Hospitals Caught Lying About the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines
Recently Released Data from the CDC V-safe Database Shows That 8% of Those Receiving the COVID-19 Shot Were Hospitalized
Many hospitals across the U.S. have been lying to their staff and the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. I will use the Inova Hospital System of five Northern Virginia hospitals to illustrate the deception. An Inova handout titled "Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Recommendations and Team Member Clinics" states that Inova uses "the same consistent process we have used in making decisions about our COVID-19 vaccine requirements, including best evidence, safety, and impact to our patients and team members." Although the bivalent booster is not required at this time, based on that "best evidence," Inova is “strongly recommending” the Pfizer bivalent COVID-19 booster.
The "best evidence" alleged by Inova for the Pfizer bivalent booster consists of tests done on eight mice. Read the Pfizer report for yourself. Kena A. Swanson, Ph.D, Vice President, Viral Vaccines Vaccine Research and Development for Pfizer prepared the report, which reveals on pages 25 and 26 "N=8 mice." Inova claims that they are making a strong recommendation that its staff receive the bivalent booster on the "best evidence." But that evidence consists of no data on its effect on human beings. How can Inova strongly recommend a treatment of any kind based solely on lab results involving eight mice?
It gets worse. The eight-mice study showed that the mice receiving the Pfizer bivalent booster had wildly inconsistent reactions to the shot. One mouse measured 300 titers of antibodies, while another mouse reacted with 22,000 titers of antibodies. That is a 7,300% difference in antibody reaction to the vaccine. We have no idea what such a wide disparity would look like if the subjects were human beings and not mice. Would a person at the low end have no protection? Would a person at the high end suffer a cytochrome storm? We don’t know. But Inova is comfortable “strongly recommending” the bivalent vaccine without knowing what it might do to people. Inova should be embarrassed. This is shameful. It is well beyond incompetence. It is fraud. It is reckless disregard for the well-being of others.
What is truly scary is that Inova's conclusion that the Pfizer bivalent vaccine is safe and effective was based "the same consistent process we have used in making decisions about our COVID-19 vaccine requirements." That becomes a scary statement in light of what we know about the "best evidence" of the bivalent safety and effectiveness used by Inova to recommend it. As I will explain below, Inova's judgement on the mandated COVID-19 vaccine regimen is also well beyond incompetence. The evidence is clear that Inova has committed fraud and recklessly disregarded its staff's well-being.
Inova seems to be pushing the COVID-19 vaccine on those who have no need for it. For example, Inova advises that "it is recommended that you still get the vaccine even if you previously had COVID-19." Germ theory is that if someone has recovered from a virus, they have immunity from that virus. There is no need to be vaccinated against that which one already has immunity. That is basic immunology. But if you doubt that truth, the Cleveland Clinic did a study to determine if it is necessary to administer a COVID-19 vaccine to a previously infected person. The scientists concluded that "[i]ndividuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination." Incidentally, the study revealed that "[n]ot one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study." There are many other studies that have come to the same conclusion. For example, the National Institute of Health funded a study that concluded that natural COVID-19 infection induced a strong and long-lasting immune response.
Studies have shown that children who already had immunity from COVID-19 and then received a COVID-19 vaccine had their immunity from COVID-19 go negative after five months. That means the children who already had natural immunity were more susceptible to the COVID-19 infection after getting the vaccine. The vaccine does more harm than good when someone already has innate immunity. This is a result of antibody-dependent enhancement caused by the vaccine. The vaccines make people sick. Inova's claim of following the "best evidence" is simply newspeak for ignoring the best evidence.
Let us start with first things first. All vaccines of whatever kind are legally adjudged to be “unavoidably unsafe.” Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 1986, granting pharmaceutical companies immunity for injuries caused by the vaccines they manufactured. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), the reason for that protection is that Congress deemed vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe, thus no manufacturer would make a vaccine if they had to suffer the liability for injuries they would unavoidably cause.
The U.S. Congress has granted pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability because the pharmaceutical companies argued that their vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and thus they will inevitably injure people. They said they would stop manufacturing vaccines if they are held liable for such unpreventable injuries. They demanded and got immunity from liability for the inexorable injuries caused by their vaccines.
How can a pharmaceutical company ever claim (as they repeatedly do) that their vaccines are safe and effective when they have been granted immunity from liability based on their admission that all vaccines are unavoidably unsafe? This is the scientific and legal premise from which we begin to examine the safety of vaccines. Inova cannot legally or scientifically state that they have relied on the best evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective when the premise upon which the vaccines are being marketed under the cloak of immunity from civil liability is that they are unavoidably unsafe.
Please be mindful that the COIVD-19 vaccine manufacturers are also protected from civil liability. The COVID-19 vaccines will be subjected to the even more exacting standards and limited compensation of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to injured parties.
With that out of the way, the evidence has now come in that the COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective and unsafe. Indeed, it is laughable to suggest otherwise. For example, studies have shown that those who are vaccinated are more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than the unvaccinated. Indeed, so ineffective is the vaccine that the CDC has now advised that the vaccinated and unvaccinated be treated the same when determining prevention protocols. In August 2022, the CDC announced: “CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.”
What about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines? The American Liberty Report revealed that "more than 18 million people were injured so badly by their first COVID shot from Pfizer or Moderna that they had to go to the hospital. That's according to the CDC's own internal data, which a court just ordered the federal agency to release to a watchdog group." The CDC started a vaccine monitoring program using a software application called V-safe at the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in December of 2020. Ten million people downloaded the V-safe app on their cell phones. Those people then reported adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccines through the V-safe app. The CDC received and tracked the data for the first 18 months until July 2022. Strangely, the CDC never published the data.
You would think that the data showed that the COVID-19 vaccines were safe, since CDC's main webpage about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines says, to this day, "COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective and free." Indeed, that is what the CDC has been saying all along. But that was not true, and the CDC knew it. A court ordered the CDC to release its V-safe data. It showed that there were 800,000 hospitalizations out of 10 million people. That translates to an 8% hospitalization rate. Extrapolating to the population of 230 million people who received the vaccine in the U.S., we find that 18 million of them were hospitalized from injuries caused by the COVID-19 vaccines. The American Liberty Report reveals that a "study published in June of 2021 by the National Institutes of Health – where Tony Fauci works – found that the hospitalization rate from COVID-19 for the total population was 2.1%. If you are under the age of 40, the hospitalization rate from COVID-19 is just 0.4%." Comparing the COVID-19 vaccines to the COVID-19 illness, we find that one is 400% more likely to be hospitalized by the vaccine than for COVID-19 itself.
This most recent revelation from the CDC V-safe database is quite incriminating for Inova (and indeed most U.S.) hospitals. Inova mandates that its employees be vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine. Inova claims that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Indeed, the claim made on its website is that "Inova has seen minimal side effects in the 100,000+ doses we have administered so far." But we know that cannot be true. We now have the raw data from the CDC V-safe system showing that 8% of those who have received the COVID-19 vaccine have been hospitalized from maladies caused by the vaccine. Inova runs five hospitals in Northern Virginia. Inova is uniquely positioned to receive a significant number of those vaccine-injured patients. Inova must know about the dangerousness of the COVID-19 vaccines because they would see COVID-19 hospitalizations. Yet, Inova claims that it has seen "minimal side effects." The CDC V-safe data impeaches that claim. The V-safe data and the assertions by Inova cannot both be true. Inova is lying.