Reading Progress:

FDA Fraud, CDC Disinformation, and Social Media Censorship

by Jul 25, 2022Special Reports, Health Freedom, Interviews & Debates0 comments

The FDA building where the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research division is located (US Food and Drug Adminstration/Public Domain)
In this interview, I discuss how the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for infants and toddlers was scientifically fraudulent.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

Watch the Full Interview

I joined Bernadette Pajer and Dr. Xavier Figueroa live on An Informed Life Radio Friday evening (July 22, 2022) to discuss some of my recent research articles, including my ongoing project exposing how the FDA based its emergency use authorization of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for infants and toddlers on a risk-benefit analysis characterized by brazen scientific fraud.

You can watch the full interview on CHD.TV here.

Bernadette introduced me as the author of what she said was “one of my favorite books”, The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board, which documents how state regulators punished Dr. Thomas for publishing a study showing that his unvaccinated patients were the healthiest children in his practice. (You can buy the book from Amazon or other retailers, or cut out the middle man and order a signed copy directly from me.)

Ivermectin

Bernadette kicked it off with a mention that Saturday was World Ivermectin Day, which reminded me of how I’d recently been suspended by LinkedIn on the false pretext that I had violated their community guidelines prohibiting “misinformation”. (Here is the FLCC website that she also mentions.)

The main article I was suspended for sharing the link to was my piece on how CDC researchers, after the CDC had been falsely (and absurdly) claiming that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is inferior to that induced by COVID-19 vaccines, finally admitted that their own data show that natural immunity is superior.

Of course, it was the CDC in this case that was spreading disinformation, but what I wrote went against what the CDC had falsely claimed, so therefore LinkedIn interpreted my article as having violated their guidelines. (Official government disinformation: APPROVED; honest journalism correcting official disinformation: CENSORED!)

The second article LinkedIn disapproved of was another one where I was correcting approved disinformation, this time relating to ivermectin. A study had been published showing that patients treated with ivermectin fared better than those without the treatment, but the finding was not statistically significant. Numerous mainstream media outlets falsely reported the study as having shown that ivermectin doesn’t work, which is not a valid interpretation of the study’s findings. For correcting the record and exposing the media’s shameless misreporting on ivermectin, I was persona non grata at LinkedIn.

LinkedIn’s Censorship

Just to briefly update my readers on that situation beyond what I mentioned on the show, I have regained access to my LinkedIn account. To “appeal” a ban, LinkedIn requires you to state that you accept their community guidelines, which include a section prohibiting “misinformation”. Within that section, there is a statement saying that you cannot post information contrary to that provided by so-called “public health” so-called “authorities”—like the CDC.

So, I replied to LinkedIn to request clarification: Were they interpreting their own guidelines to mean that I am prohibited from sharing factually accurate information on the grounds that the truth is contrary to demonstrable misinformation from the “authorities”?

​​LinkedIn’s incredible answer was that they do not offer interpretations of their guidelines. In other words, LinkedIn expressly refused to specify whether I was banned for spreading “misinformation” or for telling the truth.

So, I replied to state that I accept their community guidelines with the understanding that the guidelines do not prohibit me from sharing factually accurate information that corrects demonstrable misinformation from the “authorities”.

That enabled me to move forward with the so-called “appeal” process, which is no kind of appeal process at all. In fact, I repeatedly requested that LinkedIn specify what information I had shared that LinkedIn was alleging to be false or misleading. LinkedIn perpetually refused to even attempt to identify anything I said that wasn’t true.

In my email exchanges with LinkedIn, I repeatedly noted for the record that LinkedIn had failed to substantiate its accusation against me, and that I was putting LinkedIn on notice that it had violated its user agreement with me for suspending my account on false pretexts.

LinkedIn eventually informed me that they had ended my suspension while maintaining that I had violated their terms of use, to which I of course once again responded by noting for the record that they had utterly failed to substantiate that accusation—and, indeed, they never even specified what it was they were claiming was “misinformation” much having substantiated the allegation. I told them that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for engaging in such brazen censorship of truthful information in service to the government and its adopted political agenda.

The Government’s Faith-Based Vaccine Policies

After a brief discussion of ivermectin and censorship, Bernadette mentioned Dr. Deborah Birx’s new book in which she brags about having been a key architect of the disastrously harmful lockdown measures, for which the stated endgame was always coerced mass vaccination.

That reminded me of testimony that Birx recently gave before Congress in which she admitted that the government’s claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine were false. Specifically, she acknowledged that the claim that vaccines would end the pandemic by inducing durable sterilizing immunity that would prevent infection and transmission was never supported by scientific evidence.

When asked whether government officials making such claims were lying or guessing, Birx did not deny that officials were responsible for misinforming the public. Instead, she instructively answered that policymakers had “hope” that the vaccines would do what they were falsely claiming.

This is a remarkable illustration of how public vaccine policy is faith-based rather than evidenced-based. (I include this example along with one from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky in the major paper I’m currently writing to expose the FDA’s brazen scientific fraud.)

The FDA’s Scientific Fraud Underlying Its COVID-19 Vaccine EUA for Infants and Toddlers

Next, we got into a discussion about the FDA’s recent emergency use authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged six months through four years. I noted that my current project is a major paper exposing the brazen scientific fraud perpetrated by the FDA to push through this decision.

For subscribers, I’ve been sending a series of newsletters, each one providing a summary version of a section of my forthcoming paper, which I’m leaning toward publishing as an e-book. To stay updated, make sure to sign up for my newsletter here or using any of the sign-up forms you see on my website.

I mentioned several points on which the FDA engaged in scientific fraud, starting with the fact that the decision was made despite an absence of evidence that the vaccine is effective for preventing symptomatic infection, which was the outcome measured in the trial, in infants and toddlers. The efficacy data the FDA relied on showed no significant benefit of vaccination for this age group.

So, the FDA instead relied on an “immunobridging” analysis in which it falsely equated a certain level of neutralizing antibodies in the blood with protective immunity. The FDA admits that the correlates of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 have yet to be scientifically established but justified the use of this logically fallacious analysis essentially on the grounds that the FDA had used the same scientific fraud with other vaccines before!

As if that weren’t bad enough by itself, the FDA’s immunobridging criteria were met on the basis of antibody neutralization activity measured against the original Wuhan strain of the virus, which is extinct outside of laboratories, rather than the Omicron variant (or any of its subvariants) now circulating. The FDA accepted that the criteria were met on this basis even though the FDA knows that levels of neutralizing antibodies that cross-react with Omicron are much lower than those that bind with the ancestral strain.

Furthermore, even utilizing that fraud, the vaccine failed to meet the FDA’s criteria under the original protocol of a two-dose series, so the protocol was amended to add a third dose to try to get antibody levels up high enough against an extinct strain.

Additionally, FDA did not look at antibody neutralization measurements beyond one month since receipt of the final dose in the amended protocol, even though the FDA knows from all other populations for which the vaccine is authorized or approved that antibody levels wane rapidly over time as does vaccine-induced immunity.

In fact, the FDA admits anticipating that the presumed effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing COVID-19 will also likely wane rapidly, requiring a booster shot.

The FDA further suggests that infants and toddlers will need a fourth shot as though that would be the last one even though the FDA also knows that the restoration of protective immunity from boosters is also short-lived, and as though having to repeatedly get booster shots every six months or so would pose no additional risk of being harmed by the vaccine than the risk posed by the initial three-dose series.

I mention how the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis is characterized by such logical fallacies and factual errors, like claiming that COVID-19 is associated with a “16-fold” increased relative risk of myocarditis when its source cited actually found an eight-fold increased risk.

Moreover, the authors of that study emphasized that despite this increased relative risk of a myocarditis diagnosis for COVID-19 patients compared to patients not diagnosed with COVID-19, the absolute risk was just 0.1%, and they explicitly cautioned that both absolute and relative risk estimates needed to be communicated to the public so that people understand that the overall risk remains low.

The FDA itself has published a guidance document noting that absolute risk is always more informative and cautioning against presenting relative risk only since this can give people a highly misleading perception of their risk, yet the FDA omitted the absolute risk estimate from its own source anyway.

Making matters even worse, the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis rests inherently on the false assumption that the entire US childhood population is immunologically naïve, even it acknowledges that the presumed benefit of vaccination will be different for children who are already naturally immune, and even though the CDC’s own data suggest that three-quarters of children already had natural immunity as of February 2022.

Also, the FDA completely ignores data from numerous studies showing vaccination to be associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection—that is, negative vaccine effectiveness—by about six to eight months since becoming fully vaccinated. Relatedly, the FDA also completely ignores confirmations in the scientific literature that an immunological phenomenon known as “original antigenic sin” is a real problem with COVID-19 vaccines. (For information about that beyond what I discuss in the interview, including full documentation from the literature, see here.)

As I summarize these studies’ findings in the interview, “Vaccinated people have an impaired ability to generate T cells and antibodies to Omicron because they’ve been vaccinated.”

We also discuss how the clinical trial for infants and toddlers was already unblinded even before the FDA issued its emergency use authorization and most of the placebo group vaccinated away. We noted how the FDA has otherwise further worked to ensure that we will never have data from randomized placebo-controlled trials from which to compare health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Fact-Checking the Faux “Fact Checkers”

From there, we segued into a discussion of how the “fact checkers” take issue with accurate information while themselves hypocritically propagating false claims, with the example of a Health Feedback article falsely claiming that both the mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines and the spike protein the vaccines are designed to induce are eliminated from the body “within days”. This was the premise for Health Feedback’s argument that therefore the spike protein from the vaccine was harmless (despite studies showing that the spike protein by itself is toxic and pathogenic).

In fact, as I show in my article “Fact Check: COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA and Spike Protein Are Not Cleared ‘Within Days’”, studies have shown that both the vaccine mRNA and vaccine-induced spike protein can persist in the body for months.

Bernadette had very kind words of encouragement for me at the end of our interview, saying, “You model ethical journalism, and I am so grateful for you.”

Our friend Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, who is also known as Dr. Jack, has written a related article on his Substack titled “The Wuhan-1 Spike Protein is a Universal Synergistic Neurotoxin”. In it, Dr. Jack had these kind words about me:

The amazingly objective journalist Jeremy Hammond has reviewed most of the literature on the toxicity of the spike protein (debunking the so-called “Fact Checking” opinion website Health Feedback). I recommend a complete read AND A SUBSCRIPTION (he is REALLY amazing). The studies show that the spike protein impairs the endothelial cells all around the body.

Dr. Jack has also published Part IV of my newsletter series on the FDA’s fraud on his Substack, which he closes by encouraging others to sign up for my newsletter:

Wow. Jeremy is spot-on, and thorough. I would like to suggest that all of my readers head to JeremyRHammond.com and sign up for his free newsletter for more content like this, that would be perfect. Each of the newsletters in this series is a summary version of a section of the major paper he is working on, which he will be publishing as a downloadable e-book, so subscribers can also stay tuned for that more extensive and fully referenced version.

So, in case you are not already a subscriber, please be sure to sign up for my free newsletter!

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

>
Share via
Copy link