Vaccine passports harden opposition to getting jabbed, survey finds.
90 per cent of Germans who haven’t taken the COVID-19 vaccine say they won’t get it, with only the remaining 10 per cent saying they will “probably” get it or remaining undecided.
A recent survey carried out by Forsa on behalf of the Ministry for Health found that 65 per cent of Germans say there is “no way” they will get the COVID vaccine over the next two months.
A further 23 per cent said they would “probably not” get the COVID jab in the near future while 2 per cent said they would “definitely not” get the jab at any point.
Out of 3000 respondents, only 10 per cent were still undecided or said they will “probably” get vaccinated in the near future.
According to the Local, the poll results emphasize how, “people who have until now chosen to remain unvaccinated against Covid are unlikely to be convinced.”
The survey contradicts Thomas Mertens from the Standing Vaccinations Committee (STIKO), who claimed that unvaccinated Germans were not “hardliners” but were merely sitting on the fence and could be convinced.
Doesn’t look like it.
Only 5 per cent of respondents said they would get the jab if hospitals were “overwhelmed with patients,” while 89 per cent said it wouldn’t change their mind even if intensive care units reached their capacity.
Emphasizing how vaccine passports actually harden people’s opposition to getting vaccinated, 27 per cent said imposing restrictions on the unvaccinated would make them even more determined not to get jabbed, while only 5 per cent said it would encourage them to get jabbed.
It’s also worth noting that the 10 per cent figure who say they will get the jab or are undecided is probably lower given that some respondents will be telling the pollsters what they think they want to hear, and are actually not planning on getting vaccinated at all.
As we highlighted back in January, German authorities announced that COVID lockdown rulebreakers would be arrested and detained in refugee camps located across the country.
Earlier this summer it was also confirmed that the unvaccinated would be deprived of basic lifestyle activities like visiting cinemas and restaurants.
The editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild shocked some people by apologizing for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”
China’s New Concept of Bio-based War Includes Vaccines With “Backdoors” As Bioweapons
On February 14, 2020, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Xi Jinping, emphasized the need to incorporate biosecurity into China’s national security system.
In China, biosecurity is a euphemism for “bio-based war” because so much of Chinese military doctrine is devoted to the offensive use of biotechnology.
The 2011 version of “Chinese People’s Liberation Army Military Language” provides the following definition:
Biological warfare refers to the use of biological weapons to injure humans and animals and destroy crops. It was formerly called germ warfare. In combat, biological warfare agents are used in various ways to cause epidemics in the opponent’s army and the rear area, and large areas of crops are necrotic, so as to achieve the purpose of weakening the opponent’s combat effectiveness and destroying its war potential.”
But China’s military distinguishes between traditional biological warfare and “bio-based war” using “military biotechnology.”
In his 2012 article “Development of military biotechnology and the future of bio-based war,” Major General Fu-Chu He wrote:
In future wars, military biotechnology will promote the bio-based weaponry and equipment, bio-based forces and bio-based combat style.”
It is important to note that Major General Fu-Chu He was President of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Vice President of China’s Academy of Medical Sciences, an Alternate Member of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and Vice Director of Scientific and Technical Committee affiliated to Central Military Commission, which is China’s equivalent of the U.S. Department of Defense’s DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
That is, Major General Fu-Chu He was Xi Jinping’s closest military advisor on matters of “biosecurity.”
The distinction between bio-based war and biological warfare was described in a November 9, 2020 article by retired Colonel Xin Yang, who is a professor in the Department of Military Teaching and Research at Nanjing University.
Colonel Yang views general biological war using traditional bioweapons as having many of the same limitations as nuclear warfare in terms of their potential widespread destructive power.
He prefers the scalpel of bio-based war to the sledgehammer of biological warfare.
Aspects of bio-based war include:
Micro-attack: “Nonlethal” bioweapons is a concept that runs through recent Chinese military doctrine. That is, bioweapons that do not kill humans, animals and plants or attack them at the macroscopic level, but destroy the structure and physiological functions of humans, animals and plants via microscopic molecular structures and functions.
Moderated conquest: Instead of killing the enemy, bio-based warfare agents can temporarily disable the enemy and prevent participation in war or kill and injure by specific race or ethnicity in a limited way using genetic bioweapons.
Biotechnology-information technology superiority: Greatly increase China’s military superiority and deterrence level by fusing information-based warfare with bio-based war using advanced biotechnologies.
Bio-based war operational approaches: Citing the SARS 2002-2004 and COVID19 pandemics as examples, the secret initiation of epidemics during war to reduce the enemy’s fighting capability or in “pre-war” situations to prevent potential adversaries from mobilizing effectively on the eve of war.
Vaccines as bio-based weapons: Vaccines with “backdoors” can be bio-based warfare vectors present as biological time bombs once inside the body or creating vulnerabilities to future bioweapon attacks. The introduction of such “backdoor” vaccines into the U.S. population is especially risky in inadequately regulated joint vaccine production ventures between Chinese and U.S. pharmaceutical companies, not unlike the introduction of Chinese surveillance capabilities inside Chinese instrumentation and software deployed in the United States.
The above-described developments are not occurring in isolation. People’s Liberation Army Colonel Ji-Wei Guo’s 2010 book “Bio-based war—Reconfiguring Military Strategy for a New Era” highlights the necessity for integrating information warfare with bio-based war to manipulate a disease outbreak or pandemic using propaganda, spread disinformation and create chaos and fears, all elements of the COVID-19 experience.
That and other approaches supporting bio-based war have been incorporated in the 2021 Chinese Communist Party’s 14th Five-Year Plan, which mandated the fusion of the biotechnology and information technology research sectors, in particular, artificial intelligence, as well as the massive collection of human genetic (DNA) information into China’s databases from both Chinese people and internationally.
The “success” of the People’s Liberation Army’s first-generation, bio-based warfare agent, COVID-19, has only accelerated China’s military ambitions.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He had a civilian career in international business and medical research. His email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com. Anna Chen can be followed on Twitter @2020Gladiator
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in Maine, which thus went into effect that day. The particularly strict mandate has a medical exemption but not a religious one. While the majority on the Court did not give an opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as highlighted by Robert Barnes with The Washington Post.
Maine has adopted a new regulation requiring certain healthcare workers to receive COVID–19 vaccines if they wish to keep their jobs. Unlike comparable rules in most other States, Maine’s rule contains no exemption for those whose sincerely held religious beliefs preclude them from accepting the vaccination. The applicants before us are a physician who operates a medical practice and eight other healthcare workers. No one questions that these individu- als have served patients on the front line of the COVID–19 pandemic with bravery and grace for 18 months now.
Yet, with Maine’s new rule coming into effect, one of the applicants has already lost her job for refusing to betray her faith; another risks the imminent loss of his medical prac- tice. The applicants ask us to enjoin further enforcement of Maine’s new rule as to them, at least until we can decide whether to accept their petition for certiorari. I would grant that relief.
The nine healthcare workers using pseudonyms, referred to Maine’s lack of religious exemption as an “extreme outlier,” pointing out in their request to the Court that only Rhode Island and New York also don’t have religious exemptions, though New York’s has been blocked for now.
Maine’s categorical ban on any accommodations for religious healthcare workers is an extreme outlier nationwide. Forty-seven other states have rejected this approach for private healthcare facilities, and just two days ago, the EEOC issued detailed guidance confirming that it directly violates federal law…
…Worse, the [respondents’] brief openly admits that Maine thinks religious objections are merely something a believer “chooses,” while medical concerns—no matter how minor—render people “unable” to take the vaccine. (Id.) As Maine sees it, religious people really “can” take the vaccine but just “choose[]” not to, while medical objectors, for any reason no matter how small, are “unable” and would be “actually harmed” if required to do so.
…
Again, Maine is doing all of this in a way that makes it an extreme outlier compared to the rest of the country. Almost every other state has found a way to protect against the same virus without trampling religious liberty—including states that have smaller populations and much greater territory than Maine. If Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, California, and the District of Columbia can all find ways to both protect against COVID-19 and respect individual liberty, Maine can too. And at least on this record, Maine certainly has not shown why it needs a more draconian approach.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did briefly write an explanation as to why she went along with allowing the mandate to stand. It was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
But she wrote separately in the Maine case to say she was not sure relief was warranted, and the court should not make such a decision “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.”
Joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, she said that was not what the court’s emergency docket should be used for.
“In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented,” she wrote.
As I have covered in the past, Justice Barrett similarly declined to block a vaccine mandate that affected Indiana University students. Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly declined to block a vaccine mandate affecting New York City teachers.
Barnes also explained that the lower courts upheld the lack of a religious exemption because the point of the vaccine mandate was not aimed at religious exercise.
The state did away with religious exemptions for health-care workers, day-care employees, schoolchildren and college students in 2019. Certain employees have been required to take some vaccines since 1989, Barnes noted.
Healthcare workers were required to get vaccinated by Friday, October 29, or else risk losing their jobs.
Other states are moving in the opposite direction. As Landon reported earlier tonight, Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, announced he plans to sue the Biden administration over what he calls an “unconstitutional” vaccine mandate.
A stunt involving fake Youngkin supporters posing with tiki torches set Twitter ablaze
The disgraced anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project is facing intense backlash for orchestrating the viral hoax involving tiki torch-holding individuals associating themselves with the Youngkin campaign.
Twitter was set ablaze after images of a group wearing white shirts, khakis, baseball caps and sunglasses stood alongside the campaign bus of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin reportedly vocal expressing support for the Republican, according to local NBC affiliate anchor Elizabeth Holmes.
The imagery of the tiki torches was apparently meant to invoke the white nationalists who participated in the deadly events of Charlottesville in 2017.
These men approached @GlennYoungkin’s bus as it pulled up saying what sounded like, “We’re all in for Glenn.” Here they are standing in front of the bus as his campaign event at Guadalajara started.@NBC29pic.twitter.com/l681ejyBjc
The stunt was seized upon by the left, including staffers from Democrat candidate Terry McAuliffe’s campaign.
“The Unite the Right rally was one of the darkest days in the Commonwealth’s history. this is who Glenn Youngkin’s supporters are,” McAuliffe spokesperson Christina Freundlich tweeted.
Now, after widespread suspicion from Twitter critics that it was orchestrated by Youngkin opponents, the anti-Trump group took ownership of what it called a “demonstration.”
“The Lincoln Project has run advertisements highlighting the hate unleashed in Charlottesville as well as Glenn Youngkin’s continued failure to denounce Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides.’ We will continue to draw this contrast in broadcast videos, on our social media platforms, and at Youngkin rallies,” the group stated in a press release. “Today’s demonstration was our way of reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, the Republican Party’s embrace of those values, and Glenn Youngkin’s failure to condemn it.”
A small group of demonstrators dressed as “Unite the Right” rally-goers with tiki torches stand on a sidewalk as Republican candidate for governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin arrives on his bus for a campaign event at a Mexican restaurant in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S. October 29, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
“Anyone who continues to associate themselves with The Lincoln Project owns this. This is who you are,” Fourth Watch media critic Stever Krakauer wrote.
“I do not think it’s out of realm of possibility that Lincoln Project is taking blame, because they have no shame and their reputation really can’t get any worse,” Washington Free Beacon executive editor Brent Scher tweeted.
“Needless to say, right-wing groups that perpetrated a fraud like this — causing media figures and campaign operatives to spend all day swamping Twitter with an outright racist lie — would be instantly banned from social media,” Substack journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.
“Apparently, it’s totally fine to dress up as tiki torch nazis as long as you play for the right team,” Daily Caller reporter Andrew Kerr wrote.
“Lincoln Projects biggest grift is they aim all their stuff at liberal Twitter so their funders have no idea how unconvincing and juvenile it is. But it does help them afford the vacation homes,” journalist Zaid Jilani quipped.
“How much more proof do we need that the Lincoln Project is nothing but a bunch of deranged hacks?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, asked.
Anyone who continues to associate themselves with The Lincoln Project owns this. This is who you are. https://t.co/QL4oBUj12i
I do not think it’s out of realm of possibility that Lincoln Project is taking blame, because they have no shame and their reputation really can’t get any worse.
Needless to say, right-wing groups that perpetrated a fraud like this — causing media figures and campaign operatives to spend all day swamping Twitter with an outright racist lie — would be instantly banned from social media. https://t.co/Jm2OqY3bBC
Lincoln Projects biggest grift is they aim all their stuff at liberal Twitter so their funders have no idea how unconvincing and juvenile it is. But it does help them afford the vacation homes.
Others questioned whether or not the Lincoln Project was actually behind the stunt and was simply taking credit, comparing it to ISIS taking credit for various terrorist attacks.
“What’s more likely? That the Lincoln Project hired Democratic insiders in Virginia to hold the tiki torch stunt or that they’re taking credit for it after it backfired to keep the backlash away from the McAuliffe campaign?” political commentator Josh Jordan wondered.
The statement comes as Twitter users began claiming they had identified the individuals participating in stunt allegedly having ties to Virginia Democrats. The group issued a statement denying they organized the stunt.
Following the hoax being exposed, McAuliffe campaign manager Chris Rolling tweeted, “What happened today is disgusting and distasteful and we condemn it in the strongest terms. Those involved should immediately apologize.”
The Lincoln Project has managed to maintain its media darling status on the left despite multiple scandals that plagued the group, including allegations that its co-founder John Weaver had sexually harassed young men including minors and growing questions over its shady finances.
Virginia polls, which previously had McAuliffe in a comfortable lead, have not only tightened in recent weeks but appear to be giving Youngkin the edge. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed Youngkin a whopping eight points above McAuliffe among likely voters.
FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS are owned by financial asset management companies Vanguard, State Street, and BlackRock, which also own the four major experimental Covid-19vaccine manufacturers.
QUICK FACTS:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday issued an emergency authorization to use Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5 through 11, just days after an advisory panel recommended it, reportsThe Epoch Times.
Emergency uses of the vaccine have not been approved or licensed by US FDA but have been authorized to prevent COVID-19 in ages 5+. See EUA Fact Sheets: https://t.co/z4TiGgVpgY & https://t.co/fBvr0S4yHx
The advising committee had recommended that regulators authorize Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds, The New York Times notes.
An expert committee advising the FDA on Tuesday recommended that regulators authorize Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds, bringing about 28 million children a major step closer to becoming eligible for shots https://t.co/Bz4WiRasgT
The recommendation and subsequent authorization come despite the fact that “COVID is not a huge threat to children,” as explained by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “I don’t think children should be vaccinated for COVID,” Dr. Kulldorff stated, “There is absolutely no scientific or medical justification for vaccinating children, in my opinion.”
“I’m a huge fan of vaccinating children for measles, for mumps,” the professor said. “But COVID is not a huge threat to children.”
The FDA authorization also comes despite the fact that “zero” children have died from Covid-19 without also having a pre-existing medical condition, according to Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Dr. @MartyMakary’s team worked w/ the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze ~ 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed w/COVID in health-insurance data from April-August 2020. They “found a mortality rate of 0 among children w/out a pre-existing medical condition.”https://t.co/fYXyxIsTS6
Moreover, the safety of the experimental Covid-19 vaccine among children is unknown until children begin receiving the jab, since to date there have been no long-term studies analyzing the drug’s effect on children. “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it [to children],” Dr. Eric Ruben of the FDA advisory committee admitted. “That’s just the way it goes.”
MORE – Dr. Ruben on the FDA panel: "We're never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That's the way it goes."pic.twitter.com/vMLFkObAKn
Nevertheless, FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS continue to publish content promoting the vaccination of American children.
But FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are owned respectively by News Corp, AT&T, Disney, Comcast, and Viacom, which in turn are all owned by the same shareholders: The Vanguard Group, State Street Corp., and BlackRock Inc. (here, here, here, here, here).
One video compilation illustrating the financial connection between mainstream news networks and Pfizer recently went viral online and was even commented on by former Texas congressman Ron Paul. See the compilation below.
Such a relationship between mainstream media and vaccine manufacturers represents a conflict of interest, namely in that Vanguard, State Street, and BlackRock increase profits among their pharmaceutical assets by advertising those pharmaceuticals through their media assets.
This relationship could also explain mainstream media’s lack of journalistic criticism and investigation into the negative aspects of child vaccination.
BACKGROUND:
Mainstream media pushes for vaccinating children while one yearlong study following over 600 individuals showed that vaccinated people still spread the Delta variant, Bloomberg recently reported. “People inoculated against Covid-19 are just as likely to spread the delta variant of the virus to contacts in their household as those who haven’t had shots,” Bloomberg notes of the U.K. study published in The Lancet.
Meanwhile, Dr. Brian Dressen—a chemist with an extensive background in researching and assessing the degree of efficacy in new technologies—told the FDA that Pfizer’s vaccine had “failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children.”
“Your decision is being rushed, based on incomplete data from underpowered trials, insufficient to predict rates of severe and long-lasting adverse reactions,” said Dr. Dressen. “I urge the committee to reject the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] modification and direct Pfizer to perform trials that will decisively demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risks for children.”
“Injured support groups are growing. Memberships number into at least the tens of thousands. We must do better. Those injured in a trial are a critical piece of vaccine safety data. They are being tossed aside and forgotten. The FDA has known first-hand about her case and thousands of others. The FDA has also stated that their own systems are not identifying this issue and that VAERS is not designed to identify any multi-symptom signals. The system is broken,” Dressen went on to say.
“Until we appropriately care for those already injured, acknowledge the full scope of injuries that are happening to adults, please do not give this to kids. You have a very clear responsibility to appropriately assess the risks and benefits to these vaccines. It is obvious that isn’t happening.”
“The suffering of thousands continues to repeatedly fall on deaf ears at the FDA. Each of you hold a significant responsibility today and know that without a doubt, when you approve this for the 5 to 11-year-old’s, you are signing innocent kids and uninformed parents to a fate that will undoubtedly rob some of them of their life.”
As of October 15, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 818,042 Covid-19 vaccine adverse events in total, including 17,128 deaths. However, because a 2010 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) report conducted by Harvard doctors concluded that only “1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS in the first place, a more accurate number of people who have been killed by Covid-19 vaccines is 1,712,800. A more accurate number of people who have been injured by Covid-19 vaccines is 81,804,200.
Abortions dropped by about 50 percent in Texas in September after a new law prohibiting most abortionswent into effect, according to a new study.
The drop was ascertained (pdf) by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. The group compared the number of abortions performed at Texas clinics this September (2,164) to the amount in September 2020 (4,313).
Researchers were able to gather statistics on abortions performed at 19 of the 24 Texas abortion facilities. Those facilities perform approximately 93 percent of all abortions in the state.
The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, bars physicians from performing an abortion without first testing for a fetal heartbeat. If the heartbeat is detected, an abortion can only be done if the doctor determines a medical emergency exists.
The drop in abortions shows the law is working, Kimberlyn Schwartz, director of media and communication for the pro-life Texas Right to Life group, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“We’re encouraged by these findings! The Texas Heartbeat Act saves lives every day. The pro-life movement has spent decades serving pregnant women in difficult circumstances, and we are blessed to be able to walk with these women through their journeys,” she said.
The bill’s main sponsor, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, did not return a voicemail.
The Department of Justice is challenging the law and the Supreme Court is set to hear the case in November.
Data indicate that some Texas women are traveling to nearby states to get an abortion since the law took effect. Wait times at facilities in neighboring states like New Mexico have soared in recent weeks, researchers said. Longer wait times could make it more difficult for women to get abortions, as does spending time going to other states.
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute estimated that the average one-way driving distance to an abortion clinic increased over 14 times, to 247 miles, with the passage of the law.
“For the vast majority of Texas women of reproductive age, their next nearest abortion clinic would be in states that also have policies hostile to abortion (Louisiana for 70 percent of them and Oklahoma for 23 percent ), where patients already struggle to receive care and are subjected to those states’ punitive and burdensome restrictions,” institute researchers said in a recent blog post.
“Due to the many barriers to abortion care in Oklahoma and Louisiana—including a two-visit requirement in Louisiana and the fact that each state has very limited capacity to absorb an influx of new patients—some people traveling from Texas likely would need to go even farther than one state away for care,” they added.
Joe Biden on Friday met with Pope Francis at the Vatican.
This is Biden’s fourth time meeting with Pope Francis, but his first time meeting him as president.
The Vatican abruptly canceled a live broadcast of Biden’s meeting with the Pontiff so they met in private for 75 minutes.
Joe Biden emerged from his unusually long meeting with the Pope and answered a few questions from reporters.
One reporter asked Joe Biden whether the issue of abortion came up during his meeting.
“No, it didn’t … We just talked about the fact he was happy I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving communion,” Biden said.
VIDEO:
President Biden on whether the issue of abortion came up during his meeting with Pope Francis: "No, it didn't … We just talked about the fact he was happy I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving communion."https://t.co/opHdwuWcbjpic.twitter.com/8XWTGXv3ah
Brian Dressen, Ph.D., who is a chemist with an extensive background in researching and assessing the degree of efficacy in new technologies, told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Pfizer’s vaccine “failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee on Tuesday endorsed Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, despite strong objections raised during the meeting by multiple scientists and physicians.
Brian Dressen, Ph.D., is one of the scientists who testified during the 8-hour hearing.
Dressen is also the husband of Brianne Dressen, who developed a severe neurological injury during the Utah-based portion of the U.S. AstraZeneca COVID vaccine trial in 2020. After being injured by the first dose, Brianne withdrew from the trial.
During his 3-minute testimony, Dressen, a chemist with an extensive background in researching and assessing the degree of efficacy in new technologies, told the FDA advisory panel Pfizer’s vaccine “failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children.”
Dressen said:
“Your decision is being rushed, based on incomplete data from underpowered trials, insufficient to predict rates of severe and long-lasting adverse reactions. I urge the committee to reject the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] modification and direct Pfizer to perform trials that will decisively demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risks for children. I understand firsthand the impact that you will or will not have with the decision you’re going to make today.”
Dressen told the FDA how his wife was severely injured last November by a single dose of a COVID vaccine administered during a clinical trial. He said:
“Because study protocol requires two doses, she was dropped from the trial, and her access to the study app deleted. Her reaction is not described in the recently released clinical trial report — 266 participants are described as having an adverse event leading to discontinuation, with 56 neurological reactions tallied.”
He said he and his wife have since met participants from other vaccination trials — including Pfizer’s trial for 12- to 15-year-olds — who suffered similar reactions and fate.
Dressen said:
“Injured support groups are growing. Memberships number into at least the tens of thousands. We must do better. Those injured in a trial are a critical piece of vaccine safety data. They are being tossed aside and forgotten. The FDA has known first-hand about her case and thousands of others. The FDA has also stated that their own systems are not identifying this issue and that VAERS is not designed to identify any multi-symptom signals. The system is broken.”
Dressen said his family’s lives have changed forever. “The clinical trials are not appropriately evaluating the data,” he said. “The FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the drug companies continue to deflect the persistent and repeated cries for help and acknowledgment, leaving the injured as collateral damage.”
He added:
“Until we appropriately care for those already injured, acknowledge the full scope of injuries that are happening to adults, please do not give this to kids. You have a very clear responsibility to appropriately assess the risks and benefits to these vaccines. It is obvious that isn’t happening.
“The suffering of thousands continues to repeatedly fall on deaf ears at the FDA. Each of you hold a significant responsibility today and know that without a doubt, when you approve this for the 5-11-year old’s, you are signing innocent kids and uninformed parents to a fate that will undoubtedly rob some of them of their life.”
In an interview with 2News on Tuesday, Brianne said her kids will not receive a COVID-19 vaccine if approved. “I will react to the vaccine regardless of the brand, and so if my kids have this same genetic makeup, there is the high potential now that the same thing could happen to them,” she said.
Since his wife’s injury — diagnosed by doctors at the National Institutes of Health — the Dressens have met with other trial participants and families with children who also believe they were injured by the COVID vaccines. They formed a support group and website called, C19 Vax Reactions, to share their stories of vaccine injuries.
On June 26, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) held a news conference to discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID vaccines — giving individuals, including Brianne, who have been “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community a platform to share their stories.
According to KUTV, the group continues to push the FDA and CDC for answers and help. Largely ignored, they reached out to Utah Senator Mike Lee, who wrote a letter to the CDC and FDA on their behalf.
Strong consumer demand and supply shortages test economy with rapid uptick in inflation
Consumer prices rose at the fastest pace in 30 years in September while workers saw their biggest compensation boosts in at least 20 years, according to new government data released Friday.
Consumer spending also rose in September despite the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits, the data showed.
Persistently high inflation could offset the increase in wages and make households worse off
It could also force the central bank to raise interest rates to keep prices in check. Such a move also risks slowing the economic recovery when the unemployment rate remains higher than it was before the pandemic.
Officials say they expect the recent burst of inflation will be temporary, but they have also raised the possibility they could pull back support for the economy more rapidly than anticipated.
“This is a really rough ride for the next few months,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the personal-consumption-expenditures price index, rose 4.4% in September from the previous year, the fastest pace since 1991, the Commerce Department said Friday. The index was up 0.3% in September from the previous month.
Excluding food and energy categories, which tend to be more volatile, the index rose 0.2% over the month and 3.6% over the year.
The employment-cost index, a measure of worker compensation that includes both wages and benefits, rose 1.3% in the third quarter from the second, the fastest pace since at least 2001, the Labor Department reported.
Workers in the leisure, hospitality and retail sectors saw particularly high compensation boosts, as employers struggled to fill open positions.
An index of consumer sentiment also released Friday by the University of Michigan showed Americans remain in a glum mood. The index fell to 71.7 in October from 72.8 in September. It remains well below the level of 101 registered in February 2020, before the pandemic hit.
Consumers in October also anticipated the highest year-ahead inflation rate since 2008 at 4.8%, according to the sentiment survey. Higher consumer inflation expectations are a concern for policy makers because they could prompt firms and workers to raise prices and salary demands in the future, making the expectations self-fulfilling.
Constrained global supply chains have made it difficult for businesses and consumers to find the products they want to buy. Continued fears of the Covid-19 virus and difficulty finding child care have kept workers out of the labor force, despite rapidly rising wages.
About 62% of American adults are either working or looking for work, the lowest rate since the 1970s.
Those factors have combined to push inflation well above the Fed’s 2% target. Economists say they expect inflation to remain elevated until the pandemic-related disruptions settle down, perhaps sometime next year.
“This is a really rough ride for the next few months,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.Each passing month of rapidly rising consumer prices puts added pressure on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, he said.
“It lays out the possibility that the Fed has to move earlier, not because they’re walking away from their central view but because the risks of being wrong have gone up,” he said.
The central bank is expected to announce next week that it will begin paring back its asset purchases in November. Officials have penciled in an interest-rate increase next year once that tapering is complete.
“The Fed now has to navigate that very difficult transition from accommodation to tightening,” said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US LLC.
The biggest concern right now, he said, is the persistent supply problems, which could keep prices elevated.
In Madison, Wis., Benjamin Wellington has seen his appliance-repair business suffer from a shortage of parts. Those parts that are available cost more, he said. He passes on what he can to his customers.
Although he is getting more calls from customers, the shortages have prevented him from taking on as much work as he would like.
“My profits are way down because I’m not getting those completed jobs anymore,” he said.
Consumer spending rose at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.6% in September, down from 0.8% in August, the Commerce Department said, as higher prices, product shortages and a surge of new Covid-19 cases caused by the Delta variant tempered buying.
Personal incomes fell 1% last month, driven by a 72% decline in unemployment insurance benefits that offset a 0.7% increase in wages and benefits, the report said.
The expiration of enhanced jobless aid at the start of September forced people to rely on the savings they had built up thanks to multiple waves of government stimulus during the pandemic. The savings rate—the share of disposable income unspent every month—fell to 7.5% in September from 9.2% in August, bringing it to a level last seen at the end of 2019, before the state of the pandemic.
Economists say the spending slowdown will be short-lived. The decline in new Covid-19 caseloads and rising wages should keep demand elevated heading into the holiday season.
“If Delta was a net negative for the third quarter and for September, then I think it should be a net positive for the fourth quarter,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “We should see some revival.”
In Raleigh, N.C., Paul Warren, a music teacher, has seen more students willing to take in-person guitar and drum lessons despite lingering fears of the virus.“The demand is picking up but it’s slow. Slow and steady,” he said.
Mr. Warren used to run a music school but shut it down when pandemic-related lockdowns kept students away. Since then, he has been teaching classes online and, increasingly, face to face.
Why do so many members of the FDA Panel that just approved the covid shot for young children seem to have ongoing ties to Pfizer? Is the panel’s objectivity compromised? Also today: Danish authorities threaten more lockdowns, Ireland’s most-jabbed are also most new cases, and Biden threatens vax refusers with “re-education.” Watch today’s Liberty Report:
Mainstream News Orgs Pushing COVID Vax for Children Are Owned by Same Companies that Own Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J
FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS are owned by financial asset management companies Vanguard, State Street, and BlackRock, which also own the four major experimental Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.
QUICK FACTS:
BACKGROUND:
Jon Fleetwood is Managing Editor for American Faith and author of “An American Revival: Why American Christianity Is Failing & How to Fix It.”