Connect with us

Vaccine News

Military Report: Illegally Administered COVID Shot Killed U.S. Marine – Parents Speak Out



U.S. Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf conflict, Rory Lynn, was illegally administered two Moderna experimental COVID shots while undergoing in-patient treatment for PTSD at the Fayetteville Arkansas VA hospital psychiatric unit.

Despite specific instructions from Rory’s parents and guardians not to vaccinate him, this vaccination was carried out.

The VA hospital went against Rory’s ADA rights and the medical contraindications listed in his medical records by forcing him to receive the experimental COVID injections.

Then on February 8, 2022, Rory was forced to get a booster COVID shot by his employer COX Hospital, despite his Constitutional rights to refuse an experimental injection and his rights under the ADA with his medical contraindications.

On April 23, 2022, he died instantly of a blood clot and heart failure. His parents say unequivocally, “They killed him! We are totally devastated. He was a successful young man in the prime of his life. He was recently ordained as a minister of the Gospel and was loved by all who knew him. We will continue to honor his legacy and seek justice and accountability for his wrongful death.”

Link to obituary:


New Bill Aims to Remove COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturer Liability Protections



A new bill has been introduced that could potentially strip COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers of their existing liability protections. Proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on March 5, the bill targets the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), a legal framework that shields vaccine manufacturers from certain liabilities.

The bill’s primary objective is to enable Americans who have experienced adverse effects from COVID-19 vaccines to pursue legal action against the companies responsible for manufacturing them. If passed, this legislation would mark a substantial shift in the legal landscape surrounding vaccine injury claims.

At the core of the proposed bill is the retroactive removal of liability protections granted to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers under the PREP Act. This Act, initiated by former Health Secretary Alex Azar during the Trump administration and subsequently extended by President Joe Biden, offers immunity to manufacturers and individuals involved in administering vaccines, with exceptions only for cases involving willful misconduct.

Rep. Chip Roy’s rationale for introducing the bill rests on principles of justice and accountability. He emphasizes the need to empower Americans who have suffered vaccine-related injuries and to challenge what he perceives as undue federal protection for vaccine manufacturers. Roy contends that many individuals were coerced into receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently faced adverse health effects with limited recourse for restitution.

Under the current framework, individuals with suspected or confirmed vaccine-related injuries can seek compensation through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. However, the program’s track record reveals limited success for claimants, with just 11 individuals compensated as of January, and numerous claims rejected. Critics, including those involved in a lawsuit challenging the program’s constitutionality, characterize it as a “kangaroo court.”

The bill proposed by Rep. Roy explicitly states that it does not impede individuals’ ability to seek compensation through existing channels such as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. This clarification aims to ensure that avenues for restitution remain accessible to affected individuals.

The response from pharmaceutical companies and industry representatives has been mixed. While Pfizer, Moderna, and trade groups like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America express concerns about jeopardizing vaccine development and public health response mechanisms, supporters of the bill, including Children’s Health Defense, advocate for increased accountability and transparency in vaccine injury cases.

With 19 co-sponsors already on board, including prominent figures like Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), the bill reflects a growing sentiment among certain lawmakers and advocacy groups for greater scrutiny of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer liabilities.

The introduction of this bill signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, as debates unfold and stakeholders weigh in on the proposed legislation, its fate will likely shape the future trajectory of vaccine liability protections and individual rights in the context of public health emergencies. Only time will tell how this legislative effort will impact the landscape of vaccine accountability and the pursuit of justice for those affected by vaccine-related injuries.

Continue Reading


New CDC guidelines announced Friday, say to treat Covid like the Flu




In a significant shift, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated guidelines on Friday, signaling a shift in the handling of Covid cases. The new guidance marks another step towards the normalization of the virus, which has dramatically impacted lives worldwide for the past four years.

According to the latest CDC recommendations, individuals diagnosed with Covid no longer need to isolate for a mandatory five-day period. Instead, they should adhere to a set of precautions similar to those commonly practiced with the flu. This includes staying home until experiencing a day without fever and seeing improvement in symptoms.

The move essentially is telling what most of us already knew, to treat Covid more like the flu, and not overreact when ill. While Covid remains a serious public health concern, the latest guidance acknowledges that it is no longer the singular disruptor it once was. Instead, it has become another infectious disease that individuals and communities must manage alongside existing health threats.

Under the updated guidelines, individuals should continue taking precautions, such as wearing masks and limiting close contact with others, for the subsequent five days following symptom improvement. This approach aims to strike a balance between preventing the spread of the virus and allowing individuals to resume normal activities as soon as possible.

The CDC’s revised recommendations reflect evolving scientific understanding of Covid transmission and immunity, as well as the need to adapt public health strategies to the changing landscape of the pandemic. As vaccination rates rise and new variants emerge, health authorities continue to reassess and refine their guidance to best protect public health.


Continue Reading

Vaccine News

Covid vaccine mandate ‘unlawful’ for Queensland emergency services, court rules



In a significant legal development, Queensland’s state supreme court has ruled that Covid-19 vaccine mandates imposed on police and ambulance workers were made unlawfully, marking a pivotal decision in the ongoing discourse surrounding public health measures and individual rights.

Delivering judgments in three lawsuits brought forth by 86 parties, the court scrutinized directives issued by Queensland’s police and ambulance services during 2021 and 2022, which compelled workers to receive Covid vaccines and booster shots under the threat of disciplinary action, including termination of employment.

Notably, the court’s rulings did not delve into the scientific debate regarding the transmissibility of specific Covid variants or the efficacy of particular vaccines. Instead, the focus centered on the procedural aspects and human rights considerations inherent in the issuance of vaccine mandates.

Chief among the court’s findings was the failure of Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll to adequately address the relevant human rights concerns when implementing the vaccine mandate. Similarly, the former Director General of the Department of Health, Dr. John Wakefield, was unable to substantiate the issuance of the mandate within the framework of ambulance service workers’ employment agreements.

Consequently, the court determined that both vaccine mandates were “unlawful” and deemed them to have no legal effect.

Acknowledging the contentious nature of the directives, the court recognized that while they may have infringed upon the human rights of workers by compelling them to undergo a medical procedure without full consent, such measures were deemed reasonable given the broader context of public health protection.

Senior Judge Administrator Glenn Martin emphasized the overarching objective of the police and ambulance services to safeguard their employees from the potentially severe consequences of Covid-19 infection, including serious illness and life-altering health outcomes.

The ruling serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding Covid-19 vaccination mandates, underscoring the delicate balance between public health imperatives and individual rights. As jurisdictions worldwide grapple with similar issues, the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly reverberate across legal and public health spheres, shaping future policy discourse and implementation strategies.

“The balance between the importance of the purpose of the limitation and the importance of preserving the human right … is complicated by the fact that these directions were given in what was, by any measure, an emergency,” he said.

Continue Reading