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

Kamala Harris Allegedly Covered Up Biden’s Mental Decline, Democratic Source Says

Published

on

SACRAMENTO, CA — Former Los Angeles Mayor and current California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa has publicly alleged that Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra were involved in concealing former President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline during his time in office.

Villaraigosa, a Democrat, made the claim amid a heated California gubernatorial race. Becerra, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is also a candidate, while speculation continues over a potential Harris bid. The race comes as current Governor Gavin Newsom reaches the end of his second and final term, per California’s two-term limit.

In a statement referencing recent reporting and excerpts from the book Original Sin, Villaraigosa stated:

“What I’ve seen in news coverage and excerpts from the new book ‘Original Sin’ is deeply troubling. At the highest levels of our government, those in power were intentionally complicit or told outright lies in a systematic cover up to keep Joe Biden’s mental decline from the public.”

Both Harris and Becerra previously served as California Attorney General. Villaraigosa emphasized their past leadership roles, stating:

“Now, we have come to learn this cover up includes two prominent California politicians who served as California Attorney General – one who is running for Governor and another who is thinking about running for Governor.”

He added:

“Those who were complicit in the cover up should take responsibility for the part they played in this debacle, hold themselves accountable, and apologize to the American people. I call on Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra to do just that – and make themselves available to voters and the free press because there’s a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Becerra responded in a statement, saying:

“It’s clear the President was getting older, but he made the mission clear: run the largest health agency in the world, expand care to millions more Americans than ever before, negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs, and pull us out of a world-wide pandemic. And we delivered.”

Kamala Harris has not issued a public response. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to the offices of Harris and the Bidens but had not received a reply at the time of publication.

The allegations come as discussions about Biden’s cognitive and physical health continue. Earlier this month, during an appearance on The View, Biden dismissed claims of cognitive decline during his presidency.

In related developments, Biden’s personal office recently confirmed that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer characterized by a high Gleason score and metastasis to the bone.

Villaraigosa’s comments are the latest in a growing list of concerns raised within the Democratic Party about leadership transparency and accountability in the final years of the Biden administration.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Officials Accused of Delaying Public Warning on COVID-19 Vaccine Heart Risks, Senate Report Alleges

Published

on

A newly released interim report from Senator Ron Johnson’s office claims top U.S. health officials in the Biden administration withheld critical information in early 2021 about potential heart-related side effects associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The 54-page report alleges that despite receiving multiple warnings about the risks—particularly cases of myocarditis and related conditions in young people—federal agencies delayed issuing formal alerts for several months.

According to the report, health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were informed as early as February 2021 about international concerns, including an attempt by Israel’s Ministry of Health to raise alarm over roughly 40 myocarditis cases tied to the Pfizer vaccine. At that time, Israel’s vaccination campaign was further along than the U.S.’s, offering an early view of potential adverse effects.

In response to Israel’s outreach, FDA officials acknowledged limitations in existing data and asked for further information. However, despite growing domestic reports of heart inflammation—more than 158 cases by April—the agencies did not formally update the public until late June. The vaccine was nonetheless approved for adolescents in May.

By late May, internal deliberations began over whether to issue a Health Alert Network (HAN) message, which is typically used by the CDC to quickly notify clinicians and public health departments of emerging health threats. Some officials reportedly feared sounding “alarmist.” Others questioned whether the data truly warranted a full-scale warning. Ultimately, the HAN alert was shelved in favor of a more subdued website notice issued on May 28.

In the interim, internal talking points continued to describe the condition as rare and urged continued vaccination. The official FDA label for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines wasn’t updated to reflect the myocarditis risk until June 25.

The report, while critical, notes that many individuals who developed myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis after vaccination experienced a resolution of symptoms, a finding consistent with CDC data.

Senator Johnson, a frequent critic of the federal pandemic response, has argued that transparency was lacking during this period. “The full extent of the Biden administration’s failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed,” the report concludes.

Health officials involved in the decisions, including then-FDA commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock and then-CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have not yet publicly responded to the findings in the interim report.

The release comes amid ongoing political scrutiny over pandemic-era decision-making and the future of public health communications in the wake of COVID-19. The Biden administration and health agencies have consistently maintained that the benefits of mRNA vaccines outweigh the risks, particularly during the height of the pandemic when COVID-19 posed a significant public health threat.

As investigations continue, Johnson’s subcommittee says it plans to further examine the internal communications and decision-making processes of the nation’s top health agencies.

Continue Reading

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

Trending

Top 10 Online Casinos in Österreich