CHD to Sue FDA for ‘Recklessly Endangering’ Children if Agency Authorizes Pfizer Vaccine for Children 5 to 11 Years Old

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today said it will take legal action against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if the agency grants Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged 5-11.

In a letter signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Dr. Meryl Nass, CHD board member, Kennedy and Nass wrote:

“CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke, and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.”

The letter was addressed to Dr. Arnold Monto, chairman of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), committee members and all FDA staff.

VRBPAC members are set to meet Tuesday to consider and likely vote on whether to grant EUA for the Pfizer vaccine for 5- to 11-year olds.

In May, the FDA authorized Pfizer’s vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds. Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not yet been authorized for children under 18.

The letter outlines 12 reasons the FDA should not authorize the pediatric vaccine and provides supporting evidence to back up each argument.

Read the letter:

Dear Chairman Monto, VRBPAC Members and FDA Staff:

We write to you on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit organization devoted to the health of people and the planet. We have actively followed your work to evaluate, authorize and approve vaccines for the American public and particularly children.

We are aware that you are likely to authorize Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged 5-11 at your meeting on Oct. 26. Your authorization thus will expose over 20 million children in the U.S., and millions more around the world, to potential COVID-19 vaccination of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) product.

We are writing to put you on notice that should you grant EUA status to this pediatric EUA vaccine, CHD is poised to take legal action against you and other Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voting members as well as the FDA.

CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.

We briefly outline why such authorization would be reckless:

1. The risks demonstrably outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination for young children. Deaths and hospitalizations are rare and have been inflated inaccurately.

2. Nearly half of all children have natural immunity to COVID, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). There is no ethical justification for superfluous vaccination that will put children at elevated risk of vaccine harm.

3. Some children likely will die or be permanently injured from these vaccines based on the authorization for children 12-16.

4. The clinical trials for the pediatric vaccine were too small to detect safety signals for a population in the millions.

5. There are no long-term safety data for COVID vaccination of young children, making this an experiment rather than appropriate medical prevention.

6. Unethical coercive pressure will be applied to children and their parents, as has occurred with older children and adults. To grant authorization is to abet this unethical coercion that violates the Nuremberg Code’s first principle.

7. There is no available care for children injured by COVID shots. The science and medicine have not yet developed, and most families will be unable to cover the costs of potential catastrophic injuries.

8. VRBPAC members should not participate in an exercise disguising a foregone conclusion. The president’s purchase of 65 million pediatric doses, the CDC guidance for COVID vaccine delivery, the American Academy of Pediatrics’s promotion of COVID vaccination for children all call into question whether this committee’s deliberations mean anything.

If the administration is unprepared to wait for your advice, let alone heed it, you should signify your disapproval on behalf of the country the FDA is meant to protect.

9. First, do no harm. You are physicians who owe a duty to patients and medical ethics. If you authorize these shots, given all you know, will you be upholding your oath? If not, is it possible that your acts could later be seen as reason to remove your medical licenses?

10. The liability-free nature of your deliberations may not stand the test of time. In the fullness of time, your decisions may not have the liability protection that they currently enjoy. Under the PREP Act of 2005, all actors advancing an EUA agenda for medical countermeasures enjoy liability protection, absent willful misconduct.

Nonetheless, if at a later point these shots are deemed non-therapeutic gene products that you knowingly and recklessly authorized, and which were then distributed to children as a direct result of your decision, it is possible that liability could later attach.

11. There is no COVID emergency for children of this age.

12. There are safer drugs that could be used prophylactically and therapeutically for COVID in children. There is extensive and compelling medical evidence for this assertion — and the choice to eschew use of these drugs in favor of a demonstrably dangerous vaccine is arbitrary and capricious.

We ask that you carefully consider all the information above before making any recommendation to authorize Pfizer’s vaccine in the 5 through 11 year age group at your meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 26.

Sincerely yours,

RFK, Jr. Meryl Nass

RFK, Jr. Meryl Nass

Let’s investigate the basis for claims that children aged 5 through 11 need to be vaccinated for COVID.

1. The truth is that children aged 5-11 are at extremely low risk of hospitalization, death, MIS-C or Long COVID.

a. What is the actual risk of hospitalization, death and MIS-C in aged 5 through 11-year-old children? This age group has the lowest rate of severe disease and death than all other age cohorts.

CDC reports 94 COVID-19 deaths with COVID since Jan. 1, 2020, in the 5 through 11 age group. However, CDC designates these as deaths “involving COVID” or “with COVID” rather than due to COVID, according to CDC’s chart below.

b. In the October 2021 Pediatrics, a report by David McCormick et al. showed that of 112 pediatric deaths associated with SARS-CoV-2, 86% had comorbidities, especially obesity, neurologic and developmental conditions. The mean age of decedents was 17.

c. It is impossible to separate deaths with COVID from those due to COVID in the U.S. because the CDC does not distinguish them. But what we do know is that child deaths due to COVID in Germany, according to the BILD newspaper, were 20 in May 2021, in a country with 85 million people.

Pediatric deaths were “under 30” through March 2021, according to the UK government, with 60 million people.

Fatality ratios

Fatality ratios

Covid deaths in children

Covid deaths in children

d. Regarding MIS-C, the data are sparse. The UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization stated on Sept. 3, based on data from the UK, Canada and the U.S.:

“There are no clinical trial data of vaccine efficacy against PIMS-TS [MIS-C], nor any real-world estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Post-COVID-19 syndrome (often called ‘long COVID’) has been reported in children and young people.

“Existing studies suggest that longer-term (≥8 weeks) symptoms following SARS-CoV2 infection occur in about <1% to 10% of persons after COVID-19, with controlled studies generally reporting rates at the lower end of this range.”

e. Regarding hospitalizations, we have some case series from pediatric hospitals in the U.S. In one report in Hospital Pediatrics, of 146 hospitalized pediatric COVID cases during 5 months in 2020, only 20 (14%) were deemed “significantly symptomatic.”

Only 24 of the total were actually admitted because of COVID. Of those significantly symptomatic, 60% were obese and 35% had asthma. COVID-19 was either incidental or minimally related to the reason for hospitalization in 86% of the admissions.

Of the 4 pediatric deaths in this series, only one was attributed to COVID by the authors, in a “medically complex patient admitted for respiratory failure.”

A recent CDC MMWR publication on pediatric hospitalizations contained the following graph, based on which CDC claimed massive increases in pediatric hospitalizations this summer.

Weekly hospitalizations

Weekly hospitalizations

However, it should be compared to another CDC graph below, updated through Oct. 16: CDC’s graph of COVID-associated hospitalization rates by age. The gray dotted line represents the 5-11 age group.

It hugs the X axis, and has already dropped back to baseline since its slight uptick in the summer. The aqua line represents the 18-49 year group, the navy line represents the 50-64 year group and the red line 65 years and above.

These graphs and detailed reports from pediatric hospitals, including the report by Lauren Kushner et al., “‘For COVID’ or ‘With COVID’: Classification of SARS-CoV-2 Hospitalizations in Children” make clear that hospitalization rates due to COVID are essentially negligible in this age group, even during peaks of infection.

The reason CDC could claim steep increases in pediatric hospitalizations was because even a handful of additional hospitalizations caused a marked increase in the rate, and because it included hospitalizations in which COVID was an incidental finding.

Entire network

Entire network

f. Regarding MIS-C, this is a problem whose dimensions are uncertain, and for which the role of vaccinations is unknown.

2. Pediatric vaccinations cannot be justified as necessary for herd immunity, when herd immunity itself is impossible to achieve with current vaccines. Vaccinating children to protect adults is also unethical.

a. Given the rapid waning of protection and the inability of current vaccines to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, admitted by CDC Director Walensky, it is not possible to achieve herd immunity with vaccination.

In fact, the UK’s head of the Oxford Vaccine Group, Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, told Parliament that herd immunity due to vaccination was a myth, and “not a possibility.”

b. While protecting the elderly has sometimes been used as the justification for vaccinating children (for example, against influenza) it is unethical to have one group take on risk to protect another group. It is even more problematic when the group being asked to assume the risk, children, cannot give informed consent.

When the magnitude of the risk is significant (of myocarditis, for example) but has not been quantified, and the long-term risks of vaccination are unknown, demanding children shoulder this risk for others is ethically untenable.

3. We know nothing about the long-term risk of vaccination in children. The myocarditis risk immediately after vaccination in older children is considerable, potentially life-threatening, and increased exponentially with decreasing age.

a. The risk might be very high. The pediatric clinical trials are too small to quantify the risk from myocarditis and quantify the risk of most other adverse events.

FDA acknowledged, in its approval letter to BioNTech, c/o Pfizer on Aug. 23, that it was unable to assess the “known serious risks of myocarditis.”

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

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

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

FDA told BioNTech-Pfizer that since FDA was unable to assess the myocarditis risk, it expected BioNTech-Pfizer to do so. FDA wants Pfizer’s final reports on myocarditis to be submitted in 2024 and 2025.

Do you think it is okay to vaccinate tens or hundreds of millions of the world’s children before BioNTech-Pfizer tells us to what extent their vaccines damage childrens’ hearts?

b. According to the Jerusalem Post on Oct.7, the health ministry was considering whether “individuals vaccinated with the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may be asked to avoid strenuous exercise [including swimming] and other physical activity for one week after receiving each dose due to cases of myocarditis…”

c. Let’s review some of the data that has been presented at VRBPAC and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings this year.

VAERS Myocarditis

VAERS Myocarditis

Confining ourselves to males who received a second dose of an mRNA vaccine and reported myocarditis within a week of the shot to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), we see that the reported myocarditis rate in the age group 12-17 (62.7/million) was over 100 times greater than in the over-65 group (0.6/million).

Graphing these rates (below) we see that the rates increased exponentially as age decreased. Extrapolating from this graph we could expect the highest myocarditis rates in younger children.

Helen Branswell tweet

Helen Branswell tweet

Tweeting from the Oct. 21 ACIP meeting, esteemed reporter for STAT, Helen Branswell, informed us that the rate of myocarditis in military servicemembers under age 20 was over 100 cases per million.

The third graphic is the report to VAERS of a death in a 15-year-old, attributed to myocarditis, six days after receiving a COVID vaccination.



FDA’s Doran Fink pointed out at a recent meeting that we have no idea of the rate of subclinical myocarditis. Nor are there good data regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID vaccine-induced myocarditis in teens or other children.

Recall that a 2015 military study by Renata Engler et al. revealed a rate of subclinical myocarditis after a 1st smallpox vaccine to be one in thirty.

4. The evidence suggests that Pfizer is neither reliable nor trustworthy.

a. Pfizer is projected to earn $33 billion dollars this year in vaccine sales, and more than that next year. Do you honestly think Pfizer-BioNTech will try to identify the actual rate of myocarditis in children, when so much money is at stake?

I am sure you are aware that Pfizer is the world’s largest drug company, and also that Pfizer has paid more in fines to federal and state governments than any other pharmaceutical company.

b. An Oct. 19 Public Citizen report titled Pfizer’s Power, discussing Pfizer and its COVID vaccine contracts notes:

“neither Pfizer nor the U.S. government can make ‘any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated by it, or the relationship between the Pfizer and the Government hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other.’ The contract contains some exceptions for disclosures required by law.”

I recommend you read the entire brief report to understand the nature of the vaccine company whose product you are dealing with.

5. What we don’t know yet, or haven’t been told, is critically important. Why rush the shots into children?

a. Four Nordic countries recently halted the use of Moderna’s vaccine in some age groups due to the risk of myocarditis. It was reported by the Wall Street Journal that FDA paused its review of the Moderna vaccine for teenagers in response to the Nordic countries’ action.

The article was subtitled, “Agency holds off decision on expanding use of shot to 12-to-17-year-olds while it looks into risk of rare heart condition.”

Shouldn’t FDA hold off its expansion of the Pfizer shot to 5-11 year olds, since Pfizer’s shot also causes myocarditis, until it has completed this review?

b. The VAERS data on myocarditis are clearly concerning. The absence of data from other FDA and CDC accessible databases ought to be alarming.

When 60% of the U.S. has been vaccinated, how can it be that we still do not know the actual rates of myocarditis in the population? Is this information being concealed in order to garner authorizations for the vaccines in the pediatric population?

c. Other information from VAERS ought to have raised an alarm long ago. How can it be that adverse event reports input to VAERS are greater, since the COVID vaccines were rolled out, than all cumulative adverse event reports to VAERS for the prior thirty years?

Death reports for 2021 are also greater than cumulative deaths reported to VAERS over the preceding 30 years. Why has no public health official explained this?

Why has CDC, which is charged with investigating every reported death in VAERS, simply waved its hands and claimed none are due to vaccination, without providing any data?

VAERS deaths by years

VAERS deaths by years

d. The bottom line is that we have no idea of either the short or long-term risk of the Pfizer vaccine in 5- to 11-year-old children, but it is reasonable to assume the risk of myocarditis could be considerable.

Other risks have not been quantified but could also be considerable. Yet we do not even know their magnitude in adults, after 6.8 billion COVID vaccinations have been administered throughout the world.

How can anyone possibly justify vaccinating children with vaccines for which the world’s public health professionals have failed to collect and analyze the most rudimentary data on safety during the largest rollout of (mostly experimental) vaccines in the history of the world?

Obviously, policies were put in place such that we will never know the risks of COVID vaccinations nor the magnitude of those risks. Why?

6. The benefit exceeds the risk.

a. In the past, your briefers have exaggerated the harms to children from COVID and magnified the benefits of vaccination in order to claim that benefit exceeds risk.

This was accomplished through the use of datasets that inexplicably failed to yield adverse event signals, conflating deaths and hospitalizations “with” COVID as if all were “due to” COVID, ignoring the existence of naturally acquired immunity and making overly optimistic assumptions about the efficacy and duration of vaccine-induced protection.

However, if you use more realistic data, such as presented here, the risk exceeds benefit in the 12-15 age group, and will exceed benefit in the 5-11 year age group also.

b, One of your briefers who failed to find adverse event signals in the ventricular septal defect was Nicola Klein, who is the principal investigator in multiple COVID vaccine studies for Pfizer conducted in both adults and children. Those trials have brought in many millions of dollars to her institution. This conflict of interest was undisclosed.

c. What percentage of young children are already immune? At a June VRBPAC meeting, we learned that 27% of children were naturally immune, a higher proportion than in any other age group. They were tested using anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

Since then, they have had a summer in which to play together and two months of in-person schooling, and their immunity could be approaching 50%. Vaccinating these children will expose them to risk without the prospect of benefit. Why do it?

d. FDA allows Pfizer to use anti-nucleocapsid antibody tests to identify prospective subjects for clinical trials who have preexisting immunity — they are not included in the efficacy analysis.

Yet FDA and CDC do not allow ordinary American children or adults to use the identical test to demonstrate that they are already immune and don’t need vaccinations for COVID.

Why do you think this is? Does it make medical or scientific sense? Common sense? Why are Americans forbidden from demonstrating they are immune and can safely go with their life unvaccinated?

e. Didn’t you find it surprising that so many federal public health officials claimed that recovered immunity was expected to be weaker than vaccine-induced immunity? Didn’t that go against what you learned in medical school?

Can everyone finally agree that recovered immunity is broader and longer-lasting than immunity derived from current COVID vaccines?

7. Beware the data tricks being employed to minimize safety concerns.

a. You know that VAERS is a passive reporting system that is intended to provide signals of potential safety problems, which must be evaluated with additional studies.

You know that VAERS data cannot be used to calculate the rates of any adverse reaction. Yet CDC did exactly that for anaphylaxis, claiming the rate of VAERS reporting was the rate of occurrence.

b. When a high-quality study of Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham hospital employees showed that anaphylaxis occurred in 250 per million employees, CDC failed to update its website and still claims, as of Oct. 18, that anaphylaxis occurs only 2-5 times per million COVID vaccinees. Which begs the question: how accurate are CDC’s other adverse event rates?

c. CDC has made a number of changes to its standard practices since the beginning of the pandemic. Here is just one example. Beginning on May 1, for CDC to accept a report of a breakthrough case, the infected case must have required hospitalization or died and had their infection confirmed with a PCR test using 28 or fewer cycles.

Other problems with data acquisition of breakthrough cases have further contributed to keeping the official number of such cases much lower than they really are. In the UK, in all age cohorts of 30 years and up, there is a higher rate of COVID cases in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Covid vaccination status week 38-41

Covid vaccination status week 38-41

d. Maddie de Garay was a healthy 12 year old when she entered Pfizer’s pediatric COVID vaccine trial at the University of Cincinnati with her two siblings.

She became ill immediately after the second dose with high fever and then a wide range of symptoms. Over the subsequent six months she had about a dozen ER visits and six hospitalizations. She has required a feeding tube to be nourished and uses a wheelchair. Dr. Frenck, the principal investigator, was her physician and is aware of these problems.

Yet she was not reported as a serious adverse event in the trial documents, and when her trial was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), there were no serious vaccine-related adverse events listed for any subject.

Her physician, Frenck, was the first author of the NEJM study. How many other subjects in Pfizer’s trials were similarly injured, but went unreported? How many principal investigators issued positive reports despite knowing of injuries?

8. How many vaccines will children need? What are the cumulative risks? How can we be sure there will be no antibody-dependent enhancement?

a. None of this is known. Under what conditions is it acceptable to experiment on millions of our children simultaneously?

b. In Israel, the green pass expired after 6 months, and college students have already received a booster dose. As you know, data regarding booster dose efficacy and safety is scanty. Evidence of cumulative dose safety does not exist.

9. Conflicts of interest.

a. We at Children’s Health Defense have not devoted ourselves to investigating potential VRBPAC member conflicts of interest (COI), but we noted that half the voting VRBPAC members are temporary members, presumably installed to replace permanent members who disclosed COIs.

Yet 3 current voting members have glaring COIs. Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the NEJM, has published all the Pfizer clinical trials, and the NEJM will have earned a considerable sum for reprints and advertising from Pfizer.

Drs. Amanda Cohn and Melinda Wharton are both career CDC employees. Were either of them to vote against a vaccine authorization or approval it could have severe consequences for their careers.

Both Rubin and Wharton are temporary members. We are dismayed that conflicted temporary members were selected to replace conflicted permanent members on the VRBPAC.

10. Early treatment works, but to acknowledge this would prevent EUAs from being issued for COVID vaccines and on-patent drugs like Regeneron’s monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir and molnupiravir.

a. The statute under which Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) are defined requires that there exist no alternative approved, adequate and available product in order for an EUA to be issued. Had effective drugs not been deliberately suppressed, no EUAs could have been issued.

b. If children and adults were treated early with proven drug combinations, very few would progress to the inflammatory and thrombotic stage of COVID-19. While this statement may appear controversial, forest plots of the compiled literature on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for COVID are very compelling, with average efficacy against the different endpoints of 64% to over 80%.

c. The Nebraska Attorney General on Oct. 15 issued an extraordinary 48 page opinion regarding these two drugs, giving safe harbor to medical practitioners and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense them with informed consent.

We expect to see more opinions like it as the states protect the public from the harmful acts of health professionals.

d. The probable efficacy of chloroquine drugs for coronaviruses was demonstrated in experiments published by the CDC in 2005 and by Dr. Fauci‘s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 2014.

This prior knowledge, obtained by CDC and National Institutes of Health regarding  these drugs’ efficacy at standard doses and their safety at standard doses, while agency officials suppressed their use during the pandemic, is clear evidence of willful misconduct and nullifies liability protection for these federal officials.

Ivermectin Early treatment studies

Ivermectin Early treatment studies

HCQ Early treatment studies

HCQ Early treatment studies

11. Spike protein, the putative antigen induced by all 3 COVID vaccines, is a toxin. 

It is produced and enters the circulation, has predictable negative consequences to vascular endothelium, activates platelets and crosses the blood-brain barrier. It would be expected to trigger the destruction of cells that produce it and present it on their surfaces.

Products that induce the production of spike protein should only be used after careful consideration of the individual recipient’s risks and benefits.

They should not be employed in mass vaccination programs where there is no learned practitioner to weigh appropriate use, nor in individuals with a very low risk of serious COVID disease.


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source

News Uncategorized

– COVID-19 – Vaccination-Status-Prevention-of-Discrimination-Bill

Could the COVID-19-Vaccination-Status-Prevention-of-Discrimination-Bill receive the parliamentary attention it should deserve or is this another attempt to provide another illusion when in actual fact nothing is being done? After Craig Kelly attempted to enact an anti Covid-19 passport Bill, how can it be taken that the members of the current Parliament act in your best interest to promote democracy and the rule of law?
The bill prohibits the Commonwealth, States and Territories and other government and non- government entities from discriminating on the basis of whether a person has had a COVID- 19 vaccination, in the provision of goods, services and facilities and also in relation to employment, education, accommodation and sport. The bill prevents any interference of free movement between and within States and Territories of the country.
The bill supports the inalienable rights and freedoms of all Australians, acts to minimise interference in our daily lives and aims to reduce the interference imposed by unnecessary, restrictive bureaucratic red tape. As such it acts to ensure human rights in relation to discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination status.

Explanatory Memorandum


The Bill.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


Urgent: Send This Letter Today to Congress Outlining Threat COVID Vaccines Pose to the Health of Our Nation’s Young Children

In a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Children’s Health Defense highlighted peer-reviewed research showing children have virtually zero risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, and outlined the vaccine’s risks. Please send the letter to your members of Congress.

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.

Each member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) today received a letter from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Meryl Nass, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

The letter highlights the latest peer-reviewed research showing children have virtually zero risk of hospitalization and death from the COVID-19 virus. Furthermore, it outlines the serious known risks of immediate harm and the unknown long-term risks from the vaccines to children.

Take action: Fill out the form on this page to send this letter today to your U.S. Representatives and Senators.

The FDA’s VRBPAC committee meets Tuesday, Oct. 26, to vote to authorize Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children aged 5 to 11. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet Nov. 2-3 to consider recommending the same Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccine.

If both expert committees, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  endorse the EUA vaccine, as appears highly likely, then millions of young children in the U.S. and around the world immediately will begin to receive them.

It is critically important we send this letter to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate so they are aware of the threat COVID vaccines pose to the health of our nation’s young children.

Fill out this form to contact President Biden, your two U.S. Senators, your member of the House of Representatives and your state legislators.

If the form is not working for you, try this page.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


Saskatchewan sets up COVID snitch line, detainment centres and enforcement team

Remove Ads

Until recently, Saskatchewan seemed to be one of the few Canadian provinces taking a measured approach to COVID-19 mitigation and policy enforcement. That, however, has taken a drastic turn.

Saskatchewan is currently creating a COVID Enforcement Team, made up mostly of retired police officers, to assist in the enforcement of health order violations, as well as the transport of citizens required to go to an isolation site.

Or in this case, the detainment facility being set up a the hospital in North Battleford.

The enforcement positions are being offered at the pay rate of $38/hour, which works out to approximately $79,000/year with a full-time schedule, though these positions are contract-based. Of note is that nationally, similar positions are being offered at salaries of between $70,000-$114,000/year.

Putting aside the national numbers, the provincial cost of this project will be enormous for taxpayers, and there is no full budget provided in the 77 page document available to the public that outlines the details of this project.

There is also no end date provided, nor a description of the metrics that will be used to determine when these measures will be necessary until — is it a certain number of cases? Hospitalization stats? Also, what if the government instead spent this money on directly funding extra measures, training, etc. in health care?

But wait — there’s more! The province also has a user-friendly ‘snitch line’ reporting system online, for citizens who wish to report individuals or businesses breaking COVID-19 rules or mandates, whether it be with regards to masking, the new proof-of-vaccination policy, or other public health orders. Great for hall monitor types everywhere!

So the question is — among many others — will this actually help citizens improve their health outcomes, as promised? Or is this just another way to divide us, place blame and punish citizens who do not comply?

Visit Original Source

Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


Salami Sticks Spur Salmonella Outbreak Across 8 States

A CDC food safety alert regarding a multistate outbreak of Salmonella infections has been posted.

  • 20 people have been reported sick from 8 states, and 3 people have been hospitalized. No deaths have been reported.
  • Most of the sick people (80%) are younger than 18 years old. Children are more likely to get very sick from Salmonella.
  • CDC is advising people not to eat Citterio brand Premium Italian-Style Salame Sticks. This product is primarily sold at Trader Joe’s grocery stores. Trader Joe’s has voluntarily stopped selling this product until we learn more.
  • Interviews with sick people show that the likely source of the outbreak is Citterio brand Premium Italian-Style Salame Sticks.
  • Investigators are working to determine if additional products may be contaminated. The true number of sick people is likely higher than the number reported, and the outbreak may not be limited to the states with known illnesses. This is because some people recover without medical care and are not tested for.
  • This outbreak is different from other ongoing Salmonella outbreaks and is caused by a different strain of Salmonella.

RELATED: Salmonella outbreak across 37 states caused by fresh onions; hundreds sickened, CDC says | CLICK HERE

Facebook Comments


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


FBI warns about bomb threat scam in which fraudster demands crypto payment or device is detonated

According to the FBI’s latest report, law enforcement agencies reported 5,479 hate crime incidents involving 6,418 offenses to our Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program in 2014.
Photo Source: KTVU

The FBI has received several reports through its Internet Complaint Center of a new threat that businesses and agencies across the state of Oregon are receiving. The language in every case appears to be very similar.

The threat message says that the bad actor has planted bombs in the organization and that if anyone contacts the police, the bombs will be detonated remotely. There is a demand for a payment of $5,000—$20,000 to be made through an email or cryptocurrency address.

The messages also include death threats to the recipients and their families.

So far, the threats are targeting Internet service providers, education institutions, and health care providers.

If you receive such a threat, the FBI recommends that you do NOT pay the ransom and that you notify authorities.

Facebook Comments


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


The Washington Post Tried To Turn Biden’s Unpopularity Into A Story About ‘Vulgar’ Trump Supporters

A Gallup poll last week showed President Biden with an approval rating among independents at just 34 percent, a record low for his young first term. The Washington Post’s response to that news was to run an embarrassingly long story on Saturday framing voter dissatisfaction with Biden as something exclusive to Trump supporters.

What’s that saying about democracy and darkness again?

If the article wasn’t such a brazen attempt at manipulation and history revision, it would actually be kind of funny.

The Post examined the “increasingly vulgar taunts” leveled at Biden, many of which reprise the “F-ck Joe Biden” chant now routinely heard at sporting events and outdoor concerts around the country. There’s an appearance in the article by a smoker wearing a “Proud White American” hat. And there’s a throwback to when former President Trump called Republican Sen. Mitt Romney a “pompous ass.”

Ah, memories.

This could have made for some enjoyable, light weekend reading. But then the article, authored by five Post writers, gets into the surreal. “During the 2020 presidential campaign,” the story said, “one of Biden’s political superpowers was his sheer inoffensiveness, the way he often managed to embody — even to those who didn’t like him — the innocuous grandfather, the bumbling uncle, the leader who could make America calm, steady, even boring again after four years of Donald Trump.”

Who held this impression of Biden, outside of Washington journalists who were working to get him elected? This is that thing the media do where they assert that something is true, simply because it reflects their own feelings about it. In this case, they believe that one of Biden’s “superpowers” was his image of an “innocuous grandfather,” someone who would “steady” the ship, and so they phrase it as a generally accepted truth.

That image of Biden exists only to the extent that the media proclaim it does. They must not recall that during a large portion of the 2020 campaign, their innocuous grandfather was actually facing very serious allegations that he digitally penetrated a woman against her will. And “bumbling uncle” is a nice way to put that a lot of people were concerned that Biden’s brain was turning brown with age, noticing he seemed to have difficulty finishing thoughts during the Democratic primary debates.

And those “F-ck Joe Biden” chants heard of late and sometimes humorously translated to “Let’s Go Brandon” have been heard at NASCAR races, baseball and football games, a Luke Bryan concert, an Aaron Lewis concert, anti-vaccination mandate demonstrations, and on and on. This, according to the Post, “demonstrates how a political party or cause often needs an enemy, a target of vilification that can unite its adherents — and, in this case, one refracted through the harshness, norm-breaking and vulgarity of the Trump era.”

True, hundreds of thousands of people did descend on Washington, many of them wearing pink hats made to look like women’s genitalia, to show their opposition to Trump immediately after he was elected. But I suspect that’s not what the Post means by the “harshness, norm-breaking and vulgarity” of that period.

And surely the organic nationwide trend of mass crowds of strangers spontaneously erupting in a chant that insults this president is about a “political party or cause” in need of “a target of vilification,” rather than, you know, obscene levels of inflation, skyrocketing energy prices, and a pandemic that never seems to get any better, even after Biden promised he could make it do just that. Surely it’s only Trump voters with a chip on their shoulders feeling that pinch.

It’s absurd, but the Post can’t let that get in the way of creating a new reality for its readers to believe.


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source



This is a video about how the provisions of the Australian Constitution have been violated by the Australia Act.

Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


15 year old hit with $6,550 fine after border crossing COVID mishap

Remove Ads

Chanie Zaltzman was at home on the evening of June 15, eagerly awaiting the return of her 15-year-old son Yisroel, when she received an alarming phone call; he was at the Canadian border, without his COVID test results.

According to Chanie, the teenager was en route home after a trip to New York with his friend. Everything was going to plan — until they reached the border at Niagara Falls.

Yisroel, who doesn’t have a cellphone of his own, needed his mother to send his negative COVID test to a device so he could show the border agents, but his mother never received them!

The teenager had allegedly received a negative test result the day before, and had the test sent to his mother Chanie’s email, but there was a communication error, and Chanie never received the result.

Apparently, the email address was missing some punctuation and was never delivered.

So while Chanie was waiting for the emailed test results to come in, she instead received a frantic ring from worried Yisroel asking why she hadn’t forwarded his test result.

Well, she hadn’t received them, Chanie insisted, now concerned about her boy’s return to Canada.

Chanie decided to call public health, who told the frightened mother that if her son couldn’t provide a test result to the border officials, that he would received a $120 fine and be sent on his way.

Chanie was relieved and called her son back on his travel companions cellphone, relaying that information and encouraging him not to worry.

A few tense moments later, she received another call from Yisroel, who sounded even more distraught.

He said the fine he received wasn’t $120, but a stunning $6,550!

Chanie wanted her son home and safe, so she told him not to worry and to continue home with his friend. But she knew this wasn’t a fine her family would be able to afford.

Luckily, one of Chanie’s family members knew about and encouraged her to reach out to us.

We’ve set Chanie up with free legal help, and her team is on the case and ready to fight this fine. Thank you to all the donors who support this cause by donating to the registered Canadian charity, The Democracy Fund. Because of you, we are able to help families like the Zaltzmans, and thousands more!

Visit Original Source

Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source


House Republicans Demand AG Garland Rescind Controversial School Board Memo

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee Monday demanded Attorney General Merrick Garland rescind a DOJ memo that discussed federal intervention into state and local school board meetings.

“Your testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week concerning your October 4, 2021, memorandum targeting concerned parents at school board meetings was troubling,”
the letter, signed by 19 Republicans says. “You acknowledged that you issued the unusual directive soon after reading about the thinly sourced letter sent by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to President Biden and not because of any specific request from state or local law enforcement.”

“During your testimony, you sidestepped the obvious effect of your ill-conceived memorandum and the chilling effect that invoking the full weight of the federal law enforcement apparatus would have on parents’ protected First Amendment speech,” the letter continues. “Parents have an undisputed right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, especially as school boards attempt to install controversial curricula. Local law enforcement—and not the FBI—are the appropriate authorities to address any local threats or violence.”

Read the full letter here.

Facebook Comments


Please follow and like us:

Visit Original Source