lifesitenews--2020-12-11--How to understand the huge Texas election lawsuit now before the Supreme Court

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
December 11 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — Texas claims that the presidential elections as held ( and as directed by government officials outside the legislature ) in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Wisconsin , and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures .
Further , according to the U.S. Constitution , the legislature ( representing the citizens ) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will of legislature being expressed through state law .
Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur .
The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud ( the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally ) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts .
• Vote Tally : 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597 .
• Mail-in ballots increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 .
• The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots .
• PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid .
• Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening , counting , and recording of mail-in ballots .
• The Secretary of State directed election officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of election in order to “ cure ” defective mail-in ballots .
This was done only in Democrat majority counties .
• Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots .
• Ballots with no mailed date : 9,005 ( no evidence they were sent to a voter ) • Ballots returned on or before the mailed date : 58,221 • Ballots returned one day after the mailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot , fill it out , place it in the mail and have it returned the next day . )
• On Nov 2 , the day before the election , PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out .
On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million -- an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters .
• Vote Tally : 2,472,098 for Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Mail-in ballots : 65.32 % for Biden and 34.68 % for Trump .
• Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020 .
• The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots .
• The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day .
• The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42 % in 2016 to .36 % in 2020 .
Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden ’ s count .
With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots , reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase , or at least stay the same , with so many first-time mail-in ballots .
• Vote Tally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump - margin 146,007 .
• In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots .
In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot .
• Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters .
• The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots .
• The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification .
• Local election officials in Wayne County -- containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump -- opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present .
• Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state .
• 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times .
• 71 % of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced , where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast .
• Vote Tally : 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump - margin 20,565 .
• Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020 .
• The Wisconsin Elections Commission ( WEC ) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop box , manned or unmanned , is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute .
Any alternate mail-in ballot site “ shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners… ” “ Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.
” ) • The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “ indefinitely confined ” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements .
Nearly 216,000 voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election , nearly four times as many as in 2016 .
• Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials .
• One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “ found ” after election day .
Significant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections , apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots .
Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify , which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established to begin with .
There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law can not be identified as separate from those that did .
An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast can not be made .
Therefore , as directed in the Constitution , it falls to the legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been done in the past .
Failing that , each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors .
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
And therefore , the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power .
The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined .
This may seem an exaggeration to some .
It is enough to state that the odds of winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely .
For example , if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely , say something like one in twenty , then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in 160,000 .
Twenty beans in a jar : 19 white and 1 black .
Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean .
Chances of doing that again is 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if someone claims to have done that four times in a row .
As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I can not speak to that .
But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that , they were still astronomically small .
At any rate , the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thinker .

PETITION UPDATE (12/12/2020) -
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case filed by the state of Texas.
PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020) -
6 states have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections.
Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have formally joined Texas and agree that the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.
While Missouri and 16 other states filed an amicus brief with the Court supporting Texas, 20 other states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief supporting the 4 defendant states.
Please SIGN this petition and STAND with Texas, as the state seeks justice in the 2020 general election for all citizens of the United States.
'6 states formally join Texas in lawsuit defending the security of the 2020 election' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-states-formally-join-texas-in-lawsuit-defending-the-security-of-the-2020-election
____________________________________________________________________
The state of Texas has filed suit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over changes which those states made to their election rules, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution in the process.
Here is the central part of the argument: if Texas were to allow possible voter fraud to go unchecked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be akin to committing fraud upon the people of Texas, who cast their ballots within the framework of the law.
Indeed, this would apply equally to all citizens who voted within the framework of the law across the United States!
Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is stepping up to vindicate the right of all Texans - and, all Americans - to have every legal vote be counted.
But, the Supreme Court has only until Thursday morning to either accept or decline hearing the case.
Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, now.
The main claim that Texas makes is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing their election rules on mail-in ballots by executive or judicial action, rather than by action from the legislature.
But, America is a land of laws, and most people play by the rules. Citizens also want our state executives and judiciaries to play by the rules.
Bypassing state legislatures, even during a pandemic, cannot be justifiable as it goes against our system of checks and balances, and, ultimately, as it is the legislatures who have the power, vested by the people, to make determinations about state electoral regulations.
Texas also alleges that the defendant-states further violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by applying different election rules for different parts of their respective states, meaning that election rules were not the same for every citizen of each state.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because in disputes between states, the Supreme Court is the court of "first impression." But, the Court only has a limited window to accept or decline hearing the case.
Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition today.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'‘This is the big one’, says Trump of Texas SCOTUS election challenge' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-big-one-says-trump-of-texas-scotus-election-challenge
'Texas asks Supreme Court to toss 4 states’ election results over illegal mail ballots' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-toss-4-states-election-results-over-illegal-mail-ballots


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Chairman of Smartmatic voting company appointed president of Soros’s Open Society Foundations

NEW YORK , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – On December 4 , the George Soros-founded Open Society Foundations ( OSF ) announced that Lord Mark Malloch-Brown , chairman of the Smartmatic voting company , itself currently at the center of election fraud allegations , would be succeeding Patrick Gaspard as president of the OSF .
The British-born Malloch-Brown has had ties with Soros since at least the early 1990s , when the two worked together at Refugees International .
Lord Malloch-Brown later rented a house from Soros , allegedly at rates below the market value since they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to work together closely , with Soros appointing Malloch-Brown to high-ranking positions at a number of his funds and foundations , the latest being his promotion to president of the Open Society Foundations .
But Malloch-Brown is not only the president of Soros ’ s Open Society Foundations .
He is also the chairman of electronic voting company Smartmatic .
The connection set up between Soros and Smartmatic , through Malloch-Brown , raises questions about a possible conflict of professional and political interests .
Leftist billionaire Soros has long been a financer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 25 million during Hilary Clinton ’ s unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign against now-President Donald Trump .
Smartmatic claims that it works by a “ stringent code of ethics , ” in which they pledge to “ remain impartial and independent.
” Commenting on the fresh appointment of their chairman by Soros to president of the OSF , Smartmatic stated – in bold print no less – that “ Smartmatic is 100 % privately owned ” and that “ George Soros does not have and has never had any ownership stake in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the famed Hungarian billionaire .
Continuing , the election technology firm claim that they have handled some 3.7 billion votes over a period of 14 years and on no less than five continents .
They have handled all this , they say , “ without a single discrepancy.
” This claim is contrary to the findings of Professor Carlos A. Casanova , a native Venezualean who outlined his explosive findings in a November 24 LifeSite article .
Smartmatic has been at the center of allegations of electoral fraud consistently since their involvement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2004 , all the way up to the 2019 Bolivian presidential elections .
Malloch-Brown ’ s appointment comes in the wake of numerous allegations by attorney Sidney Powell against Smartmatic , including a signed affidavit from an unnamed member of the Venezuelan military who claims that the government there programmed the machines to log fraudulent votes .
Similar patterns of electronic manipulation have been found during the course of the 2020 U.S. presidential election .
Soros has openly opposed Trump since his bid for the presidency began back in 2015 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this year , Soros accused Trump of wanting “ to be a dictator , ” but said that the Constitution will “ prevent him from doing certain things.
” The left-wing billionaire went on to say that “ I have put my faith in Trump to destroy himself , and he has exceeded my wildest expectations.
” LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
George Soros : We ’ re now in ‘ revolutionary moment ’ that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--RFK, Jr. urges FDA to slow down COVID vaccine approval process

December 11 , 2020 ( Children ’ s Health Defense ) — On Dec. 4 , Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. , chairman and chief legal counsel for Children ’ s Health Defense , sent the below letter to Peter Marks , director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ( CBER ) , asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a cautious approach in approving COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed at “ warp speed.
” TAKE ACTION : On Dec. 10 , CBER ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee ( VRBPAC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older .
Take action below by urging VRBPAC to make safety the chief concern in its considerations : • Send RFK , Jr. ’ s letter ( see below ) to CBER Director Peter Marks and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , who has expressed similar COVID vaccine safety concerns .
• Send the letter in the action alert below to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them know that you support Kennedy ’ s call for caution in making decisions regarding Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer ’ s COVID vaccine as well as any other COVID vaccine in development .
With the VRBPAC meeting coming up so quickly , the time to act is now !
Find the form at this page .
Transparency and accountability are essential ingredients in the public policy process , helping to engender public trust and promote sound decision-making .
As you are undoubtedly aware , many Americans are expressing worries about the lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently under development .
Children ’ s Health Defense shares the public ’ s concern that the government ’ s single-minded—and perhaps unrealistic—preoccupation with a vaccine as the only way to end the COVID crisis has given the vaccine enterprise a dangerous urgency that could prompt health officials to take reckless steps to speed one or more vaccines to approval .
Children ’ s Health Defense is writing to respectfully request that you and the FDA slow down the approval process to meet the public ’ s expectations for deliberations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without having to provide “ the full data to back up their claims , ” executives at Pfizer and Moderna “ have made significant amounts of money off their early announcements of [ vaccine ] success.
” In addition , through Operation Warp Speed , Pfizer ( in partnership with German company BioNTech ) has received $ 1.95 billion in taxpayer funds for the manufacture and distribution ( though not R & D ) of 100 million doses of its BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine ; Operation Warp Speed has also awarded over $ 2.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing and distribution of 100 million doses of Moderna ’ s mRNA-1273 vaccine developed in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) .
Both Pfizer and Moderna have now submitted Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) applications ( on November 20 and November 30 , respectively ) for their vaccines , and Moderna has also directed an application to the European Medicines Agency .
News reports indicate that the FDA ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee ( VRBPAC ) will meet on December 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are speculating that FDA could authorize the company ’ s vaccine as soon as mid-December .
VRBPAC is also apparently hurrying to review Moderna ’ s vaccine on December 17 .
At an October 22 meeting of outside experts convened by VRBPAC to discuss COVID-19 vaccines , one of the attendees described the difficulty—particularly when making a less stringent EUA decision—of striking the proper “ balance between looking at people ’ s rights to take something where it ’ s determined that the benefit might exceed the risk , while also making sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking vaccines that might actually harm them ” ( p. 348 ) .
Recognizing the innumerable uncertainties that surround these novel vaccines , Children ’ s Health Defense believes that , at a minimum , the American public deserves to have the FDA ’ s thorough and thoughtful answers to the following questions : How will the FDA account for potentially biased conclusions about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy ?
Both Pfizer and Moderna recently issued press releases citing preliminary evidence that their COVID-19 vaccines are 95 % effective in preventing symptoms of mild coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early results to obtain the FDA ’ s emergency use authorization .
However , the clinical trials ’ reliance on PCR testing to ascertain study participants ’ SARS-CoV-2 infection status raises important questions .
These prompted world-renowned diagnostics expert Dr .
Sin Hang Lee , founder of the Connecticut-based Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory , to file an Administrative Stay of Action petition with the FDA ( Docket No .
FDA-2020-P-2225 ) on November 25 .
The petition focuses on the Pfizer study but is just as relevant to the Moderna study .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer ’ s study design is “ inadequate to accurately assess efficacy ” and asks the FDA to conduct a more appropriate efficacy review before proceeding to an EUA determination , stating that PCR testing—prone to generating a high rate of false-positives—should not serve as the primary evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in trial participants .
As Dr. Lee spells out , “ a higher number of false-positive test results in the participants receiving placebo will artificially raise the efficacy of the vaccine.
” He argues that it is “ absolutely necessary ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold-standard DNA sequencing .
Will the FDA factor into its EUA deliberations the fact that neither clinical trial has a primary objective of assessing whether the vaccines prevent severe outcomes ?
The pre-specified endpoints forming the basis of Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s preliminary conclusions about effectiveness—the endpoints upon which the FDA ’ s potentially momentous decision to grant EUA rests—focus on a trivial difference in COVID-19 symptomatology between a tiny subset of 164 or fewer trial participants in the vaccinated and control groups .
In late October , internationally esteemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi , who is also a University of Maryland professor , wrote in the BMJ , “ The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic , but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are.
” Dr. Doshi continued , “ None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions , use of intensive care , or deaths.
” According to Dr. Doshi , Moderna ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this design shortcoming , having explained that to capture endpoints such as hospitalization or death , the trials would need to be “ 10 times the size ” and run for a much longer time frame .
Scientist and former Harvard Medical School professor Dr. William A. Haseltine agrees that the trials ’ narrow focus on mild cold-like symptoms makes the study protocols “ far from adequate ” ; Dr. Haseltine has argued that the trials seem “ intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success , ” allowing manufacturers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the late-October VRBPAC meeting made similar remarks about the limitations of using mild infection as the primary endpoint .
Noting that there could be “ limited and , in some instances , no information about some of the secondary endpoints ” ( such as more severe illness ) , one panelist stated that “ This would be particularly true in the instance of an early EUA ” ( p. 100 ) .
Another attendee pointed out that a vaccine could be “ effective in avoiding mild cases but actually [ do ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care about , which is serious disease and deaths ” ( p. 308 ) .
A third participant made the critical point that “ many of the groups at risk for severe disease don ’ t respond well to vaccines in the first place ” ( pp .
346-347 ) .
Messenger RNA technology has previously faced significant safety hurdles ; what evidence can the FDA share with the public supporting the short-term and long-term safety of mRNA vaccines ?
Until very recently , concerns about mRNA instability bedeviled efforts to develop mRNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcoming these challenges—including nanoparticle carrier systems and , in the case of the Pfizer vaccine , extreme freezing—remain unproven .
To our knowledge , Pfizer has not provided detailed information about the reasons for its mRNA vaccine ’ s unprecedented minus-94-degree freezing requirements , which specify that the cool boxes may only be opened briefly twice a day , must have their dry ice replenished every five days , and that the vaccine can only be stored at refrigerator temperatures for 24 hours .
Why are the Pfizer vaccine ’ s storage conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mRNA vaccine , which apparently can be refrigerated for 30 days ?
Many members of the public and scientific community would like to know more about the two vaccines ’ real-world stability and safety .
Discussing Pfizer ’ s vaccine , Professor Allan Cheng , acting chief health officer in the Australian state of Victoria , describes safety as a “ key unknown , ” characterizing mRNA vaccines as “ pretty reactogenic ” and prone to “ lots of side effects.
” During the Phase II/III trials , 50 % of Pfizer participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a month of their second dose of vaccine , as did 100 % of those injected with two doses of Moderna ’ s vaccine .
Because mRNA vaccines rely on synthetic RNA , they represent a significant departure from other biologically based vaccine technologies .
Virologist , Dr. Luc Montagnier ( who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for his discovery of HIV ) and other scientists even dispute the label of “ vaccine , ” arguing that these products represent a new form of gene therapy .
It is debatable whether a fast-tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new vaccine technology that , essentially , is intended to turn the body ’ s cells into viral-protein-making factories .
Professor Montagnier , who opposes the use of mRNA vaccines in humans , stated in an interview with Children ’ s Health Defense , “ The human genome contains 7 % to 9 % of endogenous retrovirus sequences .
Some of these sequences code for reverse transcription of RNA into DNA .
Therefore , it is possible that the spike protein mRNA of the vaccine could be absorbed by human cells , reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gene in these cells .
This could be a beneficial event protecting the human host from further infection by coronavirus or it could induce a long-term deleterious effect such as cancer .
Even if animal testing showed protection , nobody could predict long-term pathologic effects in a human population and the precautionary principle should apply.
” Messenger RNA vaccines will not work without an in-built delivery mechanism that enables the mRNA to make its way into a cell ’ s cytoplasm .
Moderna ’ s and Pfizer ’ s chosen solution is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems .
The two mRNA vaccine manufacturers are using LNPs to “ encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake , ” in addition to taking advantage of what vaccine scientists describe as LNPs ’ “ inherent adjuvant properties.
” However , the LNP formulations in both COVID-19 vaccines are PEGylated , meaning that the vaccine nanoparticles are coated with the synthetic , nondegradable and controversial polyethylene glycol ( PEG ) polymer .
PEG is a potential allergen as well as a suspected carcinogen .
Moderna ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects , ” including reactions that “ could lead to significant adverse events.
” How will the FDA evaluate possible risks of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement ?
Although Pfizer and Moderna have conducted some experimental animal trials alongside their clinical trials in humans , neither company has released any data addressing the possibility of pathogenic priming .
In individuals vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus , pathogenic priming could potentially trigger autoimmunity against critical human immune system proteins as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human protein components ( epitopes ) .
A 2020 paper on pathogenic priming discusses these risks , pointing out that “ All SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes have similarity to human proteins except one.
” The paper ’ s author cautions , “ These epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming.
” Another issue , as yet undiscussed by Pfizer and Moderna , concerns the potential for antibody-dependent enhancement ( ADE ) , a phenomenon documented in humans , non-human primates , and ferrets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and MERS .
In ADE , vaccines can cause idiopathic antibodies to act like a Trojan horse for wild viruses .
In the case of individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines , ADE could not only end up enhancing disease severity but could also lead to organ damage .
Of concern , COVID-19 vaccine trials are not designed to detect ADE .
It is not known what proportion of the U.S. population might suffer pathogenic priming or ADE after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine , but the estimated 15 to 24 million Americans who already have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The CDC has indicated that individuals with high-risk medical conditions—individuals excluded from the Phase I trials—are one of the proposed groups for early vaccination .
What are the FDA ’ s plans for ensuring transparency of data describing rates and types of adverse events , including information about susceptible subgroups ?
And how does the FDA plan to monitor adverse events and long-term health outcomes once the clinical trials are unblinded and vaccines are offered to those in the placebo arm ?
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded over $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1990 .
These awards , along with the scientific literature , the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ( VAERS ) , and the data compiled in vaccine package inserts , all illustrate that vaccines cause a multitude of serious injuries , many of which have long diagnostic horizons .
Unfortunately , conditions such as allergies , autoimmune diseases , neurodevelopmental problems , and cancers are unlikely to be detectable within the short clinical trial follow-up windows .
The appallingly low rate of reporting of vaccine injuries ( an estimated 1 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , without fully transparent access to data and information , few vaccine recipients or health care providers are likely to connect the dots between vaccination and subsequent adverse events .
The unpredictable outcomes that may arise from population-wide coronavirus vaccination are a disturbing unknown .
Although FDA often requires medicines to continue active monitoring of injuries for up to five years , Pfizer ’ s approved Phase 3 protocol calls for the company to “ actively ” collect information about adverse events and serious adverse events only through the second month—the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ award EUA .
Although the protocol states that researchers will also collect serious adverse event data “ approximately 6 months after the last dose of study intervention , ” it implies that it will rely on voluntary rather than “ active ” reporting of these injuries and illnesses .
Moreover , from 24 months on ( after the last follow-up visit ) , Pfizer ’ s investigators will no longer be “ obligated ” to pay attention to adverse events .
Following the close of their studies—or even sooner—both Pfizer and Moderna have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine to every member of the placebo group .
This scheme will have the obvious effect of erasing opportunities for long-term comparisons and making future vaccine injuries invisible and deniable .
Industry and health officials argue that they will take this action “ for ethical reasons , ” stating that it would be unethical to deny placebo group members the advantage of an approved vaccine .
It would , however , also be highly unethical to give millions of Americans a vaccine with potential long-term adverse effects that have not been properly researched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will the FDA assess vaccine safety in different age groups , including the elderly and children ?
In a recent press release , Pfizer stated that 45 % of the participants in the U.S. portion of its vaccine clinical trials were between the ages of 56 and 85 .
This lumping together of working-age adults and seniors will make it difficult to evaluate subsequent claims about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy specifically in the elderly .
This is concerning , given that older adults in assisted living and nursing home populations are one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination .
The elderly and the general public have a right to full transparency concerning the number of seniors , broken down by smaller age ranges and underlying health conditions , who participated in the clinical trials and the rates of infection and adverse events experienced by those trial participants .
The published data to date in the Phase I and II trials of both vaccines ( Pfizer and Moderna ) included only 22 healthy , community-living white seniors ( the oldest was 74 ) ; none of them were representative of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Almost two out of five nursing home residents are over age 85 ( 39 % ) , and Pfizer ’ s Phase III trial excluded people who were over 85 .
Many comorbidities found in frail seniors would also have excluded them from both of the Phase III trials .
The well-known phenomenon of immunosenescence—the “ age-related dysregulation and decline of the immune system ” —is linked to poor vaccine responses in older adults .
No one , and especially not seniors , will be able to make informed risk-benefit decisions without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
At the October 22 expert meeting convened by VRBPAC , participants expressed caution about giving COVID-19 vaccines to children , arguing that the risks could well outweigh the benefits .
Leading NIH researcher Dr. Luigi Notarangelo went further , frankly stating that coronavirus vaccines “ should not be considered for use ” in children “ at this point ” and adding that the evidence presented at the meeting had been insufficient to answer pressing questions about safety in children ( p. 337 ) .
Although FDA requires institutions that test drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pediatric plan in place , in early November , the principal investigator leading Pfizer ’ s vaccine trials in 12-17-year-olds made the scarcely comforting disclosure to TIME magazine that “ The plan can be simply ‘ We don ’ t have a plan , ’ ” stating that the rule “ is lenient to the point of being no rule at all.
” Bafflingly , these remarks—which one hopes are a mischaracterization of the FDA ’ s willingness to exercise pediatric oversight—appear to have been intended to reassure parents pondering whether to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How will the FDA earn the public ’ s trust ?
While all vaccines require due deliberation about safety and efficacy , the candidate vaccines ’ accelerated development and the experimental nature of the never-before-approved mRNA technologies upon which they rely clearly raise even more questions than usual .
The fact that racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented among the groups targeted for early phase vaccination ( including essential health care workers and individuals with high-risk medical conditions ) has also prompted concerns .
Focus groups indicate that communities of color do not want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” are reluctant to be “ guinea pigs , ” and “ want to see some data ” ; vaccine experts concede that ethnic minority groups ’ extremely low levels of trust in the vaccines ’ safety are “ quite rooted in historical reality.
” There are significant differences between the FDA ’ s standard drug and biologic approval process and the expedited EUA process ; as those familiar with drug development procedures acknowledge , an EUA “ is not an accepted endpoint for product development.
” We urge you , therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carefully assess the full range of unknowns pertaining to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines .
The FDA ’ s eventual decisions about these vaccines will have major implications not just for 328 million Americans , but potentially for billions worldwide .
© December 8 , 2020 Children ’ s Health Defense , Inc .
This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children ’ s Health Defense , Inc. Want to learn more from Children ’ s Health Defense ?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Defense .
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page .
View it here .

The chairman of the Children's Health Defense is asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a cautious approach in approving COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed at 'warp speed.'
December 11, 2020 (Children’s Health Defense) — On Dec. 4, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense, sent the below letter to Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a cautious approach in approving COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed at “warp speed.”
TAKE ACTION: On Dec. 10, CBER’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet in open session to discuss Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. Take action below by urging VRBPAC to make safety the chief concern in its considerations:
Send RFK, Jr.’s letter (see below) to CBER Director Peter Marks and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, who has expressed similar COVID vaccine safety concerns. Send the letter in the action alert below to your representatives in the House and Senate letting them know that you support Kennedy’s call for caution in making decisions regarding Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine as well as any other COVID vaccine in development.
With the VRBPAC meeting coming up so quickly, the time to act is now!
— Article continues below Petition — SIGN: Join petition calling for a stop to COVID vaccine testing in Europe Show Petition Text 16601 have signed the petition. Let's get to 17500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Concerns over the health and safety of the human test subjects in Pfizer's European COVID vaccine study have caused two eminent doctors to launch a petition calling for an immediate halt to those studies. On December 1, 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon, an ex chief of research at Pfizer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a lung specialist and former department head of public health lodged an appeal to the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for approving drugs across the EU, asking them to suspend the ongoing Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42). LifeSite is joining Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg in their call for an immediate suspension of this study and we are encouraging people to co-sign their petition to the EMA which is to be found in the petition section on this page. Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition, and then please contact the EMA at the address listed below, in the 'For More Information' section. In their application to the EMA, Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg give the following reasons why the Pfizer study could pose dangers to the health and safety of the study participants: First, the doctors say that the study design must be improved as the highly inaccurate PCR test is currently being used to detect the presence of COVID in the study participants. This means that the efficacy of the vaccine is in doubt. The doctors recommend changing from the PCR test to Sanger sequencing.
Second, and more important, the doctors advocate animal testing of the vaccine to exclude the possibility of the risks to the life and health of human participants from known side-effects of other similar studies on corona viruses. These side-effects can include: an exaggerated immune response when the subject comes into contact with the "real world" virus; possible infertility of an "indefinite duration" for women; severe allergic responses to polyethylene glycol which is contained in the mRNA vaccine being tested by Pfizer; and, other latent, serious side effects which, because of the short duration of the study, may only become known well after the conclusion of the study. Because of these unacceptable risks to the life and health of the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID vaccine study participants, we are joining with Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg as co-signers of their petition to the European Medicine Agency, asking for an immediate halt to these studies. Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING, today! And, after you have signed this petition, please send the sample email in the section below to the official European Medicine Agency email: [email protected] FOR MORE INFORMATION: Actual Petition Text (pdf): https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf Sample Email: Subject: Please act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon and stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards, [Your name] **Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Letter to Congressional Representatives and Senators
Find the form at this page.
Here’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s letter:
Dear Dr. Marks,
Transparency and accountability are essential ingredients in the public policy process, helping to engender public trust and promote sound decision-making. As you are undoubtedly aware, many Americans are expressing worries about the lack of transparency and abbreviated timeline governing the experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently under development. Children’s Health Defense shares the public’s concern that the government’s single-minded—and perhaps unrealistic—preoccupation with a vaccine as the only way to end the COVID crisis has given the vaccine enterprise a dangerous urgency that could prompt health officials to take reckless steps to speed one or more vaccines to approval. Children’s Health Defense is writing to respectfully request that you and the FDA slow down the approval process to meet the public’s expectations for deliberations of the utmost rigor and integrity.
Without having to provide “the full data to back up their claims,” executives at Pfizer and Moderna “have made significant amounts of money off their early announcements of [vaccine] success.” In addition, through Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer (in partnership with German company BioNTech) has received $1.95 billion in taxpayer funds for the manufacture and distribution (though not R&D) of 100 million doses of its BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; Operation Warp Speed has also awarded over $2.4 billion to support the clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution of 100 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine developed in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Both Pfizer and Moderna have now submitted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) applications (on November 20 and November 30, respectively) for their vaccines, and Moderna has also directed an application to the European Medicines Agency. News reports indicate that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet on December 10 to review Pfizer’s application and are speculating that FDA could authorize the company’s vaccine as soon as mid-December. VRBPAC is also apparently hurrying to review Moderna’s vaccine on December 17.
At an October 22 meeting of outside experts convened by VRBPAC to discuss COVID-19 vaccines, one of the attendees described the difficulty—particularly when making a less stringent EUA decision—of striking the proper “balance between looking at people’s rights to take something where it’s determined that the benefit might exceed the risk, while also making sure that. . . people are not taking vaccines that might actually harm them” (p. 348). Recognizing the innumerable uncertainties that surround these novel vaccines, Children’s Health Defense believes that, at a minimum, the American public deserves to have the FDA’s thorough and thoughtful answers to the following questions:
How will the FDA account for potentially biased conclusions about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy?
Both Pfizer and Moderna recently issued press releases citing preliminary evidence that their COVID-19 vaccines are 95% effective in preventing symptoms of mild coronavirus infection; they are banking on these early results to obtain the FDA’s emergency use authorization. However, the clinical trials’ reliance on PCR testing to ascertain study participants’ SARS-CoV-2 infection status raises important questions. These prompted world-renowned diagnostics expert Dr. Sin Hang Lee, founder of the Connecticut-based Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, to file an Administrative Stay of Action petition with the FDA (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-2225) on November 25. The petition focuses on the Pfizer study but is just as relevant to the Moderna study. In the petition, Dr. Lee asserts that Pfizer’s study design is “inadequate to accurately assess efficacy” and asks the FDA to conduct a more appropriate efficacy review before proceeding to an EUA determination, stating that PCR testing—prone to generating a high rate of false-positives—should not serve as the primary evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in trial participants. As Dr. Lee spells out, “a higher number of false-positive test results in the participants receiving placebo will artificially raise the efficacy of the vaccine.” He argues that it is “absolutely necessary” that all positive test results be verified using gold-standard DNA sequencing.
Will the FDA factor into its EUA deliberations the fact that neither clinical trial has a primary objective of assessing whether the vaccines prevent severe outcomes?
The pre-specified endpoints forming the basis of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s preliminary conclusions about effectiveness—the endpoints upon which the FDA’s potentially momentous decision to grant EUA rests—focus on a trivial difference in COVID-19 symptomatology between a tiny subset of 164 or fewer trial participants in the vaccinated and control groups. In late October, internationally esteemed British Medical Journal (BMJ) Associate Editor Dr. Peter Doshi, who is also a University of Maryland professor, wrote in the BMJ, “The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are.” Dr. Doshi continued, “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths.” According to Dr. Doshi, Moderna’s chief medical officer is well aware of this design shortcoming, having explained that to capture endpoints such as hospitalization or death, the trials would need to be “10 times the size” and run for a much longer time frame. Scientist and former Harvard Medical School professor Dr. William A. Haseltine agrees that the trials’ narrow focus on mild cold-like symptoms makes the study protocols “far from adequate”; Dr. Haseltine has argued that the trials seem “intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success,” allowing manufacturers to quickly petition for vaccine approval.
Experts at the late-October VRBPAC meeting made similar remarks about the limitations of using mild infection as the primary endpoint. Noting that there could be “limited and, in some instances, no information about some of the secondary endpoints” (such as more severe illness), one panelist stated that “This would be particularly true in the instance of an early EUA” (p. 100). Another attendee pointed out that a vaccine could be “effective in avoiding mild cases but actually [do] very little to address what we really care about, which is serious disease and deaths” (p. 308). A third participant made the critical point that “many of the groups at risk for severe disease don’t respond well to vaccines in the first place” (pp. 346-347).
Messenger RNA technology has previously faced significant safety hurdles; what evidence can the FDA share with the public supporting the short-term and long-term safety of mRNA vaccines?
Until very recently, concerns about mRNA instability bedeviled efforts to develop mRNA vaccines. The apparent technological solutions for overcoming these challenges—including nanoparticle carrier systems and, in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, extreme freezing—remain unproven. To our knowledge, Pfizer has not provided detailed information about the reasons for its mRNA vaccine’s unprecedented minus-94-degree freezing requirements, which specify that the cool boxes may only be opened briefly twice a day, must have their dry ice replenished every five days, and that the vaccine can only be stored at refrigerator temperatures for 24 hours. Why are the Pfizer vaccine’s storage conditions so different from those of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which apparently can be refrigerated for 30 days? Many members of the public and scientific community would like to know more about the two vaccines’ real-world stability and safety.
Discussing Pfizer’s vaccine, Professor Allan Cheng, acting chief health officer in the Australian state of Victoria, describes safety as a “key unknown,” characterizing mRNA vaccines as “pretty reactogenic” and prone to “lots of side effects.” During the Phase II/III trials, 50% of Pfizer participants aged 18-55 experienced systemic adverse events within a month of their second dose of vaccine, as did 100% of those injected with two doses of Moderna’s vaccine.
Because mRNA vaccines rely on synthetic RNA, they represent a significant departure from other biologically based vaccine technologies. Virologist, Dr. Luc Montagnier (who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for his discovery of HIV) and other scientists even dispute the label of “vaccine,” arguing that these products represent a new form of gene therapy. It is debatable whether a fast-tracked approval schedule is appropriate for an entirely new vaccine technology that, essentially, is intended to turn the body’s cells into viral-protein-making factories. Professor Montagnier, who opposes the use of mRNA vaccines in humans, stated in an interview with Children’s Health Defense, “The human genome contains 7% to 9% of endogenous retrovirus sequences. Some of these sequences code for reverse transcription of RNA into DNA. Therefore, it is possible that the spike protein mRNA of the vaccine could be absorbed by human cells, reverse transcribed, and integrated as a human gene in these cells. This could be a beneficial event protecting the human host from further infection by coronavirus or it could induce a long-term deleterious effect such as cancer. Even if animal testing showed protection, nobody could predict long-term pathologic effects in a human population and the precautionary principle should apply.”
Messenger RNA vaccines will not work without an in-built delivery mechanism that enables the mRNA to make its way into a cell’s cytoplasm. Moderna’s and Pfizer’s chosen solution is to use lipid nanoparticle (LNP) carrier systems. The two mRNA vaccine manufacturers are using LNPs to “encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake,” in addition to taking advantage of what vaccine scientists describe as LNPs’ “inherent adjuvant properties.” However, the LNP formulations in both COVID-19 vaccines are PEGylated, meaning that the vaccine nanoparticles are coated with the synthetic, nondegradable and controversial polyethylene glycol (PEG) polymer. PEG is a potential allergen as well as a suspected carcinogen. Moderna’s 2018 corporate prospectus acknowledges that “there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects,” including reactions that “could lead to significant adverse events.”
How will the FDA evaluate possible risks of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement?
Although Pfizer and Moderna have conducted some experimental animal trials alongside their clinical trials in humans, neither company has released any data addressing the possibility of pathogenic priming. In individuals vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, pathogenic priming could potentially trigger autoimmunity against critical human immune system proteins as a result of molecular similarities between SARS-CoV-2 protein components and human protein components (epitopes). A 2020 paper on pathogenic priming discusses these risks, pointing out that “All SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes have similarity to human proteins except one.” The paper’s author cautions, “These epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming.”
Another issue, as yet undiscussed by Pfizer and Moderna, concerns the potential for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a phenomenon documented in humans, non-human primates, and ferrets in connection with the coronaviruses linked to SARS and MERS. In ADE, vaccines can cause idiopathic antibodies to act like a Trojan horse for wild viruses. In the case of individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines, ADE could not only end up enhancing disease severity but could also lead to organ damage. Of concern, COVID-19 vaccine trials are not designed to detect ADE. It is not known what proportion of the U.S. population might suffer pathogenic priming or ADE after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, but the estimated 15 to 24 million Americans who already have an autoimmune disease could be particularly susceptible. The CDC has indicated that individuals with high-risk medical conditions—individuals excluded from the Phase I trials—are one of the proposed groups for early vaccination.
What are the FDA’s plans for ensuring transparency of data describing rates and types of adverse events, including information about susceptible subgroups? And how does the FDA plan to monitor adverse events and long-term health outcomes once the clinical trials are unblinded and vaccines are offered to those in the placebo arm?
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded over $4.4 billion for vaccine injuries and deaths since 1990. These awards, along with the scientific literature, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the data compiled in vaccine package inserts, all illustrate that vaccines cause a multitude of serious injuries, many of which have long diagnostic horizons. Unfortunately, conditions such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, neurodevelopmental problems, and cancers are unlikely to be detectable within the short clinical trial follow-up windows. The appallingly low rate of reporting of vaccine injuries (an estimated 1%, according to Harvard researchers) also suggests that, without fully transparent access to data and information, few vaccine recipients or health care providers are likely to connect the dots between vaccination and subsequent adverse events.
The unpredictable outcomes that may arise from population-wide coronavirus vaccination are a disturbing unknown. Although FDA often requires medicines to continue active monitoring of injuries for up to five years, Pfizer’s approved Phase 3 protocol calls for the company to “actively” collect information about adverse events and serious adverse events only through the second month—the point at which the FDA could decide to award EUA. Although the protocol states that researchers will also collect serious adverse event data “approximately 6 months after the last dose of study intervention,” it implies that it will rely on voluntary rather than “active” reporting of these injuries and illnesses. Moreover, from 24 months on (after the last follow-up visit), Pfizer’s investigators will no longer be “obligated” to pay attention to adverse events.
Following the close of their studies—or even sooner—both Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they plan to offer their vaccine to every member of the placebo group. This scheme will have the obvious effect of erasing opportunities for long-term comparisons and making future vaccine injuries invisible and deniable. Industry and health officials argue that they will take this action “for ethical reasons,” stating that it would be unethical to deny placebo group members the advantage of an approved vaccine. It would, however, also be highly unethical to give millions of Americans a vaccine with potential long-term adverse effects that have not been properly researched, characterized, and documented.
How will the FDA assess vaccine safety in different age groups, including the elderly and children?
In a recent press release, Pfizer stated that 45% of the participants in the U.S. portion of its vaccine clinical trials were between the ages of 56 and 85. This lumping together of working-age adults and seniors will make it difficult to evaluate subsequent claims about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy specifically in the elderly. This is concerning, given that older adults in assisted living and nursing home populations are one of the proposed groups for early phase vaccination. The elderly and the general public have a right to full transparency concerning the number of seniors, broken down by smaller age ranges and underlying health conditions, who participated in the clinical trials and the rates of infection and adverse events experienced by those trial participants. The published data to date in the Phase I and II trials of both vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) included only 22 healthy, community-living white seniors (the oldest was 74); none of them were representative of the frail elderly populations in long-term care facilities. Almost two out of five nursing home residents are over age 85 (39%), and Pfizer’s Phase III trial excluded people who were over 85. Many comorbidities found in frail seniors would also have excluded them from both of the Phase III trials. The well-known phenomenon of immunosenescence—the “age-related dysregulation and decline of the immune system”—is linked to poor vaccine responses in older adults. No one, and especially not seniors, will be able to make informed risk-benefit decisions without access to full information and clinical trial data.
At the October 22 expert meeting convened by VRBPAC, participants expressed caution about giving COVID-19 vaccines to children, arguing that the risks could well outweigh the benefits. Leading NIH researcher Dr. Luigi Notarangelo went further, frankly stating that coronavirus vaccines “should not be considered for use” in children “at this point” and adding that the evidence presented at the meeting had been insufficient to answer pressing questions about safety in children (p. 337). Although FDA requires institutions that test drugs and biologics in children to have a pediatric plan in place, in early November, the principal investigator leading Pfizer’s vaccine trials in 12-17-year-olds made the scarcely comforting disclosure to TIME magazine that “The plan can be simply ‘We don’t have a plan,’” stating that the rule “is lenient to the point of being no rule at all.” Bafflingly, these remarks—which one hopes are a mischaracterization of the FDA’s willingness to exercise pediatric oversight—appear to have been intended to reassure parents pondering whether to sign up their children for the trials.
How will the FDA earn the public’s trust?
While all vaccines require due deliberation about safety and efficacy, the candidate vaccines’ accelerated development and the experimental nature of the never-before-approved mRNA technologies upon which they rely clearly raise even more questions than usual. The fact that racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented among the groups targeted for early phase vaccination (including essential health care workers and individuals with high-risk medical conditions) has also prompted concerns. Focus groups indicate that communities of color do not want to be “first in line,” are reluctant to be “guinea pigs,” and “want to see some data”; vaccine experts concede that ethnic minority groups’ extremely low levels of trust in the vaccines’ safety are “quite rooted in historical reality.”
There are significant differences between the FDA’s standard drug and biologic approval process and the expedited EUA process; as those familiar with drug development procedures acknowledge, an EUA “is not an accepted endpoint for product development.” We urge you, therefore, to take all the time required to carefully assess the full range of unknowns pertaining to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The FDA’s eventual decisions about these vaccines will have major implications not just for 328 million Americans, but potentially for billions worldwide.
Sincerely,
Robert Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
© December 8, 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--From Gulag to Google: The issue is one of freedom

December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — It is true that Google is not imprisoning dissenters in a vast network of prison camps , similar to what Alexander Solzhenitsyn described in The Gulag Archipelago .
But there is a good reason that retired NYU professor Michael Rectenwald titled his 2019 book Google Archipelago : The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom .
The reach and power of the social media giants is frightening .
It is with little exaggeration that the owners of Google ( which includes YouTube ) and Facebook and Twitter are called “ the masters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be challenged — while it can be .
The recent elections have provided stark and shocking proof of the power of these internet giants , dwarfing any concerns about voter fraud .
The influence that Big Tech had over the elections was far greater , illustrated in the censoring of the Hunter Biden story , with the help of the mainstream media .
According to one survey , had more Americans known about the alleged scandal , some would not have voted for Joe Biden .
That alone would have tipped the scales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this ( again , with the enthusiastic help of the mainstream media ) was the failure to report on Trump ’ s many positive accomplishments .
According to this same survey , had more voters been aware of the good Trump had done , some would have changed their vote .
What Big Tech has done , though , is absolutely brazen .
“ You will report our version of the news , ” they are basically saying , “ or you will not report at all.
” And for the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online , we don ’ t even realize we are being manipulated .
Google will show us what it wants us to know , not just the most relevant information .
We are being programmed and indoctrinated and we haven ’ t a clue that it ’ s happening .
Is not this like the reach of the Gulag ?
Is not this more similar to totalitarianism than to our supposedly free and open country ?
Big Tech ( specifically Twitter ) shut down the account of the New York Post , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oldest newspapers .
That ’ s right .
They shut their account down for daring to report on the Hunter Biden laptop .
How can this be ?
But it gets worse .
Big Tech ( again , Twitter ) has taken on the President of the United States , censoring ( or , at least filtering or commenting on ) his own tweets .
Let that sink in for a minute .
If Big Tech is not afraid to take on the most powerful man on the planet — and one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well — what makes you think it will not try to take us on as well , not to mention shut us down ?
And now YouTube has announced that it will remove all videos that dispute the results of the elections , even while legal challenges are still being processed in the courts .
In the same way , YouTube has removed videos with different takes on COVID-19 , even if those videos come from experts in their field .
“ Thou shalt not dissent !
” is the word for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full steam ahead .
To this moment , every post that my team puts on Facebook that has anything to do with the elections , however remotely , appears with a link to the election results , courtesy of Big Tech .
To this moment , virtually every video we post on YouTube , regardless of content , gets flagged immediately , forcing us to request a manual review .
And even though the vast majority of the videos are approved for monetization , why are they flagged in the first place ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mine have not fared so well , having their entire library of videos removed from Vimeo ( they dared question the “ gays are born that way and can not change ” narrative ) .
Others have had their Facebook pages shut down for posting verses from the Bible that spoke against homosexual practice or , within the last two weeks , for exposing Facebook ’ s anti-conservative methodology .
What , then , is the solution ?
First , Congress needs to continue to hold the feet of Big Tech leaders to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate their terms as platforms ( rather than publishers ) .
And where there are monopolies that need to be broken up , so be it .
( I ’ m not a legal expert ; others will have to parse these details . )
Second , we need to continue to develop viable , alternative platforms and search engines .
This is happening already , but it will take some time to catch up to the massive numbers of Big Tech .
Third , rather than simply fleeing the platforms that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to flood those platforms with good , godly , truthful content .
Get the word out .
Push the envelope .
Challenge the system .
I have often pointed to the words of the courageous , German Christian leader Basilea Schlink , penned in the aftermath of the destruction of World War II .
She wrote , “ We are personally to blame .
We all have to admit that if we , the entire Christian community , had stood up as one man and if , after the burning of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1938 ] , we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval , rung the church bells , and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S. , the Devil ’ s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes ” ( see her book Israel , My Chosen People ) .
This is a message to take to heart , a message to move us to action .
Let us , then , do the equivalent of going out on the streets and voicing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( And again , I recognize that Big Tech is not imprisoning us or , in this example , behaving like violent Nazis .
It is our response I am focusing on . )
Let us post gospel truth on every social media outlet we have .
Let us stand up for righteousness and get our message out .
And let us oppose censorship when it raises its ugly head .
We can have different takes on COVID .
We have different views on election fraud .
We can love or hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue .
The issue is one of freedom .
Google and its cohorts only become more Gulag-like if we let them .
We can not and we must not .
Let us shout together , “ Freedom !
”

The domination of the social media giants must be challenged — while it can be.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — It is true that Google is not imprisoning dissenters in a vast network of prison camps, similar to what Alexander Solzhenitsyn described in The Gulag Archipelago. But there is a good reason that retired NYU professor Michael Rectenwald titled his 2019 book Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom. The reach and power of the social media giants is frightening. It is with little exaggeration that the owners of Google (which includes YouTube) and Facebook and Twitter are called “the masters of the universe.” Their domination must be challenged — while it can be.
The recent elections have provided stark and shocking proof of the power of these internet giants, dwarfing any concerns about voter fraud. The influence that Big Tech had over the elections was far greater, illustrated in the censoring of the Hunter Biden story, with the help of the mainstream media.
According to one survey, had more Americans known about the alleged scandal, some would not have voted for Joe Biden. That alone would have tipped the scales in Trump’s favor. Added to this (again, with the enthusiastic help of the mainstream media) was the failure to report on Trump’s many positive accomplishments. According to this same survey, had more voters been aware of the good Trump had done, some would have changed their vote.
What Big Tech has done, though, is absolutely brazen. “You will report our version of the news,” they are basically saying, “or you will not report at all.”
And for the most part, when we search for news online, we don’t even realize we are being manipulated. Google will show us what it wants us to know, not just the most relevant information.
We are being programmed and indoctrinated and we haven’t a clue that it’s happening.
Is not this like the reach of the Gulag? Is not this more similar to totalitarianism than to our supposedly free and open country?
Just think.
Big Tech (specifically Twitter) shut down the account of the New York Post, one of the nation’s leading and oldest newspapers. That’s right. They shut their account down for daring to report on the Hunter Biden laptop. How can this be?
But it gets worse. Big Tech (again, Twitter) has taken on the President of the United States, censoring (or, at least filtering or commenting on) his own tweets.
Let that sink in for a minute.
If Big Tech is not afraid to take on the most powerful man on the planet — and one of the most fearless and even vindictive as well — what makes you think it will not try to take us on as well, not to mention shut us down?
And now YouTube has announced that it will remove all videos that dispute the results of the elections, even while legal challenges are still being processed in the courts. In the same way, YouTube has removed videos with different takes on COVID-19, even if those videos come from experts in their field. “Thou shalt not dissent!” is the word for the hour.
The purge is on, full steam ahead.
To this moment, every post that my team puts on Facebook that has anything to do with the elections, however remotely, appears with a link to the election results, courtesy of Big Tech.
To this moment, virtually every video we post on YouTube, regardless of content, gets flagged immediately, forcing us to request a manual review. And even though the vast majority of the videos are approved for monetization, why are they flagged in the first place? Based on what?
Other colleagues of mine have not fared so well, having their entire library of videos removed from Vimeo (they dared question the “gays are born that way and cannot change” narrative).
Others have had their Facebook pages shut down for posting verses from the Bible that spoke against homosexual practice or, within the last two weeks, for exposing Facebook’s anti-conservative methodology.
Gulag-like, indeed.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Break up Big Tech tyrants and defend free speech Show Petition Text 116114 have signed the petition. Let's get to 125000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020) Right before Thanksgiving, YouTube deleted a LifeSite video of a distinguished Canadian physician protesting the "unfounded public hysteria" over COVID-19 and accused us of spreading "medical misinformation." Our account was suspended, and we were prohibited from posting videos on our YouTube channel for one week. And, while that may not seem like a big deal, it's a huge deal for a news organization like LifeSite. Then, earlier this week, YouTube again suspended our account – this time for two weeks – over an episode of The Bishop Strickland Show wherein Bishop Strickland said he would not take an unethical COVID-19 vaccine. We were able to appeal the suspension, and our request was granted. This means that in YouTube's three-strikes-and-you're-out content-policing, idea-cleansing scheme, we are back down to one strike. But, we still face the threat of losing our account permanently. And, we're not the only ones. In a recent turn of events, YouTube just announced that it will remove videos alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. But, what is YouTube afraid of? The truth??? Thankfully, however, there is a one, big bright spot on the horizon: 48 states filed suit against Facebook just this week. And, although this seems like a step in the right direction, the draconian measures which YouTube just rolled out, which are already wielded by Twitter, are an assault against free speech. So, the fight for freedom of speech against Big Tech goes on. And, we must do everything we can to protect it! Please SIGN and SHARE this petition today! FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-youtube-reverses-ban-on-lifesitenews? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youtube-bans-lifesite-over-video-of-bp-strickland-refusing-to-take-corona-vaccine https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lifesites-channel-was-suspended-by-youtube-heres-how-you-can-still-watch-our-videos https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youtube-starts-removing-videos-that-contain-allegations-of-mass-voter-fraud https://tennesseestar.com/2020/12/10/facebook-sued-by-48-states-federal-trade-commission-over-allegations-of-monopolistic-practices/ ________________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (11/18/2020) Everyone thought the censorship by Big Tech corporations would decrease after the 2020 election, but the truth is that censorship is being felt just as much as it was before the election. And, given the election outcome, perhaps Big Tech censorship now is even more consequential than it was before the election! The two biggest social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, and other Big Tech companies, are still censoring and suppressing stories and posts favorable to conservatives, and especially anything that has to do with election fraud. Here are a few recent examples: Women for America First organized the March for Trump on November 14, which was shut down by Facebook, MailChimp and Eventbrite. Despite Big Tech’s best efforts to cancel the event, the march went on and gathered a huge crowd.
Twitter has been suppressing a large number of President Trump’s Tweets. Most of his Tweets have been flagged arbitrarily with a warning stating: “This claim about election fraud is disputed." Please READ this recent article about Big Tech's attempt to choke information conerning the recent Million MAGA March in Washington, DC: '5 things mainstream media won’t tell you about massive DC ‘Stop the Steal’ rally' Then, please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, which calls on the Congress, the president, and governors to defend freedom of speech as Big Tech continues their rampant censorship. PETITION UPDATE (10/15/2020) In a remarkable development, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be issuing subpoenas to Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Facebook's Mark Zuckerburg for their company's suppression of two critical expose news stories about how Hunter Biden and the Biden Family allegedly profited from business deals made because of Joe Biden's position as Vice President. Please WATCH LifeSite's exclusive video of the announcement by Senator Ted Cruz below. According to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, the subpoenas will be issued next Tuesday, for hearings to be held on Friday of next week. This is a MASSIVE development, and should be welcomed by those who champion freedom of speech. Again, this is all happening because Twitter and Facebook refuse to allow their members to share stories which would be favorable to conservatives. Here's the timeline: Yesterday, Twitter and Facebook suppressed a NY Post story about how Hunter Biden allegedly profited from introducing a Ukrainian businessman to his then-Vice President father, Joe Biden. The story also alleges that Vice President Biden then subsequently pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire a prosecutor who was investigating the businessman's company. And, just this morning, Twitter suppressed another expose by the NY Post alleging that the Biden Family improperly profitted from deals made with one of the largest Chinese energy companies because of Vice President Biden's position in government. But, right after the story broke, Senator Cruz tried to share the latest story on Twitter and was blocked. Twitter says that they are blocking the stories because they claim that the information was obtained illegally. However, Twitter showed no problem allowing illegally obtained information about President Trump's tax returns to be shared. Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, which calls on the Congress, the president, and governors to defend freedom of speech as Big Tech continues their rampant censorship. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'GOP senators decry Big Tech censorship of NY Post story exposing Biden corruption' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gop-senators-decry-big-tech-censorship-of-ny-post-story-exposing-biden-corruption ___________________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (9/17/2020) Big Tech is out to kill free speech. LifeSite is out to protect it! LifeSite has been digging deep into the many claims of liberal bias and selective censorship of pro-life, pro-family, and conservative voices on social media. And, we are now launching our new series 'Uncensored: Big Tech vs. Free Speech', which will unpack how the actions of Big Tech censors actually affect conservative and Christian organization and individuals. Please WATCH the first video in our series featuring Brigitte Gabriel, the Founder of ACT For America, one of the nation's premier national security grassroots organizations. Ms. Gabriel's organization, ACT For America, has been targeted by Big Tech especially in the manipulation of search results. Big Tech “think[s] they are God and they are exercising their godly power over everybody else,” Gabriel explained. "Because in today's world, anytime you want to find out any information about somebody, what do you do? Google. You go to the internet to find out some information about them. When you research anything about somebody, the first thing that comes up [in the search results] is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of ‘hate groups.’” “And who are the ‘hate groups’? Family Research Council is a hate group because they are pro-family. American Family Radio is a hate group…LifeSiteNews is a hate group. My organization is a hate group because we sound the alarm about terrorism and protecting our constitutional freedom. And so they try to character assassinate you. And they control the language.” LifeSite's research shows that Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and others have become far too dangerous for democracy. They can and do sway elections and public opinion in whatever direction they want, primarily by manipulating search results, tracking our online behavior, and by blocking truthful content from their platforms. Today, LifeSite is starting to fight back, with facts and with stories of conservatives and Christians who are being negatively impacted by Big Tech's liberal bias. Please continue to follow our 'Big Tech vs. Free Speech' series which aims to launch a new video each week for the next eight weeks. And, please sign our petition demanding that Big Tech monopolies are broken up. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PETITION BACKGROUND TEXT: The outrageous erasing of the White Coat Summit from the internet is only the latest in a long series of brazen acts of censorship against conservatives and all those who support legitimate free speech. You may agree or disagree with the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine against the coronavirus, but everyone should agree on this point: No Big Tech company should have the power to erase from the internet the medical opinions of licensed practicing doctors simply because they do not like what they have to say about the coronavirus or their experience treating it. Americans and other free peoples do not need leftist computer programmers deciding what the best course of medical treatment is for them. Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and their Big Tech friends want to control what you see, what you read, what you think, and ultimately, how you vote. Not only do they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying congress and buttering up big Washington DC think tanks, but now they brazenly and directly censor any content they don't want you to see. Big Tech, like other interest groups, aggressively lobby to help their businesses thrive, but increasingly, Big Tech is using blatant internet censorship to impose its radical world view over those they consider to be "deplorables." This must stop, but it won't unless we demand it as forcefully as legally possible. We believe that we have reached the point were Big Tech must be broken up if legitimate free speech is going to survive and continue to thrive on the internet. Please sign our petition to demand real consequences for Big Tech's suppression of legitimate free speech. In 2016, emails revealed by Fox News' Tucker Carlson proved that Google tried to influence the election by affecting voter turnout. Thankfully they failed. But they didn't give up. Instead, they have been preparing and testing how to manipulate information to continue to abuse their monopolistic power. In 2018, Google/Youtube et. al. succeeded in manipulating the Irish abortion referendum by blacklisting pro-life videos, manipulating pro-life search terms and results and intentionally withholding pro-life information. Again, this is not an opinion or a conspiracy theory, Project Veritas obtained first hand information proving the intentional censorship by Big Tech. And the Coronavirus has just made things worse. You see, scared people are more easily manipulated into giving up their freedom of speech. Children are being kept from going to school, tens of millions of Americans are out of work, and rioting has broken out in most major American cities. Now, more than ever, freedom of speech is necessary to secure all of our freedoms. Freedom of speech is crucial to truly exercise the freedom to vote for the person that best represents one's own views, or the freedom to decide what course of medical treatment to accept - especially the decision to control what vaccines are administered to our children. Some experts, like Dr. Robert Epstein, a behavioral psychologist who has testified before congress against Big Tech believes that we may already be too late to control Big Tech's tyrannical control over information. President Trump took a step in the right direction with his Executive Order calling for increased regulation of Big Tech. But much more can be done and needs to be done right now. In an era where almost everything is polarized, there is an overwhelming support for breaking up the Big Tech monopolies. A recent Pew poll found that 75% of Americans believe that Big Tech companies have too much influence. It is time to bring serious accountability to Big Tech for their attempts to use their monopolies to kill free speech. It is time to break up Big Tech. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Google, Facebook, Twitter shut down ‘frontline’ US doctors who promote ‘cure for COVID’ - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/google-facebook-twitter-shut-down-frontline-us-doctors-who-promote-cure-for-covid?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard Americans overwhelmingly agree Big Tech has too much power: Pew poll - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-overwhelmingly-agree-big-tech-has-too-much-power-pew-poll Leaked Google employee's email reveals effort to boost Latino vote, surprise that some voted for Trump - https://www.foxnews.com/tech/leaked-google-employees-email-reveals-effort-to-boost-latino-vote-surprise-that-some-voted-for-trump Undercover video proves Google interfered in Irish abortion referendum - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-overwhelmingly-agree-big-tech-has-too-much-power-pew-poll
Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
What, then, is the solution?
First, Congress needs to continue to hold the feet of Big Tech leaders to the fire, exposing unequal practices that violate their terms as platforms (rather than publishers). And where there are monopolies that need to be broken up, so be it. (I’m not a legal expert; others will have to parse these details.)
Second, we need to continue to develop viable, alternative platforms and search engines. This is happening already, but it will take some time to catch up to the massive numbers of Big Tech.
Third, rather than simply fleeing the platforms that are seeking to shut us down, we need to flood those platforms with good, godly, truthful content.
Get the word out. Push the envelope. Challenge the system.
I have often pointed to the words of the courageous, German Christian leader Basilea Schlink, penned in the aftermath of the destruction of World War II.
She wrote, “We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues [on Kristallnacht, November 9, 1938], we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes” (see her book Israel, My Chosen People).
This is a message to take to heart, a message to move us to action.
Let us, then, do the equivalent of going out on the streets and voicing our disapproval and ringing the church bells. (And again, I recognize that Big Tech is not imprisoning us or, in this example, behaving like violent Nazis. It is our response I am focusing on.)
Let us post gospel truth on every social media outlet we have. Let us stand up for righteousness and get our message out. And let us oppose censorship when it raises its ugly head.
We can have different takes on COVID. We have different views on election fraud. We can love or hate Trump or Biden. That is not the issue.
The issue is one of freedom.
Google and its cohorts only become more Gulag-like if we let them.
We cannot and we must not. Let us shout together, “Freedom!”
Follow Michael Dr. Brown is the author of more than 35 books, including Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and the Jesus revolution. His most recent book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Share