Taxpayers will now foot the bill for gender reassignment surgery for active military personnel and veterans, with some treatments costing upward of $200,000 under an executive order signed by President Biden.
Tucked inside Biden’s Jan. 25 transgender order, “Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform,” is a clause that repeals an Obama-era policy that prohibited federally funded reassignment surgery. This was followed up by memos from both Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough specifically stating that surgery is now an added benefit.
“This revised policy will also ensure all medically-necessary transition related care authorized by law is available to all Service members,” Austin wrote.
In a VA email to employees, McDonough echoed: “Perform an assessment of the necessary steps to eliminate the exclusion of ‘gender alteration’ (gender affirmation surgery) in the medical benefits package.”
Neither official stated how much the added benefit would cost but rather pledged to undertake an analysis.
Online charts by the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery show a plethora of elective surgeries for both men and women that add up to $100,000-$200,000. Although Biden stated in his order that the cost of treating transgender troops would have minimal impact on healthcare costs, that is not borne out by a 2019 USA Todayinvestigation. The news analysis revealed that the Pentagon spent $8 million to treat just 1,500 transgender military officials, which included hormone treatments and some surgeries. It was not clear why the surgeries were allowed at that time.
Rep. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, is an Afghanistan veteran and sits on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. He supports transgender individuals serving in the military and said he served with people with diverse backgrounds. But he disputes that the public should pay for surgical intervention.
“This is radical and new territory for a presidential administration to force taxpayers to fund sexual reassignment surgeries for those in the military,” he told the Washington Examiner. “I’m compassionate toward those individuals who want to undergo an elective surgery of this nature, but taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook to pay for it. It’s constitutionally dubious that Congress hasn’t passed these measures, but the administration, in a radical way, is pushing through this agenda. I sit on the committee that should debate these issues.”
The order also violates the religious liberties of Catholics and Christians who oppose such a procedure, Banks said.
Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr, who commanded U.S. Army forces in Iraq and now directs the Heritage Center for National Defense, says Biden’s order currently reads like anyone in a war zone can suddenly take leave to undergo reassignment surgery.
“I would like to think the Pentagon would come up with a procedure … It’s completely irrational to change your gender right in front of a conflict,” he said. “A lot of people [in the military] are outraged by this idea that you can just come in and get this [surgery] and be gone from your unit. Someone has to pick up the slack while you are gone.”
Biden has made transgender people a protected class because other recruits are not accepted if they have an existing medical condition that would require ongoing treatment, he said. Spoehr also predicted that many would join the military to receive free surgery.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, blasted Biden’s “social experimentation” as a follow-up to former President Barack Obama’s 2016 inclusiveness mandate that he said created chaos with sensitivity trainings and bathroom retrofits.
“By 2019, the Defense Department announced that it had redirected funds from salaries, equipment, and trainings for 22,992 psychotherapy visits, 9,321 hormone prescriptions, and a whopping 161 surgeries (ranging from hysterectomies and breast augmentation to ‘male reproductive’ construction),” Perkins said in a press release. “While America faces rising threats from around the world, it’s obvious that Joe Biden is only interested in using our military to fight one war: the culture’s.”
Arkansas joined a number of states across the country, which seek to protect female athletes to ensure they have the ability to compete on a level playing field.
SB354, otherwise known as the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, advanced out of the state’s Senate Education Committee on Monday in a five-to-three vote. The bill aims to prohibit state government entities, licensing organizations and athletic associations from taking “adverse actions” against schools that maintain separate sports based on gender.
It would apply to public schools, private schools that play public schools and intramural and club sports. The bill’s sponsor, GOP State Senator Missy Irvin, recently brushed off claims that the measure is “anti-transgender,” describing it instead as “pro-women.”
Irvin said the bill simply makes sure that women have the ability to compete on a level playing field. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said the legislation creates a protected space for girl’s and women’s sports.
“This legislation will create a space for women’s sports and will provide opportunities for women to demonstrate their skills, strength and athletic abilities against other females of the same biological stature,” Rutledge said.
Meanwhile, several female athletes have argued biological males hold innate physical advantages in sports, including Idaho State student-athlete Madison Kenyon.
“I competed against biological males five times throughout cross country and indoor track,” Kenyon said. “And it’s just very discouraging and frustrating because when you’re at the collegiate level you’re training as hard as you can, putting everything out there, skipping other opportunities to run and train. And you know that the biological male is doing the same thing, but due to the biological differences between the male body and the female body, they triumph over us in athletics.”
Arkansas is just one of a number of states that have considered legislation to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.
Deans from Case Western University Law School in an email to students said they shouldn’t be satisfied with the diversity of the student body following the release of a report ranking the Ohio law school the 144th whitest law school on a list of 200.
“First, we should not be satisfied with the diversity of our student body, even on the measures used in this study,” deans Jessica Berg and Michael Scharf said. “It does not mean we have an equitable number of students who identify as Black, Native American, Latinx, Asian American, Pacific Islander, or other under-represented groups.”
The rankings, published by Race, Racism and the Law, were released on March 9 by retired Dayton University law school professor Vernellia Randall.
The study is based on its “Total Whiteness score, Excess Whiteness over LSAC applicant pool, and Excess Whiteness over state population.”
Total whiteness refers to the percentage of white students in first-year enrollment for 2017-2019. Excess whiteness is based on the percentage of white students in the school compared to the LSAC applicant pool.
The overall score ranges from 0 to 129 – the lower the rank number the higher the whiteness. Half of the 200 schools listed scored more than 44 points. The top five whitest law schools are the University of Georgia, Samford University, Mercer University, Pepperdine University and Southern Methodist University. The top five least white law schools are Pontifical Catholic University of P.A., Inter American University of Puerto Rico, Howard University, Texas Southern University and St. Thomas University.
Of the 200 law schools listed in the study, 10 percent had no excess whiteness, 76.5 percent more whites in their first-year class than was in the National LSAC application pool, 62 percent had more whites in their first-year class than the state applicant pool, 59.5 percent had more whites in their first-year class than was in the regional pool and 69.5 percent had more whites in their first-year class than was in the state population.
Additionally, the nine non-historically white schools were significantly less white than historically white law schools and public law schools were whiter than private law schools but was not statistically significant.
Berg and Scharf in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon said the school was “committed to diversity and inclusion in all aspects of our law school community and know that we still have work to do in this area.
“This study draws attention to one measure, but its greater impact may be to help reinforce the need for additional conversations and initiatives,” they added.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate confirmed Merrick Garland on Wednesday to be the next U.S. attorney general with a strong bipartisan vote, placing the widely-respected, veteran judge in the post as President Joe Biden has vowed to restore the Justice Department’s reputation for independence.
Democrats have praised Garland, a federal appeals court judge who was snubbed by Republicans for a seat on the Supreme Court in 2016, as a highly qualified and honorable jurist who is uniquely qualified to lead the department after a tumultuous four years under former President Donald Trump. Many Republicans praised him as well, saying he has the right record and temperament for the moment. He was confirmed 70-30.
President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced the federal government will buy 100 million more Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.
“There is light at the end of this dark tunnel of this past year, but we cannot let our guard down now or assume victory is inevitable. Together we’re going to get through this pandemic and usher in a healthier and more hopeful future,” Biden said at a White House event alongside the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck. Merck is helping manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Along with about 600 million vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, the United States is expected to have more than enough doses of the vaccine for the eligible population, said Biden.
“We need maximum flexibility. There’s always a chance we’ll encounter unexpected challenges,” Biden said, adding: “If we have a surplus, we’re going to share it with the rest of the world.”
The Johnson & Johnson shot requires a single dose, unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use last month.
A vial of the Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine is seen at Northwell Health’s South Shore University Hospital in Bay Shore, N.Y., on March 3, 2021. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
“We still don’t know which vaccine will be most effective on kids,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said to reporters. “We still don’t know the impact of variants or the need for booster shots. And these doses can be used for booster shots as well as needed. Obviously, that’s still being studied by the FDA but again we want to be over-prepared as I noted earlier.”
Biden said the United States may ultimately assist other countries with CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus vaccine distribution if there are more than needed.
“This is not something that can be stopped by a fence—no matter how high you build a fence or a wall. So we’re not going to be ultimately safe until the world is safe,” he said. “And so we’re going to start off making sure Americans are taken care of first. But we’re then going to try to help the rest of the world.”
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 19 percent of the American population has received at least one vaccine dose, and around 10 percent are fully vaccinated.
Biden, meanwhile, is expected to deliver a primetime address on Thursday about the pandemic response—his first address since taking office nearly two months ago.
The White House acknowledges an ongoing genocide against the Uyghur Muslims by the Chinese Communist Party, ending days of stubborn resistance by the State Department to say such an atrocity is happening in the present tense.
The concession by President Biden’s team, which is sure to have significant geopolitical implications, realigns its view to match that of the Trump administration in the latter’s final day in power, when then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a bulletin that he believed there was an ” ongoing” genocide against the estimated 1 million to 2 million Uyghurs and other religious minorities in Xinjiang in western China, where they have been placed in detention centers across the region.
It also comes one day after the release of a first-of-its-kind legal analysis by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, a think tank located in Washington, D.C., which determined the Chinese government breached ” each and every act prohibited” by the United Nations Genocide Convention in its treatment of the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.
“President Biden spoke with President Xi on February 10, and part of that conversation was making clear our strong concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang,” a White House spokesperson told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday evening. “The crimes against humanity and genocide that have been and continue to be inflicted on the Uyghurs cannot be ignored, and must be met with serious consequences.”Recommended For You
“Our China policy is predicated on our core sources of strength, including our values and our ability to work in harmony with like-minded partners and allies. We work with these partners, bilaterally and in multilateral fora, to determine how we can impose costs on China together and ensure that these atrocities stop,” the White House spokesperson added.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged China had committed genocide in sworn testimony as a nominee for the top diplomat role, but there had been an air of mystery over whether the Biden administration itself would take that stance about the present situation in the western province, as Blinken’s team, once he was confirmed, danced around reporters’ asking if they would acknowledge an “ongoing genocide in China,” instead only allowing that a genocide “was” committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
A small difference in wording, perhaps, but one that Republicans picked up on as they argue that the Biden administration has been too soft on China.
“The Chinese Communist Party is engaged in an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “The Biden administration is rushing to embrace China, and I am deeply worried that their refusal to explicitly acknowledge and condemn the ongoing genocide is part of that embrace.”
Although Chinese officials have denied charges of there being a genocide and defended their “vocational education and training centers” as efforts to combat terrorism, Uyghur survivors have described being insulted, beaten, abused, and raped by guards for their religious beliefs.
The matter could come up when Blinken and Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, fly to Anchorage, Alaska, next week to meet with their Chinese counterparts.
“It’s important to speak up and speak out and to make sure that other countries are doing the same thing. The more that China hears not just our opprobrium but a chorus of opprobrium from around the world, the better the chance that we’ll get some chances,” Blinken said during a Wednesday hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“We’ve been clear, and I’ve been clear, that I see it as genocide, other egregious abuses of human rights, and we’ll continue to make that clear,” Blinken said later in his testimony, adding that if China had nothing to hide, then it should allow international access to Xinjiang.
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) – the program of in-school “psychological training” for children – has now become a major vehicle for Critical Race Theory, the movement that serves as a foundation of identity politics and promotes the analysis of many aspects of life through the prism of race.
Public schools have failed American students in the major academic areas of English, reading, and math, at the same time the U.S. Education Department has fostered Social-Emotional Learning.
In March 2019, the Boston-based Pioneer Institute published the study, “Social-Emotional Learning: K-12 Education as New-Age Nanny State,” asserting that SEL had become the latest panacea in a long line of progressive “education reforms” that have only served to distract from the fact that American public school children are failing academically.
At the same time the federal Department of Education bemoaned the failure of American students to succeed academically, it pushed schools to provide training in psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral standards that many parents said should be taught at home.
Join us next week as we explore approaches to social and emotional learning. The conversation kicks off on Jan 3 at 8PM EST. #FellowsAtEDpic.twitter.com/KiQqy4v8Os
The Pioneer study’s authors, pediatrician Karen Effrem and attorney Jane Robbins, wrote:
As student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, or the “nation’s report card”) paint a gloomy picture of students’ accomplishments in reading and mathematics (especially since the implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)), education decision-makers look toward probing students’ psyches rather than instilling academic knowledge.
In February, Robbins wrote at the Federalist that SEL champions such as the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) are now “brazenly trumpeting an even more troubling aspect of SEL: the opportunity to turn impressionable students into leftist activists.”
She observed that CASEL CEO Karen Niemi announced in December her company “has revised its definition of and framework for ‘socio-emotional learning’ to highlight the value of SEL as a weapon for social justice.”
“Woke-speak pervades the new direction,” Robbins asserted. “In contrast to the previous fairly anodyne definition of SEL, the new one emphasizes student ‘identities’ and ‘marginalization,’ ‘equity,’ ‘just communities,’ and the ‘collective’ rather than the individual.”
In the video below from a June 2020 “conversation” about “Abolitionist Teaching and the future of Our Schools,” Yale activist teacher Dena Simmons, Ed.D., said SEL, on its own, is now nothing more than “white supremacy with a hug.”
“Our schools are steeped in white supremacy,” Simmons asserted. “I always tell people it doesn’t matter what your curriculum is, if you put it in a system without any lens that is abolitionist, that is anti-racist, it can we used as a weapon.”
The education activist said SEL and equity have become “conflated.”
“Students are talking about their feelings,” she acknowledged, but added she is only “a proponent of social emotional learning if it doesn’t create harm.”
“We can use anything in education to create harm,” Simmons said, noting the SEL language of expressing remorse for saying something perceived hurtful by another is “a great intention, but what you have done is dehumanize me.”
In other words, SEL training, in Simmons’ view, has only created more racism and white supremacy:
I think a lot of what we do regardless of SEL or mindfulness or any of these things, if the educator has not done the work, if the school is steeped in white supremacy, guess what that curriculum is? A white supremist curriculum.
If we don’t apply a racial equity lens, abolitionist lens, and others to racial justice as you name it, very easily SEL becomes white supremacy with a hug because what happens is SEL is being used as another way to distinguish Black and Brown children and everyone else.
Done poorly, #SEL faces the risk of becoming "white supremacy with a hug" says practitioner-scholar, @DenaSimmons.
Simmons asserted that SEL, which seeks to teach children appropriate behavior, especially when they are angry, has undermined black students because they are still, according to her, victims of white supremacy.
When black students become inappropriately angry and threatening, “it is like, you know, ‘Those students really don’t know how to control themselves,’” Simmons said, parroting school SEL teachers who say, “We should do the SEL program with them and maybe they will learn how to manage their behaviors and have that self-control, and stuff like that.”
For Simmons, black students are always victims of white supremacy:
You can’t talk about self and social awareness without talking about white supremacy, right. And when we talk about the narrative of social emotional learning and thinking about how to apply that in more privileged schools and white schools, what you get is, ‘Well, our students need this for college and career readiness.’
Simmons insisted SEL has now been used “to further disenfranchise the already disenfranchised.”
“So, again, anything that you do, without applying an abolitionist lens, an anti-racist lens, a racial justice lens, all that can be used as a weapon and it can be used as a weapon of white supremacy,” she said.
“Don’t come in with that Trojan horse, SEL, saying it is here for the kids, without doing that work,” she insisted:
You can’t be trauma-informed if you’re not talking about racism. A lot of us – like me – I walk in with my racial trauma, you know, folks who said something about the way I spoke, the way I pronounce things. But, then you want to give me a hug? You want to give me some trauma-informed instruction without addressing the trauma of racism, the trauma of white supremacy?
Social emotional learning always comes first…. no matter the situation. It’s not only for the growth of a student but also the well-being of a teacher. 💙❤️💛 #SEL#SELForAllpic.twitter.com/uHmiUn9cSc
Robbins wrote, subsequently, the indoctrination into Critical Race Theory and anti-white racism has now become, “expressly, the goal of social-emotional learning.”
She observed that CASEL’s Niemi now asserts SEL “helps students ‘move from anger to agency and then to action,’ primarily in the cause of anti-racism.”
“All this will come from teaching children to ‘examine prejudices and biases . . . [and] evaluate social norms and systemic inequities . . .’” Robbins added.
“Forget teaching kids to play nice—today’s SEL intends to propel them into Antifa,” she warned.
Walt Disney CEO Bob Chapek claims the company is not left or right leaning, and that everyone agrees Disney has the power “to unite us all.” But Chapek’s claims come after two thirds of Americans say the multimedia company has taken political correctness too far.
“The fact is that we have a tremendous opportunity now to bring this country back together and unite people — one thing we can all agree on is the power of Disney to unite us all,” Chapek said at the company’s annual shareholders meeting on Tuesday, according to a report by Variety.
While on the shareholders call, Chapek was also asked about the company’s decision to fire actress and The Mandalorian star Gina Carano after she shared a social media post that critics say compared the experience of Jews during the Holocaust to the current U.S. political climate.
While Chapek , who took over as Disney chief executive last February, did not directly address the Carano situation, he did push back against any suggestion of an ideological bias, claiming, “I don’t really see Disney as characterizing itself as right-leaning or left-leaning.”
Chapek said Disney was interested in standing for “values that are universal,” such as “decency” and “integrity,” as well as in making “content that is reflective of the rich diversity of the world that we live in.”
While Chapek believes that Disney can “unite us all,” and that the company’s values are “universal,” the vast majority of Americans say the company is too woke.
A recent poll conducted by Survey Monkey revealed that “nearly two-thirds of Americans agree that companies like Disney have taken political correctness too far” — 65 percent to 34 percent. Ninety percent of Republicans hold that view, as well as 60 percent of independent voters, and 47 percent of Democrats.
Some 84 percent of Americans surveyed also oppose Disney’s decision to film Mulan in a region of China with Uyghur concentration camps.
Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands they put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for anticipated lawsuits over COVID vaccine injuries.
Story at-a-glance:
Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.
Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its power.
In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers.
A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit fault with the vaccine.
The maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, and you first have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks in.
As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION), Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.
WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.
Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:
“Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer.”
Not apply its domestic laws to the company.
Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays.
Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects.
Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.
Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.
Vaccine maker accused of abusing its power
According to STAT News, “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:
“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”
Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:
“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”
Don’t expect compensation if injured by COVID-19 vaccine
In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.
A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.
Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass, the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.
CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.
This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.
If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?
Side effects are inevitable
Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.
They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch. Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.
For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.
What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?
As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:
Brain inflammation.
Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens.
Dysregulated immune system.
Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation).
Pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement
Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:
“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.
“Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.
“Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”
“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.
“Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …
“ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described through a novel FcγRII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.”
Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:
“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”
So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.
This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.
How mRNA injections may trigger prion disease
What’s more, in a paper titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:
“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …
“Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegenerative diseases.
“In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.
“In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.
“The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”
mRNA technology has potential to cause microvascular injury
Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”
He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”
“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?” he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels …
“It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.
“Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”
Reports of side effects are rapidly mounting
Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.
“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”
In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused. Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:
In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International, “For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”
Greatest risk of all: sudden death
Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidlymountingreportsofsuddendeath, mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.
As of Feb. 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths. Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.
Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.
Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:
“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …
“Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.
“The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …
“Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”
Do a risk-benefit analysis before making up your mind
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.
If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.
So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.
While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.
After signing a letter expressing disappointment with the new administration, a pro-life evangelical scholar who voted for President Joe Biden said that while he would vote for Biden again if the 2020 presidential election were held today, he would not make his support public.
Richard Mouw, president emeritus of Fuller Seminary in California and a member of Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden, spoke to The Christian Post Tuesday, days after his group issued a statement in response to the president’s support for a coronavirus relief package that did not include a longstanding provision that prevents the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
Richard J. Mouw, former president of Fuller Theological Seminary. | (Photo: Fuller Theological Seminary)
“We are very disappointed about the COVID-19 relief package’s exclusion of the Hyde Amendment, a longstanding, bipartisan policy,” they wrote. “We’re even more upset that the Biden administration is supporting this bill.”
As a result of Biden’s support for the bill, the group contended that they feel “used and betrayed.”
Mouw told CP that he and other members of Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden group knew that Biden had been “shifting” his position on the Hyde Amendment when they released a statement in support of Biden’s candidacy last October, one month before the 2020 presidential election.
He maintained that conversations they had with campaign officials who now help the administration with faith outreach were reassuring.
“We made … clear that we would offer support with the understanding that they would urge the White House to have serious conversations with Catholics and evangelicals who are right-to-life people,” he recalled. “The problem is that we haven’t had those conversations, and leaving the Hyde Amendment out of this particular package, this latest COVID package, is a signal that … there really … is no room for that kind of conversation.”
Mouw confirmed that an official from the Biden administration reached out to him on Monday.
“We’re going to have a meeting later this week,” he said.
“Evangelicals” for Biden are getting exactly what they voted for.
Mouw and Ronald Sider, another member of Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden, will sit down with two members of the White House faith outreach office to address their concerns.
When asked if he would vote for Biden again and issue a statement in support of his candidacy if the 2020 presidential election was still forthcoming and he knew that Biden would support a coronavirus relief bill that excluded Hyde Amendment protections, Mouw responded that he would “vote the same way” while adding, “I would not give my public support.”
Mouw indicated that while he disagrees with Biden’s position on abortion, there are other areas where he has found common ground with the new administration, specifically on the issues of global warming and immigration.
Acknowledging that he received “a lot of angry messages from right-to-life people,” some of whom called him “naive” due to his support for Biden and subsequent feelings of betrayal, Mouw still defended the object of his previous remarks in support of Biden. He said they would be necessary to provide reassurance to the “many younger evangelicals who are not happy about … the way in which their parents and grandparents have endorsed and defended the Trump administration.”
“We … don’t want to lose them to evangelicalism because of what is perceived as a mean-spirited, highly partisan commitment on the part of the older generation of evangelicals who voted 81% … in the presidential election before this last one for Mr. Trump,” he said.
“We thought it was important to hold up the right to life position and at the same time, say it’s OK to be concerned about a broader range of issues such as global warming and children at the border separated from their parents and those kinds of questions. And so, we wanted to use our own access through the Biden campaign people to at least get them to stay in conversation with people like us.”
In addition to explaining that he was “less optimistic” about the possibility of Biden and the Democratic Party building a “bigger tent” to accommodate pro-lifers, Mouw expressed concern about the president’s support for another major legislative initiative: The Equality Act.
According to Mouw, the legislation puts “the rights of Christian institutions to preserve commitments to traditional biblical teaching regarding sexuality without being penalized in terms of federal grants, federal loans for students” in jeopardy.
“A lot of Christian colleges and universities are well over 50% dependent in their tuition income on students getting federal loans,” the Fuller Seminary president emeritus added.
Mouw warned that making “the sexuality issue” an eligibility requirement for “receiving students with federal loans” would deal a “huge blow” to faith-based schools.
Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Biden had vowed to push for the Equality Act’s passage within his first 100 days in office. Biden indicated that he would work to codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, into law.
Biden’s documented public support for policies widely opposed by evangelicals has led some conservatives, like former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis, to conclude that “‘Evangelicals’ for Biden are getting exactly what they voted for.”
