During the legislative session, I think the Captiol building should be...
Closed to the public
Open in a very limited way to a small group
Open to everyone
Northwest Observer
Subscribe for Free Email Updates
Name:
Email:
Search Articles
       
Oregonians Wake Up To Facts
"V is for Vaccine" Kicks off International Demonstration and Vaccine Awareness

Oregonians found themselves facing an inconvenient truth, regarding the new COVID-19 vaccine during a recent commute. "COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturers Are Exempt From Liability" reads the sign above the I-205, Oregon City overpass. The sign was part of an international campaign put on by the group 'V' is for Vaccine. Spokesperson Josh Coleman stated in a press release prior to the event,

"All medical procedures require informed consent. Vaccination is no different, but the reality is vaccines are routinely administered without informing the recipient of severe and acknowledged risks. A fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine means no long term and limited safety studies. With the potential for severe adverse reactions and widespread vaccine mandates, it is critical that people understand their rights, the true scope of risk involved in vaccinating and the lack of adequate recourse if they suffer an adverse reaction."

The new COVID-19 vaccine has been granted the same legal immunity as childhood vaccines were with the passage of H.R 5546 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, making it liability free for manufacturers. In the event of serious adverse reactions or death as a result of the vaccine, the manufacturer is immune from legal consequences or direct pay outs to the vaccine injured.

In light of alarming halts to production, during safety trials, experts are speaking out "We only have one chance to get the vaccine right, after it's approved there's no liability, and no enforcement for post market research" says LPN Jordana Bruce, who specializes in geriatric care, and works for a large in home care provider that operates in Oregon. "A huge red flag with the AstraZeneca trial is that the vaccine was mainly tested on healthy individuals under 50. That doesn't really help anyone when the approved vaccine will be given to my geriatric patients over 60, first, without having been properly tested (on this age range), and those under age 50 aren't really dying from COVID-19". "However, I'm not sure the alternative option is much better" says Bruce, "This mRNA technology has never been used in human history, and if it's like past vaccines without liability, we might not understand the long term risks, until it's too late".

The New York Times recently reported issues with the AstraZeneca trial, outlining the flawed data collection and efficacy claims. Data was cherry picked from studies in Britain and Brazil, which led to initial reports of a vaccine at low cost, with a 90% efficacy threshold(sic). Soon after initial reports, Scientists and industry experts noted various errors along with a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed their data. Claiming as a result, the confidence of the scientific community has been eroded, questioning the reliability of the results.

One key omision being that the test group was largely comprised of healthy individuals under the age of 50. Some of the trial participants were given a half dose, while others were given two full doses, apparently by accident. According to New York Times, "Crucial information was also missing. The company said that the early analysis was based on 131 symptomatic COVID-19 cases that had turned up in study participants. But it did not break down how many cases were found in each group of participants — those who received the half-strength initial dose, the regular-strength initial dose and the placebo."

When asked by The New York Times, why such a large variation of effectiveness was seen with different dosing, respectively a 62-90% variability(sic) AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know.

In a bizarre move, rather than disclose their findings publicly, AstraZeneca shared some information with Wall Street analysts and other officials. Stock prices quickly plummeted, soon after. When asked why the company chose to selectively share details of their data collection and efficacy failures Michele Meixell, a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca stated, “I think the best way of reflecting the results is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not in a newspaper.” A peer reviewed paper has yet to be published, and concerns over insider trading appear to be valid according to financial analysts and Wall Street watchdogs.

Pfizer and Moderna are also nearing completion, using a vaccine, which uses experimental mRNA technology. Messenger RNA or mRNA is the ribonucleic acid that transfers the genetic code of the DNA of the cell nucleus to a ribosome in the cytoplasm, which is what determines the order that amino acids of a protein bind and act as a mold or pattern for the synthesis of that protein. Pfizer released preliminary results stating their vaccine is 90% effictive at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. Moderna also released their early results of the phase 3 trial, stating the vaccine is around 94.5% effective at preventing COVID-19.

Yet, this new form of vaccine has the scientific community at odds regarding ethics, safety, long term viability and efficacy. Dr. Wolfgang Woodarg, is an Internist, Pneumologist, Social medicine expert, MD of Hygiene, environmental clinicist and former head of the German Health administration. Dr. Woodarg has been very vocal about his concerns regarding the panic being created, and the supposed cure, which he believes to be more harmful than the virus.

"This promising vaccine (the mRNA vaccine), for the vast majority of people should be forbidden, because it is genetic manipulation!" Earlier this month the previous vice president of Pfizer publicly stated that "There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects." Yeadon has been vocal on social media, and stated "If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not explicitly experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information."

Considering the fact that it takes years to file FOIA requests, or go through the court system to compel unwilling agencies to comply with requests, activists appear to have valid concerns regarding rushed vaccines without liability, and the current public policies being created for compulsory use of said liability free products.

It took attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr many years, and millions of dollars to finally receive a copy of the FDA results on the MMR study. A vaccine that was once heavily pushed in the media and by health agencies as being "100% safe and effective". It also took many years, and many court battles before finding that, per the 1986 immunity act for vaccine manufacturers, biannual post market data was never once, in over 32 years, disclosed to the Congress. That biannual disclosure, being the quid pro quo, to ultimate freedom from tort and liability claims.

Since the inception of the 1986 Act, health care costs have skyrocketed as each generation has become increasingly sicker. According to a BlueCross BlueShield meta analysis, over 54% of the Millennial generation has one or more chronic illnesses, 23% report serious mental health issues, and the U.S rates number 1 for infant mortality over any developed Nation. The U.S Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has also significantly increased its list of required vaccines on the CDC schedule, since vaccines became liability free. To date, there is only one study cross examining vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, and the results indicate a positive correlation between increased vaccination rates and overall health, developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders.

As a society, we've just begun to scratch the surface on long term health effects associated with known vaccines. Perhaps, it's a good idea to tap the brakes, and take a more conservative approach to creating public policy. Especially, as we now understand, injury caused by the vaccine, is our own responsibility.


--Breeauna Sagdal

Post Date: 2020-12-01 07:24:23Last Update: 2020-11-30 22:28:52



Read More Articles