1. Omicron appeared in South Africa, a far away place. A week later, it occurred all over the world despite airport testing and all the checking done everywhere. How did it spread so far and so quick ??? BECAUSE it, like all Covid viruses, was intentionally spread by aerosol in each and every country of the world :)
2. Until now, everyone and every health professional knows that children are at NO risk of being infected. But the PTB have a reason to jab the kids as explained by Mercola: Liability !
3. The timing of Omicron's release is a perfect match with the governments announcements to begin vaccinating children ...
Children are safe from
COVID-19
Why children should
Not receive the COVID shot
More children have died
from COVID shot than from COVID
"In NY, childrens' hospitalization have quadrupled in 2 weeks"
"Children facing Omicron: everything suggests that we are going to have more cases in toddlers"
Update 04/2022:
Delta Worse for
Children Than Omicron: Study
The Real Reason They
Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
December 26, 2021
Story at-a-glance
The reason our
children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to
get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule
Once a vaccine is
added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial
liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety
issues and withholds that information
Products must satisfy
four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an
emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and
potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks
of the product; and there can be no adequate, approved and available
alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met,
EUA cannot be granted or maintained
According to a U.S.
federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not
interchangeable
Comirnaty is not fully
approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to
be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not
licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not yet available in the United
States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination
schedule, to get the liability shield
In this interview,
Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the
COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2
infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.
Mayer, board president
of Children’s Health Defense —California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured;
not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years
ago. (On a side note, her great-great-grandfather was Oscar Mayer, founder of
the Oscar Mayer company, which the family sold to General Foods in 1981.)
Mayer graduated from
Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in
finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When
she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer
research.
In preparation for a
family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A
vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid,
which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these
shots that triggered her health problems.
“They gave me brain
damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s
being 80% housebound, and I really I didn’t know if I was ever going to get
better.
I went through a whole
bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately,
none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until
we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.
It’s literally just a
cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine
schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the
vaccines.
I had encephalitis and
encephalopathy … digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day —
flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in
my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health
recovery.
I then became an
award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a
health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s
Health Defense.”
The COVID Jab Tragedy
While many vaccines
have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the
Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a
vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for
COVID.
What’s more, while
lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the
vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being
highlighted by the COVID jabs.
Many now know of
someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly
after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of
injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn
highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.
According to Mayer,
the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade
liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination
schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.
Vaccine Makers Want
Zero Liability
The COVID shots
currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under
emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been
fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:
“I put together a
slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video
interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what’s really
going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to
meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the
behaviors [we’re now seeing].
They’re falling all
over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other
very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start
to clarify it right now.
This presentation is
all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government
are never going to let go of … These are the things they’re guarding with their
lives.
First of all, they
need to guard the emergency … so they cannot have any early treatments. Those
cannot exist. They’re also going for full liability protection, and children
will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.
Vaccine makers love
EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you’re injured by
an EUA vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, you can’t sue the person who
gave it to you, you can’t sue the institution where you got the shot.
You have to go through
something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program,
where they’ll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for
pharmaceuticals and lost wages.
Now, if you’re vaccine
injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using
pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you
sicker. You’ll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you’re
going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that’s going to
get you better if you’re vaccine injured is natural treatments …
That’s the kind of
treatment you’re going to need, and that’s not even covered, even if you were
to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it’s a
child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme
disease, they’re paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.
If you can’t work and
you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don’t know how you ever get
by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”
Since its inception,
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused
by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third
of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the
end rarely provides adequate compensation.
“If you do end up
getting compensation … they don’t pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out
year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually
going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.
That’s been said to me
a bunch of times by people who’ve been through this horrible process. Now, the
CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no
approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s
note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation,
but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]
Stages of Liability:
EUA
In her slide show,
Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA
shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long
as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.
“Investigational is a
synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it
directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on
[without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical
treatment.
[The Nuremberg Code]
is not a law, but it’s a code under which the whole world is supposed to be
operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as
well … So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered
de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it’s basically the same as
an outright mandate.
It’s illegal medical
segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.]
So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let
you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that’s medical
segregation.
That is illegal and I
do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn’t either. Any access
privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are
illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a
bracelet … that’s also illegal because that creates segregation and medical
apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”
Importantly, mass
violation of the law does not make something legal.
“If we all drove 100
miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly
changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it’s not going to happen. Mass violation of
the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses
and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn’t make it legal. It’s
all illegal …
Now, they know full
well that it’s illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows
it’s illegal. But what they’re counting on is that the court cases overturning
their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going
to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it’s worked.”
Stages of Liability:
Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling
The next stage is full
licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes
liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of
course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be
financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.
This is the holy grail
if you’re a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully
licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children’s
schedule. ~ Alix Mayer
To get immunity
against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product
onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to
mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:
“This is the holy
grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want
it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the
children’s schedule.”
DOJ Redefines Medical
‘Consequence’
In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2
the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without
punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments.
Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than
the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.
However, in July 2021,
the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences”
just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss
or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a
person refuses an EUA vaccine.
“But this type of
consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says.
“That’s not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely
means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of
authority.
They also stated twice
— and this is so hard to understand because it’s just beyond reason — that the
right to accept or refuse an EUA product is ‘purely informational.’
Literally, you can
read that you could die by taking it, but it’s purely informational. You cannot
act on it. That’s what the DOJ says. Again, it’s not adjudicated, so it doesn’t
mean anything. It’s an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said
before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”
Four Standards for EUA
There are four
standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not
met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and
Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the
emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market.
And that doesn’t just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even
surgical masks.
The second standard is
evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater
effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order
to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In
another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical
trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness
in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.
Now, you probably
heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that
was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two
parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it
actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3
For example, if a
study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who
didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated
group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In
terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in
1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.
The take-home message
here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously
low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up.
Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s
more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.
“I remember an
analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the
probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went
from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.
The third standard is
that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known
and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s
overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.
The fourth and last
standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available
alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and
ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is
not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then
all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the
market.
“This is a four-legged
stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your
EUA products off the market … by law. I put [state of] emergency and
[treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they
have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.
This means that every
variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the
emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about
these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the
emergency going to keep their products on the market.
You would think this
emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90%
vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in
the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t]
go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full
liability shield.”
Comirnaty’s Quasi
Approval
With regard to
Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more
complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:
“Comirnaty’s quasi
approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn’t have to do with Pfizer, and this is
why I’m doing this presentation because I’m going to explain what’s going on
with that.
This is the race to
get liability protection. Remember, that’s the other stranglehold that they
want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots
are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.
There’s all this
confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it
interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate
legal? It’s all the same answer. No, no, no, no.
The FDA issued an
intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty.
It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying
it’s ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it’s ‘legally
distinct.’
In that same approval,
they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They
want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they
did this BS dual approval.
So, [Comirnaty] is
licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but
it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not available in the United
States. It’s available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not
available in the United States because they’re really scared of liability.
Now, are you ready for
this one ? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for
approval.’5 It doesn’t say it’s approved anywhere in the document. And they
buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.
Here’s what they said;
‘We’re deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16.
For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in
individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages
have not been completed.’
Why did they do this?
Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18.
That’s a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country.
Why 16?
The reason they did 16
is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination
schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That’s why
this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”
Comirnaty Is Not Fully
Licensed
This confusion is
clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is
interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it’s also legally distinct. Courts
have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the
DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They’re not interchangeable.
That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn’t have full approval and
it’s not on the market.
“Military members
involved in lawsuits are challenging the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. They
filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month
rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are
interchangeable. So, we’re still hammering on this legally, but a court has
ruled that they’re not interchangeable.
[Editor’s note: This
information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are
ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme
Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging
Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]
So, how do we know
that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval
states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it’s an
EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn’t have
liability protection. Third, if it were available, it’s an alternative
[treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.
No. 4, the CDC
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it
for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children’s recommended
schedule. That’s how we know it’s not fully approved and on the market.
Here is the label for
Comirnaty. It says it’s emergency use authorization. It doesn’t say it’s fully
approved, because it’s not. But look at the safety information they are
recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who’ve
received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among
females and older males.
So, this is saying
that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the
anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and
children in schools have died of heart attacks. That’s what’s going on here.
And the reason they
have to declare this is because they know it. They know it’s happening. And the
only way they can be sued is if they know there’s a problem with their vaccine
and they don’t declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as
if it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s a very big deal. Young people are
dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID …
The holy grail is to
get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets
full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they’re going
after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate …
Every medical
intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn’t calculate for kids at
all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don’t prevent
transmission. They don’t prevent cases. They don’t prevent hospitalization or
death.”
How You Can Help
Children’s Health
Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is
a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine,
when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately,
these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being
needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification.
They also have a
couple dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to
become a member on childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime
membership.
“That really helps us
with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the
stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you’re in California, you can join the
local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma,
and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.”
This book is an
absolute must-read and you know people are enjoying it as it has been No. 1 on
Amazon for the last month, which is very unusual for a book. It will likely be
one of the top best sellers of the entire year. So, get your copy before Sen.
Elizabeth Warren convinces Amazon to ban
No comments:
Post a Comment