COVID Corruption News Stories
Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on COVID corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.
For further exploration, delve into our comprehensive Coronavirus Information Center.
The updated Covid vaccine boosters, a reformulated version targeting the BA.5 omicron subvariant [will] be the first Covid shots distributed without results from human trials. Because the Biden administration has pushed for a fall booster campaign to begin in September, the mRNA vaccine-makers Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have only had time to test the reformulated shots in mice, not people. That means the Food and Drug Administration is relying on the mice trial data — plus human trial results from a similar vaccine that targets the original omicron strain, called BA.1 — to evaluate the new shots. Federal health officials hope that the new vaccines will provide stronger protection over the existing booster shots, which still target the original coronavirus strain. But the lack of data in humans means officials likely won’t know how much better the new shots are — if at all — until the fall booster campaign is well underway. The FDA’s decision to move forward without data from human trials is a gamble, experts say, threatening to further lower public trust in the vaccines should the new boosters not work as intended. The U.S. is still on its first iteration of the Covid vaccines, and the mRNA technology has only been in widespread use since late 2020. The agency is making “huge assumptions” in its consideration of the new Covid boosters, [Dr. Paul] Offit said, adding that it’s possible the new shots may not be any more effective than the existing vaccines.
Note: Read a revealing article with critical information about the new mRNA boosters. To further inquire into this complex topic, explore concise summaries of news articles on coronavirus vaccines and Big Pharma corruption from reliable major media sources.
The faulty coronavirus testing kits developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the early weeks of the pandemic were not only contaminated but had a basic design flaw, according to an internal review by the agency. Health officials had already acknowledged that the test kits were contaminated, but the internal report ... also documented a design error that caused false positives. In January 2020, the C.D.C. developed a polymerase chain reaction, or P.C.R., test for the virus. P.C.R. tests, which are performed in laboratories, can detect the virus at very low levels. Problems emerged soon after the C.D.C. had begun shipping its test kits out to public health laboratories in early February. Within days, many labs were reporting that the tests were generating inconclusive results. In mid-February, the agency acknowledged that the kits were flawed, and in April, officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that poor manufacturing practices had resulted in contamination of the test kits. Test kits had been contaminated with synthetic fragments of the virus’s genetic material. These synthetic sequences ... were manufactured at the same C.D.C. lab where the test kits were undergoing a quality analysis. It is “likely” that the test kits were contaminated there, the agency concluded. The contamination suggests that the agency violated standard manufacturing protocols. Rather than relying on the C.D.C. to be the sole test developer, officials could also enlist clinical and commercial labs to create and deploy tests.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources and visit our Coronavirus Information Center.
National test results showed ... the pandemic’s devastating effects on American schoolchildren, with the performance of 9-year-olds in math and reading dropping to the levels from two decades ago. Since the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests began tracking student achievement in the 1970s ... scores in reading fell by the largest margin in more than 30 years. The declines spanned almost all races and income levels and were markedly worse for the lowest-performing students. While top performers in the 90th percentile showed a modest drop — three points in math — students in the bottom 10th percentile dropped by 12 points in math, four times the impact. The setbacks could have powerful consequences for a generation of children who must move beyond basics in elementary school to thrive later on. “The biggest reason to be concerned is the lower achievement of the lower-achieving kids,” [said Susanna Loeb at Brown University]. Being so far behind, she said, could lead to disengagement in school, making it less likely that they graduate from high school or attend college. The federal government has budgeted $122 billion to help students recover, the largest single investment in American schools, and at least 20 percent of that money must be spent on academic catch-up. Yet some schools have had difficulty hiring teachers, let alone tutors, and others may need to spend far more than 20 percent of their money to close big gaps.
Note: This article fails to mention that it was not the pandemic, but rather the lockdown policies that caused this debacle. Sweden, which never closed it’s elementary schools, did not have this problem. Read more about the challenging impacts of lockdown policies in an essay written by a caring school teacher who presents solid evidence that the lockdowns in the U.S. and worldwide had tragic effects not only on low-income and homeless children, but on huge numbers of people around the world.
In general, we rely on organizations like the CDC to conduct surveillance and monitoring of diseases in the United States. Unfortunately, case reporting, which we are relying on now to understand COVID-19 in the United States is the weakest type of surveillance for an ongoing pandemic. Case counts meant something very early on in the epidemic when each case reliably was associated with a certain risk of severe disease, hospitalization or death. Once there was a substantial number of people with immunity to severe outcomes due to recovery or vaccination those case counts became disconnected from expected outcomes. Test positivity also used to be a reliable measure of the community burden of infection with increased positivity correlating with increased spread of infection and hospitalization. But because now many only seek medical testing to confirm a home-based positive test for employment sick-leave or other purposes, the frequency of those testing positive through medical testing is artificially high. Remember the days of “flatten the curve,” the idea that we had to preserve hospital capacity through efforts to reduce the spread of infection? That curve was the number of hospital admissions due to COVID-19 and reasonably reflected the number of people admitted to hospitals severely ill with COVID-19. Now, however, due to the continued universal screening of all hospital admissions, a majority of reported COVID-19 hospitalizations are not hospitalized “for” COVID-19 but “with” COVID-19.
Note: The author of this article, Jeffrey D. Klausner, MD, MPH, is a clinical professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the the University of Southern California. He is a also a former U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control medical officer. For more along these lines, visit our coronavirus news articles collection from reliable major media sources. Then explore the resources provided in our Coronavirus Information Center.
Ask questions or post content about COVID-19 that runs counter to the Biden administration's narrative and find yourself censored on social media. That's precisely what data analyst and digital strategist Justin Hart says happened to him. And so last week the Liberty Justice Center, a public-interest law firm, filed a suit on his behalf in California against Facebook, Twitter, President Joe Biden and United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy for violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Hart had his social media most recently locked for merely posting an infographic that illustrated the lack of scientific research behind forcing children to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID. In fact ... study after study repeatedly shows that children are safer than vaccinated adults and that the masks people actually wear don't do much good. The lawsuit contends that the federal government is "colluding with social media companies to monitor, flag, suspend and delete social media posts it deems 'misinformation.'" It can point to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki's July remarks that senior White House staff are "in regular touch" with Big Tech platforms regarding posts about COVID. She also said the surgeon general's office is "flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread." "Why do we think it's acceptable for the government to direct social media companies to censor people on critical issues such as COVID?" Hart asks. The Post has been targeted repeatedly by social media for solid, factual reporting.
Note: Read about another lawsuit alleging collusion between government and big tech companies to censor dissenting views on pandemic policies. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and media manipulation from reliable sources.
White House COVID-19 Response Team Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said during a virtual discussion Tuesday that the way we used to think about social distancing is "not actually the right way" to think about COVID-19 mitigation. The response came when U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Suzanne Clarke asked Jha what prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to update their COVID-19 guidance, and to clarify exactly what that guidance is now. "The CDC guidance sort of relaxes a lot of the restrictions we've had," Jha responded. "Tells us that there's a really new way of thinking about who is going to get infected. We used to spend a lot of time talking about six feet of distance, 15 minutes of being together. You know, we realize that's actually not the right way to think about this, that's not the kind of – most accurate way to think about this." Jha said that, instead ... it's really about the quality of air you're breathing around you. "A crowded indoor space with poor ventilation, you can get infected within minutes," Jha continued "If you're outdoors, with obviously by definition good ventilation, you can be outside for long periods of time and not get infected. So, context matters, crowds matter, ventilation matters." The latest CDC guidance says social distancing is "just one component of how to protect yourself and others" from COVID-19. The deemphasis on social distance marks a shift in the CDC's messaging, which had long prioritized social distancing as a critical mitigation strategy.
Note: If anyone made these comments in 2021, they would likely have been censored. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday said the agency must make drastic changes to respond better and faster to public health emergencies, following missteps during the Covid pandemic. The agency has faced widespread criticism throughout the pandemic for its slow responses and often confusing messaging on masking and other mitigation measures. "In our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations," [Dr. Rochelle] Walensky said. Dr. Richard Besser, former acting CDC director and current president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said overhauling the agency's public messaging is "absolutely essential." "A lot of the scientists at CDC are really good at doing science, and a lot of the responders are really good at doing response," he said. "But that doesn't mean they're good at explaining it in ways that will be useful to the general public." That's potentially a lasting problem for an agency that's often been lagging in its public outreach, said Dr. Mario Ramirez, an emergency physician and former pandemic and emerging threats coordinator under President Barack Obama. "The real challenge that faces CDC," Ramirez said on NBC News Now, "is that it is extremely difficult to communicate complex scientific issues at a speed that is so fast, faster than the Twittersphere." "The margin for error is so small. If you make a mistake in public health, it takes a very long time to regain public trust," he said.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, other Biden administration officials and five social media companies have 30 days to respond to subpoenas in a lawsuit alleging collusion to suppress freedom of speech. Discovery requests were served to ask for information and documents from ... NIAID, CDC, ... Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and Nina Jankowicz, who led the DHS Disinformation Governance Board until it was disbanded. Also requested were any communications to any social media platform relating to the “Great Barrington Declaration,” [which] was published in response to COVID-19 policies that recommended “focused protection,” an approach to reaching herd immunity by allowing those at minimal risk of death to live normal lives by building up immunity through natural infection while protecting those at highest risk. A media release from [Missouri Attorney General Eric] Schmitt ... stated information requested was identifying all communications with any social media platform relating to content modulation and/or misinformation. It requests all communications with Mark Zuckerberg from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present. “In May, Missouri and Louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit against top-ranking Biden Administration officials for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress free speech on topics like COVID-19 and election security,” Schmitt said. “Earlier this month, a federal court granted our motion for expedited discovery. We will fight to get to the bottom of this alleged collusion and expose the suppression of freedom of speech by social media giants at the behest of top-ranking government officials.”
Note: For more details, see this informative article. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and media manipulation from reliable sources.
They waved signs that read “Defeat the mandates” and “No vaccines.” They chanted “Protect our kids” and “Our kids, our choice.” “I wish I’d woken up to this cause sooner,” said one protester, Lisa Longnecker, 54. “But I can’t think of a single more important issue. It’s going to decide how I vote.” Longnecker and her fellow objectors are part of a potentially destabilizing new movement: parents who joined the anti-vaccine and anti-mask cause during the pandemic, narrowing their political beliefs to a single-minded obsession over those issues. Their thinking hardened even as Covid-19 restrictions and mandates were eased and lifted, cementing in some cases into a skepticism of all vaccines. Nearly half of Americans oppose masking and a similar share is against vaccine mandates for schoolchildren, polls show. But what is obscured in those numbers is the intensity with which some parents have embraced these views. While they once described themselves as Republicans or Democrats, they now identify as independents who plan to vote based solely on vaccine policies. The extent of activity is evident on Facebook. Since 2020, more than 200 Facebook groups aimed at reopening schools or opposing closings have been created in states including Texas, Florida and Ohio, with more than 300,000 members. Another 100 anti-mask Facebook groups dedicated to ending masking in schools have also sprung up in states including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, some with tens of thousands of members.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine carry a warning of the possibility of two types of heart inflammation. The heart conditions - myocarditis and pericarditis - should be listed as new side effects in the product information for the vaccine, Nuvaxovid, based on a small number of reported cases, the EMA said. Novavax said no concerns about heart inflammations were raised during the clinical trials of Nuvaxovid and that more data would be gathered. "We will work with the relevant regulators to assure our product information is consistent with our common interpretation of the incoming data," U.S. vaccine developer Novavax added. In June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration flagged a risk of heart inflammation from the Novavax vaccine. Myocarditis and pericarditis were previously identified as rare side effects, mostly seen in young men, from groundbreaking messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines made by Moderna and the Pfizer and BioNTech alliance. The EMA said on Wednesday it had asked Novavax to provide additional data on the risk of these side effects. Last month, the EU agency identified severe allergic reactions as potential side effects of the vaccine. Novavax was hoping that people who have opted not to take Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines would favour its shot because it relies on technology that has been used for decades. However, only around 250,000 doses of Nuvaxovid have been administered in Europe.
Note: For more, see this informative article. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been heavily criticized by those on the Left for fighting back against mask and vaccine mandates. He was censored by Big Tech and vilified by Democratic politicians. Consider the recent admission by Dr. Deborah Birx regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Birx, the former White House COVID response coordinator, stated in an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News that she knew the vaccines wouldn't stop infections. Birx's comments align with what Paul was saying last year regarding the vaccines and the sycophantic nature in which Democrats were pushing them on the public. "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection," Birx said. "I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will. But let's be very clear: 50% of the people who died from the omicron surge were older, vaccinated." Consider Paul's comments in an exchange with Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra last September. Paul challenged Becerra on the efficacy of vaccines compared to natural immunity. At the time, Paul was one of only a few people who challenged those in charge. Some even claimed Paul's words were causing people to die. As it turns out, Paul was right, and they were wrong. "The science is against you on this. The science is clear. Naturally acquired immunity is as good as a vaccine," Paul said.
Note: Watch the revealing interview where Dr. Birx makes these comments. Note that Birx is promoting Paxlovid for which the gov’t pays $530 per person and is offering free of charge. So who do you think pays for this ultimately? And who profits? The official narrative on COVID is falling apart as shown in the evidence in this great article. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Pfizer made nearly $37bn (£27bn) in sales from its Covid-19 vaccine last year – making it one of the most lucrative products in history – and has forecast another bumper year in 2022, with a big boost coming from its Covid-19 pill Paxlovid. The US drugmaker’s overall revenues in 2021 doubled to $81.3bn. The bumper sales prompted accusations from campaigners of “pandemic profiteering”. The group Global Justice Now said the annual revenue of $81bn was more than the GDP of most countries. Pharmaceutical companies have been accused of not sharing the recipe for their vaccines, which would enable drugmakers in poorer countries to produce cheaper versions of them. Global Justice Now pointed out that Pfizer’s Covid-19 jab was invented by BioNTech, supported by €100m (£84m) in debt financing from the publicly owned European Investment Bank and a €375m grant from the German government. Tim Bierley, a pharma campaigner at the group, said: “The development of mRNA vaccines should have revolutionised the global Covid response. “But we’ve let Pfizer withhold this essential medical innovation from much of the world, all while ripping off public health systems.” According to Reuters, Pfizer has sold the vaccine to African countries at $3 to $10 a shot. It has indicated that a non-profit dose costs just $6.75, or £4.98, to produce, but it has reportedly charged the NHS £18 a dose for the first 100m jabs bought and £22 a dose for the next 89m, totalling £3.76bn ... amounting to an eye-watering 299% mark-up.
Note: If big Pharma really cared about public healthy, don’t you think they’d be willing to sacrifice some of their huge profits and charge much less for their injections? Unfortunately, it’s the old story of the rich get richer and the rest are left behind. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma profiteering from reliable major media sources.
Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to a controversial meta-analysis of dozens of studies. A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths. Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.” Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted in the non-peer-reviewed preprint. “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics. In fact, the early lockdowns “have had devastating effects,” the authors insisted. “They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the damning report insisted. “Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
"It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes," one senior FDA official lamented. That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized COVID vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had COVID. And second, [how] the FDA bypassed its external experts to authorize booster shots for young children. That doctor is hardly alone. At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH's Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. "There's been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low," one high level official at the CDC told us. "Things have become so political, so what are we there for?" Another CDC scientist told us: "I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I'm embarrassed." Why are they embarrassed? First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong – and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again.
Note: Why are so few media reporting on this most important news? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Hundreds more people than usual are dying each week in England and Wales with Covid not to blame for the majority of deaths. Latest data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show there were 1,540 excess deaths in the week ending June 24 but only around 10 per cent were due to coronavirus. Health experts have called for an urgent investigation into what is behind the excess mortality, with fears that the pandemic response, lack of access to healthcare and even the cost of living crisis, may be to blame. Prof Paul Hunter ... at the University of East Anglia, said some of the excess could be people whose health was weakened by Covid. But he warned that there may be other more complex factors at play. “Some might also be down to other impacts of the pandemic, such as problems in accessing health care, delayed referrals for treatment and then things related to the restrictions we lived under, such as reduced activity and sedentary lives,” he said. “I think the reality is going to be quite complex but it’s something we do need to be aware of and actually try and understand." The ONS reported 752 excess deaths in the home in the latest week, 30 per cent more than usual, and more than hospitals and care homes put together.
Note: Not one word in this article about an obvious suspect in this excess mortality - the COVID injections. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines and health from reliable major media sources.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Biden's chief medical adviser, recently revealed he is experiencing a rebound of his Covid-19 infection after taking the antiviral medication Paxlovid. Fauci described the "interesting course" his own infection had taken on Tuesday during an appearance at Foreign Policy's Global Health Forum. "I turned positive about two weeks ago, with very minimal symptoms. When they increased, given my age, I went on Paxlovid for five days," Fauci said. Fauci, 81, credited the drug with keeping him out of the hospital. After five days on the drug, he tested negative. He had three consecutive days of negative tests. On the fourth day he tested positive again. "It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound," he said. The CDC issued a health alert to doctors on May 24, advising that Covid-19 symptoms sometimes come back, and that may just be how the infection plays out in some people, regardless of whether they're vaccinated or treated with medications like Paxlovid. In Fauci's case, he said his symptoms got worse when they returned after treatment. "Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around," he said. His doctors prescribed another course of Paxlovid. "I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I'm not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don't feel acutely ill."
Note: So two Pfizer shots and two boosters couldn’t keep Fauci from getting COVID not once, but twice. And he says the reason he managed to avoid the hospital is not because of the four shots, but because of the new antiviral he is promoting. This certainly is an “interesting course” as he himself describes it. So how effective are these many injections so strongly promoted by Fauci, the CDC and others. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
A federal judge in Texas on Thursday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make public the data it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, imposing a dramatically accelerated schedule that should result in the release of all information within about eight months. That’s roughly 75 years and four months faster than the FDA said it could take to complete a Freedom of Information Act request by a group of doctors and scientists seeking an estimated 450,000 pages of material about the vaccine. The court “concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman. The FDA didn’t dispute it had an obligation to make the information public but argued that its short-staffed FOIA office only had the bandwidth to review and release 500 pages a month. While Pittman recognized “the ‘unduly burdensome’ challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA,” in his four-page order, he resoundingly rejected the agency’s suggested schedule. Rather than producing 500 pages a month — the FDA's proposed timeline — he ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 a month. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be public by the end of the summer rather than, say, the year 2097. Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad, who represents the plaintiffs, in an email said the decision "came down on the side of transparency and accountability." His clients ... have pledged to publish all the information they receive from the FDA on their website.
Note: Why did almost no major media pick up this important article? And read this revealing article on 800 individuals who Pfizer reported withdrew from their vaccine studies, some because of health problems which could have been caused by the vaccine. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
New York City teachers want a third federal judge off their pandemic vaccine case over potential stock ownership conflicts, this time for what they say are stakes in Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. The teachers asked Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the Southern District of New York to recuse herself from their challenge to the city’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate for education workers after she was assigned to the case. Two other judges at the Manhattan court were off the case after the teachers requested they recuse themselves for similar holdings. The moves come as judicial stock holdings are under increased scrutiny. A Wall Street Journal report that found at least 131 judges heard cases in which they or a family member had a stock conflict prompted a new federal law requiring judicial financial disclosures be publicly accessible online. Judge Valerie E. Caproni, the initial judge on the case, recused after the teachers asked her to disqualify herself because of investments in Pfizer. According to her financial disclosure, the teachers said Caproni held between $50,000 and $100,000 in Pfizer stock at the end of 2020. The case was reassigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos, who the teachers also asked to recuse for his holdings in Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and other companies. The case was then reassigned to Buchwald after one day. Buchwald held Pfizer stock and Johnson & Johnson stock at the end of 2020, the teachers said, citing her financial disclosure.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Two weeks ago, with no outcomes data on COVID-19 booster shots for 5-to-11-year-olds, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vigorously recommended the booster for all 24 million American children in that age group. The CDC cited a small Pfizer study of 140 children that showed boosters elevated their antibody levels–an outcome known to be transitory. When that study concluded, a Pfizer spokesperson said it did not determine the efficacy of the booster in the 5-to-11-year-olds. But that didn't matter to the CDC. Seemingly hoping for a different answer, the agency put the matter before its own kangaroo court of curated experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Committee members ... emphasized the importance of a universal booster message that applies to all age groups. Most remarkably, it didn't seem to matter to the CDC that 75.2 percent of children under age 11 already have natural immunity, according to a CDC study. Natural immunity is certainly much more prevalent today, given the ubiquity of the Omicron variant since February. CDC data from New York and California demonstrated that natural immunity was 2.8 times more effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times more effective in preventing COVID infection compared to vaccination during the Delta wave. These findings are consistent with dozens of other clinical studies. Yet natural immunity has consistently and inexplicably been dismissed by the medical establishment.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Public health initiatives in the United States are suffering from a crisis of trust. Recent polls show that only a third of the public trusts insurance and pharmaceutical companies, while just 56 percent trust the government health agencies that are meant to regulate these industries. Another survey during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that only around half of Americans have a "great deal" of trust in the CDC, while a mere third have such trust in the Department of Health and Human Services. When the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were made available to the public free of charge, a national conversation began about "vaccine hesitancy"–the phenomenon of Americans choosing not to be vaccinated even when incentivized and, in some cases, coerced. Americans had watched public health experts lie, misdirect, ignore evidence and yield to professional pressure. Few wanted to be their guinea pigs. Not all the COVID-19 gaslighting was the fault of the media or politicians - much was implemented by experts abusing their apolitical position of trust. The experts ... including Drs. Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci, insisted on the most asinine and evidence-free preventative measures, including facial coverings, lockdowns and social distancing. Their insulated role as health advisers enabled them to manipulate health policy in ways that benefited only themselves. The most stark example was the corruption of data collection at the Center for Disease Control–a scandal that crashed public trust to a new low.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Important Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news stories on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.
