Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines, Cites Whistleblower Testimony Claiming CDC is Under-Counting Vaccine Deaths

America’s Frontline Doctors addressing the fraudulent use of the EUA for COVID vaccines.

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.

***

America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines for anyone under 18, anyone with natural immunity or anyone who hasn’t received informed consent.

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion July 19, seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop administration of experimentalCOVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

  • There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
  • There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
  • Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
  • Known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
  • There are adequate, approved and available alternatives to vaccines.
  • Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.

The authors of the motion attached a declaration by a whistleblower who came forward alleging deaths occurring within 72 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine are significantly under-reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination.

The whistleblower — a computer programmer who developed more than 100 distinct healthcare fraud algorithms, and who has expertise in healthcare data analytics that allows her to access Medicare and Medicaid data obtained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) — filed a sworn statement under penalty of perjury alleging the actual number of COVID vaccine-related deaths is closer to 45,000.

 

The whistleblower alleged that VAERS, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least five.

In her statement, she said:

“On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths.”

AFLDS said the findings were shocking, and informed consent is impossible when safety data is not accurate.

In a press release, AFLDS said:

“It is unlawful and unconstitutional to administer experimental agents to individuals who cannot make an informed decision as to the true benefits and risks to the vaccine on an independent basis. They must be of an age or a capacity to make informed decisions and have been provided with all of the risk/benefit information necessary to make an informed decision.”

One of the named plaintiffs, Deborah Sobczak, the mother of a 15- and 17-year-old, said in the press release:

“My child will not be the subject of an experiment. What kind of monsters are we allowing to control us? Perfectly healthy children have developed heart inflammation, brain bleeding and even died! I have had enough. I am not sacrificing my child so a pharmaceutical company can experiment on her. This madness has to stop.”

There is no emergency warranting EUA of COVID vaccines, plaintiffs allege

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, declared on Feb. 4, 2020, pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C), that SARS-CoV-2 created a “public health emergency.”

This initial emergency declaration has been renewed repeatedly and remains in force today — a necessary legal prerequisite for the issuance of vaccine EUAs, the complaint states. EUA allowed the mass use of the vaccines by the American public before the completion of the standard regimen of clinical trials and FDA approval.

Plaintiffs allege the emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal because there is no underlying emergency. Using HHS COVID death data, SARS CoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70. This is consistent with the seasonal flu, the complaint states.

Plaintiffs argue HHS deliberately inflated COVID case data

Plaintiffs allege HHS’ data is deliberately inflated. On March 24, 2020, HHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations exclusively for COVID.

The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

According to the complaint, HHS statistics showed 95% of deaths classified as “COVID-19 deaths” involved an average of four additional comorbidities. Plaintiffs claim the CDC knew the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death would result in COVID being the underlying cause more often than not.

Plaintiffs said the actual number of COVID cases is also far lower than the reported number due to emergency use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which are used as a diagnostic tool for COVID. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. The package inserts state PCR tests should not be used to diagnose COVID.

The complaint alleges the way in which the PCR tests are being administered knowingly guarantees an unacceptably high number of false positive results.

COVID vaccine risks undisclosed and under-reported, lawsuit says 

AFLDS medico-legal researchers analyzed the accumulated COVID vaccine risk data and found migration of the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the body. Yet vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active and what effect they have, the complaint states.

AFLDS researchers analyzed VAERS and discovered an increased risk of death from COVID vaccines. The database indicated vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represented a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year.

From 2009 to 2019, there were 1529 reported deaths associated with all vaccines reported to VAERS, according to the motion. In the first quarter of 2021, there were more than 4,000 reported deaths with 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 attributed to the COVID vaccine. Only 1% were attributed to other vaccines in the system.

Plaintiffs also disclosed evidence of reproductive harm, vascular disease, autoimmune disease, neurological damage and they highlighted an increased risk of harm for children with COVID vaccines to support their position.

Why the secrecy around V-Safe data?

The complaint called attention to the secrecy of the CDC’s V-Safe system — a parallel system used to track reported adverse events via a smartphone app controlled exclusively by the CDC.

Plaintiffs raised concerns that information in V-Safe exceeds that in VAERS. They claim VAERS is inaccurate because it potentially includes fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events, and the federal government is failing to provide data from other monitoring sources such as V-Safe, CMS and the military.

Plaintiffs stated informed consent cannot be given without understanding the risks. They said they can’t help but wonder why HHS would fail to disclose to the public critical information related to risk from it’s reporting systems, “particularly in light of the fact that they have had the time and resources to study and extend the authorizations on the vaccines, build an enormous vaccine marketing machine and roll out vaccine clinics all over the nation.”

The lawsuit was filed by several law firms, including RENZ Law. The complaint and whistleblower declaration can be read here.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

Comparing CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and FOX

Nothing suspicious to see here…

Just like the title says, this post aims to look at each of these US mainstream news outlets (their website – not their TV channels – I don’t watch TV – and I advise you to not watch television as well…) to compare with each other and see how deep and far the propaganda goes.

I never regularly visit these websites (and certainly not their homepage) and the only times that I even visit their site is to check out a related news article to what I’m looking up. I regularly clear “cookies” and website/search history, so I’m hoping these have no bearings on my findings.

First, I am capturing a screenshot of whatever first pops up on each of the website, and taking it from there.

So let’s get started.

CNN

Screenshot taken from cnn.com.

NBC

Screenshot taken from nbcnews.com.

ABC

Screenshot taken from abcnews.go.com.

MSNBC

Screenshot taken from msnbc.com.

FOX

Screenshot taken from foxnews.com.

(All screenshots were taken on 1/3/2021 between 10:00-10:30 A.M.)

Just taking a glance at some of these headlines literally gives me anxiety and I can feel stress levels start to arise. Thankfully, I can recognize when this is happening (and why it’s happening) which is why I always stress (no pun intended) to be aware of your surroundings and your own thoughts and emotions. Since I already know how these news outlets work and how they’re geared for the sole purpose of manipulating and controlling the public, and instilling fear and negativity, there’s something to be said for how these news outlets work on others who aren’t aware of this agenda.

And while NBC and MSNBC are among the same company, I wanted to show them as two separate entities. (And just as a heads up, even checking out PBS and CBS show similar results to the ones above.)

Now below, I’ve created pie charts to show what the majority of “news” they have to “inform” us are (at least according to the very first impression we get upon visiting their webpage) :

Now, I admit, since we’re heading off into the electoral vote (which allegedly is supposed to mean something and we should definitely not think there’s anything corrupt going on with our government and should instead trust them blindly that there was no election fraud (or any other corruption, for that matter…..)) the results of this finding is bound to be skewed towards that of politics specifically. Which is why I’ve already decided that once all of these politics sort of quiet down and things are finalized once and for all, I will re-visit this post and do an updated version of what these same news channels cover. Just to see how much has changed and what they choose to focus on next.

Next, I want to see what kind of biased/descriptive terminology we can see from these websites.

Let it be noted, first and foremost. I am not above this. I admit it outright. I will sometimes use certain adjectives to describe and reveal my frustration and thoughts on certain matters. But while I am an independent writer not affiliated with any mainstream news media, my opinions are based on several different outlets and sources. It is not labeled as a “news” platform, and these should be based on facts and honest reporting. As it is, what you will find at this site is honest findings and my personal views on the matter. Not paid promotion or propaganda, unlike the very obvious (there’s one) agendas of the msm.

CNN’s favorite words

So just looking at the very first link of the CNN screenshot from above, we can see the term “conspiracy theories” that a lot of people like to use in order to discredit any kind of alternative source to what the main narrative is pushing for. Never mind the fact that numerous esteemed doctors and health/science experts don’t agree with the main narrative; yet, if we are to believe the government endorsed agencies on what “experts” mean, it seems to only apply to those who are in agreement with whatever “information” the government and msm is presenting to the public. Anyone else who raises speculative and alternative theories (even based on facts and studies) are immediately “debunked” and ostracized.

This second post from cnn.com (retitled as “Republican efforts to undermine Biden victory expose growing anti-democratic streak”) is filled with even more biased and opinionated views (labeled as an “analysis”) – written in a way to ridicule anyone who thinks otherwise: “scattershot, exploit, manufactured, conspiracy theory (again), charade, etc., etc., etc.” Keep in mind, these were just the top two links that were available on their page.
Let’s take a look at what NBC offers.

Trump throws grenades into high-stakes Georgia Senate runoffs in final stretch – “Outgoing President Donald Trump is throwing one rhetorical grenade after another into the high-stakes Georgia Senate runoffs in the final days before the Tuesday election.

(Phew! I’m glad they added that it was “rhetorical grenades”. With the news media reporting lately, sometimes I wonder if they literally want people to think Trump is throwing actual live grenades…)

In this article, apparently “grenades” actually means “false” allegations into election fraud. The terms “false” and “falsely“, I realize, is used a lot in the mainstream media and social media platforms in order to describe the “alleged” presidential election fraud. (And whatever else they deem as “fake news”.)

Let’s see what the next articles says:

Fauci pushes back on Trump: Covid death numbers are ‘real’ – “Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday pushed back on President Donald Trump’s false claims that the U.S. coronavirus death toll is “exaggerated.

Well, that was fast. Two articles, back to back? Both focused on alleged “false” news? Reminds me of CNN with their usage of “conspiracy theories”.

Another word used in this article that is everywhere in order to manipulate the public, is “misinformation“. Who decides if something is “false” and who “fact checks” and labels something as “misinformation”? None other than the propagators of this whole agenda. Why do some people still continue to believe them? Perhaps because they were raised and conditioned to believe these sources, neglecting to realize that it has now become a front to indoctrinate the masses.

More buzzwords from ABC

‘There’s no running away from the numbers:’ Fauci laments surging COVID deaths as Trump claims ‘fake news’ – “Fauci’s comments came minutes after President Donald Trump misleadingly claimed in a tweet that the numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of infected persons and deaths in the country are “exaggerated,

I am not going to go into the inconsistencies of the covid reports/cases, etc. – because, indeed, there is so much misinformation surrounding this subject, and I encourage you to investigate for yourself and use several different outlets to come to an educated theory. This is not the post for that. Just to show you the ways that these news outlets lead (mislead) someone into believing a certain narrative.

Here is another article (keeping in line with the politics/covid topics) that is written to, again, mislead the reader into what to believe (and not to believe):

Congress opens new session as virus, Biden’s win dominate – “It’s often said that divided government can be a time for legislative compromises, but lawmakers are charging into the 117th Congress with the nation more torn than ever, disputing even basic facts including that Biden won the presidential election.

Fraud did not spoil the 2020 presidential election, a fact confirmed by election officials across the country.

Funny. I thought “facts” are confirmed by truth and evidence, not by election officials. But you learn something new everyday…

MSNBC’s point of view

Most of the articles on this site is linked to a video, which I am not going to watch, but here is the only written article that I can present, with, again, their own allegation of no proof in the supposed election fraud that occurred.

Trump allies shouldn’t be sworn into office until cleared of their own claims of election fraud – “But this time, some GOP members if Congress have indicated they will object — or are considering objecting — to counting the electoral votes from key battleground states, claiming without proof that there was widespread voter irregularities or fraud that renders the election results illegitimate.

It seriously makes me wonder what they would consider as “proof“.

There is also this at the very end of the same article: “Any other result will undermine the public’s confidence in our election process — which is already dangerously under attack by Trump and his comrades in arms.

“Dangerously under attack”? “Comrades in arms”? I hope this is another rhetorical allegory and not implying more grenades…

Fox’s outlook

That brings me to the last major news media on this list. Let’s check out a couple of their articles to see if we can find some interesting correlations like the ones above.

From actively trying to look at all of these news sites with an unbiased view and deliberately trying to find leading content, the main article from the above screenshot: GOP senators want election commission similar to what decided disputed 1876 race seems to just depict straight-forward reporting. (At least at the time of its last update.)

Keeping in line with the above method, let’s take a look at one more article. (Note: I did not cherry-pick any of the articles. I picked the main story of each page, and made sure that one article dealt with a political angle, and one with a covid/vaccine angle. Just to keep all of them fair and similar. Since there are no articles dealing with the covid situation on FOX’s screenshot, I have chosen to look at the very next written article I see on this page.)

Cruz says Supreme Court ‘better forum’ for election disputes amid Electoral College objection push – The only thing I can find on this article would be the following sentence: “Evidence of any widespread voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election, however, has been lacking.” – But then we see it following up with this sentence: “Former Attorney General William Barr declared that to be the case weeks after the election“. This is not contested, and these are facts. The fact that, yes, William Barr did indeed say that.

But when we take this particular sentence and actually analyze it, it’s interesting that it has to specify that “Evidence (which certain individuals can certainly avoid simply by labeling it as “not evidence enough” or “not proof”) of any widespread voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election, however, has been lacking” … Needless to say, his choice of words is extremely strange and lends credence to the idea that although voter fraud, does, in fact exist, it is not “sufficient” enough in his findings to make a difference.

(I think a lot of us are underestimating (or in complete denial about) the amount of corruption, bribery and/or threats that are coerced upon those in a high position that would make these decisions… But I digress.)

The Verdict

So here was a quick rundown of 5 news outlets and the initial findings of how they can manipulate and coerce their reader into a certain way of thinking. This was just the written findings that were on the front page of their website, and did not even touch upon the videos and their verbal dialogue with each other and those with opposing points of views. We didn’t get to see body language and voice inflections, condescension or aversion towards different ideologies. I can only imagine what kind of impressions I would get from watching the videos. (Perhaps that will be another post for a different day as well.)

And from the two articles from FOX, it seems as if this has been the least manipulative/(mis)leading source of the 5 different news outlets covered.

Honestly, I find it fascinating that what is labeled as “news” is nothing more than highly partisan perspectives constantly bombarding the viewers/readers in most cases. And, by looking at just the few articles and topics from their website, we can see a lot of negativity and propaganda.

While being informed is important, we have to realize that the definition of “informed” is:

in·formed
adj.
1. Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion.
2. Knowledgeable; educated: the informed consumer.

thefreedictionary.com/informed

SYNONYMS:
commonsense, commonsensible, commonsensical, firm, good, hard, just, justified, levelheaded, logical, rational, reasonable, reasoned, sensible, sober, solid, valid, well-founded

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/informed

It doesn’t mean to believe biased sources based on opinionated points of views and alleged “facts” that haven’t been verified (or have been verified and are just labeled “disputed” by those very same propagators…).

When it comes to being informed, we have to use our best judgement and discernment and realize that the goal of some of these individuals and corporations is to literally control the masses. What better way to inundate them than with disinformation disguised as “news”?

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
– William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

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.

Get an Earful

DARPA BRAIN Initiative – Inhumane Experimentations Using Fusion Centers and Electromagnetic Fields to Control & Torture People - "If they want to experiment on you, by the thousands, they will. And you can be driven to insanity and death"
The “FEW” Involved in the “WEF” | Davos and the Purloined Letter Conspiracy. Klaus Schwab’s “Global Leaders of Tomorrow” - "A conspiracy like this could never happen because 'too many people would be involved'." ...
Senator Ron Johnson’s “A Second Opinion” Panel: Renowned Doctors and Medical Experts Discuss Medical Tyranny and Vaccine Injuries/Deaths (Highlight Video – FULL TRANSCRIPT) - Dr. Pierre Kory: "And that’s what I wanted us to be clear that we’re calling attention to today. This is corruption! Plain and simple, it’s corruption!”