVID first came out. And then typically that drops off with any disease. Now, you’re seeing it really bumping back up. And there should – and it’s really a, you know, it looks very much like what we were all afraid of – that we’d have a massive ADE type situation going on this fall, where we had a stronger, more dangerous variant, especially for the people who went out and got the shot.”

Mike Adams: “Yeah, that – that’s exactly right. And by the way, I want to mention, it was slide 15 that I think you were referring to earlier; I’m looking at it now. It says 71% of COVID-19 cases are breakthroughs, in weeks after the delta variant became more than 90% of the detected variant. So, that’s critical to the record, guys, and we’re talking almost three-fourths of the hospitalizations are people who were vaccinated.”

Mike Adams (continued): “But there’s something else here, Thomas. The very last slide, this is another bombshell: the risk model for breakthrough hospitalization, in this slide, it talks about how Native Americans have the highest increase risk of hospitalization after vaccination, of any ethnic group. And then Hispanic is underneath that, and Black-Americans are further down the list, but think about it. You know, this is hitting Native Americans more than any other group, and yet nobody is warning the Native American community about what is effectively ADE from vaccines.”

Thomas Renz: “Well, and yeah, and I mean, so listen. These vaccines seem to have a disproportionate impact on certain minority communities. Now that’s not something that I’ve really been able to flesh out in a way where I can say, “Listen, we know this for sure.” And I haven’t got the experts, and I – you know I am, I don’t say it unless I can prove it. But I have heard numerous, numerous reports about the dangers these vaccines pose to the minority communities especially. It has to do with certain genetic differences – um, you know, I just don’t have, I don’t have enough to really go on record and say it for sure, but it sure does look like that.

But, luckily for us, I also just got a report, that in New York City, you know, one of the most vaccinated places in the universe, only 26% of African-Americans are vaccinated. If that’s true, good! Good! I said yesterday in an interview, I said, there’s not a whole lot of times in my life where Louis Farrakhan and I have been on the same page, but when it comes to this vaccine, we’re dead on there. So – “

Mike Adams: “Well yeah, exactly right. Louis Farrakhan, I also agree with his point on this particular issue. He’s absolutely correct. And he, among many people in different sectors of Black communities across America, he is nation of Islam, but there are many other different groups of course, they are recognizing that this appears to be a, in their view, a biological weapon targeting Blacks and Hispanics and basically people of dark skin. Now, from a medical science point of view, though, dark skin also blocks vitamin D production upon exposure to sunlight. So this could also be a vitamin D deficiency colliding with vaccine mortality or ADE problems. Perhaps vitamin D deficiency causes an exaggeration of ADE, but that’s just conjecture at this point. As you said, we don’t have supporting data, but it’s a plausible theory.

Thomas Renz: “Yeah, yeah. I would agree with you. And like I said, there’s just been something that’s been kind of very quietly kicked around amongst experts, and we just haven’t had anyone that’s done the proper studies to know. But you know, if I were, if I were a person of color, I would certainly want to know, you know, where are these studies? Why aren’t we looking at these numbers? You know? Where are they? So I’m hoping they come out.

But I mean, regardless of what they do, and regardless of ethnic issues, 60%. 60%. I mean, what more can you say? And, and – I mean, this is a disastrous number, and it’s an outright lie. This is from a weekly report, right. This is a weekly report. So just as we said last week on our whistleblower presentation, you know, this is something that they’re supposed to be getting briefed on regularly, which it appears that they are.

Biden, Fauci, all these guys – I mean you can see where they talk about they reference the CDC and different things, you know, graphs from CDC presentation, things like that throughout this. There is zero question these guys know this. They’re lying to the American people outright. This is a crooked marketing project for big pharma, big tech, big government, at the expense of American lives, and it’s got to stop.

This is it. This is smoking gun. You know, we had – we had the whistleblower stuff that’s on renz-law.com. You can look at that. This presentation’s going to be up there. How much evidence do we need to put out before someone’s held accountable for this?”

Mike Adams: “Well, that’s my next question to you. Would you support a call for the FDA withdrawing it’s emergency use authorization or so-called approval of these vaccines, based on these new data from the DoD’s artificial intelligence project? I mean, is this, you said it’s a smoking gun. Is it enough in your view to say, we’ve got to halt all the vaccines?”

Thomas Renz: “I don’t think there’s any question it’s enough. This is illegal from the start. From the start under the EUA rules, and the – actually the law for an EUA, there has to be a risk benefit analysis. Well, there was never – I mean, 1% absolute risk reduction was never enough to warrant authorizing something that had no long-term studies. Now, we not only have a 1% absolute risk reduction, but we have a very clear case of an increased danger.

I mean, go get the vaccine. You can get COVID again. Congratulations. You know. If you survive it, then you know, you’ll probably have stronger immunity, assuming that the vaccine hasn’t destroyed your immune system. You know, this is – there is literally no legal justification for this vaccine being available at all. Let alone the fact that they tried to prove a vaccine that isn’t even out yet. You know, that, that’s a whole ‘nother story.

But this has to be withdrawn. Fauci has to be charged criminally; he needs to be in jail and there needs to be RICO, RICO suits, and I’m going to do this right here, right now, Mike. I’m going to call – I want any attorneys that are willing to do so, I’m going to put a button up on my website that says, you know, now hiring/taking volunteers, something. I don’t know. I’ve never put a button up. And if you’re willing to volunteer, or to work, or whatever, if I’ve got funding I’ll pay you. But if you’re willing to help, I want to do a RICO case against the entire trusted news initiative for covering this up, because they’ve been bought off by pharma. RICO, the FDA, Fauci, all these people that is one giant criminal conspiracy. We need to sue their butts and they need to be in jail.”

Mike Adams: “Well I think many viewers would agree with your assessment, but – so you’re talking about organized crime, racketeering, this is um… it’s, it’s a pretty high standard of proof in order to prove such cases. The DOJ is unlikely to want to prosecute this because the DOJ is probably part of the organized criminal operation. Would – would you say that?”

Thomas Renz: “Yeah. But we can do a civil case. We could do a civil case. And I’m all on board for it. I just need to get some experts and RICO, because I’m not a RICO expert. I need to get some people who are willing to help fight this. Because we don’t have enough attorneys. But I think we need to file a major suit.

I mean, listen, we know this entire trusted news initiative has been bought off by Gates Foundation, by big pharma, by all these different groups. We know how that works. We got all sorts of evidence on it. We know that the FDA, the CDC, we know – we got, right here, rock-solid evidence. These guys know that they’re lying when they say it’s safe and effective. They know that we know that they’re lying when they’re pushing this out there.

I don’t know how it could be anything but fraud, and I think we need a massive lawsuit to the tune of probably trillions, to get back the – to get back the just a portion of the damage these people have done on the American economy, on the world economy, to the lives and families of these people. This is so outrageous it is beyond words. In history, in history, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything in the American world that compares with the lies we’re seeing here. It’s just horrific.

Mike Adams: “Since you’re bringing up history, many people have called for international tribunals. War crimes tribunals against some of the individuals and organizations that you just named. Is RICO even enough? Does this need to go to more of a Nuremberg level of investigation of potential prosecution?”

Thomas Renz: “Well, so legally that would require a buy-in from our political leaders, and since most of them should actually be charged, I’m not sure that they’re going to do that, but yeah, I mean, I certainly think that this is a war crimes type thing. There’s no question what’s happened. There is zero question.

 

At this point, you know, you could argue that you didn’t believe my whistleblower. Okay, fine. How about – how about a document with the stamp from the DoD on it? Do you believe that? I mean, what do we gotta do? This is their words. This is as smoking of a gun as you can get.

Yes. There should definitely be an international war crimes tribunals for this. This is absolutely a violation of the principles of Nuremberg. By the way, World War II, you know this Mike. You know, this started out by trying to paint the Jews as unclean. And putting them in ghettos and, you know, testing vaccinations on them. That’s where this all started. Now we got to stop this before we get anyone – it gets any – goes any – who knows where they’re going with this. What I do know is that we’re not going there.”

Mike Adams: “But that’s my next question. The vaccines have already been administered according to the CDC to over 200 million Americans. We see from the data that you’ve just shown us here, that the outcomes worsen over time. Since you can’t undo a vaccine, where is this going? What does this mean for people who got vaccinated and are now looking at these data and saying, “Woah! What happens in November? Or December? January?” What are we looking at here, really?”

Thomas Renz: “Well if – so early on, what I had suggested was that this was going to be something where you’re going to be stuck getting booster shots for the rest of your life or die. Now, I don’t know if that’s going to be the case or not, but what I do know, is the best I can do for those people right now is pray and hope that we can find a way to undo the genetic modifications that they’ve done to themselves.

Because, you know, I mean, listen, we also in that whistleblower presentation, we laid out, this is a gene therapy. This is changing your genetics. So, I don’t know how we undo that, but what I do know is you all have been experimented on, with a dangerous experiment, that it turns out is going really badly, or maybe just as planned. I don’t know. But what I do know is it looks like it’s a real bad thing. It looks like there’s more people and more danger every day, and – nobody wanted to believe us. When you and I, Mike, were talking about this early on, no one wanted to believe it. But now – “

Mike Adams: “But now, right. The data are clear. So, just to refocus people on this, this is from the JAIC, division of the DoD. The JAIC uses artificial intelligence algorithms to study things like COVID-19 induced supply line disruptions. So they are out there trying to pinpoint critical supply failures in the supply chaining, including for parts for the military itself. They then took that A.I. system and they applied it to this Humetrix data set of 5.6 million Medicare recipients and their health outcomes, and then they were able to spot these patterns and they put it all in chart form.

So, you know, one of the big astonishing things about this, Tom, and thank you for sharing this and coming on to comment about it is, aren’t the people who, who are looking at this, aren’t they freaking out too? I mean, within the DoD, surely they see what this is!”

Thomas Renz: “You know, that’s a great question. I got to be honest with you, Mike. It – listen. This looks – makes it look really clear that they’ve been looking at it for awhile. Right? I mean, when you look at this, it’s a weekly report. So it’s not like this is new information. It’s been out for awhile. It’s been clear where the trends are going.

I – you know, to me, I don’t know how you argue that this is, you know, what, you’re sitting on your hands? You know? Because, I don’t know. On one side we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say, “Well this was such a political disaster that they just didn’t know what to do with it.” or, on the other side, you could just say, “Listen, this was intentional.”

I don’t know what it is, but either way there’s a lot of people dying and going to die that don’t need to die. And by the way, they’re lying here, which they are. Obviously we got – I mean, their evidence; this is as good as it gets. If they’re lying here, what else are they lying about? You remember, you know, we’ve been pushing early treatment: Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, D, zinc, all these different things. Hey. We’ve got doctors with thousands of people that have been treated with this and not die. THOUSANDS!

 

They’re lying about that too. [editor’s note to clarify: The CDC, NIH, FDA, etc. is lying that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine don’t work] And P.S., I think I got some more data that just came in not too long ago. I haven’t had time to analyze it yet, that will show exactly that. So just, stay tuned. We’ll have more. We’re not done.”

Mike Adams: “Okay. And just a little flashback to something that you recently put out, that you have a whistleblower who has access to the Medicare aggregate data system, that showed close to 50,000 – I think it was 48,000 something deaths following vaccination of Medicare tracked patients. When are you going to get new data on, from that database, potentially?”

Thomas Renz: “Well, I’ve got, I’ve got stuff that I’m sending over, and you can put that up today if you’d like. You know, we’ve got a breakdown of a bunch more states. So, I think we’ve got 8 or 9 states now, with all their side effects, right? And by the way, just to be clear, that data is from the same servers that these guys are pulling from. So, so you know, if you want to doubt me before, it seems like this is pretty good vindication for me.

You know, you can look at these numbers. We’ve got them broken down – I know we’ve got New York, I know we’ve got California, I know we’ve got Ohio, we’ve got Florida, Texas, Missouri…

And you know, listen, look at this data and ask yourself, what is your governor doing? Because your governor should have access to this. Now thankfully in Texas and Florida you guys have governors who have kind of stood up. But if the words ‘safe and effective’ come out of their mouth, you need to show them this data, you need to show them this stuff, and you need to say, “Who the hell bought you?” Because that’s the ONLY way they can say this with a straight face, is if they’ve been bought and paid for.

And I don’t care who you are, it is very clear, they have or should have access to CMS data. If they’re not getting that then they’re not doing their homework or their public health people are lying to them. But guess what. They can’t claim ignorance any more because we put it out there.”

Mike Adams: “All right, all right. Well said. We’ve only got less than 2 minutes remaining here. I want to remind our audience your law firm is at renz-law.com. That’s the correct url, right?”

Thomas Renz: “Yes sir. Yes sir. Please check us out there. Renz-law.com.

Mike Adams: “Okay, and what do you say to all the people right now who themselves are dealing with legal issues with hospitals abusing their family members, or denying access to family members to – I mean, this is happening everywhere. I’m sure you’re getting flooded with requests for help, right?”

Thomas Renz: “Yeah. More than you can imagine. I’m praying for you, I’m praying for your families; it’s devastating to see. We’re trying to get cases developed on this as quickly as possible. They’ve done a ton of stuff to try and make it hard to sue these guys. ‘Cause they knew they were going to use them as killing fields. But we’re going to – we’re going to make them pay at some point.”

Mike Adams: “Okay, that’s great to know. And you also said previously, you can’t wait to sue over and over again, all of those who are complicit in this. Which is the – parts of the so-called media and big tech as well.”

Thomas Renz: “They’re going down. I want you to please – we’re going to get that button up as soon as possible. We want everybody that’s willing and able, click on that, tell us what you’re willing to do; we need good good people who are willing to bust their butts researching and writing.”

Mike Adams: “Okay. All right. Well said. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me today. It’s – your work is really courageous; you are doing amazing things to help save lives in this country. Thank you so much for joining us.”

Thomas Renz: “Thank you.”

Mike Adams: “All right. For those of you watching, feel free to repost this video on any platform – the original source is brighteon.tv. You can also find this on my channel: healthrangerreport@brighteon.com. Thank you for joining us today, and look for the article detailing this document at naturalnews.com. Thank you for joining us. God bless, take care.”

Note from Expanding Awareness Relations: As mentioned in the above interview, please visit the following links for more detailed information including more slides from the DoD documents and for additional Mike Adams videos:

RENZ LAW

BREAKING: AI-powered DoD data analysis program named “Project Salus” SHATTERS official vaccine narrative, shows A.D.E. accelerating in the fully vaccinated with each passing week

Health Ranger Report @ Brighteon

Thank you so much to Mike Adams and Thomas Renz for continuously bringing these important data and information to our attention. Your dedication and fortitude in standing strong against these tyrannical, unnecessary measures is incredibly needed and much appreciated during these perilous and unprecedented times.

And thank you to everyone who has stood up and spoken out against these nefarious agendas; and also thank you to everyone who is reading/watching and sharing these news to help get the word out about these corrupted organizations.

God bless.

Are These Findings the Death Blow for Vaccine Passports?

“COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Written by Joseph Mercola (September 17, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

More than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and more long-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot

Lawsuits challenge vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection

Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, sued over the school’s vaccine mandate, which did not recognize natural immunity. The school settled out of court, granting Zywicki a medical exemption. They did not, however, change their general policy to recognize other staff and students who have natural immunity

Some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Rutgers University in New Jersey also object to the vaccine mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit is still pending

Since COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus, and COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, the argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply falls apart

*

While governments around the world are going full steam ahead with plans for vaccine passports, two key things have occurred that blow irreparable holes in the whole argument.

First, more than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot, and secondly, lawsuits have challenged vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection. Other lawsuits highlighting the illegalities of vaccine mandates have also been filed.

The Zywicki Case

As reported by the New York Post,1 August 4, 2021, when George Mason University in Virginia decided to implement a vaccine mandate, law professor Todd Zywicki sued.2 Mason recovered from COVID-19 in 2020 and has natural immunity, as demonstrated by several antibody tests. One of his attorneys, Harriet Hageman, stated:

Common sense and medical science should underpin GMU’s actions. Both have gone missing with this latest effort to force a distinguished professor to take a vaccine that he does not need — not for his own protection nor for anyone else’s safety at Scalia Law School.”

The lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study3 up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement not only violates due process rights and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but is not compliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.4

A Win for GMU Professor but No Legal Precedent

August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption to the vaccine requirement.5 Unfortunately, and irrationally, the school did not revise its general policy. As reported by Citizens Journal:6

“The school’s acknowledgment of natural immunity is significant given the serial case of amnesia that seems to have overtaken the world on this basic point of biology.

However, the school still maintains the vaccination requirement for all other members of the GMU community, regardless of naturally acquired immunity. At the time of this writing, the same medical exemption has not been offered on a broader scale.

Furthermore, the lawsuit would have served as an interesting test case for vaccine mandate-related litigation, which will become more prevalent as time goes on. Regardless, the victory still serves as a sliver of hope that some universities will entertain reasonable arguments and that individuals can fight back with litigation …

With the GMU case resolved without trial, many critical legal arguments went untested. For example, does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause apply to vaccine mandates, or does the state have the ability to suspend such rights when responding to a public health emergency?

How does the reliability of natural immunity affect the constitutionality of policies that fail to recognize it? Can the government simply cherry-pick whatever science it wants to justify its policies? According to the court filing,7

‘The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A ‘forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty[.]’ Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).’

Given this precedent, as well as the state’s police powers to suspend individual rights under compelling circumstances, how will this apply to Covid-19 in a low-risk environment such as a college campus?

If the right still holds, how will it apply to city-wide vaccine passport programs, given that Covid-19 is a relatively mild disease? … The move is also mysterious, given the relevance of the matter. As a result, it did not create a binding legal precedent.”

In a statement, lead counsel Jenin Younes with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said:8

“NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki’s medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden.

Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”

Other Lawsuits Challenging Schools’ Vaccine Mandates

While not specifically centered around the validity of natural immunity, a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey does include this aspect, as some of the plaintiffs object to the mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit was filed in mid-August 20219 and is still pending.

Earlier this year, in April 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District was sued over its vaccine requirement by California Educators for Medical Freedom and the Health Freedom Defense Fund.10July 27, a California court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, as it concluded the LAUSD had voluntarily abandoned its mandatory vaccine requirement. As reported by The Defender:11

“This is a BIG win — because of the lawsuit, LAUSD represented to the court on the record that it does not have a policy requiring vaccination with EUA products. Since the court has now confirmed the absence of any policy requiring vaccination at LAUSD, all teachers and staff are safe to return to work without vaccination or furnishing proof of vaccination in the fall.”

Time will tell if the Children’s Health Defense case against Rutgers University will bring the legal precedent needed to more effectively thwart this tyrannical trend. Still, even smaller wins like Zywicki’s are important and demonstrate there are ways we can fight back, if only we’re willing.

Natural Immunity Surpasses Vaccine-Induced Protection

While vaccine passports are immoral and unconstitutional in and of themselves, medical science is also proving them useless and irrational. As reported by Daniel Horowitz in an August 25, 2021, article in The Blaze,12 there are at least 15 studies that show natural immunity from previous infection is more robust and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot. He writes:

“The debate over forced vaccination with an ever-waning vaccine is cresting right around the time when the debate should be moot for a lot of people. Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC’s campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all version of the virus than those with any of the vaccines.

It’s time to set the record straight once and for all that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is broader, more durable, and longer-lasting than any of the shots on the market today. Our policies must reflect that reality.”

We now have data showing vaccine immunity rapidly wanes regardless of variants, but especially when a new variant becomes predominant. According to the Mayo Clinic, as of July 2021, Pfizer’s COVID injection was only 42% effective against infection,13 which doesn’t even meet the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement of 50% efficacy14 for COVID vaccines.

This matches Israeli data, which show Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness at the outset, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant.15,16 Pfizer’s own trial data also demonstrate rapidly waning effectiveness. BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi discussed this in an August 23, 2021, blog.17

By the fifth month into the trial, efficacy had dropped from 96% to 84%, and this drop could not be due to the emergence of the Delta variant since 77% of trial participants were in the U.S., where the Delta variant didn’t emerge until months later. So, even without a predominance of a new variant, effectiveness drops off. In an August 20, 2021, report, BPR noted:18

“‘The data we will publish today and next week demonstrate the vaccine effectiveness against SARS COVID 2 infection is waning,’ the CDC director [Rochelle Walensky] began … She cited reports of international colleagues, including Israel ‘suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early’ …

‘In the context of these concerns, we are planning for Americans to receive booster shots starting next month to maximize vaccine induced protection. Our plan is to protect the American people and to stay ahead of this virus,’ Walensky shared …

The CDC director appears to all but admit that the vaccine’s efficacy rate has a strict time limit, and its protections are limited in the ever-changing environment.”

You’re Far Safer Around a Naturally Immune Person

Add to this a) the fact that the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus and b) the fact that COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals,19,20 and the whole argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply fails miserably.

As noted by Horowitz, anyone capable of rational thought understands that a person with natural immunity from a previous infection is “exponentially safer to be around than someone who had the vaccines but not prior infection.”21

As for the unvaccinated who do not have natural immunity from prior infection, well, their status poses no increased risk to anyone but themselves. Conversely, since the COVID shot cannot prevent infection or transmission, and only promises to reduce your risk of serious illness, the only one who can benefit from the shot is the one who got it. It protects no one else.

In fact, you may actually pose an increased risk to others, because if your symptoms are mild or nonexistent, but your viral load high, you’re more likely to walk around as usual. Rather than staying home because you suspect you’re infected and infectious, you’re out spreading the virus around to others, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

What Does the Research Say?

In his article, Horowitz reviews 15 studies that should, once and for all, settle the debate about whether people who have had COVID are now immune and whether that immunity is comparable to that of the COVID shots. Here’s a select handful of those studies. For the rest, please see the original Blaze article.22

  • Immunity May 202123 New York University researchers concluded that while both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses, the immunity you get when you’ve recovered from natural infection is more durable and quicker to respond.

The reason for this is because natural immunity conveys more innate immunity involving T cells and antibodies, whereas vaccine-induced immunity primarily stimulates adaptive immunity involving antibodies.

  • Nature May 202124 This research dispels fears that SARS-CoV-2 infection might not produce long-lasting immunity. Even in people with mild COVID-19 infection, whose anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies levels might rapidly decline in the months’ post-recovery, persistent and long-lived bone marrow plasma cells start churning out new antibodies when the virus is encountered a second time.

According to the authors, “Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.”

  • Nature July 202025 The Nature findings above support findings from Singapore published in July 2020, which found patients who had recovered from SARS in 2002/2003 had robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 17 years later.
  • Cell Medicine July 202126 Here, they found that most previously infected patients produced durable antibodies and memory B cells, along with durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells that target multiple parts of the virus.

According to the authors: “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.” The same clearly cannot be said for vaccine-induced immunity.

  • BioRxiv July 202127 Echoing the Cell Medicine findings above, University of California researchers concluded that “Natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”

We’re Creating a Pandemic of the Vaccinated

If natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced antibodies, you’d expect to see fewer reinfections among those who have already had COVID-19, compared to breakthrough infections occurring among those who got the COVID shot. And that’s precisely what we see.

In a preprint titled “Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously Infected Individuals,”28 the researchers looked at reinfection rates among previously infected health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system.

Of the 1,359 frontline workers with natural immunity from previous infection, not a single one was reinfected 10 months into the pandemic, despite heavy exposure to COVID-19-positive patients.

A second preprint,29 posted August 25, 2021, compared SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity by looking at reinfection and breakthrough rates. Four outcomes were evaluated: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death.

Results showed that, compared to those with natural immunity, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s COVID shot had:30

  • A 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection
  • A 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease
  • A 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant
  • A higher risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations

After adjusting for comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received two Pfizer doses were 27.02 times more likely to experience symptomatic breakthrough infection than those with natural immunity.31 No deaths were reported in either of the groups. In closing the authors concluded:32

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Majority of Hospitalizations Are Actually in the Vaccinated

The oft-repeated refrain is that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” meaning those who have not received the COVID jab make up the bulk of those hospitalized and dying from the Delta variant. However, we’re already seeing a shift in hospitalization rates from the unvaccinated to those who have gotten one or two injections.

For example, in Israel, the fully “vaccinated” made up the bulk of serious cases and COVID-related deaths in July 2021, as illustrated in the graphs below.33 The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. By mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections.34

new hospitalizations

new severe covid 19 patients
deaths trend

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.35

COVID-19 delta variant hospital admission and death in England

Data36 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also refute the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative. Between July 6,2021, and July 25, 2021, 469 COVID cases were identified in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, outbreak.

Of those who tested positive, 74% had received two COVID injections and were considered “fully vaccinated.” Even despite using different diagnostic standards for non-jabbed and jabbed individuals, a whopping 80% of COVID-related hospitalizations were also in this group.37,38

COVID Shot May Harm Immunity in Those Previously Infected

While the authors of that August 25, 2021, preprint39 claim in their abstract that “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant,” in the body of the article they admit they “could not demonstrate significance in our cohort.”

Unless significance is demonstrated, the finding is basically irrelevant, so I would not rely on this paper if I wanted to argue for vaccination of those with preexisting natural immunity. Besides, there’s research40 showing the COVID shots may actually harm the superior T cell immunity built up from prior infection, especially after the second dose. As reported by Horowitz in The Blaze:41

“Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid have raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found ‘in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.’

They also note that other research has shown ‘the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.’”

Arguments for Vaccine Passports Are Null and Void

FEE.org reported the August 25 findings under the headline, “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished”:42

“Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

‘Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,’ Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter …

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations. People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated.

Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.”

Positive Signs

arihasanaj tiktok video

While we still have a long and likely hard fight ahead of us, there is reason to be optimistic. In a recent TikTok video,43 a young man named Ari Hasanaj who lives in New York City describes how he printed up posters that say:

“We do not discriminate against ANY customer based on sex, gender, race, creed, age, vaccinated or unvaccinated. All customers who wish to patronize are welcome in our establishment.”

He then went around the city, from one store to the next, asking each owner if they would agree to post the sign on their door to protest NYC’s vaccine passport requirement. A majority said yes. He is now asking others to join him in this effort.

In Denmark, vaccine passports will no longer be used to restrict movement as of September 10, 2021. The health minister, Magnus Heunicke, has stated, though, that the passport system may be reinstated if rising infection rates threaten important functions.

Denmark was among the first to announce the development of a digital vaccine passport, which came into effect in April 2021.44 For months, Danes repeatedly demonstrated against the COVID passes, and it seems the protests eventually had the desired effect. It just goes to show that if enough people resist, tyrannical overreach can be reined in.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 New York Post August 4, 2021

2, 7 Zywicki vs George Mason University Case 1:21-cv-00894

3 JAMA Internal Medicine August 16, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]

4, 5, 6, 8 Citizens Journal August 25, 2021

9 Children’s Health Defense vs Rutgers Case 2: 21-cv-15333

10 The College Fix April 10, 2021

11 The Defender August 12, 2021

12, 21, 22, 41 The Blaze August 25, 2021

13 MedRxiv August 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707

14 FiercePharma June 30, 2020

15 CNBC July 23, 2021

16, 17 The BMJ Opinion August 23, 2021

18 BPR August 20, 2021

19, 36, 37 CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

20 NBC News August 7, 2021

23 Immunity May 3, 2021

24 Nature May 24, 2021; 595: 421-425

25 Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462

26 Cell Medicine July 20, 2021; 2(7): 100354

27 BioRxiv July 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.14.452381

28 MedRxiv June 19, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176

29, 30, 31, 32, 39 MedRxiv August 25, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

33 Twitter Alex Berenson July 18, 2021

34 Science August 16, 2021

35 Evening Standard August 20, 2021

38 CNBC July 30, 2021

40 BioRxiv March 22, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.22.436441

42 FEE.org August 30, 2021

43 TikTok September 2, 2021

44 Sundhedsministeriet, August 27, 2021

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY Vaccine Is Still Under “STUDY” Runs to be Completed at Different Intervals Between 2022-2026

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

In addition to the many debates and conflicts surrounding the “approval” of the Pfizer/BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine, there is interesting information to glean from the documents involved surrounding this controversy.

The below documents, some from the FDA’s own website, sheds further light into what seems to be a product still in its experimental/study phase. Some of the revelations are chilling, and doesn’t quite give the reassurance that an “approved” drug of this magnitude is more beneficial to us than what it is purported to be saving us from.

Screenshot of the FDA NEWS RELEASE: FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Selected quotes in gray text boxes are from the above document:

“Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older.

Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease.

More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.

The most commonly reported side effects by those clinical trial participants who received Comirnaty were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, chills, and fever. The vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 and potentially serious outcomes including hospitalization and death.”

There are a couple of notes to take away from this document. In the above quote, it doesn’t quite specify how long the clinical trial lasted. Only that more than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for 4 months after the second dose. It also states that 12,000 of the recipients were followed for at least 6 months.

Both of these numbers (4 and 6) are incredibly low quantities when taking into account pregnant women who are at the beginning of their pregnancy. The length of the clinical trial does not take into account the full 9 months needed to determine a healthy pregnancy, nor does it allow for any time to safely assess the development of the baby once born.

The data in this document also does not include differences between those of the placebo group compared to that of the “vaccine” group. In addition, if we are to only take the 12,000 participants into account, which from the wording of the document seems to allude that these are the recipients of the vaccine, that would still leave 10,000 participants unaccounted for. Just from the amount of vaccine recipients (22,000), this is 45% of their study that the data does not reflect. If we are to include the 22,000 of the participants who received the placebo, the data that was not tracked would rise to 72%.

There is also the challenge of how they determined that the vaccine actually prevented COVID. Were these recipients exposed to someone with COVID or were deliberately inoculated with the disease to see if they would get infected? Many people, myself included, have gone on for more than a year without developing COVID, or at least “COVID symptoms”. Since this data only involved a 4-6 month trial period, how many of us (vaccinated, placebo, or otherwise) can say that we have not contracted COVID during this time-frame either? Is this implying that unless you’re vaccinated, you will most likely get COVID every 4-6 months?

Another consideration to take into account are the many testimonies from well-respected and renowned doctors/scientists/virologists who are adamant in their assessment that these vaccines are unnecessary and instead further harms the immune system rather than help it.

In the same regard, those who are unvaccinated will obviously then not contract any of the possible side effects that are listed in this document as well as the many adverse events that are reported to VAERS. Which leaves one to wonder if the benefits really outweigh the risks of the COVID vaccines.

There is also the slight alteration on a different page of the FDA website that gives further clarification as to the efficacy of the COVID vaccines – which does not reflect that of what many people are influenced to believe:

Under the heading:

Q: What safety information did FDA evaluate to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for emergency use and approve Comirnaty?

Screenshot of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content Current as of August 23, 2021

UPDATE on September 6, 2021: Since the FDA website decided to remove this particular section from their FAQ (as of 9/1/2021), here is a screenshot taken from the web archive showing its existence:

“While the vaccine may not prevent infection, symptoms or transmission of the virus from person to person – “

This seems to be the heart of the matter, and although it continues with, “it is effective in preventing hospitalization and death.” it is in direct conflict with what we were led to believe this whole time. Most of the mainstream media, big tech platforms, health agencies, etc. have insisted that vaccines are needed to stop transmission of the virus and to protect those around us. However, this one simple statement defies everything that people were coerced into believing.

And with the last part of the sentence concluding that it prevents hospitalization and death, which even that is debatable when looking at the scope of the situation, it leaves one to wonder why this would not be an option for people to decide to take that risk on their own account. When comparing data of young individuals as well and their extremely low risk of hospitalization and death in the COVID setting, there ARE acknowledged threats when they are injected with the vaccine.

“Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support. Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes. The Comirnaty Prescribing Information includes a warning about these risks.”

The FDA is also acknowledging that there are higher risks involved with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in males aged 12-17, and up to age 40.

“Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes.”

“In addition, the FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. These studies will include an evaluation of long-term outcomes among individuals who develop myocarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. In addition, although not FDA requirements, the company has committed to additional post-marketing safety studies, including conducting a pregnancy registry study to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy.”

The document is also stating that the possibility of myocarditis and pericarditis is an accepted issue and will continue to be monitored after the marketing of the Comirnaty vaccine.

And in a rather blunt admission, FDA states on their own website that Comirnaty is not required to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy. This would explain why the initial trial run was only monitored for 4-6 months. An outline in the BLA (Biologics License Approval) also states that Comirnaty will conduct studies on this group as we see in a later section.

BLA documents state Comirnaty vaccine studies to be conducted for the next several years

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text below is page 5 of the FDA BLA Approval document

Your deferred pediatric studies required under section 505B(a) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) are required postmarketing studies. The status of
these postmarketing studies must be reported according to 21 CFR 601.28 and section
505B(a)(4)(C) of the FDCA. In addition, section 506B of the FDCA and 21 CFR 601.70
require you to report annually on the status of any postmarketing commitments or
required studies or clinical trials.

Label your annual report as an “Annual Status Report of Postmarketing Study
Requirement/Commitments”
and submit it to the FDA each year within 60 calendar
days of the anniversary date of this letter until all Requirements and Commitments
subject to the reporting requirements under section 506B of the FDCA are released or
fulfilled. These required studies are listed below:

1. Deferred pediatric Study C4591001 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in children 12 years through 15 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: October 7, 2020

Study Completion: May 31, 2023

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2023

2. Deferred pediatric Study C4591007 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants and children 6 months to <12 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: February 8, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

3. Deferred pediatric Study C4591023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants <6 months of age.

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: July 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2024

Submit the protocols to your IND 19736, with a cross-reference letter to this BLA STN
BL 125742 explaining that these protocols were submitted to the IND. Please refer to
the PMR sequential number for each study/clinical trial and the submission number as
shown in this letter.

Submit final study reports to this BLA STN BL 125742. In order for your PREA PMRs to
be considered fulfilled, you must submit and receive approval of an efficacy or a labeling supplement. For administrative purposes, all submissions related to these required
pediatric postmarketing studies must be clearly designated as:

• Required Pediatric Assessment(s)

As the document states, the completion study of Comirnaty postmarketing (after approval) is not due until May 31, 2023 / Novermber 20, 2023 / July 31, 2024 respective of older to lower age groups. There is also another important acronym to consider, which is the IND, which stands for Investigational New Drug.

With this knowledge in hand, it’s important to note that the clinical trial run was monitored for 4-6 months after the second dose on around 55% of the recipients, while the actual “approved” drug still in its investigational/study stages is set to be monitored for 2-3 years. This is a sizeable difference in the amount of time to determine safety and efficacy, especially when considering the many events already reported to VAERS. And according to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions page from the FDA website:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Are vaccine providers required to report side effects?
A: Providers administering Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine must report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and to Pfizer the following information associated with the vaccine of which they become aware:
  • Vaccine administration errors whether or not associated with an adverse event
  • Serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination)
  • Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
  • Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis issues being studied on children

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 6-8 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events
reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known
serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of
subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under
section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are
required to conduct the following studies:

4. Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of
the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate
the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of
COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021

Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022

Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025

5. Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval Active Surveillance Study
Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis
and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021

Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021

Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022

Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022

Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023

Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023

Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

6. Study C4591021 substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and
pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for
potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration
with Pediatric Heart Network).

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2026

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027

8. Study C4591007 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a
subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

9. Study C4591031 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of
participants 16 to 30 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2022

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022

It is interesting that the timing to be considered for approval of these vaccines was only a 4-6 month timeframe, however, known dangers/risks, identified as “serious”, are still allowed to be approved and to be studied for 2+ years.

The document also recognizes that myocarditis and pericarditis is enough of a concern to happen after administration of the Comirnaty vaccine, since it mentions several studies just for this specific adverse event, and to continue to assess these reports.

In addition to all of the substudies to be conducted, there is a study to be initiated on a select group of participants to administer a third dose of the Comirnaty vaccine.

All of this information leads credence to the fact that even though the Comirnaty vaccine has “officially been approved” by the FDA, it is still in the investigational stages and being experimented upon on the public. And it goes without saying, but if myocarditis and pericarditis (on top of other reported side effects) are serious risks especially in children (“The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age.”), then for this known risk to be offered to infants/toddlers defies any ethically moral boundaries and is in direct violations of the Nuremberg Code.

The next section also provides further evidence that there have been NO studies in the safety/efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine on pregnant women.

Pregnancy/Births were not studied during the initial Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty trial runs

Another snippet from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions website page, states the following:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Can pregnant or breastfeeding women receive the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?

A: While there have been no specific studies in these groups, there is no contraindication to receipt of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women. Pregnant or breastfeeding women should discuss potential benefits and risks of vaccination with their healthcare provider.

The acknowledgement above seems to indicate that the FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty company have side-stepped this particular group in their vaccine studies, and have left it up to the healthcare provider to determine whether or not to administer this vaccine to pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding. This alone should be enough of a statement that there is no sufficient/professional data to analyze if the Comirnaty is safe during pregnancies/breastfeeding stages.

And if one were to consider the VAERS reporting system, in which the Pfizer-BioNTech company is required to report to, there have been numerous conditions of miscarriages/stillbirths/complications during pregnancy after administration of the COVID vaccine. While it is difficult to determine if these complications were a direct result of the vaccine, it is up to the scientific/healthcare community to investigate these cases in a thorough, unbiased and uninfluenced manner.

Another extremely alarming section of the FDA BLA Approval documents shows the following trial to be monitored in pregnant women:

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 9-10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
POSTMARKETING COMMITMENTS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 506B

We acknowledge your written commitments as described in your letter of August 21, 2021 as outlined below:

10. Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during
Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and
Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists
(OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”

Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025

There are a couple of key takeaways in this section that are of incredible importance. One major term to focus on is the word “NON-INTERVENTIONAL“.

According to What is a Non Interventional Study?, “In general, a non interventional study (NIS) (also called a non interventional trial) is where a patient takes regular medicine, prescribed according to the label. In an NIS, the researcher sets out to exert as little influence as possible on the patient’s condition while studying a medicine’s “…effectiveness, safety and tolerability under real life conditions” (Mishra & Vora, 2010).”

The article also reiterates multiple times that “non-interventional” studies are observational studies – the researchers are not to interfere with the dosages in any way but to prescribe them exactly as listed on the label. It also seems to imply that even if severe side effects show up, they are to still carry through with the “medicinal product” in that patient as prescribed. Another insinuation that one can make is that in order to not interfere with the study, it is not recommended to prescribe treatments that may help alleviate potential side effects. The term “tolerability” is implying to keep the patient going through the side effects in order to continue to study the long-term effects of the investigational new drug.

However, with the inclusion of “real life conditions”, it doesn’t indicate whether the patient can seek out physicians to investigate what is causing the side effects in their system and engage in therapeutic treatments to alleviate these effects. If a study is to be conducted in real life conditions, then it is to be expected that patients will seek treatments on their own while the researcher is only required to observe the patient to see how the alternative treatments interact with the drug/symptoms.

The same article goes on to state that the UK/EU have different definitions of what “non-interventional” means. “Aronson (2004) states… “the term ‘non-interventional’ in the Directive doesn’t mean non-interventional (i.e. non-interference) at all; it refers to an intervention with a licensed medicinal product.”

There is controversy and conflicts in this statement as another article, Interventional or Non-Interventional? Analyzing the Differences Between Clinical Studies Using Medicines in the European Union points out:

“Although defined in DIR 2001/20/EC, non-interventional studies are outside its scope. Due to the lack of harmonized regulation, some studies designed to be non‑interventional may be considered clinical trials by EU authorities. The two blinded studies described in Table 4 (see PDF) were considered clinical trials in the EU for planning on collection of data to support the marketing authorization application of experimental IMPs, despite no IMP being given and normal clinical practice being kept during the study period. Sponsors are thus advised to consult with authorities when planning studies under these conditions and/or whenever the objectives or design may raise questions.”

Further in the article, it states the following, which again, is not reassuring considering the policies/guidelines/mandates that authorities have been engaging in in order to mandate these investigational new drugs (COVID vaccines) onto the public:

“There is no centralized submission procedure for non-interventional studies with the exception of non-interventional PASSs, imposed as an obligation by an EU competent authority.{9} Because non-interventional studies do not have harmonized legislation, some Member States require submissions to regulatory authorities, while others do not. It is therefore important that sponsors are familiar with the regulatory framework of target EU Member States, and that they consult with local competent authorities and ethics committees (ECs) when justified.”

It’s sad to have to point this out, but the quote does specify “competent” authorities. And even the inclusion of “ethics committees” is not comforting seeing as how one of the leading figures in ethics study is Christine Grady, Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and wife of Anthony Fauci – Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the president, and who is also a large spokesperson for the experimental injections.

The other takeaway from section 10 of the FDA BLA documents is the term “TERATOLOGY“.

Definition of teratology
: the study of malformations or serious deviations from the normal type in developing organisms
merriam-webster/teratology

Teratology, branch of the biological sciences dealing with the causes, development, description, and classification of congenital malformations in plants and animals and with the experimental production, in some instances, of these malformations. Congenital malformations arise from interruption in the early development of the organism. Malformations in human infants, for example, may occur because the infant’s genotype contains mutant genes or includes an abnormal number of chromosomes; they also may occur if early in pregnancy the mother has had German measles (rubella), has taken some injurious drug, or has been exposed to an injurious dosage of radiation. Experimental studies suggest similar types of factors can cause malformations in animals and plants.”
britannica/teratology

Now when you combine the terms “non-interventional” and “teratology” together, it is suggesting that the ongoing studies (that were not conducted to begin with even in a clinical trial setting, as per the FDA’s own response) on pregnant women with Comirnaty and on the developing baby, will be monitored with as little intervention as possible and is mostly to be observed for malformations/genetic defects/miscarriages/etc.

In other words, safety and efficacy were never studied in this particular group, and neither was it studied in infants. It has also not been studied for long-term analysis, as the 4-6 month trial runs proves. The current “approval” it is undergoing now is an authorized experiment on the human population that is posing incredibly unnecessary risks when considering the many effective treatments that are already available to combat respiratory illnesses. And the insistent assertiveness to push this “investigational new drug” onto babies/children who are at extremely low risk for this illness is a disastrous decision from those in an “authoritative” position and should be investigated for malfeasance and misconduct.

This is also not the first time that government agencies/health industries/etc. have conducted experiments on the public.

The Tuskegee/Syphilis experiment was initiated onto a selection of African American men between 1932-1972. The study was only stopped (allegedly) after a publication was released on Associated Press in 1972 about the immorally unethical experiments being conducted on this group:

“Of about 600 Alabama black men who originally took part in the study, 200 or so were allowed to suffer the disease and its side effects without treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a cure for syphilis. Treatment then probably could have saved or helped many of the experiment participants, PHS officials say.”AP WAS THERE: Black men untreated in Tuskegee Syphilis Study

This study seems to echo the sentiments we see going on with the coronavirus situation, in which only one type of drug is being promoted (the COVID vaccines) while suppression of other treatments that have been proven to work (such as Ivermectin) has been denounced by the very same government/health/medical fields that have conducted these experimental studies.

A study that involved the CDC/FDA’s approval, this time on Black and Latino babies, was conducted in the early 1990’s and involved the measles vaccine:

“1990: CDC Inoculated Black and Latino Babies with an Unlicensed Measles Vaccine
A covert clinical trial by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente inoculated Black and Latino babies with an experimental measles vaccine without informing parents the vaccine was experimental. More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given the deadly “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States; a vaccine that had been tested in African and Mexican babies resulting in high death rates. The parents were never informed and they never gave their consent. The CDC harmed babies, violated federal law, and trampled on parental rights with impunity.”
1990 FDA Issued a Waiver From Consent; Covert CDC Experimental Vaccine Test on Black / Latino Babies

It’s interesting that the measles vaccine experiment identifies Kaiser Permanente specifically, because as we see in another section of the FDA BLA Approval for Comirnaty, it seems as if Kaiser Permanente makes another appearance in the role of human experimentation:

Text in the gray box below is from page 10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

13. Study C4591014, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine
Effectiveness Study – Kaiser Permanente Southern California.”

Final Protocol Submission: March 22, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2022

Final Report Submission: June 30, 2023

It would seem that the approval by the FDA of these IND drugs (Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine) is a way for the government/health agencies to skirt away from liability by stating that since the vaccines are no longer “experimental” by their definition, and that they are FDA “approved”, it is no longer required to gain informed consent of these drugs. In addition, as to the technicality of their terms and protocols, there are a multitude of ways to interpret their “informed consent” rules, which officials can then bend or define in any way that best reflects the use of their study/drug.

[ https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/informed-consent#exceptions ]

Also keeping in mind how long it was determined before the “health agencies” granted approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine – (4-6 months) – it would be conclusive to state that the vaccines have NOT sufficiently been studied in young children or pregnant women (or even the rest of the age groups because of the short amount of time the clinical trial study was conducted in), and the subsequent approval of this vaccine is to continue this research on the population who is exceedingly being pressured into taking this investigational new drug.

There is also the matter of the many adverse events that have been reported since the inoculation of these injections, that have largely gone unheeded within the health/medical institutions that are endorsing this drug. Other than the widely acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis, most common in young males, which is still being studied and allowed to persist onto the public.

So again, taking into account the collusion of the government/health/medical/research fields to conduct experiments on the public, it would be necessary to reflect upon these agencies for additional breaches upon human rights, consent, and ethical behavior.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Ahmad Ardity from Pixabay