Connect with us

Biden Administration

CDC Repeatedly Advised People With Post-Vaccination Conditions to Get More Doses

Published

on

Even when the experts could not rule out the vaccines as the cause of the events, a network of experts from both inside and outside the U.S. government repeatedly advised that people who experienced negative side effects after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination receive additional shots, according to documents obtained by The Epoch Times.

According to additional records, the network’s director, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project, has received significant money from pharmaceutical behemoths, including the top two COVID-19 vaccine producers.

One instance had documents demonstrating that a 63-year-old lady developed chronic renal illness, which included symptoms like kidney edema, following a second dosage of the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer.

The diagnosis could not be fully validated without a kidney biopsy, according to CISA subject matter experts (SMEs), but they stated they were confident utilizing a causality algorithm for the presumptive diagnosis created in part by Dr. Kathryn Edwards, the project’s primary investigator.

Because there was no proof of any other causes, the algorithm’s application to the case led to a “indeterminate” categorization, or the inability to exclude the vaccine as the source of the issue. But the program continued to suggest extra shots despite its inability.

“Weighing the potential risks of COVID-19 vaccination and the benefits of preventing COVID-19, the SMEs provided their opinion that the patient should receive future COVID-19 vaccinations,” the Feb. 24, 2023, letter to the patient’s doctor stated.

At the time, it had been shown that vaccine protection against symptomatic illness began higher but quickly declined, whereas protection against severe disease started higher but also fast declined.

The CISA experts advised the doctor to follow up with the patient after she had her subsequent shot to determine if she had continued hematuria, or blood in her urine.

“Although the CDC’s subject matter experts claim to have no idea if inflammation of the kidneys in a 63-year-old woman was caused by the mRNA COVID-19 biological, they tell the attending physician to go ahead and give the woman another COVID shot. That amounts to a challenge/re-challenge experiment on a sick woman without informed consent,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Government officials admitting ignorance about a biological product’s potential side effects but directing a doctor to risk a patient’s life by continuing to inject the product into a patient, who already has suffered an injury following use of that product, is immoral,” she added. “We expect and deserve government health officials to adhere to a higher professional and ethical standard of care.”

According to case studies and surveillance data, some patients who suffer a difficulty receiving a dosage of a COVID-19 vaccine have also reported the problem returning after another dose.

Requests for response from Dr. Edwards, formerly of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and the CDC went unanswered.

Other Letters

The Epoch Times obtained, through the Freedom of Information Act, letters (below) sent by CISA to physicians.

When clinicians request the program to analyze patient cases and offer recommendations, experts from the CDC and other organizations—including Vanderbilt University, Boston Medical Center, and Johns Hopkins University—work together as part of CISA.

“CISA provides consultations for U.S. healthcare providers with complex vaccine safety questions about their patients and conducts vaccine safety clinical research,” the CDC states on its website

.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CISA) provided 48 recommendations to doctors dealing with COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to June 2023. In 39.5 percent of cases, CISA recommended another vaccination, while 23% recommended against it. In 14.5% of cases, CISA said there were no reasons patients could not receive more doses. In the remaining cases, CISA advised reassessing the matter down the road or advising a patient who had not yet received a vaccine to receive a vaccine.

The recommendations for future doses came even in cases where CISA was unable to say the vaccine did not cause the adverse event. In May 2021, CISA experts stated that there was “no evidence” to support non-vaccine causes for the patient’s condition but that there was “no definitive known association” between the condition and Pfizer’s vaccine, leading to an indeterminate designation in the causality algorithm. While one of the experts said that in a person “with the right immunologic makeup,” the vaccine “could be an initial inciting injury” causing the condition, many of the experts advised the patient to receive another dose.

In January 2022, CISA experts found no evidence for non-vaccine causes for the patient’s condition, which appeared after Pfizer vaccination. They repeated the claim that there was no definitive association between the vaccine and the condition, leading to an indeterminate designation. However, CISA experts still advised the patient, who suffered an event after a Pfizer dose and had also recovered from COVID-19, to receive another shot.

A small number of cases led to the determination that the vaccination caused an adverse event. In six instances, CISA experts determined that the event was “consistent with causal association,” or caused by the vaccination, because the condition suffered by each patient was “a known possible adverse event following immunization.” In all six cases, experts recommended against additional doses while advising doctors caring for the patients to follow up with the patients to figure out which non-COVID vaccines the patients could safely receive.

The Epoch Times has filed an appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, regarding the disclosure of specific adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. The case of a patient with kidney disease was the only one in the CISA records obtained by The Epoch Times that the specific adverse event or events following COVID-19 vaccination was disclosed. The CDC claimed that the diagnosis information was protected under federal law, which provides exemptions that enable government officials to withhold some information. The agency redacted the diagnosis information and some other portions of the letters, such as the names of the CISA experts who penned them.

The Epoch Times has filed an appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the agency’s parent agency. The appeal is pending. Dr. Edwards, a professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, has repeatedly backed COVID-19 vaccination for many Americans, including children. She has received funding from numerous companies, including Pfizer and Moderna. Pfizer has paid Dr. Edwards $83,491 since 2016, while Moderna and Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen have also paid her, including during her time as principal investigator of CISA.

Dr. Edwards disclosed her conflicts of interest in some papers but not at other times, such as when speaking to reporters or in public presentations. She was also part of the board that oversaw Pfizer’s trial. When pressed on whether financial incentives can affect people’s judgement, Dr. Edwards said it does not affect her decisions.

Another set of documents obtained by The Epoch Times shows doctors contacting the CDC for CISA consultations. In some cases, doctors asked the CDC whether patients should receive waivers for COVID-19 vaccination. The CDC informed the doctors that the agency does not issue exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

Biden Administration

The Biden Admin’s Attempt to Ban Cigarettes Just Days Before Trump Returns Setting Up For Boost in Criminal Cartels and Black Market

Published

on


Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?

In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.

Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.

A “Gift” to Organized Crime

Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.

Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.

Unintended Consequences for Public Health

While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.

Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.

National Security and Economic Concerns

Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.

Balancing Public Health and Freedom

The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.

As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.

A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.


Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden DOJ to Charge 200 More Individuals Involved in January 6 Riot Just Weeks Before Trump Returns to The White House

Published

on

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering charges against approximately 200 additional individuals for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This includes about 60 suspects accused of assaulting or impeding police officers during the riot that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

To date, around 1,583 people have faced federal charges related to the events of January 6, with over 600 charged with felonies involving assaults on law enforcement. The DOJ’s recent disclosure marks the first time prosecutors have provided an estimate of uncharged cases, signaling the potential scope of ongoing investigations. Notably, prosecutors have exercised discretion by declining to charge approximately 400 cases presented by the FBI, focusing instead on individuals who committed multiple federal offenses.

The impending inauguration of President-elect Trump, who has indicated plans to pardon individuals involved in the Capitol attack, adds complexity to these proceedings. His statements have led some defendants to seek delays in their trials, anticipating potential clemency. Judges have expressed concerns about the implications of such pardons, emphasizing the importance of accountability for actions that threatened democratic processes.

As the DOJ continues its efforts, over 200 cases remain pending, underscoring the enduring legal and political challenges stemming from the January 6 events. The situation remains dynamic, with the potential for significant developments as the new administration takes office.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Admin Hid Info Pointing to Lab Leak Theory From Intel Agencies

Published

on

A newly released report alleges that the Biden administration withheld information that pointed to a lab leak in China as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic from U.S. intelligence agencies, while working with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices challenging the official narrative. According to the Wall Street Journal, the report claims that the suppression of alternative viewpoints was part of a broader effort to control the narrative surrounding the origins of the virus, particularly the zoonotic theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.

The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has become a focal point for concerns over censorship and government influence. While some agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported the zoonotic theory, the FBI stood apart, asserting with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak was the most plausible origin. However, despite this assessment, the FBI was excluded from an intelligence briefing for President Biden in August 2021, leading to concerns from officials within the agency about the omission of their perspective.

The Wall Street Journal’s report highlights the role of social media platforms in silencing opposing views. Public health officials and government agencies allegedly collaborated with platforms like Facebook to remove or flag content that questioned the zoonotic-origin theory. Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the White House had pressured Facebook to censor narratives contrary to the official stance.

The report also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Adrienne Keen, a former State Department official, was involved in advocating for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) zoonotic findings despite criticism of the WHO’s reliance on data from China. This involvement has led to questions about her impartiality, with some critics suggesting that her work may have discredited the lab leak hypothesis to protect Chinese interests.

Domestic efforts to suppress the lab leak theory were also widespread. Public health officials dismissed the theory as a baseless conspiracy, and social media platforms removed content that raised doubts about the official narrative. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which could have played a role in the virus’s development, but questions about the research were often dismissed as unscientific or even racist.

Internally, the suppression of information extended to government agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reportedly concluded that the virus was genetically engineered in a Chinese lab, but up to 90% of their findings were excluded from official reports. The DIA’s Inspector General has launched an investigation into the suppression of these critical contributions.

As more evidence supporting the lab leak theory has emerged, support for this explanation has grown. In 2023, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely origin of the virus. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has also supported this view, citing the intelligence community’s access to the most information on the matter.

The growing consensus around the lab leak theory raises questions about why it was suppressed for so long. Critics argue that the censorship and control of narratives not only delayed crucial inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 but also undermined public trust in the institutions tasked with managing the pandemic.

This case highlights broader concerns about government-directed censorship and its impact on free speech. The suppression of alternative viewpoints, especially when it comes to critical issues like the origins of a global pandemic, has far-reaching implications for public discourse and democratic principles.

Continue Reading

Trending

Top 10 Online Casinos in Österreich