Big Pharma Coronavirus COVID-19 death rate Donald Trump Dr. Robert Frenck Emergency Preparedness experts FDA Headline News Intelwars Kids Military Operation warp speed Pfizer Preparedness propaganda punishements testing on children Trump administration tyranny United States Vaccine vaccine hesitancy zero

Operation Warp Speed: Big Pharma To Test COVID-19 Vaccine On Children As Young As 12

The rollout of Operation Warp Speed, president Donald Trump’s plan to fast track a COVID-19 vaccine, is leading Big Pharma to test its product on children as young as 12. The goal of the current administration is to have a vaccine distributed by the military by the election.

If the government succeeds, people will be getting vaccinated during the beginning of November by the United States military. In fact, the Department of Defense has recently said there is great progress being made on this vaccine.

David Icke To LEOs & Military: “Look Your Children In The Eye” & Tell Them YOU Enforced Tyranny

According to a report by CNN, drugmaker Pfizer has plans to start testing its experimental coronavirus vaccine in children as young as 12, and parents have already expressed interest in enrolling their kids, the researcher leading the trial said on Tuesday. It will be the first coronavirus vaccine trial to include children in the United States. A team at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital will begin vaccinating teenagers aged 16 and 17 this week, and will move to enroll 12-to 15-year-olds later, said Dr. Robert Frenck, director of the Vaccine Research Center at the hospital.

The company confirmed on its website it has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to enroll children as young as 12 in its trial.

“We really think a vaccine for adolescents and children is going to be critical for getting Covid under control,” Frenck told CNN in a telephone interview. –CNN

“I think one of the things that is important to remember is that although the death rate for children with Covid is lower than in older adults, it’s not zero,” he said, noting that more than half a million children have been diagnosed with coronavirus in the United States. “It is not a nonexistent infection in children.”

Bill Gates: The U.S. Should “Brainstorm” Ways To Reduce “Vaccine Hesitancy”

This vaccine will not be a choice for most.  There will be an effort to make sure you are “voluntarily” coerced into taking it.  Please don’t delude yourself into assuming otherwise. Brace for it, watch the progress and know what the punishments will be for refusing it.  They will be harsh, we’ve already been told that. Stay prepared, this is coming soon!

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

The post Operation Warp Speed: Big Pharma To Test COVID-19 Vaccine On Children As Young As 12 first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

COVID-19 Delusional Donald Trump Emergency Preparedness FDA Force Forecasting Headline News Intelwars Military Operation warp speed Regulations rules safety measures Vaccine vaccines Violence WHITE HOUSE

White House Tries To Ensure Vaccine Is Available Before The Election

The White House has taken even more steps to ensure a vaccine for the COVID-19 scamdemic will be available by the election, which is scheduled to take place on November 3. The Trump administration has removed Food and Drug Administration regulations that would prevent a vaccine from being ready before November.

Time is running out. There will be a vaccine and you will be expected to take it voluntarily. If you don’t, you will be punished until you comply. This has become all to obvious, but people are still under some delusion that they will be offered a reasonable alternative to accepting this vaccine.

At issue was the FDA’s planned instruction that vaccine developers follow patients enrolled in their trials for at least two months to rule out safety issues before seeking emergency approval from the agency. A senior administration confirmed the move Monday evening, saying the White House believed there was “no clinical or medical reason” for the additional requirement.Market Watch

This means the safety rules in place (which aren’t that stringent for vaccines to begin with) are going to be removed in order to make sure a vaccine is pushed through by the election. Operation Warp Speed will be rolled out as soon as possible.

Trump: “The Military Is Ready To Deliver A Vaccine”

Only one drugmaker, Pfizer, has suggested it could have data on the safety and effectiveness of its vaccine before Election Day. And a number of variables would still have to align for the company to submit, and the FDA to review and approve, a vaccine application before Nov. 3. Pfizer’s competitors Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are working on longer researcher timelines.-Market Watch

Moderna Says Their COVID-19 Vaccine Will NOT Be Ready Before The Election

Just because the vaccine may not be available by November 3, doesn’t mean one won’t be rolled out shortly afterward.  The Trump administration seems intent upon releasing a vaccine to the public before the election.

Trump Administration Is Stockpiling 3 Different Types Of COVID-19 Vaccines

If you intend to deny this vaccine, prepare. Stock up food and water because you probably won’t be allowed in stores or to work. It will not be voluntary by any measure of the definition of the word.  You will be forced to take it one way or another and if you don’t expect punishment.  Get ready if you don’t want it. It is coming and it will be shoved down our throats.

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

Brace yourselves. This is going to get ugly in the next 30 days. Not just with the election, ut with this vaccine.  And any number of other calamities that could creep up before then. Prepare, be aware, and remain unafraid.

The post White House Tries To Ensure Vaccine Is Available Before The Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

bill gates clinical trials COVID-19 FDA goal posts Government Headline News Hoax Intelwars LIES Mask plandemic response return to normal scamdemic SLAVERY social distancing Vaccinations vaccines

Tyrants: “Prepare To Wear Masks & Socially Distance Even After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine”

Doctors are now saying we should expect to practice social distancing and wear masks even after everyone is vaccinated.  Talk about moving the goalposts in an epic fashion!

They have warned us of this in the past too:

They Moved The Goalposts…AGAIN!: “It’s Not Over When The Vaccine Arrives”

There is no going back. It’s not going to be “normal” again.

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who also co-invented the rotavirus vaccine (is in the back pocket of Big Pharma) suggests that even after you’re injected with the horrific concoction of whatever is going to be in the COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll still have to socially distance and wear a face mask.  In other words, get used to living life as a slave because it’s not going back to “normal” as we knew it.

As a “vaccine expert,” Offit helped develop the rotavirus vaccine, which supposedly protects young children against infections with the virus that can cause severe diarrhea. He also sits on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, according to Market Watch. So he’s got a vested interest in making sure you take the vaccine.

Offit is now keeping a close eye on the clinical trials underway for COVID-19 vaccine candidates and the Trump administration’s potential influence on federal agencies closely involved in the pandemic response. “The government has shown its capacity to impose its will on science-based federal agencies”, he said. “There is a reason to worry.”

Of course, there’s a reason to worry. A vaccine will come and this one will be like nothing ever released or used on human beings before. Offit then says that Moderna would normally wait to see whether a vaccine works and was safe before they mass-produced it. What the government said is, “Look, we’ll take the risk out of it for you. We’ll pay for the Phase 3 trial. We’ll pay for mass production.” That’s good, actually.” So the government has already made certain that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for the side effects, or even death of those who take the vaccine.

“A vaccine is a part of what’s going to get us out of this mess,” says Offit. But we still have to wear masks and social distance. Get used to the new normal, or wake up.


The post Tyrants: “Prepare To Wear Masks & Socially Distance Even After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

bill gates CDC covid COVID-19 Covid-19 vaccine FDA Intelwars

Bill Gates says he isn’t sure he can trust the FDA on a coronavirus vaccine

For months, liberals who have fought against all attempts to reopen the economy have insisted that it would be irresponsible to allow any public activity (other than riots) until a vaccine is developed and distributed.

Now that it seems possible (albeit unlikely) that such a vaccine may be ready for distribution, many of those same people have shifted gears to say that any vaccine released under the oversight of the Trump administration is not to be trusted anyway — and now Bill Gates has joined the chorus of liberals actively attempting to undermine public confidence in any potential vaccine and thus discourage participation in a vaccination program.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Gates said that he doesn’t trust either the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for public oversight of vaccines, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when it comes to providing responsible oversight over the development of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“We saw with the completely bungled plasma statements that when you start pressuring people to say optimistic things, they go completely off the rails. The FDA lost a lot of credibility there,” Gates said. Gates’ comments were an apparent reference to controversy over the effectiveness of blood plasma in treatment of the coronavirus.

Gates went on, “Historically, just like the CDC was viewed as the best in the world, the FDA had that same reputation as a top-notch regulator. But there’s been some cracks with some of the things they’ve said at the commissioner level.”

Gates did say in the interview that he eventually expects a safe and effective vaccine to emerge from the process, but he did not elaborate on what might cause him to trust the FDA’s or CDC’s oversight of the process.

Presumably, however, a change in the White House would cause Gates to change his tune, as Gates has been a strong proponent of vaccination for other diseases worldwide.

Gates is far from alone among liberals in this refrain. Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris stirred controversy earlier this month when she stated that she would not take any vaccine that was released before the election. “The View” cohost Joy Behar likewise engaged in some conspiracy theorizing last week when she stated that she would not take the vaccine until Ivanka Trump took it first.

centers for disease control and prevention Coronavirus COVID-19 distribution Donald Trump Dr. anthony fauci early vaccine release FDA get ready Headline News infection Intelwars Operation warp speed phase 3 Sadkia Popescu tyranny untested vaccines

CDC: Get Ready For Your Vaccine By November 1

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have warned that their untested vaccine will be ready on November 1. States have been told to prepare the public and have a plan to distribute a coronavirus vaccine to “hundreds of millions” of Americans.

Donald Trump has been pushing for a COVID-19 vaccine under Operation Warp Speed, and so far, there seems to be one thing in common: the vaccine won’t be held to the already meager safety standards of other vaccines, and it will be rushed as the coronavirus has become political.

FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine

“This timeline of the initial deployment at the end of October is deeply worrisome for the politicization of public health and the potential safety ramifications,” said Saskia Popescu, an infection prevention epidemiologist based in Arizona. “It’s hard not to see this as a push for a pre-election vaccine.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has notified public health officials in all 50 states and five large cities to prepare to distribute a coronavirus vaccine to health care workers and other high-risk groups as soon as late October or early November, according to a report by The New York Times.

Over the past week, both Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease expert, and Dr. Stephen Hahn, who heads the Food and Drug Administration, have said in interviews with news organizations that a vaccine may be available for certain groups before clinical trials have been completed, if the data is overwhelmingly positive.

Public health experts agree that agencies at all levels of government should urgently prepare for what will eventually be a vast, complex effort to vaccinate hundreds of millions of Americans. – The New York Times.

There is a silver lining when considering an early vaccine release. Since Trump is the one pushing this vaccine, the left may not be lining up to get it.  People may open their eyes to what a vaccine is, and question this one especially. As of right now, this is not a mandatory vaccine, but try not to bank on it staying that way forever.

For those who tell me I have an “anti-Trump” bias: I actually have an anti-tyranny bias.  This has nothing to do with Trump other than he’s the one “in control” right now. The same criticism would be applied to anyone else trying to shove an unwanted vaccine on the population of the globe. My goal is not to pander to your feelings, but to wake you up to the reality and gravity of the situation.

We are living under totalitarian rule and Trump is the current “leader.” If you have a problem with me bringing this fact to your attention, apologies for triggering you with the truth. Trump is the one who is in charge of Operation Warp Speed, and that came out his own mouth. Wake up.  The vaccine is coming. They are pushing this vaccine for a reason.

The post CDC: Get Ready For Your Vaccine By November 1 first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

agenda Big Pharma concoctions Coronavirus COVID-19 Emergency Preparedness experts FDA forced vaccines Forecasting Headline News Humanity Intelwars Law mandated Manufacturing New World Order not safe Operation warp speed Paul Mango phase 3 plandemic scamdemic skip trials stockpiling vaccines three vaccines toxic Trump administration unapproved

Trump Administration Is Stockpiling 3 Different Types Of COVID-19 Vaccines

The Trump administration is now stockpiling three different types of coronavirus vaccines through Operation Warp Speed. None of these vaccines have been approved for use but all are from different Big Pharma companies.

Based on all the information available, nothing about this new COVID-19 vaccine is neceasrry, yet it looks like it is going to be mandatory. Even IF the “law” doesn’t mandate it, there will be ways to coerce Americans into getting it.

How Much Fiat Currency Would You Take In Exchange For The COVID-19 Vaccine?

The United States has already manufactured and stockpiled “hundreds of thousands of doses” of coronavirus vaccines in the hopes that one will be effective in combating the virus, a senior administration official said Tuesday, according to a report by Fox News BusinessShould the Food and Drug Administration give any of these concoctions clearance, the vaccines would be ready to be deployed by the military, as Trump himself has already said would happen.

FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine

Trump: “The Military Is Ready To Deliver A Vaccine”

Time is almost up. You had better wake up uick. Trump is going to have these vaccines ready before the election ost likely. If we stand any chance at retaining our humanity and the freedom which is our birthright, we had better learn to stand together and opposed this en masse!

“As I mentioned manufacturing is already underway for three of our vaccines,” Paul Mango, Health and Human Services deputy chief of staff, said last week. “We already have manufacturing started for the other three. We are retrofitting a number of facilities.”

Mango said the U.S. expects to have four coronavirus candidate vaccines in large-scale clinical trials by the middle of September. The government is “very pleased” with the progress, he said. –Fox News Business.

Operation Warp Speed was spearheaded by president Trump. The ambitious $10 billion program bean in mid-May with the goal to develop, produce, and distribute a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the year. Operation Wapr Speed would also creat  of making “at least” 300 million doses to administer to Americans.

More Proof Trump Is Working On Bill Gates’ Vaccine Under “Operation Warp Speed”

Medical Tyranny: Trump Pivots To Mandatory Vaccinations Under Operation “Warp Speed”


The post Trump Administration Is Stockpiling 3 Different Types Of COVID-19 Vaccines first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Big Pharma blood plasma clinical trials COVID-19 dark winter Donald Trump Dr. Stephen Hahn Emergency use authorization FDA Force Headline News Hoax Intelwars left-right paradigm LIES Military Operation warp speed political Presidential Election propaganda scamdemic TOTALITARIANISM Treatment Vaccine trials Violence wake up call

FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine

As promised, we are going to have a “dark winter.” Operation Warp Speed has just taken a sinister turn, as the Food and Drug Administration commissioner said he is willing to “authorize” a coronavirus vaccine before phase 3 trials are complete.

Once this vaccine is approved by the government, President Donald Trump says the military will be rolling it out. Time is running out, folks.  They need your compliance and they need it now.

The Pentagon & CDC Will Join Together To Mass Distribute The COVID Vaccine

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, said his agency was prepared to authorize a vaccine before Phase Three clinical trials were complete, as long as officials are convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, the Financial Times reported. The benefits will always outweigh the risks when it comes to those who want power and are willing to impose their will on others. Wake up. This is all happening on Donald Trump’s watch.  Stop being blinded by the left/right paradigm and realize what’s happening.

The U.S. government is going to use the military to vaccinate every single human in this country. Trump is pushing for this vaccine just as hard as anyone. Last Saturday, he accused members of a so-called “deep state” working within the FDA of complicating efforts to test COVID-19 vaccines in order to delay results until after the November 3 presidential election. A day later, the FDA gave “emergency use authorization” of a coronavirus treatment that uses blood plasma from recovered patients.

Del Bigtree: Censored For Stating Vaccine Truths

“Our emergency use authorization is not the same as a full approval,” Hahn told the Financial Times, adding that his decisions will not be made because of political pressure. “This is going to be a science, medicine, data decision. This is not going to be a political decision,” Hahn said, according to the report. Instead, he’s promising this decision is going to be made in the best interests of Big Pharma.  Rushing a vaccine helps no one other than those who stand to make a profit.

Hahn said the safest way for the vaccine to be available for use before the end of Phase Three trials, which involve thousands of patients and can take years, would be by issuing an emergency authorization for use by certain groups rather than a blanket approval.

Anyone else curious who those “certain groups” will be? Who will be the first poor souls getting vaccinated with this toxic concoction of God-only-knows-what?

The “dark winter” is indeed, quickly descending upon us.

Those Who Planned The Enslavement of Mankind Warn Of “A Dark Winter” For Us

The post FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

CBD FDA food freedom Hemp Intelwars raw milk Right to Try

Status Report: Nullifying FDA Regulations

The FDA has grown increasingly aggressive in enforcing food and drug laws. It not only asserts the power to regulate interstate commerce; it also often asserts the authority to regulate food and drugs within state lines, including raw milk, CBD, and even meat.

But the FDA faces the same problem as every other federal agency. It does not have the personnel or resources to enforce all of its regulatory edicts without state and local support. By refusing to cooperate with FDA rules and regulations, and passing laws that encourage the growth of markets in federally-prohibited items, state and local action can nullify onerous FDA mandates in practice and effect.

Food Freedom

State and local governments can undermine FDA regulations simply by getting out of the way and allowing markets to flourish with the passage of food freedom laws.

Wyoming enacted the first such law in 2015. The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds. It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish. North Dakota, Utah and Maine have similar laws.

Wyoming expanded its Food Freedom Act in 2020 with the passage of two bills. HB155 allows consumers to buy individual cuts of meat through herd-share agreements. The law is modeled on laws that allow the sale of raw milk in some states. Consumers pay the rancher a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal or a herd. In return, the consumer gets cuts of meat. In effect, it completely bypasses the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection regime, nullifying the federal law in effect.

HB84 allows for the sale of “non-potentially hazardous” homemade foods to be sold in retail stores and restaurants. “Potentially-non hazardous foods are defined as ” food that does not require time or temperature control for safety and includes jams, uncut fruits and vegetables, pickled vegetables, hard candies, fudge, nut mixes, granola, dry soup mixes excluding meat-based soup mixes, coffee beans, popcorn and baked goods that do not include dairy or meat frosting or filling or other potentially hazardous frosting or filling.

While state law does not bind the FDA, the passage of food freedom laws creates an environment hostile to federal food regulation. And because the state does not interfere with local food producers, that means it will not enforce FDA mandates either. Should the feds want to enforce food laws in states with food freedom laws, they have to do so by themselves.


Many people think CBD is legal now due to the fact that it’s available on virtually every street corner and the 2018 farm bill legalized industrial hemp. But this is not the case. While the DEA no longer has the authority to regulate or prohibit hemp, the provisions of the farm bill don’t limit the FDA. While farmers can now legally grow hemp for commercial purposes, the sale of cannabinol or food products containing CBD remains federally-illegal.

States can undermine FDA regulation of CBD by simply making it legal within their borders and refusing to enforce the agency’s regulations. 

Over the last few years, at least 11 states (Arkansas, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, Ohio, Oklahoma and New York) passed laws creating regulatory structures for the manufacture and sale of CBD. These laws open the door to the production and sale of CBD products produced in the state regardless of continued federal prohibition.

And at least 10 states expressly authorized CBD as an additive in food products, despite the FDA’s explicit prohibition, most recently, Virginia.

Raw Milk 

The federal regulation of raw milk reveals just how deeply the federal government is involved in local food issues. Not only do the Feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk within the borders of a state. States can undermine federal prohibition schemes by legalizing raw milk sales within their borders.

In 2019, Vermont expanded raw milk sales in the state. The new law makes a number of changes to the state’s agriculture policies, including expanding raw milk sales. Under the law, farmers who sell more than 87.5 gallons to 350 gallons of raw milk per week can sell and deliver unpasteurized milk directly to the consumer off the farm and at farmer’s markets.

The former law only allowed direct-to-consumer sales on the farm where the milk was produced. Tier-2 producers were able to deliver raw milk to farmer’s markets, but only if the sale and financing had been set up beforehand.

Utah also expanded raw milk sales in the 2020 legislative session. The new law allows permit holders to sell raw milk cream and butter. The former law only allowed the sale of pure raw milk even by those holding a permit.

Currently, 13 states allow raw milk sales in retail stores and 17 states allow sales only on the farm where the milk was produced. Nine states have legalized herd-share agreements.

Right to Try

State Right to Try laws create a process to bypass the FDA rules and allow some patients to obtain experimental drugs from manufacturers without first obtaining federal approval. By the end of the 2018 legislative season, 41 states had implemented Right to Try.

With most of the country already offering the right to try under state law, Congress passed its own limited version of the legislation in 2018.

Now states are looking for ways to expand the concept despite ongoing FDA restrictions.

Louisiana successfully expanded its Right to Try law. In 2017, the state included robotic technology that assists patients suffering from terminal degenerative muscular diseases with mobility in its Right to Try statute. The law is specifically meant to allow ALS patients in the state to access EyeDrive technology that allows them to maneuver a wheelchair using eye movements. 

The technology is currently unavailable on the market because it’s still in the FDA trial phase. Passage of HB179 opens the door for all ALS patients in the state to bypass the FDA and access this potentially far-reaching technology.

Last year, North Carolina expanded its Right to Try law as well.  The expanded provisions allow certain patients to access stem cell treatments not yet given final approval by the FDA.

In June, Mississippi expanded its law, making patients with “traumatic injuries” eligible for experimental treatments under the law. It also adds adult autologous mesenchymal stem cells to the list of experimental treatments covered under the act.

This is an overview of recent state efforts to nullify unconstitutional FDA actions in effect. To get more details on state efforts to undermine the FDA’s unconstitutional regulation of food, medicine and healthcare, along with other federal agencies and programs, make sure you read our latest State of the Nullification Movement report. You can download it for free HERE.

Chloroquine Coronavirus COVID-19 Emergency use authorization FDA food and drug administration Hydroxychloroquine Intelwars

FDA pulls emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment

The Food and Drug Administration has ended the emergency use authorization that allowed physicians to prescribe chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, citing its ineffectiveness as a treatment and potentially dangerous side effects.

The FDA issued the EUA for the anti-malarial drugs at the end of March after some physicians in other countries claimed patients improved with the treatments. However, further study has not proven them to be effective against COVID-19, and research has revealed potential dangers.

The FDA added the following update to its guidance on the emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine:

Based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) to treat COVID-19, FDA has determined that the statutory criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are no longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use. This warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19.

A study published in May in the prominent scientific journal The Lancet, which claimed to find that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous, was later retracted after the data upon which the study was based was found to be inconsistent and unverifiable.

The retracted study concluded that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine showed no benefit on in-hospital COVID-19 patient outcomes, while it was associated with “decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement did not specify what scientific evidence it reviewed to conclude that the EUA should be revoked.

The FDA previously announced safety concerns associated with the drugs in late April.

“Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19. … Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia,” a statement on the FDA website reads. “These risks may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval, including the antibiotic azithromycin, which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for this condition. Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines.”

Last month, President Donald Trump announced that he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

“I happen to be taking it,” Trump said on May 18. “A lot of good things have come out. You’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the front-line workers. Before you catch it. The front-line workers, many, many are taking it.”

Big Pharma CDC COVID-19 FDA Health Care Intelwars vaccines

The COVID-19 War on Liberty Has Been Brewing for Years

The war being waged against our rights under the pretext of controlling infectious disease is not new and didn’t arise with COVID-19. Vaccine freedom advocates have been fighting this war for years, attempting to protect those rights. With their experience, they have a wealth of information that can be drawn upon in the fight.

Many libertarians and conservatives have expressed the view that the current government repression related to COVID-19 is a “new war” on our rights. I respectfully disagree. There is nothing new about this war. It’s a continuation of highly concerted efforts by the state and their corporate cronies to strip away rights based upon a scientific narrative that is riddled with conflicts of interest and pharmaceutical industry influence, under the guise of protecting Americans from infectious disease.

I’m a libertarian. I’ve voiced opposition to vaccine mandates. The second statement can’t be inferred from the first, as many libertarians have voiced little to no opposition to vaccine mandates.

This article shall serve as my confession of sorts, to an error that I and others in the vaccine freedom movement may have made in presenting our case for opposing vaccine mandates, and also as my rallying cry to fellow libertarians regarding this war that has been raging for years.

Rights have already been stripped away under the pretext of protecting Americans from infectious diseases.

The tendency of libertarians to frame the COVID-19 rights battle as something new, which is separate and distinct from the rights battle which has been fought for years by vaccine freedom advocates, is misguided. In fact, COVID-19 is just another in a long line of infectious diseases being used as a pretext to strip Americans of their rights.

Our youngest and most vulnerable, our children, were the first victims in this war. They were victimized when, based upon a scientific narrative that is not supported by the weight of the scientific evidence, vaccinates were mandated upon them and unvaccinated children were stripped of the right to attend public schools and, in some locations, private schools.

These “lockouts” of unvaccinated children from schools were a precursor to the lockdowns that Americans of all ages are now experiencing and, for those of us paying attention, they served as a forewarning of what was coming.

The history of child vaccine mandates is discussed at length in my prior articles, including one entitled “Central Planning of Your Immune System is Dangerous” and won’t be extensively discussed in the instant article.

Libertarians in the vaccine freedom movement have asserted to their fellow libertarians for years that the scientific evidence does not support the frightening risk levels portrayed by the state and its corporate cronies concerning unvaccinated children and the infectious diseases parents are forced to vaccinate their children against. These arguments generally fell on disinterested ears and most libertarians have not put significant effort, or any effort at all, into opposing vaccine mandates. Hopefully, libertarians will reconsider these arguments in light of the recent, obviously inflated risk levels being associated by these same state and corporate players to COVID-19.

Perhaps healthy, vibrant libertarian adults forced to wear masks and locked in their homes during COVID-19 madness, due to exaggerated risk levels, will take a fresh look at unvaccinated children and consider whether any potential risks they pose to society have also been exaggerated and subject to a similar madness. Perhaps they’ll also reconsider whether or not they should actively join the fight against vaccine mandates.

Although prior to COVID-19, U.S. adults had generally not yet been stripped of rights based upon the pretext of infectious disease (except for parental, decision-making rights regarding their children’s vaccinations), those of us in the vaccine freedom movement repeatedly warned that the battle plan of the state and its corporate cronies has a next phase, which clearly includes smashing rights belonging to both children and adults. We explained that this next phase will include tracking and monitoring, restrictions on the right to travel and assemble, restrictions on the right to use state services and to do other things based upon vaccine status and forced vaccinations for both adults and children.

Soon, COVID-19 will be just another of many infectious diseases for which there is a licensed vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine will likely be forced upon the entire populace. It will likely be the first of many vaccines mandated upon adults in the U.S., and will likely join the long list of vaccines already mandated upon children. (Denmark has already passed legislation authorizing forced vaccination against COVID-19, so it’s getting a jump on its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.)

The extent to which COVID-19-related repression is inextricably wound up with the vaccine freedom battle is illustrated by the fact that those from the state and their corporate cronies have argued that Americans’ release from lockdown should be conditioned upon the masses receiving the future COVID-19 vaccine.

I confess to having framed the issue of vaccine mandates too narrowly in the past.

One of my goals in writing this article is to respectfully and constructively suggest that some libertarians have been misguided and short-sighted in failing to pay attention to the issue of vaccine mandates. However, before exploring this further, let me first confess to an error of my own.

I realize that some vaccine freedom advocates, including myself, have done a less than ideal job in presenting our reasons for opposing vaccine mandates. We started with a tree and ignored the forest. There’s never been a more important time than now to properly frame the issue, in order to prompt action, as the state’s use of infectious disease as a pretext to strip away our rights is ramping up. Therefore, I’d like to take another stab at properly framing it.

This is the old, too narrow, overview of the war.

For the last handful of years, when trying to persuade fellow libertarians to take an interest in the vaccine mandate issue, my points usually went something like this: vaccine mandates for children exist at the state level; mandates are coming for adults; mandates will likely be issued at the federal level; orchestration exists at the global level to impose vaccine mandates; tracking of vaccine status will be imposed and the ability to travel, use state services and do other things may be based upon vaccine status; the pharmaceutical industry heavily influences the regulatory agencies tasked with regulating them; strong conflicts of interest exist within the context of vaccine public policy; liability has been removed for the manufacturers of many vaccines; special liability rules apply to most vaccine injury claims; discovery isn’t allowed against vaccine manufacturers in the claims process; vaccines are categorized as biologics, not drugs, and are subject to less stringent safety testing then drugs; inert double-blind placebo studies are not conducted on most vaccines; and there’s evidence of far more extensive vaccine injury in the U.S. and elsewhere than depicted by the state, Big Pharma and the media.

This is the improved, bird’s eye view of the war.

This story needs to be told from the bird’s eye view, which is set forth below.

Rights are often stripped away for pretextual reasons. Most libertarians seem to be aware that, although valid environmental concerns exist, the prevailing environmental narrative has been used as a pretext by some in the state and their corporate cronies to strip away rights. Libertarians are generally also aware that this has involved the state and corporate players declaring what is “settled environmental science” and acting to suppress conflicting scientific information and voices.

However, most are unaware (or were unaware until COVID-19 madness struck) that there is another pretextual reason to strip away our rights that has been hammering away at us (complete with the declaration of what is “settled infectious disease science” and the suppression of conflicting scientific information and voices) that will make the aforementioned environmental pretext look like a mere rookie. This is the great infectious disease caper, which may nearly completely strip us of our rights to privacy, to travel, to move about freely, to assemble, and to decline vaccines.

Control of infectious diseases is being used by the state and its corporate allies as a pretext to usurp power and to enrich themselves and they’re using a contrived, controlled fraudulent scientific narrative to achieve this. That is the forest and vaccine mandates are a tree in that forest.

The state, the media and Big Pharma did not just start exaggerating the risks of infectious diseases with COVID-19, and forewarnings about this behavior were contained in the vaccine freedom articles, and in the vaccine freedom speeches, that were largely ignored by libertarians.

For years, opponents of vaccine mandates have pointed out that the risks of death and serious harm from infectious diseases, both in the past and in modern-day, have been grossly exaggerated by the state and its pharmaceutical company cronies in order to garner support for vaccine mandates, and for other rights violations planned for us, under the guise of protecting us.

The example of this risk exaggeration most often cited by vaccine freedom advocates has been the measles and the MMR vaccine. We’ve pointed out that the death rate from the measles virus in the U.S. has been significantly exaggerated to generate support for MMR mandates. Although the CDC now recommends for children upwards of 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18, many of which are mandated throughout the country, the MMR vaccine is the one that the state and its Big Pharma collaborators have primarily focused upon in their fear campaign to rally support for vaccine mandates.

Prior to the use of vaccines, the annual death rate in the U.S. from measles was low, at approximately 1 in 10,000 of those infected. Of course, not every American was infected with measles each year, so the overall annual death rate among the entire U.S. population from measles was even far lower than that. The state, Big Pharma and the media often provide an estimate of the U.S. pre-vaccine era annual measles death rate which is an order of magnitude higher than cited above, i.e., 1 in 1,000. Such calculation has generally based the method of using reported cases as the denominator rather than overall cases. This method is deceptive because measles was generally viewed as a benign childhood illness in the pre-vaccine years and most measles cases were not reported in that era.

This misrepresentation of the risks associated with measles is thoroughly documented and discussed in Jeremy R. Hammond’s article posted (pre-COVID-19) on May 16, 2019, entitled, “How the CDC and Media Lie About the Measles Death Rate” which can be found on Hammond’s website. Hammond is a well-known libertarian and journalist and his work has focused on foreign policy and vaccine policy.

Hammond’s website has a section devoted exclusively to vaccines, which is a repository of articles he has written on the topic, many of which discuss not only the scientific misrepresentations and statistical sleights of hand specifically being used with respect to infectious disease death rates, but also regarding the larger issues concerning the necessity for, the efficacy of and safety of vaccines. His materials include, among other things, a four-part series on the influenza vaccine and the whoppers we’ve been fed in connection with it. Many other infectious diseases and vaccines are discussed in his articles.

To my knowledge, Hammond has not been widely invited to appear on libertarian podcasts, or to give speeches at libertarian events, to discuss his above-referenced article about the scientific/statistical deceit being used as a basis to mandate the MMR vaccine upon children (or to the discuss the other instances cited in his articles of the state’s/Big Pharma’s scientific/statistical deceit in connection with other vaccines mandated upon children). I believe that these have been lost opportunities. Perhaps if more libertarians had taken an interest in this issue and banded together (with other libertarians and vaccine freedom advocates) to tell the state and its corporate cronies that we won’t stand for public policy based upon scientific and statistical deception, the state wouldn’t be using the same scientific/statistical shenanigans on us now with regard to COVID-19—and we wouldn’t be locked down, forced to wear masks and subject to the other “COVID-19 madness” repressive measures that we’re all suffering through.

The groundwork for the COVID-19 lockdowns was laid when Americans accepted, within the context of vaccine mandates, that the state is entitled to declare “settled infectious disease science” and they relinquished control from themselves and their doctors to bureaucrats for making medical decisions related to infectious diseases.

Within the context of the vaccine mandate debate, the state and its corporate collaborators have repeated the mantra for years, in a concerted fashion, that “the science” is settled in that it’s been scientifically proven that the mandated vaccines are necessary, effective and safe. This is false because the science is not settled regarding any of this. Nonetheless, this mantra has been drilled into the heads of the masses and largely accepted by them.

Part of this alleged “settled science” shoved down the masses’ throats has been the concept that natural herd immunity should be rejected as a solution for the infectious diseases faced by mankind in favor of medical intervention through a lifetime series of vaccinations. (Natural herd immunity and the artificial, inferior “herd immunity” from vaccines are separate and distinct and the latter affords the populace less protection, as discussed here and here, in articles posted on CHD’s website.)

It should be noted that the lockdowns we’ve suffered through during COVID-19 madness have been, in part, based upon the state’s ongoing attempts to interfere with natural herd immunity and to prevent it from occurring.

Additionally, in the fight over vaccine mandates, scientific evidence contradicting the state’s/Big Pharma’s “settled science” narrative has been systematically suppressed by the powers that be.

Further, those in the vaccine mandate debate questioning the “settled science” have been widely portrayed as anti-vax crazies by the media, which receives a substantial portion of its funding from Big Pharma. Similarly, we’ve seen derogatory propaganda in the media concerning those questioning the state-sanctioned version of science concerning COVID-19, but, because a COVID-19 vaccine hasn’t arrived on the scene yet, it’s taken the form of the skeptics being labeled as selfish Granny-killers.

With regard to mandated vaccines, the state has succeeded in shifting the decision-making role for medical decisions from the individual (along with any medical provider he/she may wish to consult) to bureaucratic administrators. This shift is discussed in my article Central Planning of Your Immune System is Dangerousand in this video by Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center.

Americans have overwhelmingly sat idly by while the state deemed itself to be the appropriate declarer of “settled science” in connection with vaccines and they’ve largely acquiesced the right to make medical decisions regarding the vaccination of their children to bureaucrats.

This laid a groundwork which was well in place when COVID-19 arrived on the scene, with the following concepts accepted as a “given” by the masses: a body of settled science exists with regard to infectious disease, which is whatever the state, Big Pharma and the media declare it to be; and bureaucrats are entitled to make infectious disease-related medical decisions for us based upon that state-sanctioned settled science.

I believe the reason that so few Americans, including libertarians, bothered to oppose vaccine mandates was because they accepted the state’s propaganda that settled science exists which proves that all vaccines mandated by the state are necessary, effective, and safe.

In fact, there’s a large body of science which arguably indicates for most, if not all, of the mandated vaccines that they are not necessary or highly effective and that the risks associated with them may be greater than the risks associated with the infectious diseases they are designed to prevent. My article Central Planning of Your Immune System is Dangerousdiscusses this and the websites of Jeremy R. Hammond, Children’s Health Defense, the HighWire/Informed Action Consent Network, the Vaccine Reaction and others have extensive information regarding this.

Science is never settled, particularly on a matter as complex as the human immune system, and it should continually be questioned, reviewed and investigated, with new findings openly discussed and never suppressed. Americans should be free to make their own medical decisions, and not have them forced upon them based upon a stale, cherry-picked, frozen “settled science” declared by the state and Big Pharma.

A purportedly new coronavirus, COVID-19, showed up on the scene, which is just one of an immeasurable number of viruses floating around the globe. There has been no consensus among doctors, immunologists, epidemiologists or other medical and scientific professionals about any of the following aspects of the virus: the transmission risks associated with it; the risk of death or serious bodily harm it poses; or the best manner to address any risks posed by it.

Despite the lack of consensus within the scientific community regarding these issues, the state applied the groundwork already set within the context of vaccine mandates. It “settled” the issues of what scientific evidence would be taken into consideration (and what would not be) and of what steps Americans would take in response to COVID-19. This resulted in our forced lockdowns, forced masks, and the (sometimes bizarre) social distancing rules we’ve been made to follow.

It sure was easier for the state to impose “COVID-19 rule” upon us in light of the fact that the precedent for most of its elements had already been set in place within the context of mandated vaccines. Mandated vaccines “softened us up” for this.

To defeat the plans they have for us, we must delve into the science.

Some libertarians have argued that government lockdowns should be opposed based upon principle, on the grounds that lockdowns violate our natural rights and that the state lacks authority to impose them and, further, that this approach should be used rather than a risk analysis argument showing that the risks from COVID-19 are not as severe as being depicted by the powers that be. While I agree that our natural rights should be enough to prevent lockdowns, I believe that a strategy of not delving into the science will ultimately fail to stop public support for draconian, rights-violating state action taken under the guise of protecting the public from infectious disease.

Based upon discussions I’ve had over the years within the context of vaccine mandates, I’ve concluded that, as long as the public is persuaded that an unvaccinated individual walking into a room poses a risk to others of death or serious bodily harm, they will overwhelmingly favor nearly whatever oppressive tactic that the government wants to impose upon that individual. I believe that this will also apply with regard to someone walking into a room who has, or potentially has, COVID-19 if the state is successful in its scientific con-job associated with it.

Therefore, I see no way to persuasively argue that individuals should have the right to refuse vaccines, and to be free from tracking, travel restrictions, activity restrictions, masks, lockdowns and government anti-social behavior requirements without, at least in part, arguing the science and attempting to disprove an inaccurate scientific narrative.

Knowing the vaccine mandate history and background will help libertarians to defeat COVID-19 related oppression.

In my view, the issue of the state’s response to COVID-19 and where the state is heading with respect to it can’t be discussed in any comprehensive fashion without at least touching upon vaccine mandates. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the state’s COVID-19 narrative can be as effectively smashed by one not schooled in the “back story” of the infectious disease narrative which has been playing itself out for years in the vaccine mandate arena.

Most vaccine freedom advocates experienced little to no shock about the COVID-19 situation for one very good reason. We’ve seen this movie before. All of the same government and corporate cronies have starring roles in it and it has the same old, tired storyline of a “deadly” infectious disease, with the weight of the scientific evidence actually indicating that the disease isn’t deadly (at least not to the overwhelming majority of people living in a first-world country).

We weren’t alarmed because we know this song and dance well and also know where this train is heading. It’s heading to the same place that it’s been traveling to for years, to a town near you with universal vaccine mandates, surveillance, almost no right to privacy, and limited right to travel, move about freely and assemble.

The battlefield in this fight against the use of a scientific narrative riddled with conflicts of interest and Big Pharma influence to strip away rights has largely been lacking libertarians.

As noted above, we are not facing a new war, but are well into a war that’s been raging for years, being fought on the liberty side by advocates for medical and vaccine freedom.

Below is an overview of the players I’ve observed on the battlefield, on the liberty side, during my vaccine freedom journey over the last handful of years.

Generally, I’ve been in a sea of Republicans while attending vaccine freedom events. Those describing themselves as libertarians, or as being members of the Libertarian Party, have been few and far between at the events. Democrats have been the rarest birds of all at them. (This is not to say that there aren’t many Democrats, and those from all parties and walks of life, working for vaccine freedom because there are.)

In fact, two organizations with leaders from “the left” have been highly active in attempting to defeat vaccine mandates and to preserve medical freedom: RFK, Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Del Bigtree’s The HighWire/Informed Consent Action Network (HW, ICAN). Based upon their recent comments, RFK, Jr. identifies himself as a Democrat and Bigtree was a lifelong Democrat until recently and now associates himself with no party.

Both RFK, Jr.’s (CHD) and Bigtree’s (HW, ICAN) platforms provide a voluminous amount of scientific information related to infectious disease and vaccines. Their platforms are also replete with materials regarding the following areas: state/Big Pharma cronyism permeating public policy related to infectious disease and vaccines; conflicts of interest permeating the CDC, FDA, NIH and other regulatory bodies; the revolving door between the state and Big Pharma; and violations of rights within the context of infectious disease and vaccines (parental rights, the right to informed consent, constitutional rights, natural rights).

Ironically, in recent years, these two “leftists” (RFK, Jr. and Bigtree) have often sounded far more “libertarian” than most libertarians on issues related to infectious disease and vaccines. I respectfully suggest that more libertarians should consider collaborating with them in order to further medical and vaccine freedom, including that related to COVID-19, in the same manner that libertarians have worked with the left on issues related to war.

Although libertarian voices have been somewhat rare in the vaccine freedom movement in recent years, there have been exceptions to this, including, among others: Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Jeremy R. Hammond, and Bretigne Shaffer. Also, in recent years, the Tenth Amendment Center has posted numerous articles on the topic of vaccine mandates, and Peter Quinones has conducted numerous interviews on it. (It should also be noted that Robert Murphy interviewed Shaffer on the issue of California’s vaccine mandates and, during the interview, had the insight to mention a parallel between the “settled environmental science” and “settled infectious disease science” scenarios discussed above.)

The above list of libertarians who have voiced opposition to vaccine mandates is not exhaustive, but I believe that it’s fair to say that most libertarians have not done so to any significant extent. They are badly needed in this war.

Let’s work together to smash attempts to use COVID-19, and the other infectious diseases that came before it and will come after it, to strip us of our rights based upon pretext and a fraudulent scientific narrative.

This author is hopeful that libertarians will work together, along with non-libertarians, to prevent the state and its corporate pals from using COVID-19 and other infectious diseases to rob us of our rights to make medical decisions, travel, move about, associate with others and to live our lives as free individuals.

CDC central planning FDA federal regulations Intelwars vaccines

Central Planning of Your Immune System Is Dangerous

Americans will potentially be subject to a lifetime schedule of mandated vaccines in the very near future. This would be an expansion of the childhood mandates already in place.

Mandated vaccinations constitute state planning of our immune systems and, for the reasons discussed below, are as harmful to our health as state planning is to our economy.

The human immune system, like an economy, is an extremely complex, self-regulating system. Just as natural laws and forces drive an economy, they also drive an immune system.

The Failures of State Economic Intervention

State intervention causes unintended consequences and ignores opportunity costs.

Followers of the Austrian school of economics, a school of free-market economics, understand that a complex system of spontaneous, naturally occurring economic phenomena exist, which harmonize human activity and uplift society. They further understand that state intervention disrupts this system, causing harmful unintended consequences and ignoring opportunity costs.

Examples of unintended consequences of state economic intervention are rent control reducing the incentive to own rental properties, thereby shrinking the supply of rental units, and the minimum wage making labor more expensive, thereby reducing the hiring of unskilled labor.

Examples of economic opportunity costs are when the state usurps funds from businesses through taxation, using the funds to pay bureaucrats’ salaries or for some other purpose, but at the cost of the businesses having fewer funds to hire new employees or to buy new equipment.

State intervention is often a “racket” to promote special interests

The Austrians also understand the “racket” aspect to state economic intervention and planning—that it’s usually driven by a desire to promote special interests, rather than by concern for the public.

An example of this occurred when the first transcontinental railroads were built in the U.S., not driven by the needs of the populace, but rather as a taxpayer-funded scheme to benefit wealthy railroad owners.

“Regulatory capture” is another element of this racket. It occurs when governmental agencies, purportedly in existence to protect consumers, are influenced by the corporations they regulate to protect corporate interests over those of the public.

The historical record is often distorted to support state intervention

The Austrians further understand that there have been distortions of the historical record to garner support for economic intervention. An example of this is the oft-repeated myth that, before the imposition of the Federal Reserve System, the American economy experienced a regular series of financial panics and that the Federal Reserve ended them and caused economic stability.

The above insights from Austrian economics are instructive when applied to mandatory vaccinations.

When the state interferes with the immune system through mandated vaccinations, a multitude of harmful unintended consequences and opportunity costs occur.

Additionally, there’s a “racket” aspect to vaccine mandates, as corporate interests wholly unrelated to the advancement of human health play a role in the mandates and state vaccine policy.

Further, the state narrative on vaccines contains distortions and omissions of fact.

These issues are discussed below, but first, the current status of vaccine mandates is reviewed.

Overview of the Current Status of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

The administration of vaccines occurs largely outside of normal liability rules

In the U.S., the manufacturers of many vaccines have been afforded highly unusual liability protections.

Under U.S. law, all claims of harm pertaining to vaccines recommended by the CDC for routine use in children must proceed under a special system called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Under this system, the vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability, and taxpayers, rather than vaccine manufacturers, fund any award of damages through the payment of an excise tax. The CDC recommends some of these childhood vaccines for use in adults, such as the influenza vaccine, and, for these vaccines, the manufacturers’ shield from liability also extends to adult use.

The federal government has also granted protection from liability to the manufacturers of future COVID-19 vaccines.

In the NVICP process, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the defendant and taxpayer-funded Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys defend against the claims, generally arguing that the reported injuries were not caused by vaccines and for the denial of compensation.

Additionally, under the NVICP process, vaccine manufacturers are not subject to discovery. Discovery is the process that allows parties to seek relevant information and records from each other during litigation, often requiring corporate defendants to produce records such as e-mails and research data and to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions.

The removal of liability and lack of discovery are nearly unique to the vaccine industry and are a stark departure from the legal liability rules applicable to the manufacturers of most products.

To date, over $4 billion has been paid out under the NVICP for claims of harm caused by vaccines.

The business of vaccines occurs outside of the free markets

The administration of vaccines in the U.S. occurs wholly outside of the context of free markets.

The federal government acts as a major player in the purchase of vaccines. It buys approximately half of all vaccines administered to children pursuant to a program called the Vaccines for Children Program.

It’s also a player in vaccine patents and collaborates with pharmaceutical companies to develop new vaccines.

In addition to purchasing vaccines, the state plays another role in drumming up business for the vaccine industry: it mandates the use of its product. This creates forced demand, bestowing upon the industry the benefit of extremely high product sales. This also spares the vaccine industry from marketing costs, which are essentially shifted to the taxpayers.

The factors discussed above make vaccines one of the fastest-growing sources of revenue for the pharmaceutical industry. For example, it’s been reported that a vaccine (Prevnar 13) has recently been the product that generated the most sales for Pfizer, rather than a drug. It’s been estimated that the global vaccine market will reach a total revenue of nearly $60 billion in 2020, almost doubling the size of the market it had in 2014.

Governmental agencies regulating vaccines have failed to require adequate safety testing

There’s ample evidence that the federal agencies tasked with regulating the vaccine industry have fallen prey to regulatory capture.

First, the CDC and FDA have allowed those with financial conflicts of interest to be highly involved in the regulatory process. For example, the CDC has an advisory committee on the use of vaccines and the CDC has permitted members of the committee with financial ties to the vaccine industry, and those with financial conflicts of interest, to participate the committee’s deliberations regarding vaccine use. Such members have also been permitted to advocate positions during the advisory committee process.

Additionally, a “revolving door” exists between U.S. agencies responsible for regulating the vaccine industry and vaccine manufacturers. This has, at times, involved high-level personnel in key positions, such as Julie Gerberding, who was director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and, after leaving the CDC, took a position as head of Merck’s vaccine division.

Regulatory capture may at least partially explain why governmental safety testing requirements for vaccines are less than rigorous.

Vaccine safety trials are generally designed and conducted by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.

Further, the FDA classifies vaccines as “biologics” rather than “drugs,” thereby allowing vaccine manufacturers to forego the multi-year, double-blind, inert placebo-controlled studies required for drug approval. Almost all vaccine safety studies are conducted without a control group of unvaccinated individuals receiving nothing but an inert placebo.

Generally, if a “control group” is used during a vaccine safety study, the group receives a substance which is not inert, such as another vaccine or an adjuvant such as aluminum. (An adjuvant is a substance added to some vaccines to increase the immunogenic responses of antigens and to thereby stimulate the immune system.) For example, when Merck conducted clinical studies for the Gardasil 9 vaccine, it used the original Gardasil vaccine as the “placebo” in the control groups and both vaccines contain an aluminum adjuvant.

Just as the FDA hasn’t required individual vaccines to undergo true placebo-controlled studies for approval, the CDC hasn’t required its schedules of recommended vaccines to undergo studies comparing those vaccinated in accordance with the schedules with a “control group” of unvaccinated individuals. This is despite evidence indicating that unvaccinated children and children receiving less than the full CDC schedule of vaccines have better health outcomes than those who receive the full schedule.

Additionally, most vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less.

Any safety testing for a COVID-19 vaccine will likely be even less rigorous than the norm for vaccines, as the Trump Administration has indicated that it will allow for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine under an accelerated timeline.

Such lax governmental safety standards certainly demonstrate a point made by Dr. Mary Ruwart in her book Death by Regulation: How We Were Robbed of a Golden Age of Health and How We Can Reclaim It—that governmental agencies often fail to protect consumers and that consumer protection can most effectively be achieved through private certification companies testing products and rating and/or certifying their safety. Under such a scenario, private certification agencies operating within the free market would compete with each other and be incentivized by market forces to be as accurate as possible in rating and certifying products.

Ruwart cites as an example of this the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), a private certifying agency that tests appliances and electrical hardware and grants, to those that meet its standards, its UL Seal of Approval. Most retailers will not sell appliances without the UL Seal of Approval and Ruwart points out that this voluntary, private certifying agency has been successfully keeping consumers safe for decades. She further points out that, if FDA approval for the products it regulates became optional rather than required, third-party drug testing and certification could become part of the “consumer landscape” to protect consumers.

State childhood exemptions are being rolled back and eliminated

Currently, in the U.S., vaccine mandates exist at the state level and apply only to children (with the exception of vaccines mandated for adults in some fields of employment). However, federal mandates appear to be on the horizon and will likely apply to both adults and children.

States have historically allowed all or some of the following types of exemptions from mandates: 1) religious; 2) medical; 3) philosophical. Recently, there’s been a growing trend toward states bolstering their mandates by rolling back or eliminating exemptions. New York, Washington, Maine and California are examples of states that have recently done so.

The pharmaceutical industry has been highly involved in efforts to strengthen state mandates and to roll back exemptions. For example, a lobbying firm with reported financial backing from vaccine manufacturers recently funded an advertising campaign in Maine aimed at defeating a ballot measure to reverse the legislative removal of religious and philosophical exemptions in that state. (The ballot measure was voted upon and did not pass.) Other actions by the pharmaceutical industry along these lines have included, among other things, serving as “information resources” for legislators, lobbying legislators, conducting consumer marking campaigns and even drafting pro-mandate legislation.

Adult mandates, and mandates issued at the federal level, are likely imminent in the U.S.

The pharmaceutical industry has also been supportive of imposing federal vaccine mandates. Although the U.S. currently has no federal mandates, other countries have issued mandates at the national level, and there’s reason to believe that the U.S. may follow suit.

In February of 2019, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, then Commissioner of the FDA, made comments to CNN indicating that the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccines and could step in with mandates if states don’t require more children to be vaccinated. Gottlieb made the comments shortly before resigning as FDA Commissioner in May of 2019 and joining the Board of Directors of Pfizer, Inc., a vaccine manufacturer, in June of 2019.

There’s also reason to believe that any future federal mandates in the U.S. may apply to adults as well as children. The CDC has both a childhood vaccine schedule and an adult one. The feds have explicitly stated the goals of increasing overall vaccination rates and increasing rates specifically in the adult population. These goals are discussed in the National Vaccine Plan (NVP) and the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), respectively, which can be found on HHS’s website.

Further, in 2012, the World Health Assembly endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), which includes as part of one of its strategic objectives “creating strategies for reaching individuals throughout their life course”. [Emphasis supplied.]

Italy, France, Romania and Germany are examples of countries that have recently issued vaccine mandates at the federal level. Argentina is another example, and its mandates apply to both children and adults. In December of 2018, Argentina enacted a law mandating its entire 20 vaccine schedule upon both children and adults, with proof of vaccination required not only to attend school but also to obtain important government documents such as passports, driver’s licenses, and Argentina’s National Identity Documents. Some believe that Argentina’s vaccine policy may serve as a blueprint for other countries, including the U.S.

Some believe that the COVID-19 infections occurring in 2020 will be used as a basis to advance the global push for vaccine mandates. In fact, Denmark has already passed legislation authorizing forced vaccination against COVID-19.

The CDC vaccine schedules have rapidly expanded since the removal of liability

U.S. federal mandates are expected to be based upon the CDC’s vaccine schedules. Since the removal of liability for vaccine manufacturers discussed above, the number of vaccines recommended by the CDC and the vaccine industry has grown significantly.

In 1983, the CDC recommended 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines. This was prior to the aforementioned removal of liability which began, in part, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The CDC now recommends upwards of 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18.

With the growing number of recommended vaccines, a person receiving all of the recommended doses on both the CDC’s childhood and adult schedules would receive a lifetime total of nearly 150 doses.

Further, over 250 new vaccines are being developed by American pharmaceutical companies alone, and it’s expected that many will be added to the CDC’s schedules.

If the schedules are mandated by federal law, Americans will continue to be subject to them even as more vaccines and doses are added. Additionally, federal vaccine mandates will likely lay the groundwork for federal mandates of other medical interventions.

Forced vaccinations violate the right to informed consent and the Nuremberg Code

In light of the fact that vaccination is a medical intervention that carries the risks of injury and death, forced vaccinations are one of the gravest infringements upon personal liberty that exist, signifying state ownership of our bodies. They are a gross violation of the right to informed consent, a central ethical principle of modern medicine.

The concept of informed consent is based, in part, upon the Nuremberg Code, which was issued in 1947 by the Nuremberg Tribunal in connection with the conviction of Nazi doctors for forced medical experimentation upon concentration camp prisoners. Although the Nuremberg Code specifically addressed the right to informed consent for participation in scientific experiments, the first principle of the Nuremberg Code has become an ethical standard for patients’ right to informed consent to all medical interventions that carry a risk of harm. It states, in part:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision…” [Italics supplied.]

Forced vaccinations interfere with the doctor-patient relationship

Forced vaccinations also interfere with the doctor-patient relationship because they transfer the right to make decisions regarding vaccinations from the individual, in consultation with any medical professional of his or her choosing, to the state.

In fact, California Senator Dr. Richard Pan, who was heavily involved in both the recent elimination of all non-medical exemptions in California and in the recent narrowing of the state’s medical exemption, has expressed the view that doctors only perform an “administrative role” with respect to medical exemptions. In 2018, he co-authored an article entitled, “Vaccine Medical Exemptions Are a Delegated Public Health Authority”, which states in part:

“Policymakers should recognize that granting MEs to legally required vaccines is not the practice of medicine but a delegation of state authority to licensed physicians to protect public health and individuals. Essentially, physicians are fulfilling an administrative role: certifying to the state that a patient meets professionally recognized criteria that justify granting an ME.” [Italics supplied.]

Pan has reportedly been the recipient of $95,150 in pharmaceutical industry campaign donations.

Unintended Consequences Related to Vaccines

There are many examples of both unintended consequences and opportunity costs related to vaccine mandates—far too many to cover in one article. However, below is a discussion of some of them.

Adverse reactions are not an intended purpose of vaccination. In fact, they’re counter to that purpose, which is to improve health. However, they can and do occur. They may be the most obvious, and most familiar, unintended consequence that occurs in connection with vaccinations.

Federal regulations require vaccine manufacturers to list on vaccine package inserts “adverse events for which there is some basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.” The packages inserts can be accessed through the FDA’s website.

Package inserts generally include a lengthy list of adverse reactions. Many of these are serious and/or potentially fatal conditions. For example, the package insert for Merck’s MMR II vaccine contains the following adverse reactions, among others: panniculitis; atypical measles, vasculitis, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, regional lymphadenopathy, anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions, angioneurotic edema, bronchial spasm, arthritis, arthralgia, myalgia, encephalitis and encephalopathy.

The federal government has established a passive system for reporting adverse events following vaccines, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). However, the system isn’t consistently used following adverse reactions. A 2010 study prepared for HHS by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. reported that less than 1% of adverse events following vaccinations are ever reported to VAERS. Despite this low reporting rate, the VAERS data file for 2019, accessible through the HHS website, contains 48,392 entries for VAERS identification numbers assigned to VAERS reporting events.

Below is a discussion of several examples of unintended consequences associated with specific vaccines.

Unintended consequences of the DTP vaccine and DTaP vaccines

Most Americans know of pertussis as “whooping cough.” The following vaccines have been recommended by the CDC, at various time, in connection with pertussis: the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine; the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine; and the tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis, adsorbed (Tdap) vaccine. (Tdap is the version recommended for adolescents and adults, whereas DTaP is recommended for younger children.)

In the 1990s, the CDC replaced its recommendation for the DTP vaccine with recommendations for the DTaP and Tdap vaccines. Although use of the DTP vaccine has ceased in the U.S., it’s still used in other parts of the world.

Dangerous unintended consequences have emerged in connection with use of the DTP vaccine.  It has been shown that, although the vaccine reduces the incidence in children of the targeted conditions (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), it weakens their overall immune systems, increasing susceptibility to other infections and increasing mortality. In 2017 Dr. Peter Aaby published a study comparing the mortality of DTP-vaccinated children with that of non-DTP-vaccinated children in a community in Guinea-Bissau which found that children vaccinated with DTP were 10 times more likely to die in the first 6 months of life than the unvaccinated; all available evidence suggested that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis; and children vaccinated with DTP were dying from causes never associated with the DTP vaccine, such as respiratory infections, diarrhea, and malaria.

An additional unintended consequence of use of the DTaP vaccine has been the mutation of the bacteria that causes pertussis, Bordetella pertussis, as a result of growing resistance to the vaccine. This adaptation is also referred to as vaccine selective pressure.

Although the public is generally aware that bacterial resistance can occur in connection with antibiotic use, it seems to be unaware that organisms, including bacteria and viruses, can mutate in connection with vaccine use.

Evidence is also emerging that the measles virus is potentially mutating as a result of vaccine selective pressure. For example, a 2017 article discusses a D4.2 subgenotype of the measles virus isolated in France and Great Britain which has potentially mutated as a result of vaccine selective pressure.

Unintended consequences of the chickenpox vaccine

Chickenpox and shingles both stem from the same varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Chickenpox is generally mild when experienced in childhood and historically was viewed as a benign childhood rite of passage. Having chickenpox during childhood is associated with fewer risks than having it later in life and having chickenpox in childhood is also associated with fewer risks than having shingles as an adult.

Two vaccines are used in the U.S. for chickenpox: Varivax and ProQuad. These vaccines, and one vaccine used for shingles in the U.S., Zostavax, are made from live, attenuated VZV virus. One harmful unintended consequence of using these vaccines is the potential for transmitting vaccine-strain VZV through shedding after receiving them.

Those receiving a live virus attenuated vaccine can shed vaccine-strain live virus in their body fluids, potentially causing the vaccine-strain virus to be transmitted to others. In fact, in 2018 the FDA posted a warning that immunocompromised persons and pregnant women should avoid those administered Varivax for up to six weeks after vaccination because vaccinated individuals can transmit the vaccine virus through viral shedding. The potential for shedding is also discussed on the package inserts for Varivax, ProQuad and Zostavax.

It should be noted that other live attenuated vaccines are used in the U.S. (some viral and some bacterial), including the following: measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), rotavirus, smallpox and yellow fever.

Further, although the version of the polio vaccine used in the U.S. is not live attenuated, a live attenuated version of the vaccine, the oral polio vaccine (OPV), is used in some other countries and has recently caused more cases of polio than the wild polio virus has caused.

In addition to the potential for shedding, there are additional harmful unintended consequences from the use of the chickenpox vaccine, discussed below.

Before widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine in the U.S., children infected with chickenpox helped boost adults’ immunity to shingles by inhibiting the latent VZV’s reactivation in adults. However, there’s evidence that the reduction in childhood chickenpox infections from use of the chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingles cases due to loss of this boosting effect.

The increase in shingles from widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine impacts both children and adults. The Children’s Health Defense’s April 25, 2019 article entitled “Childhood Shingles Resulting from Chickenpox Vaccination: ‘Rare’ or Predictable” effectively summarizes this impact upon children and young adults and states, in part:

“[B]ecause varicella vaccine-induced immunity decreases by 8 percent with each year since vaccination, previously vaccinated young adults are at increased risk for varicella outbreaks and potential complications later in life. In short, while the reduced circulation of wild chickenpox virus may spare some healthy children a benign case of chickenpox, children now face the more serious risk of developing shingles at young ages and chickenpox at older ages.” [Italics supplied.]

Due to these issues, the United Kingdom has never included the chickenpox vaccine in its childhood schedule.

In fact, the childhood vaccine schedules of countries around the world are not uniform. Discrepancies in the schedules should cause pause for those who believe that the state should decide whether children should be vaccinated and, if so, under what schedule. The discrepancies reflect an obviouse lack of consensus by governments on the issue of vaccinations.

Unintended consequences of the MMR vaccine with regard to measles

Harmful unintended consequences have also resulted from the use of the MMR vaccine.

In the pre-vaccine era, a natural pattern had emerged whereby measles generally occurred within the group least likely to be harmed from it, children, and those more likely to suffer serious complications from measles, infants and adults, were afforded protection from it. Unfortunately, the widespread use of the measles vaccine has destroyed this natural pattern.

Prior to the use of vaccines, the annual death rate in the U.S. from measles was low, at approximately 1 in 10,000 of those infected. Of course, not every American was infected with measles each year, so the overall annual death rate among the entire U.S. population from measles was far lower than this. With this low death rate, having measles in the pre-vaccine era was typically viewed as a benign childhood rite of passage, such as with chickenpox.

It should be noted that, in some instances, the media and government have provided an estimate of the U.S. pre-vaccine era annual measles death rate which is an order of magnitude higher than cited above, i.e., 1 in 1,000. Such calculations are generally based on the method of using reported cases as the denominator rather than overall cases. This method is deceptive because most measles cases were not reported in the pre-vaccine era.

It should also be noted that in 2020 we’re experiencing some media reports of COVID-19 death rates which are also based upon this flawed method of using reported cases as the denominator rather than overall cases.

In the pre-vaccine era, only the wild strain of the measles virus existed. During that era, most people were infected with measles only once and this occurred during childhood. This one-time infection generally conferred lifelong protection from measles.

For females, being infected with measles during childhood also had a beneficial effect for their offspring. Mothers who are infected with wild virus measles during childhood generally develop, and then pass to their infants, protective antibodies, in a process called passive immunity. This confers protection from measles to infants during infancy. Vaccination interferes with this process, preventing the contraction of measles during childhood and thereby affecting the level of passive immunity mothers pass to their infants. Although some maternal passive immunity is passed from mothers who were vaccinated during childhood to their infants, it is a less robust level of passive immunity than that passed by an unvaccinated mother who was infected with wild strain measles during her childhood.

Although widespread use of the measles vaccine has been achieved in the U.S., failure of the vaccine’s effectiveness, combined with the vaccine’s interference with maternal passive immunity, has resulted in the unintended consequence of widening the age distribution of the infection, thereby increasing its incidence in those most at risk (infants and adults).

Further, the vaccine strain of measles can cause a condition with rash and fever which may be clinically indistinguishable from a measles infection.  Approximately 5 percent of those receiving a measles vaccine experience this vaccine strain condition. For example, during the well-known 2015 California Disneyland outbreak and subsequent U.S. measles cases that year, laboratory virus sequences were available for 194 of the cases and, of those, 73 (38 percent) were identified as vaccine strain sequences.

Unintended consequences of the MMR vaccine with regard to mumps

There have also been detrimental unintended consequences from the use of the MMR vaccine with regard to mumps.

Generally, mumps is relatively harmless when experienced in young children, who often exhibit no symptoms. However, when adolescents or adults have mumps, they’re more likely to experience serious effects, including inflammation of the brain, the membranes covering the brain and spinal cords, the pancreas, the ovaries, the parotid glands and the testicles. Further, having mumps as an adolescent male can cause orchitis, a condition that can cause infertility.

Due to the ineffectiveness of the MMR vaccine, there has been an increase in the size and number of mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. Further, the use of the vaccine has acted to postpone the onset of mumps, shifting it to older individuals who are at much greater risk of the complications discussed above.

Autoimmune disorders and other conditions may be unintended consequences of vaccines

There is evidence linking some vaccine ingredients with serious, chronic medical conditions. Therefore, the risk of developing a lifelong, chronic condition in exchange for dodging a non-serious infectious condition may be yet another unintended consequence of vaccine mandates.

The ingredients in vaccines differ according to their type. However, many vaccines contain substances that are known toxins or have raised safety concerns, such as aluminum, DNA from aborted fetal human tissue, antibiotics, formaldehyde, mercury, Polysorbate 80, bovine extract, egg protein, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Some vaccines also contain animal DNA.

Those who favor vaccine mandates often mischaracterize “anti-vaxxers” as primarily being concerned with the antigens in vaccines. In fact, those opposed to vaccine mandates most often cite the adjuvants in vaccines as their most concerning ingredient. This is because multiple adjuvants have been found to be associated with systematic adverse events.

Aluminum is one example of an adjuvant which may lead to the development of chronic conditions.

American children vaccinated in accordance with the CDC’s schedule receive a substantial amount of aluminum.  A recent study found the schedule to be 15.9 times over the recommended safe level of aluminum when researchers adjusted for body weight and it estimated that a child who followed the schedule would be in a state of “chronic toxicity” for 70 percent of the child’s first seven months of life.

Studies have associated aluminum with multiple serious conditions, such as autism; autoimmune diseases; Alzheimer’s disease; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); brain inflammation; motor neuron degeneration; and behavioral abnormalities in animals, including bizarre anti-social behavior in sheep.

Opportunity Costs Related to Vaccines and Vaccine Mandates

In addition to harmful unintended consequences resulting from vaccine mandates, there are opportunity costs associated with them.

In the pre-vaccine era, children generally experienced acute febrile infections during childhood, such as measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox and influenza. In modern day America, we’ve been taught to fear these infections. This view overlooks the fact that experiencing these infections during childhood confers some long-term health benefits. Eliminating or reducing the infections through vaccine use comes with the cost of losing these health benefits.

The human immune system has two subsystems which respond to infections, known as the innate (non-specific) immune system and the adaptive (specific) immune system. These subsystems are closely linked and work together.

The non-specific immune system provides a general defense against harmful organisms and primarily works using immune cells such as natural killer cells and phagocytes. The specific immune system makes antibodies and uses them to fight specific organisms that the body has previously come into contact with, in a process known as “acquired” or specific immune response. Vaccines by-pass the non-specific immune system and are designed to trigger a protective response via the specific immune system.

Multiple research studies indicate that having, and recovering from, acute febrile infections during childhood strengthens the non-specific immune system and confers some protection against chronic conditions later in life. These studies are too numerous to discuss in the instant article, but several are referred to below.

  • A study found that infections may play a role in cancer development, with acute infections being antagonistic to the development of cancer (meningioma, glioma, melanoma and multiple cancers combined).
  • A study found that individuals who had not experienced a measles infection had substantial increases in rates of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Hodgkin Lymphoma.
  • A study found that being infected with measles and mumps is associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
  • A study found that adults with glioma, a condition that causes tumors of the brain and spinal cord, were less likely than controls to have previously been infected with the chickenpox virus (VZV).
  • A study found a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of febrile infectious childhood diseases, particularly with respect to non-breast cancers.

Distortion of the Historical Record with regard to Vaccines

Most of the public understands that information about conflicts of interest, corruption and cronyism are generally left out of public-school history lessons. However, that same public is often resistant to the idea that critical historical facts have also been left out of the historical narrative they’ve been taught regarding vaccines.

In fact, the myths and misinformation taught in public-school about vaccines are on par with those taught about the economy, the monetary system and war. They’re too voluminous to fully address in this article. However, one of the myths is that vaccines were the main reason for the decline of infectious diseases in the U.S.

Contrary to popular belief, death rates from infectious diseases plummeted in the U.S. before the widespread use of vaccines.

This decline was primarily due to advances in the standard of living, such as improved hygiene, improved sanitation, improved nutrition, the use of sewage systems, the availability of electricity, the chlorination of water, the use of refrigeration and pasteurization. This history is thoroughly documented in the book Dissolving Illusions:  Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, a book by co-authored by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, a medical doctor, Internist and Board-Certified Nephrologist. The book includes, in part, a discussion of the misinformation surrounding the polio and smallpox vaccines, two of the vaccines whose histories have been the most distorted in public-school history lessons.

After reading Dissolving Illusions:  Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, those who understand the role that economic freedom has played in improving Americans’ standard of living will also understand that vaccines and vaccine manufacturers have been given credit for reducing death rates from infectious diseases that should largely be given to economic freedom.


Those bureaucrats who believe they’re qualified to centrally plan and control the population’s immune systems via a lifetime series of mandated vaccines suffer from the same misguided hubris as our bureaucratic economic planners and regulators. They fail to grasp the complexity of our immune systems and the unintended consequences and opportunity costs associated with attempting to manipulate and control them through a policy of forced mass vaccination.

Coronavirus testing COVID-19 Covid-19 test FDA Intelwars

FDA OKs first at-home collection kit for COVID-19 tests: ‘Convenient and reliable option’

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday announced that it authorized the first at-home collection kit for the coronavirus testing.

What are the details?

In a statement, the FDA said it reissued an “Emergency Use Authorization for LabCorp to COVID-19 RT-PCR Test” for patients to self-collect in the privacy of their own homes.

“Throughout this pandemic, we have been facilitating test development to ensure patients access to accurate diagnostics, which includes supporting the development of reliable and accurate at-home sample collection options,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said.

“The FDA’s around-the-clock work since this outbreak began has resulted in the authorization of more than 50 diagnostic tests and engagement with over 350 test developers,” he added. “Specifically, for tests that include home sample collection, we worked with LabCorp to ensure the data demonstrated from at-home patient sample collection is as safe and accurate as sample collection at a doctor’s office, hospital or other testing site. With this action, there is now a convenient and reliable option for patient sample collection from the comfort and safety of their home.”

The statement added, “This reissued EUA for LabCorp’s molecular test permits testing of a sample collected from the patient’s nose using a designated self-collection kit that contains nasal swabs and saline. Once patients self-swab to collect their nasal sample, they mail in their sample, in an insulated package, to a LabCorp lab for testing.”

The FDA did not note any turnaround time for patients to receive a result on their at-home test.

The kit comes with its own Q-tip-style swab, and the FDA cautions users to use only the provided swab for testing.

“Due to concerns with sterility and cross-reactivity due to inherent genetic material in cotton swabs, other cotton swabs should not be used with this test at the present time,” the statement added. “The FDA continues to work with test developers to determine whether or not Q-tip-style cotton swab can be used safely and effectively with other tests.”

At the time of this writing, researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate that at least 810,561 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the United States, with at least 43,630 deaths because of the virus.

CDC Coronavirus COVID-19 Covid-19 transmissions FDA Intelwars

FDA says no need to wipe down groceries. CDC, epidemiology experts say otherwise.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that consumers don’t have to worry about contracting the coronavirus from grocery packaging.

However, the Centers for Disease Control and other experts say the opposite.

What is the FDA saying?

In a release on its website, the FDA wrote, “We want to reassure consumers that there is currently no evidence of human or animal food or food packaging being associated with transmission of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”

The organization does not cite the evidence — or, in this case, lack of evidence — to support its claim.

It goes on to note that while the COVID-19 virus is spread from person-to-person contact, it cannot be spread through “contaminated food.”

“This particular coronavirus causes respiratory illness and is spread from person-to-person, unlike foodborne gastrointestinal or GI viruses, such as norovirus and hepatitis A that often make people ill through contaminated food,” the release added.

The organization does not address, however, whether the virus is transmissible from contaminated surfaces, such as plastic milk cartons or cardboard pasta boxes.

It does note, though, that shoppers should wash their hands when they return home from the grocery store, and then once more after putting away the groceries.

“Wash your hands with warm water and soap for at least 20 seconds when you return home and again after you put away your groceries,” the release continued.

It also offers up the idea of wiping groceries down anyway — just as a precaution.

“If you wish, you can wipe down product packaging and allow it to air dry, as an extra precaution,” it concluded.

What are others saying?

CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, for one, says that while it’s not necessarily likely that consumers can contract COVID-19 from grocery parcels, it’s not unreasonable to take the proper protective precautions.

“It’s very unlikely you’re going to get it from packages, but we do know that the virus can live on surfaces, for example, steel and plastic for up to three days. … We know it can live up on cardboard for 24 hours.”

He later added, “Respiratory droplets that are in the air, you can touch surfaces and then you touch your eyes, nose, or mouth. I think it’s a very low likelihood … but being cautious is a good idea.”

The CDC also notes, “[T]ransmission of novel coronavirus to persons from surfaces contaminated with the virus has not been documented.

“Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may remain viable for hours to days on surfaces made from a variety of materials,” the organization added.

Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham say that the virus is “more stable” on surfaces like plastic — a common food container material — and steel when compared to more porous surfaces like paper or cardboard.

“Viable virus was detected for up to three days on plastic and stainless-steel surfaces,” one researcher said. “While on copper, no viable virus was measured after four hours or on cardboard after 24 hours.”

Dr. Jodie Dionne-Odom, who is assistant professor in UAB’s Division of Infectious Diseases, adds, “Packages will be coming from a number of hands, and you might not know the symptom status of everyone who touched it along the way. Wash your hands after opening and handling the package. That will kill the germs.”

Harvard University Medical School also advises to take the safer road.

“Recent studies have shown that the COVID-19 virus may remain on surfaces or objects for up to 72 hours,” researchers write. “This means virus on the surface of groceries will become inactivated over time after groceries are put away. If you need to use the products before 72 hours, consider washing the outside surfaces or wiping them with disinfectant. The contents of sealed containers won’t be contaminated.”

“After unpacking your groceries, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds,” researchers advise. “Wipe surfaces on which you placed groceries while unpacking them with household disinfectants.”

The conclusion?

Wipe down your groceries as well as your counters after grocery shopping — and then wash your hands for at least 20 seconds.

It’s better to be safe than sorry.

Anti-malarial Chloroquine Coronavirus COVID-19 FDA food and drug administration Hydroxychloroquine Intelwars Malaria

FDA fast-tracks anti-malaria drugs for coronavirus treatment at Trump’s urging

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency authorization for the use of an anti-malaria drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, after the drug showed some potential as a treatment for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, Politico reported.

The authorization will allow the drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, to be donated to the national stockpile and to be prescribed by doctors to COVID-19 patients without a need for the drug to go through clinical trials.

“Scientists in America and around the world have identified multiple potential therapeutics for #COVID19, including chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar wrote on Twitter on Sunday. “President Trump is taking every possible step to protect Americans from the coronavirus and provide them with hope.”

Azar also announced that Sandoz donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and Bayer donated 1 million doses of chloroquine phosphate.

There is still no proven treatment or cure for COVID-19, but researchers and physicians in the U.S., South Korea, China, and France have seen the drugs effectively reduce COVID-19 symptoms in some cases:

Chloroquine is normally used as an anti-malarial drug, used for the prevention and/or treatment of malaria. It’s available in the United States by prescription, and can be safely taken by men and women of all ages, including pregnant women.

Doctors in China and South Korea have observed that the coronavirus patients treated with chloroquine show reduced fever and better lung CT images, and so far research has not found any negative effects of the treatment.

There is dispute within the medical community about the wisdom of the emergency authorization and about the effectiveness of the drugs. Additionally, there is concern that the repurposing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 will create a shortage of the drug for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis patients who rely on it.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is no scientific evidence at this time that the anti-malaria drugs can be used to treat COVID-19, calling indications of its success “anecdotal.”

“It was not done in a controlled clinical trial. So you really can’t make any definitive statement about it,” Fauci said, ABC News reported.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Essential oils FDA federal trade commission food and drug administration Health Intelwars

‘A threat to the public health’: Feds issue warnings to companies hawking ‘fraudulent’ coronavirus products like essential oils

The global outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus has people around the world concerned for their safety and well-being, which creates a natural environment for some people to try to exploit those fears for their own financial gain. On Monday, two federal consumer protection bodies announced efforts to combat such fleecing by sending warnings to multiple companies about selling “fraudulent” cures and means of prevention for the virus.

According to a news release issued Monday by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission sent letters to seven different companies “for selling fraudulent COVID-19 products.” The release explained that the products in question are “unapproved drugs that pose significant risks to patient health and violate federal law” and that the agencies’ letters are the first such warnings to go out amid the recent virus outbreak.

According to the FTC, the warning is for companies that are selling products such as essential oils, teas, and colloidal silver with claims that the products can either prevent or treat the disease. The FDA said that there are still no approved drugs or vaccines to treat or prevent the virus, and while “there are investigational COVID-19 vaccines and treatments under development,” the agency added, “these investigational products are in the early stages of product development and have not yet been fully tested for safety or effectiveness.”

Furthermore, the FDA added that colloidal silver “is not safe or effective for treating any disease or condition,” as explained in a final rule on the substance issued in 1999.

“The FDA considers the sale and promotion of fraudulent COVID-19 products to be a threat to the public health,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said in the release. “We have an aggressive surveillance program that routinely monitors online sources for health fraud products, especially during a significant public health issue such as this one.”

Hahn added that while people’s concerns about the ongoing global outbreak of the new coronavirus are understandable, he urged them to “talk to their health care providers, as well as follow advice from other federal agencies about how to prevent the spread of this illness.”

The agencies say the joint warning letters went out to companies Vital Silver, Quinessence Aromatherapy Ltd., Xephyr LLC doing business as N-Ergetics, GuruNanda LLC, Vivify Holistic Clinic, Herbal Amy LLC, as well as “The Jim Bakker Show” — a televangelism program also known for selling emergency food buckets to help viewers prepare for the end of days.

In a statement, FTC Chairman Joe Simons said that the letters “are just the first step” against companies accused of peddling faux coronavirus remedies. “We’re prepared to take enforcement actions against companies that continue to market this type of scam.”

“There already is a high level of anxiety over the potential spread of coronavirus,” Simons said. “What we don’t need in this situation are companies preying on consumers by promoting products with fraudulent prevention and treatment claims.”

The letters argue that the coronavirus cure claims could put the warned companies in violation of federal law and that if they continue, the FTC could seek a court injunction and order mandating that they refund money to consumers.