Lawsuit: b/c COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission They are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection

From [HERE] “I take care of a lot of kids with birth defects, cleft lips, cleft palates, extra fingers, extra toes,” Dr. Devan Griner from Lehi is a pediatric craniofacial plastic surgeon. During his six years working in Utah and around the world, he estimates he’s helped hundreds of patients.  

“These are kind of like my own children.  I take care of kids from the time they are born, sometimes before they’re born, all the way until they’re 25 years old and go off. I watch them grow up, they are part of my family,” Griner said. 

The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services covid-19 vaccine Federal mandate has Griner scared he may not be able to continue that work because he has not received any doses of the shot. So, he’s filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn that mandate.  

“I’ve watched over the last year, year and a half as things have progressed, where they’re going, I really want to put a stop now so I’m never in the position where I have to tell my patients and their families they need to go somewhere else or find somebody else,” Griner said. 

The historic federal suit filed in the US District Court for the District of Utah is funded by Dr. David Martin, a renowned IP underwriter and analyst. It names as defendants, President Biden, US Govt, HHS, CMS and others. The lawsuit claims the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional and violates Dr. Griner’s fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

COVID SHOTS ARE NOT A VACCINE AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT

The complaint states: "the CMS Mandate must be struck down because:

1. i. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them.

2. The CDC Director has admitted that the Injections do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has been identified by various public health agencies as causing the disease known as COVID-19. “[W]hat [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”1

3. The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.2

4. The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law.

5. In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”3

6. The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”4

7. Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.

8. But on September 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5 It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”6

9. Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.

10. This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.

MANDATES VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The complaint explains,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

The Injections may have been somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV- 2 strain, but that strain has come and gone, and the Injections—designed to fight yesterday’s threat—are simply ineffective against the current variant.

Since the Injections are ineffective against the Delta and Omicron viral variants, and the original variant has been supplanted, there can be no compelling interest to mandate their use at this time.”

But even if there were a compelling interest in mandating the Injections, the CMS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest.

The blanket mandate ignores individual factors increasing or decreasing the risks that the plaintiff—indeed, all healthcare workers—pose to themselves or to others.

Defendants entirely disregard whether employees have already obtained natural immunity despite the fact that natural immunity does actually provide immunity whereas the Injections do not.

Treating all employees the same, regardless of their individual medical status, risk factors, and natural immunity status is not narrowly tailored.

Moreover, the CMS Mandate fails entirely to consider other existing treatment options beyond the Injections as part of a more narrowly tailored approach. 97. Given these facts, as more fully set forth above, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Alternatively, the CMS Mandate has no real or substantial relation to public health or is beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law as to Plaintiff, who already has natural immunity.”

Mandates Violate the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine.
The complaint states;

The CMS Mandate also violates the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, under which the government may not condition employment “on a basis that infringes [an employee’s] constitutionally protected interests.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593,597 (1972); see also Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 606 (2013) (“[T]he unconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them.”).

Unconstitutional conditions case law often references the existence of varying degrees of coercion. According to that body of law, Defendants cannot impair Plaintiff’s right to refuse medical care through forms of coercion and through this explicit mandate. See, e.g., Koontz, 570 U.S. 595 (2013). 100. (“[U]nconstitutional conditions doctrine forbids burdening the Constitution’s enumerated rights by coercively withholding benefits from those who exercise them”); Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (“[An] overarching principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine ... vindicates the Constitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the government from coercing the people into giving them up.”)

The decision whether to take a medical treatment or not is a fundamental human right which Plaintiff enjoys. Plaintiff cannot be forced to choose between his right to refuse medical treatment by the government coercively withholding his right to pursue his career as a surgeon, and his passion to heal children with congenital defects such as cleft palates.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.

Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §§ 2201-02 and other applicable law, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the CMS Mandate is unlawful and any further relief which may be appropriate.

Violation of Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others. (Engquist v. Or. Dept. of Agric. (2008) 553 U.S. 591, 601.) Thetouchstone of this analysis is whether a state creates disparity between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable. (Ross v. Moffitt (1974) 417 U.S. 600, 609.)

The CMS Mandate creates two classes of healthcare workers; injected and uninjected. The members of one class, the uninjected, get terminated. The uninjected cannot advance their careers. They cannot provide for their families, pay their mortgages, or make a car payment. The other class, the vaccinated, get to keep their job in their chosen profession, advance their careers, provide for their families, pay their mortgages, and make their car payments.

Yet the situations of these employees are indistinguishable because injected healthcare workers can become infected with SARS-CoV-2, become re-infected with SARS-CoV- 2, and can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to fellow healthcare workers, patients, and visitors. The Injections make no difference in these respects. Their only function is to make symptoms less severe.

Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause – i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.

Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.” [MORE]

Dr. Griner told the media, “Morally I can’t go against what I’m feeling.  If that means the hospitals take away my privileges, then that’s what’s going to happen.  It breaks my heart which is why I want to get on the forefront of this and stop that from ultimately happening,” Griner said.  

Day 5 of the COVID Eugenocide Model Grand Jury - Economical and Financial Destruction

Day 4

Day 3

Day 2

Day 1

Day 4 of the COVID Eugenocide Model Grand Jury - Injections and Psychological Warfare

Day 3

Day 2

Day 1

Dr. David Martin: mRNA vaccines are gene therapy designed to harm and enslave humanity

From [HERE] Well-known truth-teller Dr. David Martin told “Thrive Time Show” host Clay Clark that the mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are gene therapy designed to harm people.

“We now have data that has been clearly published in the last several days showing that mRNA does get into the genome, does modify the genome and is not something that’s just this innocent little shot that creates a spike protein and you kind of get you fever and get you COVID symptoms and you get over them,” Martin said during the March 2 episode of the “Thrive Time Show” on Brighteon.TV.

“This is a genetic engineering and genetic modification, as stated by the companies. And it is, in fact, gene therapy, designed to harm humanity and perpetually make humanity a slave to the ongoing gene editing fantasies of psychopaths.” (Related: Bayer executive says covid mRNA shots are “gene therapy” falsely marketed as “vaccines.”)

Martin also gave an explanation about CRISPR after Clark brought up the technology that uses mRNA in gene editing.

CRISPR technology

“CRISPR has been around for almost a decade. It is a technology where we use nucleic acid engineering sequences to go in and essentially clip out what are called palindromic repeats,” Martin stated.

“Most people don’t understand that this whole thing, this whole mess that we’re in right now actually started in the 1950s, when we took what was chromosomes, which is the natural occurring form of nucleic acids in the human body, and pulled them apart and turn them into what we call DNA, that model does not exist. In reality, it doesn’t exist in any living system.

“What do exist are chromosomes, the entangled version of nucleic acids. But what we did was we took them apart, we took them into these long strings. And then what we found is that there are sequences inside of those we call genes. In those genes, what we found was sub-sequences which actually are the ability to insert or delete information into the genome.”

The speaker and author also compared CRISPR technology to patchwork quilts. He said that a patchwork quilt has a series of patterns and what CRISPR does is it takes one of the patches of the quilt out and replaces it with a different patch.

“But here’s the problem. Chromosomes actually have multi-dimensional information. When we decide to clip out a piece and clip in another piece. We’re not just changing the color of the quilt pattern. We’re changing the quilt. That’s a problem,” Martin said.

Prophets of AI

Clark showed a video clip of Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, who is a historian and bestselling author, speaking at the World Economic Forum. The host asked Martin about his opinion on the top adviser of WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab.

Martin said Harari has a very warped view of human experience just like theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and businessman-entrepreneur Elon Musk.

He elaborated: “His worldview is like the worldview of those who are the prophets of AI, the prophets of simulated reality. Those prophets all are calling for the erasure of diversity, so that we can actually have a command and control system that quite literally controls what would be called a human population through nothing more than simple upgrades, modifications, Trojan horses, viruses, literally and figurative.

“Their worldview is one that says that there will be an architect and the architect will come in and establish the code and the code will be what the expression of humanity is, in their likeness and image.

“The bottom line is to have a worldview that says, ‘We, those individuals who have creative thought, who have freedom of expression who have liberty, we are going to be exterminated, so that we become a slave race bent on the consumption and control of a few people who think they’re the programmers.’

“The fact of the matter is, Yuval Harari is wrong. Stephen Hawking was wrong. Elon Musk was wrong. AI is not to fear, because it, in fact, has no power over those individuals who have decided to preserve the integrity of their bodies, their minds and their spirits.”

During Day 3 of the COVID Eugenocide Grand Jury Dr. Chetty Questioned the COVID Cult Dogma: A So-Called New Virus Spread from Wuhan to the Rest of the World, but Not to the Rest of China?

DAY ONE

DAY TWO

UK Health Security Agency Data Confirms that the Fully Vaccinated are Now Up to 3.2x More Likely to Die of COVID than the Unvaccinated

From [HERE] The latest data published by the UK Health Security Agency confirms fully vaccinated individuals in England are up to 3.2 times more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated individuals based on Covid-19 death-rates per 100,000 population.

COVID-19 Spike Protein Sequence ‘100% Match’ to Sequence Patented in 2016 by Moderna, Study Shows

Story at-a-glance:

• A study published Feb. 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.

• The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.

• According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.

• According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.

• In a Feb. 24, 2022, interview, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel proposed the COVID-19 pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak.

From [CHD] The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on.

From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.

Now, a study published Feb. 21 in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna — in 2016.

Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.

What did Moderna patent?

The genetic sequence patented by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.

Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.

What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.

What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:

“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”

In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.

They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.

Moderna CEO suggests lab leak responsible for COVID-19

One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?

Interestingly, in a Feb. 24 interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:

“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”

Why This Code?

Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:

“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …

“A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”

It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.

Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way.

After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.

As explained by the NIH, the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P) developed by NIAID scientists.”

In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.

Can the COVID jab trigger cancer?

Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.

For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.

So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist, discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:

“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.

“Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified …

“[C]learly there seems to be three situations:

• The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.

  1. The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.

  2. The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.

“Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:

“‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.

“Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.

“Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”

Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, also reported seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.

Other key components of SARS-CoV-2 have also been patented

Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.

Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.

As previously detailed by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:

“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.

“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”

According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.”

In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech, Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.

That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen.

Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.

The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.

Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.

CDC holds patents on SARS coronavirus

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.

That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.

With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.

According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).

So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses. Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.

But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.

So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.

Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued Nov. 24, 2015.

Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.

According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.

Ontario Judge Refuses to Accept as Fact that Injecting Children against COVID is what’s best for them simply because it’s encouraged by the government

From [HERE] In a very rare case, an Ontario Judge has actually ruled against a forced COVID vaccination for two children, ages 10 and 12, where a father was requesting that they be forced to receive the shots against their wish, and against the wish of their mother.

While this judge actually just simply did his job, which was to listen to the evidence that both sides presented before ruling, it made waves in the Canadian corporate media, because similar previous cases did not do that, but simply took the Government’s position regardless of what the facts were.

Global News reports:

An Ontario judge says he is not prepared to accept as fact that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is what’s best for them simply because it’s encouraged by the government, noting a number of factors – including the children’s own preferences – must be taken into account.

In a decision issued last week, Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz rejected a father’s motion to have his two younger children – ages 12 and 10 – vaccinated despite their mother’s and their own objections, and cautioned against dismissing certain viewpoints without evidence.

The ruling represents a departure from earlier Canadian cases involving disputes over COVID-19 vaccinations, where courts have taken what’s called “judicial notice” – essentially accepting statements as fact – that immunization is beneficial for children, said Alyssa Bach, an associate lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP.

“We now have cases where judges have taken that judicial notice that the vaccine is in the best interest, and now one where it was decided that that wasn’t the case. And so it’s a reminder that each family’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the children, are going to be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis,” she said Tuesday.

“It’s notable that Justice Pazaratz, in his decision, did go through the other cases where this judicial notice had been taken and distinguished it and how this case was different than the other cases.”

In most of the previous cases, the children were younger, so their views on COVID-19 shots were “either unascertainable or less relevant because of the child’s lack of maturity,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

And in the cases where the children’s preferences were overridden, the court found the parent seeking vaccination had presented more reasonable information to the children and made more compelling arguments in court, Pazaratz said.

As well, the court in many of those cases found the materials presented by the parent opposed to vaccination were “grossly deficient, unreliable and – at times – dubious. This lack of an equally credible counterpoint to government recommendations may well have been determinative in those earlier cases,” he said.

Not so in the case at hand, the judge noted.

Here, the parents, both in their mid-30s, separated more than seven years ago. The oldest, a 14-year-old boy, lives primarily with his father and chose to vaccinated against COVID-19 last fall – a decision both parents supported, the ruling says.

The two younger children, a 12-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy, live primarily with their mother. Both were interviewed twice by a social worker and explained why they didn’t want to be vaccinated, with the youngest also expressing fears that his father would force him to get the shots, the document says.

The mother stressed she is not against vaccines overall, adding all three have received their regular immunizations, the ruling says. She also stated she would be open to having the younger two – who have already had the virus and recovered – get COVID-19 shots at a later date “if safety concerns can be better addressed,” it says.

Among the materials she submitted were a fact sheet issued by Pfizer, the drugmaker behind one of the main COVID-19 vaccines, and scientific papers, Pazaratz said.

The father, meanwhile, submitted fact sheets issued by the government and the Canadian Paediatric Society, as well as “numerous downloads” from the mother’s social media accounts on allegations she was promoting conspiracy theories, the ruling says.

“The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues. In contrast, the father focused extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration,” the judge said.

What’s more, he said, there is no evidence the mother has sought to impose her views on the children.

Pazaratz warned against allowing personal attacks, rather than debate based on evidence, into the judicial system.

He also cautioned against applying judicial notice in cases “where expert opinion is unclear or in dispute,” noting the government has historically been wrong on many issues, including the residential school system.

The judge further noted that health directives have “constantly changed” during the pandemic as new information emerged.

“This is not the kind of case where the court can say that either side is necessarily correct. Nor that the same determinations should apply for every child, no matter the circumstances,” he wrote.

“Anyone reading even some of the articles presented by the mother would likely conclude that these are complicated and evolving issues, and there can be no simplistic presumption that one side is right and that the other side is comprised of a bunch of crackpots. That’s why the court should require evidence rather than conclusory statements.”

The father, meanwhile, provided no evidence that the mother’s views had been debunked, the judge wrote. (Full article.)

COVID Vaccines Killed More People In 2021 Than All Other Vaccines Killed in 32 Years

From [HERE] Year 2021 will go down in history as the year of unprecedented lives destroyed by experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

What I am going to report here at the end of 2021 is that using the U.S. Government’s own data, available to the public (at least at the time of publication), proves conclusively that more people died and were injured by the experimental COVID-19 shots than all other vaccines combined for the past 32 years.

I am going to refer to these COVID-19 experimental injections as “vaccines” since that is how the industry and the U.S. Government refers to them, even though this new class of drugs injected into people does not meet the classic definition of a “vaccine” prior to this year.

I am going to keep this report very simple, and focus on only two data points of the experimental vaccines: reported cases and deaths.

There are other data points that were headline news in 2021, such as the unprecedented amount of fetal deathsfollowing these experimental vaccines, as well as the record number of people suffering and dying from heart diseasefollowing the injections, but we are just going to look at cases and deaths in this report, and I am going to expose some government data that I have not previously reported that will leave no doubt that 2021 was America’s holocaust.

The Globalists and their puppet politicians are guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, and if the people do not rise up and take these criminals down, things are only going to get worse in 2022.

FOIA Response Reveals that Biden's HHS Paid $1B to Mass Media Outlets to Propagandize the False Safety of COVID Shots in a Uniform Media Campaign that Destroyed Informed Consent and Concealed Reality

What is The Dependent Media?

From [HERE] A Freedom of Information Act request filed by Del Bigtree and Robert F Kennedy Jr at Children’s Health Defense has revealed that Biden’s Health and Human Services Department paid $1 billion of your tax dollars to bribe all the major news outlets to tell you to get vaccinated.

“HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

“Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a ‘comprehensive media campaign,’ according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring ‘influencers’ from ‘communities hit hard by COVID-19’ and ‘experts’ like White House chief medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.”

We weren’t supposed to see this information for 75 years. It was the fight of people like Dr Robert Malone and Dr Naomi Wolfe and others that got this disclosed and the two joined Steve Bannon for this episode of the War Room.

Dr Malone tells Steve, “The courts have forced Pfizer and the FDA to comply with the law, which is that after licensure is granted, these documents must be made available. Previously, they’re considered confidential – and remember that, as Naomi’s about to discuss and what the truckers are so upset about: we have been forced to take these vaxxines, and we have been told that they’re totally safe and effective.

“What this documents is the government has been well aware that they are not fully safe and has hidden this information from us. How that really matters for Pfizer is that the indemnification clauses require that Pfizer disclose known adverse events and this documentation demonstrates they didn’t do so. So, a lot of the lawyers are licking their chops over this, because it seems to indicate a break in the veil, that may allow legal action, basically due to fraud and concealment of these risks from the general public.

“This is why you have not been able to have full informed consent, is they’ve hidden all this information from you and they’ve used all the propaganda and censorship tools – which you’re about to cover – and paid media to keep all this information from you and spin it, so that you think the left is right and the down is the up and the Moon is made of green cheese.”

Bannon refers to so some “Pretty big events that are happening early in the week,” the details of which he’s not at liberty to reveal but in which Dr Malone will be involved and which he will be back on the show to discuss.

Internal Memo Shows Biden, CDC Making Plandemic Decisions by Following Poll Numbers, Not Science

Everything Biden said about COVID vaccines was nonsense.

These are the points he made “First, stay protected with vaccines and treatments.  We know how incredibly effective vaccines are.  If you’re vaccinated and boosted you have the highest degree of protection.  …We will never give up on vaccinating more Americans. Now, I know parents with kids under 5 are eager to see a vaccine authorized for their children.  … If necessary, we’ll be able to deploy new vaccines within 100 days instead of many more months or years.  … And with 75% of adult Americans fully vaccinated and hospitalizations down by 77%, most Americans can remove their masks, return to work, stay in the classroom, and move forward safely.”

Actual data contradicts what Biden said.  If COVID vaccines were really effective, then how can the nearly one million COVID deaths be explained with 75% percent of adults vaccinated?  The US COVID death rate is incredibly high compared to other nations.  Biden failed to acknowledge the many hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died or suffered serious illness from the COVID vaccines, not the infection.  No one who follows actual medical science and looks at benefits and risks of vaccination would seriously question whether they or their children should get the shot. [MORE]

From [CHD] An internal memo from a firm that conducted polling for President Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign advises the Democratic Party on how it can present itself as having “defeated” COVID-19. 

The content of the Feb. 24 memo, “Taking the Win over COVID-19,” closely matches statements Biden made Tuesday during Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

The two-page memo was distributed to “interested parties” by Impact Research, a public opinion research firm that provides “strategic thoughts for Democrats positioning themselves on COVID-19 after nearly two years of the pandemic.” 

The “strategic thoughts” proffered by Impact Research include:

• Declare the crisis phase of COVID over and push for feeling and acting more normal.

• Recognize that people are “worn out” and feeling real harm from the years-long restrictions and take their side.

• Acknowledge COVID still exists and likely will for a long time.

• Don’t set “COVID zero” as the victory condition.

• Stop talking about restrictions and the unknown future ahead.
  

The authors of the memo, Molly Murphy and Bryan Stryker, provided an explanation of the thought process underlying these strategic thoughts while describing efforts against COVID as a “war” – one that is now moving into a new phase:

“After two years that necessitated lockdowns, travel bans, school closures, mask mandates, and nearly a million deaths, nearly every American finally has the tools to protect themselves from this virus. It’s time for Democrats to take credit for ending the COVID crisis phase of the COVID war, point to important victories like vaccine distribution and providing economic stability to Americans, and fully enter the rebuilding phase that comes after any war.”

Acknowledging that shifting public opinion has a tangible political and policy impact, the memo also references the increasing fatigue with and unpopularity of COVID-related mandates among the general public:

“Twice as many voters are now more concerned about COVID’s effect on the economy (49%) than about someone in their family or someone they know becoming infected with the coronavirus (24%).

“Two-thirds of parents and 80% of teachers say the pandemic caused learning loss, and voters are overwhelmingly more worried about learning loss than kids getting COVID. Six in ten Americans describe themselves as “worn out” by the pandemic. 

“The more we talk about the threat of COVID and onerously restrict people’s lives because of it, the more we turn them against us and show them we’re out of touch with their daily realities.”

Translated, this could be interpreted to mean that harsh COVID mandates — described in the memo as “onerous” — are costing votes for the politicians enforcing them.

As reported Feb. 25 by the political blog Punchbowl News, the memo “has been making the rounds among House and Senate Democratic campaigns and consultants.”

According to Punchbowl News, the pollsters at Impact Research, “certainly have tapped into the mood of Democratic campaign pros, who see disaster in November unless the party figures out a better message on Covid,” adding that “Biden administration sources have told us they plan to talk about turning a corner on Covid during the State of the Union [address], so clearly they share some of these thoughts.”

Biden follows the script

Indeed, Biden’s message Tuesday night closely paralleled the talking points of the Impact Research memo:

“For more than two years, COVID-19 has impacted every decision in our lives and the life of the nation. 

“And I know you’re tired, frustrated, and exhausted. 

“But I also know this. 

“Because of the progress we’ve made, because of your resilience and the tools we have, tonight I can say we are moving forward safely, back to more normal routines.  

“We’ve reached a new moment in the fight against COVID-19, with severe cases down to a level not seen since last July.  

“Just a few days ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the CDC — issued new mask guidelines. 

“Under these new guidelines, most Americans in most of the country can now be mask-free.   

“And based on the projections, more of the country will reach that point across the next couple of weeks. 

“Thanks to the progress we have made this past year, COVID-19 need no longer control our lives.  

“I know some are talking about “living with COVID-19.” Tonight – I say that we will never just accept living with COVID-19.

“We will continue to combat the virus as we do other diseases. And because this is a virus that mutates and spreads, we will stay on guard.”

When compared with the “strategic thoughts” put forth by Impact Research, it is clear Biden declared the crisis phase of COVID over, recognized people are “worn out,” acknowledged and “COVID still exists and likely will for a long time.” 

Biden — whose approval rate has dropped to as low as 38% according to recent polls — also did not, as the memo advised, set “COVID zero” as “the victory condition.”

The Impact Research memo was circulated one day before the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Feb. 25 eased their mask guidance, and a series of Democratic governors and mayors announced the end of mask and vaccine mandates.

The U.S. Capitol lifted its own mask mandate just two days prior to the State of the Union address.

Mass media outlets, which for the most part until now vehemently supported such countermeasures, also visibly shifted their position in recent days. 

For instance, a CNN medical analyst who had previously compared unvaccinated people to drunk drivers and who strongly favored strict COVID mandates, recently said “the science has changed” and that it is now appropriate to end mask mandates.

Moreover, on the same week, the Impact Research memo circulated, Saturday Night Live, which for the past two years also toed the pro-mandate orthodoxy, openly mocked vaccine and mask mandates and questioned whether they were ever necessary, with such lines as “Do I have to dump my oldest friend just cause he didn’t get … a booster?” [MORE]

The Dependent Media, who are Complicit in the COVID Genocide, are Now Creating "Myth-Information," Blaming Anything but COVID Injections on Increases in Heart Attacks & Strokes

From [DAILYEXPOSE] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly admitted back in October 2021 that the Covid-19 vaccines cause heart inflammation, heart attack and stroke.

Specifically, the CDC admitted that the vaccines cause myocarditis and myopericarditis. The former occurs when the heart muscle – also known as the myocardium – becomes inflamed. The latter occurs when both the heart muscle and the sac that surrounds the heart – known as the pericardium – become inflamed.

Myocarditis can weaken the heart’s ability to pump blood and cause arrhythmias. Severe cases of myocarditis could weaken the heart so much that it becomes unable to pump enough blood to the entire body. This can also lead to clots forming in the heart, which can cause either strokes or heart attacks.

“Evidence from multiple safety monitoring systems in multiple countries supports the finding of an increased risk of myocarditis and myopericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination,” read a CDC report titled “COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Updates,” written by a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force.

The report pointed out that the risk of myocarditis and myopericarditis is highest in adolescents and young adults. Males are also more likely to experience either condition than females.

The conditions are more likely to occur following the second dose than following the first, and the onset of symptoms occurs within a few days of vaccination, up to a week.

Mainstream media outlets are diverting people’s attention away from the COVID-19 vaccines by trying to blame the heart conditions and their symptoms on other factors. Shane St. Pierre, the host of the “Anti-Disinformation” show, pointed this out on the show’s March 3rd episode.

St. Pierre first noted that most of the Western world’s largest and most influential mainstream media outlets have deep ties to – if they aren’t outright controlled by – Big Pharma companies.

Mainstream media outlets are tied to Big Pharma through two of the world’s largest investment management corporations – BlackRock and The Vanguard Group. Together, their portfolio holdings are worth over $17 trillion.

“More importantly, they are the owners and controllers of the Big Pharma industry. And even more importantly than that, BlackRock and Vanguard own the world’s mainstream media,” said St. Pierre. “In other words, Big Pharma owns the mainstream media.”

This gives mainstream media outlets a strong incentive to publish a deluge of articles claiming that certain factors in life and not the experimental and deadly COVID-19 vaccines were raising people’s risks of developing different health conditions. He then pointed out that all of these articles only started coming out when the COVID-19 vaccines started becoming more widespread.

One article published by the Daily Express on Dec. 12, 2021 claimed that skipping breakfast may increase the risk of heart attacks “despite intermittent fasting being the biggest proven health benefit of all time,” said St. Pierre. “Now, suddenly, skipping breakfast causes heart attacks.”

“But if you don’t skip breakfast, suddenly the world’s most popular breakfast food – eggs – enhances your risk of blood clots,” he added. St. Pierre is referring to another Daily Express article, published on Jan. 22 that claimed a substance in eggs is actually why people have an increased risk of blood clots, heart attacks and strokes.

Are Secret Ingredients Compatible with Free and Informed Consent? Court's Forced Release of Pfizer Docs Reveals that Its COVID Injection Has 1300 Side Effects and Should Have Never Been Approved

From [HERE] The FDA was forced by a judge to release clinical data on the COVID vaccines back in January and so 55,000 pages of documents were just released. The FDA had originally wanted to hide the data for 75 years and release it in 2096 because, of course, the FDA is basically engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The COVID vaccines should never have been approved. This was obvious from the very beginning when animal trials were skipped in the Trump Administration’s ill-fated “Operation War Speed.” And now it’s undeniably true. We have the clinical data, and it’s horrific.

Hiding out in one appendix is the clinical data for Pfizer’s vaccine — which lists 1,291 adverse side effects in alphabetical order. Let’s give you just the bad things that can happen to people who took the Pfizer vaccine that start with the letter “a” to enjoy:

1p36 deletion syndrome; 2-Hydroxyglutaric aciduria; 5’nucleotidase increased; Acoustic neuritis;Acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency;Acquired epidermolysis bullosa;Acquired epileptic aphasia;Acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus;Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis;Acute encephalitis with refractory, repetitive partial seizures;Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis;Acute flaccid myelitis;Acute haemorrhagic leukoencephalitis;Acute haemorrhagic oedema of infancy;Acute kidney injury;Acute macular outer retinopathy;Acute motor axonal neuropathy;Acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy;Acute myocardial infarction;Acute respiratory distress syndrome;Acute respiratory failure;Addison’s disease;Administration site thrombosis;Administration site vasculitis;Adrenal thrombosis;Adverse event following immunisation;Ageusia;Agranulocytosis;Air embolism;Alanine aminotransferase abnormal;Alanine aminotransferase increased;Alcoholic seizure;Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis;Allergic oedema;Alloimmune hepatitis;Alopecia areata;Alpers disease;Alveolar proteinosis;Ammonia abnormal;Ammonia increased;Amniotic cavity infection; Amygdalohippocampectomy; Amyloid arthropathy; Amyloidosis; Amyloidosis senile; Anaphylactic reaction; Anaphylactic shock; Anaphylactic transfusion reaction; Anaphylactoid reaction; Anaphylactoid shock; Anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy;Angioedema;Angiopathic neuropathy;Ankylosing spondylitis; Anosmia;Antiacetylcholine receptor antibody positive;Anti-actin antibody positive;Anti-aquaporin-4 antibody positive;Anti-basal ganglia
antibody positive;Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive;Anti-epithelial antibody positive;Anti-erythrocyte antibody positive;Anti-exosome complex antibody positive;Anti-GAD antibody negative;Anti-GAD antibody positive;Anti-ganglioside antibody positive;Antigliadin antibody positive;Anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody positive;Anti-glomerular basement membrane disease;Anti-glycyl-tRNA synthetase antibody positive;Anti-HLA antibody test positive;Anti-IA2 antibody positive;Anti-insulin antibody increased;Anti-insulin antibody positive;Anti-insulin receptor antibody increased;Anti-insulin receptor antibody positive;Anti-interferon antibody negative;Anti-interferon antibody positive;Anti-islet cell antibody positive;Antimitochondrial antibody positive;Anti-muscle specific kinase antibody positive;Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein antibodies positive;Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein associated polyneuropathy;Antimyocardial antibody positive;Anti-neuronal antibody positive;Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody increased;Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive;Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive vasculitis;Anti-NMDA antibody positive;Antinuclear antibody increased;Antinuclear antibody positive;Antiphospholipid antibodies
positive;Antiphospholipid syndrome;Anti-platelet antibody positive;Anti-prothrombin antibody positive;Antiribosomal P antibody positive;Anti-RNA polymerase III antibody positive;Anti-saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody test positive;Anti-sperm antibody positive;Anti-SRP antibody positive;Antisynthetase syndrome;Anti-thyroid antibody positive;Anti-transglutaminase antibody increased;Anti-VGCC antibody positive;Anti-VGKC antibody positive;Anti-vimentin antibody positive;Antiviral prophylaxis;Antiviral treatment;Anti-zinc transporter 8 antibody positive;Aortic embolus;Aortic thrombosis;Aortitis;Aplasia pure red cell;Aplastic anaemia;Application site thrombosis;Application site vasculitis;Arrhythmia;Arterial bypass occlusion;Arterial bypass thrombosis;Arterial thrombosis;Arteriovenous fistula thrombosis;Arteriovenous graft site stenosis;Arteriovenous graft thrombosis;Arteritis;Arteritis coronary;Arthralgia;Arthritis;Arthritis enteropathic;Ascites;Aseptic cavernous sinus thrombosis;Aspartate aminotransferase abnormal;Aspartate aminotransferas increased;Aspartate-glutamate-transporter deficiency;AST to platelet ratio index increased;AST/ALT ratio abnormal;Asthma;Asymptomatic COVID-19;Ataxia;Atheroembolism;Atonic seizures;Atrial thrombosis;Atrophic thyroiditis;Atypical benign partial epilepsy;Atypical pneumonia;Aura;Autoantibody positive;Autoimmune anaemia;Autoimmune aplastic anaemia;Autoimmune arthritis;Autoimmune blistering disease;Autoimmune cholangitis;Autoimmune colitis;Autoimmune demyelinating disease;Autoimmune dermatitis;Autoimmune disorder;Autoimmune encephalopathy;Autoimmune endocrine disorder;Autoimmune enteropathy;Autoimmune eye disorder;Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia;Autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia;Autoimmune hepatitis;Autoimmune hyperlipidaemia;Autoimmune hypothyroidism;Autoimmune inner ear disease;Autoimmune lung disease;Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome;Autoimmune myocarditis;Autoimmune myositis;Autoimmune nephritis;Autoimmune neuropathy;Autoimmune neutropenia;Autoimmune
pancreatitis;Autoimmune pancytopenia;Autoimmune pericarditis;Autoimmune
retinopathy;Autoimmune thyroid disorder;Autoimmune thyroiditis;Autoimmune
uveitis;Autoinflammation with infantile enterocolitis;Autoinflammatory disease;Automatism epileptic;Autonomic nervous system imbalance;Autonomic seizure;Axial spondyloarthritis;Axillary vein thrombosis;Axonal and demyelinating polyneuropathy;Axonal neuropathy;

Pfizer Smoking-gun “Secret Document”: Their Deadly COVID Vaccine

You get the idea. There are 9 pages of side effects in small print.

You already know that children, especially young boys, can get myocarditis from the vaccines but you should add to that list the serious possibility of them getting: a brain stem embolism, acute kidney injury, cardiac failure, frontal lobe epilepsy, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, herpes, interstitial lung disease, or Type 1 diabetes mellitus — just to pick a few very serious side effects from a very sobering list.

And don’t tell me that your chances are slim of getting injured. The U.S. government’s own database, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), has over 1 million reports of “adverse events” to the new vaccines — with 24,000 events listed as “death.” Pfizer was aware of more than 158,000 “adverse events” when they asked for approval from the FDA. People had serious issues after taking the Pfizer vaccine and Pfizer knew it before it sought approval for its vaccine. Look at this chart compiled by Pfizer itself.

Why would the FDA approve a new vaccine when 15,000 people had serious disorders of the nervous system after taking it?

There’s simply no good reason.

Court Unseals 400 Pages of Evidence, Clears Way for Whistleblower Lawsuit that Claims Pfizer ‘deliberately withheld crucial information’ about COVID Injection safety

From [HERE] A whistleblower lawsuit alleging fraud during Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trials is moving forward, after a district court judge unsealed the complaint, including 400 pages of exhibits.

Brook Jackson in January 2021 sued Pfizer and two companies the drugmaker contracted with to work on the trials: Ventavia Research Group and ICON PLC.

Jackson worked for Ventavia for a brief period in 2020 before being fired after she filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over alleged improprieties she observed during the vaccine trials.

She also gave The BMJ a cache of internal company documents, photos and recordings highlighting alleged wrongdoing by Ventavia.

Jackson filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, under the False Claims Act. The lawsuit includes several charges of fraud and retaliation on the part of both Ventavia and Pfizer.

The complaint remained under seal until Feb. 10, when U.S. District Court Judge Michael Truncale ordered it unsealed.

Pfizer ‘deliberately withheld crucial information’ about vaccine’s safety

According to Jackson’s lawsuit, Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON “deliberately withheld crucial information from the United States that calls the safety and efficacy of their vaccine into question.”

The lawsuit states:

“Defendants concealed violations of both their clinical trial protocol and federal regulations, including falsification of clinical trial documents.

“Due to [the] Defendants’ scheme, millions of Americans have received a misbranded vaccination which is potentially not as effective as represented.”

The core allegations of Jackson’s lawsuit include claims against Ventavia and Pfizer of:

• Making or using false records or statements to cause claims to be paid.

• Presentation of false and/or fraudulent claims.

• Making or using false records or statements material to false and/or fraudulent claims.

• Retaliation.

For instance, Jackson alleges:

“From 2020 to the present, Defendants [Ventavia and Pfizer] knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, false records or statements that were material to false and/or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the United States [Department of Defense, or DoD]. These false records or statements include the clinical trial protocol Pfizer submitted to the United States and the falsified source documents and data behind Defendants’ trial results and EUA application.

“By creating and carrying out their fraudulent schemes, Defendants knowingly and repeatedly violated … the False Claims Act. Defendants’ false records were material to Pfizer’s claims for payment for the vaccine at issue. The United States DoD would not have paid Pfizer if it knew that the clinical trial protocol was not complied with by Defendants, because the protocol violations call the integrity and validity of both the entire clinical trial and Pfizer’s EUA into question.

“Defendants’ false records also went to the very essence of the bargain the United States contracted for. DoD contracted to purchase vaccines found effective by a valid clinical trial conducted according to the protocol submitted by Pfizer. The integrity of the entire clinical trial was compromised by the trial protocol violations, false source documents, and the false data that resulted, which calls the vaccine’s EUA into question. Had the United States DoD known of Defendants’ false records, it would not have paid Pfizer.

“Defendants’ use, or causation of use, of material false records was a foreseeable factor in the United States DoD’s loss and a consequence of Defendants’ schemes. By virtue of Defendants’ actions, the United States DoD has suffered actual damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each false and/or fraudulent claim.”

Jackson is requesting damages, including back pay, in addition to reinstatement of her position with Ventavia.

Ventavia, which describes itself as the largest privately owned clinical research company in Texas, operated several sites where clinical trials were taking place on behalf of Pfizer.

Jackson, a regional director for Ventavia, was hired by the company when Pfizer contracted with it to conduct its phase 3 vaccine trial.

Jackson, who possessed over 15 years’ worth of experience working with clinical trials, “repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues” during the approximately two weeks she was employed by Ventavia.

On Sept. 25, 2020, Jackson emailed the FDA, listing a dozen concerns she said she had witnessed. These included:

• Lack of timely follow-up for patients who experienced adverse events from the trial.

• Protocol deviations that went unreported.

• Retaliation against and targeting of Ventavia employees who reported such problems.

• Trial participants being placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff.

• Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures.

• Wrongly labeled laboratory specimens.

Jackson provided documents indicating falsified data, blind trial failures and awareness on the part of at least one Ventavia executive that members of the company’s staff were “falsifying data.”

Jackson’s documents also provided evidence of administrators who had “no training” or medical certifications, or who provided “very little oversight” during the trials.

Several internal company emails would be copied to a Pfizer official, who would respond to some of the correspondence.

The documentation provided by Jackson also demonstrated that she had discussed with Ventavia executives the possibility of the FDA conducting an unannounced inspection. The executives were described as “dreading” such a possibility.

According to Jackson, she received an acknowledgment email from the FDA and a follow-up phone call from an FDA inspector, but no further communication.

Ventavia fired her within hours of her contacting the FDA.

Ventavia executive on Pfizer vaccine trial: ‘cleanup on aisle five’

As reported by investigative journalist Matt Taibbi, a recording of a Ventavia executive revealedthe individual in question referred to the problems with the vaccine trial as “cleanup on aisle five” and that this same executive pressed Jackson as to whether she had revealed information to outsiders.

This led Jackson to contact The BMJ, which in November 2021 published an article based on the evidence she had provided highlighting Ventavia’s repeated failures.

Journalist Paul Thacker, who had previously investigated financial ties between “Big Pharma” and physicians for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, wrote The BMJ article.

In November 2020, Ventavia appeared to have confirmed its knowledge of problems that occurred with the vaccine trial, and claimed that it would conduct an investigation.

Nevertheless, Pfizer continued its relationship with Ventavia, hiring it as a research subcontractor for at least four other trials, including trialing the COVID vaccine for children, young adults, pregnant women and the safety of a booster dose.

The FDA, despite knowledge of the allegations against Pfizer and Ventavia, went ahead and granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, including for children 5 to 11 years old.

The FDA in August 2021 stated that it inspected only nine of the trial’s 153 sites. None of Ventavia’s sites were included. (A 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General found the FDA inspected only 1% of clinical trial sites).

Ventavia went on the offensive against Jackson, claiming that:

“Ms. Jackson worked for us for only 18 days and, as a result, did not complete the requisite training for the role for which she was hired. We are confident in our practices and procedures in conducting clinical trials, and, should her case move forward, we will respond to the litigation accordingly.”

Ventavia later, in a Feb. 11 statement, modified its claims about Jackson, writing:

“Although Jackson was hired to oversee certain sites and aspects of clinical trials, she was only employed with Ventavia for 18 days, and, as a result, did not have the longevity with the company to complete the training for the role for which she was hired.”

However, according to Thacker, “[s]everal documents show that Jackson worked on Pfizer’s clinical trial.” These documents include a clinical trial delegation log which lists Jackson as a participant.

Also, according to Thacker, dozens of media organizations also failed to issue retractions of their reports which alleged Jackson had no direct involvement with the vaccine trials.

Jackson threatened to file a separate defamation lawsuit against Ventavia over its characterization of her employment.

The BMJ, in turn, was targeted for publishing the report. Facebook throttled the report and issued warnings to its users not to share it, following a report by one of the company’s contracted “fact checkers,” Lead Stories, claiming the report would not “disqualify” the overall trial of the Pfizer vaccine.

Lead Stories went so far as to describe The BMJ as a “blog.”

The BMJ said that it is “considering all available options” in terms of a potential legal claim against Facebook, which recently admitted in a court of law that its “fact checks” are “pure opinion.”

Feds won’t intervene in whistleblower case … for now

The documents pertaining to Jackson’s lawsuit were released after U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys declined to intervene on her behalf in the case.

The DOJ filed a “notice of election to decline intervention,” asking the court to get “written consent” in the event the parties to the lawsuit wish to dismiss or settle the case.

The government also reserved the right to intervene at a later date.

Neither the DOJ lawyers nor the FDA offered an explanation for why the DOJ chose not to intervene.

Jackson said that she was not surprised the federal government opted not to intervene, but expressed her “total disappointment,” adding that “[w]e’re going to pursue the case without the help of the government.”

While Jackson has stated her belief that the likelihood of her case succeeding is low, she also saidthat “[i]t’s just a chance I have to take. I just feel like somebody has to be held accountable.”

Ventavia also remarked upon the government’s refusal to intervene. Lauren Foreman, the company’s director of business development and communications, wrote in an email to Just the News, “[w]e are gratified the government has declined the case.”

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'

Jackson apparently lost her original Texas-based lawyers in October 2021, but was able to attain new legal representation in December 2021, headed by Los Angeles-based attorney Robert Barnes.

The federal government’s refusal to intervene comes in contrast to the FDA welcoming Pfizer’s offer to intervene in a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the agency.. A federal judge ruled Pfizer must disclose redacted versions of nearly 400,000 pages of documents pertaining to its issuance of an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA claimed it could not release the documents at a fast enough rate to meet the demands of the court or the plaintiffs in the case.

Pfizer then asked the court to intervene, ostensibly to “help” the FDA with the process of releasing the documents.

A federal court rejected Pfizer’s bid to intervene.

Pfizer lobbies to limit False Claims Act

Jackson’s primary lawsuit against Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON pertains to the False Claims Act — a piece of legislation dating back to the Civil War which rewards whistleblowers who file anti-fraud lawsuits against contractors on behalf of the government.

The law, originally enacted in response to defense contractor fraud during the Civil War, has to date returned $67 billion to the U.S. government.

While the False Claims Act has been in place since the Civil War, it was significantly eroded by a 2016 Supreme Court decision, Universal Health Services v. United States, which found a lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act could be dismissed if the contractor in question continued to be paid by the government.

This resulted in a series of federal court decisions in which fraud cases were dismissed, while the DOJ, via its 2018 Granston Memo, instructed government attorneys to reject more False Claims Act lawsuits.

In the two years that followed, dismissals of False Claims Act cases indeed increased.

The decision significantly expanded the scope of a legal principle known as “materiality.” As interpreted by the court, if the government continued paying a contractor despite the contractor’s fraudulent activity, then the fraud was not considered “material” to the contract.

The issue of materiality is a core component of Jackson’s lawsuit against Ventavia, Pfizer and ICON.

Proposed legislation, the False Claims Amendments Act of 2021, which was introduced in Congress in July 2021, would again bolster the law, strengthening the original law’s anti-retaliation provisions by installing new safeguards against industry-level blacklisting of whistleblowers seeking employment.

The proposed act also would adjust the materiality standard to include instances where government payments have continued despite knowledge of fraud.

This could affect Pfizer, which has contracts with the U.S. government to provide COVID vaccines.

The bill passed through committee by a 15-7 vote and was added to the Senate’s legislative calendar on Nov. 16, 2021. However, no action has been taken since.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Pfizer hired a well-connected lobbyist, Hazen Marshall, and the law firm Williams & Jensen to lobby against the False Claims Amendments Act of 2021, as previously reported by The Defender.

Notably, under the terms of a 2009 settlement, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines — the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) — in a False Claims Act case stemming from allegations of illegal marketing of off-label products not approved by the FDA.

Pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and Merck have also been forced to pay multimillion-dollar settlements resulting from False Claims Act cases.

Scientists Warn that “Gain of Function" (which means making infections more infective or weaponizing viruses) research needs to be stopped immediately

From [HERE] A group of scientists organized by University of Hamburg nanoscientist Dr. Roland Weisendanger has called for an immediate end to controversial gain of function research in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

In their declaration, they pointed out that the pandemic has shown us just how devastating it can be when pathogens like those studied in gain of function research become easily transmissible among humans, even if the current virus’s mortality rate is less than one percent.

The point of gain of function research is to make viruses more dangerous in order to study them. Defenders of the practice believe that it will help scientists prepare to handle natural mutations and viruses. However, critics believe that not only is it far too dangerous and has too much potential for the viruses to be accidentally or intentionally released, but it could take thousands of years for a virus to evolve in the way that a scientist evolves it in a lab – if it ever happens at all. In fact, some scientists say that other scientists are carrying out gain of function research for no practical purpose, largely using it as a resume builder.

Nevertheless, gain of function research is being carried out around the world with very little oversight. In many cases, the work is being funded by taxpayers.

This type of research was being carried out in Wuhan, China, and many sources report it received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Although Dr. Anthony Fauci has tried to deny this, critics say he is using carefully chosen words to cover up the true nature of the work. It is also worth noting that the NIH has watered down its definition of gain of function in the last decade in order to find a way around a funding pause that was instituted following accidents involving engineered bird flu.

The new definition lists gain of function research as research that involves “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens”. This allowed the research in Wuhan to avoid an official gain of function classification because the bat viruses being studied did not spread among humans at the time, although the scientists did intend to test how they could mutate in a way that would threaten humans. Nearly all experts maintain that Eco Health Alliance’s research does fall under the gain of function definition.

Dr. Weisendanger warned: “We need independent agencies to control this, like for nuclear power reactors.”

Other viruses studied by gain of function researchers could be far deadlier than Covid

The declaration says that viruses being studied by gain of function researchers have the potential to cause far more harm than Covid.

It states: “There are indications that much more dangerous viruses such as MERS, Ebola or Nipah viruses are being genetically manipulated in various biotechnology laboratories around the world. The outcome of such experiments is often difficult or impossible to predict. However, no biotechnology laboratory in the world is safe enough to guarantee that such genetically modified viruses will not escape.”

It goes on to add that such events could prove fatal for a significant proportion of the global population.

They closed their declaration by appealing to politicians around the world to put an end to this type of research immediately as the risk of potentially killing so many people is simply too great. They also demanded that this prohibition be controlled by an independent international supervisory authority that is also tasked with continuous monitoring.

“Humans have learned to intervene in the basic molecular building blocks of life. This gives rise to many opportunities to improve human life, but also to a great responsibility to preserve creation. Let us take this responsibility seriously before it is too late,” they warned.

After COVID Shots Killed a Doctor and a 23 Year Old who was Mandated to Get Vaxxed, 2 Lawsuits in India Allege COVID Injection Manufacturers, Bill Gates and the Government are Committing Mass Murder

From [HERE] “Hence, it is clear that the accused are habitual offenders of earning profits by selling vaccines with death causing side effects and therefore, they are in the category of ‘Mass Murderers.’ The minimum punishment for such offences is death penalty.” ~ Smt. Kiran Yadav (Petitioner) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Respondents)

By Catherine Austin Fitts

In the United States, vaccine manufacturers and those involved in implementing vaccine programs enjoy complete liability protection—but not so in India.

In this week’s interview with Indian Bar Association (IBA) member Dipali Ojha, we discuss two groundbreaking lawsuits filed in Bombay’s High Court for murder by vaccine. The IBA is an informal association of lawyers committed to maintaining—and restoring—the Rule of Law through increased transparency and accountability, and it has been drawing English-language attention to the two complaints. The Bar Council of India is the country’s official bar association.

Both Writ Petitions seek to prosecute various government officials and entities as well as two key individuals—Bill Gates (described by IBA as “Vaccine Syndicate Kingpin and toxic philanthropist”) and Adar Poonawalla (CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer)—for deaths resulting from the AstraZeneca-developed and Serum-Institute-manufactured Covishield injection.

The first petitioner is a mother whose healthy 23-year-old son died within a few hours of his one, “unwillingingly” taken dose of Covishield, while the second petitioner is a father whose daughter, a dentist, was compelled “by deception” to take Covishield. She, too, died following the first dose, and a government committee published a report conclusively attributing her death to the vaccine. The petitions draw on extensive legal precedent from Indian and common law. Further legal actions, both criminal and civil, are expected from other activist groups.

As reported in the Indian Journal of Medical Research and the financial press in late 2020 and early 2021, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded Gavi Vaccine Alliance gave the Serum Institute hundreds of millions to make Covishield. However, this is far from the first time that vaccination programs sponsored by Gates have killed—and elicited anger and controversy in India.

Biden, Unaccountable for Countless COVID Injection Deaths, Falsely Claims Gun Makers are the Only Industry That Can’t Be Sued. Yet Feds Gave Vax Makers Total Immunity for Any Injection Injury or Death

AUTHORITY BY ITS NATURE IS UNACCOUNTABLE AND IMMUNE FOR HARMS CAUSED. IS BIDEN AN INCOMPETENT, FUDDY-DUDDY, OLDY BUT GOODY PUPPETICIAN OR JUST A ROTTEN MOTHERFUCKER? ALTHOUGH HIS LIARABILITY RATINGS ARE HIGH, HE REMAINS VASTLY UNPOPULAR. HE PROBABLY WON’T BE ALIVE FOR HIS NUREMBERG TRIAL. According to FUNKTIONARY:

liarbility – the ability and commensurate propensity to prevaricate. “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” ~H. L. Mencken. A liar bears false witness against others, but a hypocrite bears false witness against himself. (See: Politicians, Internal Revenue Service, White Lie, Black Lie, Legislators, Hypocrite, True Believers, Legistraitors, Grey Lie & Affair)

From [CHD] President Biden during Tuesday’s State of the Union address falsely claimed the billion-dollar gun manufacturing industry is the only industry in the U.S. that can’t be sued — when in fact, vaccine makers in the U.S. have total liability protection for injuries or deaths caused by COVID vaccines.

“Repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that can’t be sued,” Biden said. “These laws don’t infringe on the Second Amendment. They save lives.”

CNN fact-checked Biden’s claim and said it was “false.”

“Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they the only industry with some liability protections,” CNN said. “Under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers cannot be held liable for the use of their products in a crime.”

But gun makers can be held liable for “negligence, breach of contract regarding the purchase of a gun or certain damages from defects in the design of a gun.”

According to CNN:

“Other industries also have some exemptions in liability. For example, vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable in a civil suit for damages from a vaccine-related injury or death. And for the next four years, pharmaceutical companies developing the Covid-19 vaccines will have immunity from liability under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.

“Those who claim to have been harmed by vaccines may receive money from the government, not the pharmaceutical company, via the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”

Although CNN was correct that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for harm caused by vaccines, those injured by COVID vaccines cannot seek compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

Instead, claims must be submitted through an obscure government program called the “Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).” The CICP, which almost never awards money, is the only program that accepts claims related to COVID vaccines and other COVID countermeasures. The program provides compensation only for medical expenses, lost employment income and survivor death benefits as “the payer of last resort,” covering only what remains unpaid or unpayable by other third parties such as health insurance. [MORE]

Attorney Aaron Siri makes it plain,

The federal government has given complete immunity to Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J for any injury caused by their Covid-19 vaccines.  That’s right: you cannot sue them if you are injured by their Covid-19 vaccine.  (See Note 1 to read the law yourself.)  So, while their product may not give you immunity, Pfizer and Moderna are guaranteed immunity.   

And it gets even worse.  These companies are even immune for – hold your breath – willful misconduct.  That may sound crazy, but it is shockingly true.  You can only sue them for willful misconduct if the federal government first sues them for such conduct.  (See Note 2 to read the law yourself.)  And what are the odds the federal government will do so after wildly promoting the vaccine?  About as likely as the FDA ever admitting they promoted a vaccine that caused widespread harm. 

So, despite Pfizer’s history of willful misconduct, and that this is Moderna’s first product, and that they are going to rake in over $100 billion selling a product millions of Americans are mandated to take, you cannot sue them for injuries.  That seems fair.  After all, we should take pity on these companies since this revenue may not be sufficient to pay for the injuries. 

What is most incredible is that we are talking about a product that even the Director of the CDC said does not prevent transmission.  So, you cannot say “no” to the product without losing your job, cannot sue if you are injured, cannot see the data underlying its licensure, in order to potentially protect … you!  What?!  

It is dystopian to fire someone from their job for refusing to receive an injection of a product that does not prevent transmission but is rather for that person’s “benefit.”  Let me repeat.  The government cares about you so much that in order to get you to take your medicine it is going to make sure you cannot earn a living until you roll up your sleeve like an obedient child and take the jab.  But don’t worry, it is so safe that the government did you the favor of making sure you cannot sue the companies that sell this medicine, even for willful misconduct.

If this form of authoritarianism is permitted to stand, there is no limit to what the government can mandate you to do in the name of public health.  If a Covid-19 vaccine can be mandated, then there is no reason the government cannot mandate every drug a doctor believes you should receive for your own good.  Why not? 

The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.  Never.  It is the last and final backstop to the dangerous authoritarianism that results when we permit the government to decide what must be injected or placed into or onto our bodies.   Whatever your views are on the Covid-19 vaccine itself, every American should reject letting the government decide what medical procedures they must engage in to have a job. [MORE]

Note 1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d the federal government “Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19” provides that “manufacturers” of “any vaccine, used to treat, … prevent or mitigate COVID-19” shall enjoy “[l]iablity immunity ,” including, “from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a [COVID-19 vaccine].”

Note 2.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(5) “If an act or omission by a manufacturer or distributor with respect to a covered countermeasure, which act or omission is alleged under subsection (e)(3)(A) to constitute willful misconduct, … such act or omission shall not constitute ‘willful misconduct’ … if—(i)neither the Secretary nor the Attorney General has initiated an enforcement action with respect to such act or omission; or (ii)such an enforcement action has been initiated and the action has been terminated or finally resolved without a covered remedy.”

The Unelected Rulers at the CDC Ease Mask Guidelines, but Have Uncontrollable Authority to Re-Impose them Based on Made-Up Science-Free Metrics (Vax %, hospitalization/infection rates) as They See Fit

mask GUIDELINES AND MANDATES ARE BASED ON SCIENCE FREE, completely arbitrary metrics, like vaccination percentage, hospitalization rates, and infection rates. These are all red herrings as everyone knows from the only two randomized trials (Denmark and Bangladesh) that cloth and surgical masks do not work, and from real-world data that N95 masks don’t work either. See the mask section of Incriminating Evidence for details. GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR DEPENDENT MEDIA CLAIM TO BE followING the science to keep THE community safe as possible But the randomized trials are the highest scientific proof and they clearly show that masks don’t work. What science ARE THEY following? Surely not the latest flawed non-randomized CDC study that UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad ripped to shreds in his Substack and his YouTube channel? [MORE]

From [HERE] On Friday, February 25, 2022, the CDC significantly eased COVID-19 mask guidelines. The new guidelines are based on COVID-19 community levels.

As the COVID-19 surge fueled by the Omicron variant began to retreat, many states eased or planned to ease COVID-19 masking mandates. On Friday, February 25, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) followed suit when it released much-anticipated updated mask guidelines based upon Community Level metrics. Under the new guidelines, most healthy people across the U.S. are no longer advised to mask in indoors environments. Masking is recommended only in areas of high community transmission, determined by hospitalization rates, hospital ICU usage, and new cases.

The new CDC guidelines make no distinction between vaccinated or unvaccinated individuals.  The CDC continues to recommend “layered prevention strategies,” which include staying up to date on vaccines and wearing masks, to prevent severe illness and a potential strain on the healthcare system.

Low COVID-19 Community Level

For those who live in counties with a “low” COVID-19 Community Level, the CDC guidelines do not recommend masking in any setting, leaving mask use up to the individual. However, the CDC continues to recommend staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines, and testing when experiencing symptoms.

Medium Community Level

For those who live in counties with a “medium” COVID-19 Community Level and are either (1) immunocompromised or at high risk for severe illness; or (2) live with someone who is at high risk for severe illness, the CDC recommends they continue to wear a mask while indoors in public setting. In addition, the CDC continues to recommend that everyone in a “medium” Community Level stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines and test when experiencing symptoms.

High Community Level

For individuals who live in counties with a “high” COVID-19 Community Level, the CDC guidelines recommend that they continue to wear well-fitting masks while indoors in public, regardless of vaccination status or individual risk. For those who are immunocompromised or at high risk of severe illness, the CDC recommends a well-fitting masks or respirator.

While many counties remain at a high level, approximately 70% of Americans live in counties where guidelines have now eased. Employers may check individual Community Levels by county here.

Notwithstanding, employees who are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, test positive for COVID-19, or have been exposed to COVID-19 should continue to wear a mask according to the CDC. Employers who wish to continue requiring that employees wear a mask, may continue to do so (subject to state or local laws banning masking requirements).