Category: Vaccine

When I saw a recent post from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, reading, In response to a subpoena from @Judiciary GOP, @Amazon revealed the 43 book titles it censored because of the Biden White Houses pressure, I clicked the link out of curiosity.

Imagine my surprise when I found two of my books on the list:Plague: One Scientists Intrepid Search for the Truth About Human Retroviruses, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases,as well asInoculated: How Science Lost Its Soul in Autism. What was even more startling was that theyd twice listedPlague for the original 2014 hardcover and the 2017 paperback.

They mustreallyhate that book.

As Jordan tweeted, Whether you love or hate the books on this list, no bookstore should be censoring books because of government power.

One of the wild things about their censorship of that thick, 417-page book is that it takes the position that many chronic diseases are the result of immune exhaustion due to long-term, low-level viral infection of a recently discovered retrovirus, known as XMRV. The book was not an anti-virus book and had in fact been authored with a 20-year government scientist, Dr. Judy Mikovits, known for her work in virology. The book was abundantly sourced with hundreds of footnotes.

But what most likely raised the ire of the Biden administration was our assertion that XMRV, a mouse virus that had recently jumped into the human population, had most likely made the leap because of the use of mouse biological tissue in the production of many human vaccines.

We theorized that the common use of animal tissue to grow human vaccines was fueling a process called zoonosis, in which animal viruses adapted to and infected human beings, which has historically led to humanitys most devastating plagues.

Perhaps it was because of our deep understanding of one plague, Covid-19, that the Biden administration feared the questions Dr. Mikovits and I were asking from the beginning of the Covid crisis. We were challenging the governments implausible tale of a bat virus that quickly adapted to humans, an event highly unlikely to happen in nature.

The second of my books on the list,Inoculated: How Science Lost Its Soul in Autism, ran 376 pages, with hundreds of footnotes, and is based on whistleblower documents I received from the office of Rep. William Posey, R-Fla. The whistleblower was a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vaccine scientist, Dr. William Thompson, and he alleged that the CDCs own study had shown that earlier administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine was correlated with an increased risk of autism, particularly among black boys. If true, the number of black males harmed by the MMR shot dwarfed the terrible toll of the Tuskegee experiment, which ran from 1932 to 1972, in which black men with syphilis were left untreated by the CDC to study the progression of the disease.

The most dramatic assertion in Thompsons account is that CDC scientists manipulated the numbers to hide the catastrophic damage being done to black boys. Originally, there had been approximately 210 black boys in the study, but about 90 of them were removed because they did not have a Georgia birth certificate, an amendment to the original study design. This allowed the scientists to claim that while there was an increase in autism among black boys from earlier administration of the MMR shot, it did not rise to the level of clinical significance.

Its no coincidence that nearly all of the books on the Biden censorship list are about vaccines, and their authors have much experience studying how medicine has been corrupted over the decades. Many of us were among the first to publicly voice skepticism regarding the Covid madness.

After discovering my book was part of Bidens ban, I felt deeply troubled for several hours.

It brought to mind events from my childhood, when the FBI spied on and infiltrated anti-war and civil rights groups, maneuvering them toward radicalism and violence, or when Nixon had an enemies list of journalists.

To me, books are holy, the purest distillation of the authors thoughts, and I believe they give us the basis on which to make our best arguments as we search for the truth. I view books as the opening gambit of a public conversation, which is why the attempt to censor any book is nothing less than a declaration of tyranny.

When you see injustice in one place, it opens your eyes to injustice in other areas. I believe the genuine critic of power stands apart from politics and, given that, I do my best to be an equal-opportunity offender.

One book I co-authored that is not on the list is in many ways a criticism of the Trump administrations Covid response.Presidential Takedown: How Anthony Fauci, the CDC, NIH, and the WHO Conspired to Overthrow President Trump. That book was coauthored with Dr. Paul Alexander, President Donald Trumps senior pandemic adviser from May 2020 until September 2020, when he ran afoul of Anthony Fauci for arguing that students should have been going back to school in the fall of 2020. While Trumps instincts were correct and more than probably any other president in recent memory, he sought out opposing views in the end, his Covid response differed little from any likely democratic response. It was clear Trump did not like the lockdowns, but he approved them, and that is a permanent stain on his legacy.

In September, I have a book coming out that is an expose of the CIA: Twilight of the Shadow Government: How Transparency Will Kill the Deep State, coauthored with Kevin Shipp, a 17-year CIA officer and whistleblower, which details how the agency has misled both political parties for decades.

The Biden administrations censorship list is my first documented proof that I am considered an enemy by my own government. But it is unlikely to be my last. Whether that makes me a threat to democracy, or one of its fiercest defenders, I will leave to the judgment of history.

Kent Heckenlively, JD, is an attorney, science teacher, and New York Times bestselling author. His books have sold more than half a million copies and been translated into several languages.

The rest is here:

Biden Administration Censored Two Of My Books On Vaccines - The Federalist

Atlanta (Precision Vaccinations News)

During the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine committee meeting this afternoon, it will bementioned that finding a dengue vaccine in 2024 poses a challenge for international travelers.

At 5 PM ET on June 26, 2024, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting is scheduled toreview two presentations that reveal the leading dengue vaccines are unavailable this year to U.S.-based international travelers.

This is unfortunate news for people planning to visit any of the 90 countries reporting dengue cases in 2024.

Furthermore, the CDC says dengue is endemic in sixU.S. territories and freely associated states. This health risk includes Puerto Rico and southeast Florida, where the CDC has reported travel-related and locally acquireddengue cases in 2024.

Dengvaxia, the only U.S. FDA-approved dengue vaccine,is discontinued due to low demand. According to Sanofi, the vaccine's producer, this decision was not based on quality, safety, or efficacy concerns.

Since Dengvaxia vaccination began in Puerto Rico, 145 peoplehave been administered the vaccine, but only 32 have completed the third dose of the series.

Dengvaxia will continue to be distributed globally through public and private markets, including Puerto Rico, where the ACIP currently recommends ituntil the product expires. The last doses of Dengvaxiawill expire at the end of August 2026.

Over the past year, Japan's Takeda's Qdenga vaccinebecame the market leader, quickly selling out its production capability. In July 2023,Takeda voluntarily withdrew Qdengafrom FDA review, which means the vaccine is unavailable inthe U.S.

The good news is that various dengue vaccine candidates are conducting late-stage clinical trials in 2024, withaspirationsfor market authorizations later this year or in 2025.

Here is the original post:

Dengue Vaccines Harder to Find in 2024 Precision Vaccinations News - Precision Vaccinations

On Wednesday, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) updated its recommendation for the use of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccines in people ages 60 and older. For the upcoming respiratory virus season, the CDC recommends everyone age 75 and older receive the RSV vaccine. The RSV vaccine is not currently an annual vaccine.

For this upcoming respiratory virus season, CDC recommends:

This recommendation is for adults who did not get an RSV vaccine last year.

The CDC has updated its RSV vaccination recommendation for older adults to prioritize those at highest risk for serious illness from RSV, Mandy Cohen, M.D., M.P.H. said in a release. People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.

Health officials remind the public that the RSV vaccine is not currently an annual vaccine. They say eligible adults can get an RSV vaccine at any time, but the best time is in late summer and early fall.

This announcement by the CDC replaces the recommendation made last year. Todays updated recommendation is based on analyses of RSV disease burden among people 60 and older, as well as RSV vaccine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, according to the CDC. Those studies included the first real-world data since RSV vaccines were recommended for people 60 and older.

Healthcare providers should recommend RSV vaccines to their eligible patients, as well as discuss what other vaccines they will need this fall to help prevent respiratory infections.

Continue reading here:

CDC updates RSV vaccination recommendation for adults - WDIO

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated the states longstanding religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care facilities

June 24, 2024, 9:40 AM ET

3 min read

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated the states longstanding religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care facilities.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the contentious law. A lower court judge had earlier dismissed the lawsuit challenging the law, which drew protests at the state Capitol.

Connecticut law requires students to receive certain immunizations before enrolling in school, allowing some medical exemptions. Prior to 2021, students also could seek religious exemptions. Lawmakers ended the religious exemption over concerns that an uptick in exemption requests was coupled with a decline in vaccination rates in some schools.

The change allowed current students in K-12 who already had a religious exemption to keep it.

This is the end of the road to a challenge to Connecticuts lifesaving and fully lawful vaccine requirements," Democratic Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. We have said all along, and the courts have affirmed, the legislature acted responsibly and well within its authority to protect the health of Connecticut families and to stop the spread of preventable disease.

Brian Festa, vice president and co-founder for the group We The Patriots USA Inc., a lead plaintiff in the case, called the decision disappointing but said its not the end of the road for us in our fight to win back religious exemptions for schoolchildren.

The group which has challenged other vaccination laws, including for COVID-19 had argued along with several parents that Connecticut violated religious freedom protections by removing the exemption. The new law shows a hostility to religious believers and jeopardizes their rights to medical freedom and child rearing, they said in court papers.

Tong's office said only one part of the case remains active. It involves a single plaintiffs claim based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While the office said it was confident the claim will be dismissed, Festa said federal law is clear that schools are required to provide a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities who have individual education plans, even if a child claims a religious exemption to vaccinations.

We The Patriots USA also has an ongoing federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a Christian preschool and daycare that's challenging Connecticut's vaccine mandate on constitutional grounds.

It is our practice at We The Patriots USA to battle on many fronts simultaneously, and to never put all of our eggs in one basket, Festa said, calling the Supreme Court's decision on Monday one setback, but far from a total defeat.

Link:

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Connecticut law that eliminated religious vaccination exemption - ABC News

British Columbia

Share on Facebook Share on X Share by Email

Posted: 9 Hours Ago

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled against a father who was looking to stop his ex-wife from having their children vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV).

According to a B.C. Supreme Court judgment issued Monday, Victoria Draper will have the sole authority to decide whether her daughter will be vaccinated. She wanted to have her daughter to receive the vaccinebefore her 12th birthday, as recommended by B.C. health authorities.

The girl's father, Matthew Smith, sought an order to prohibit Draper from having their children vaccinated against HPV, saying in text messages to Draper that it is "unknown" whether the "protection is going to even work" and that the vaccine "causes more harm than good."

In her judgment, Justice Catherine Murray said she accepts guidance from Canadian health authorities "who are entrusted with protecting public health that it is in the best interests of the children to get the HPV vaccination."

According to the judgment posted online, Draper and Smith divorced in late 2022 and have two children together: an eight-year-old son and a daughter who will turn 12 next month.

They were notified last fall that children in their daughter's grade were set to receive the HPV vaccine. Smith refused to sign the consent form and told the school that her daughter would not be vaccinated.

He wrote to Draper that even if the chance of harm was less than oneper cent, "that's too much risk."

"There's a lot of pressure on parents to take these vaccines just like COVID, it's all about money and commissions. It isn't about health," Smith wrote.

The judgment says Smithsent Draper TikTok videos and articles to support his argument.

In his application, Smith cited lawsuits in the U.S. around the vaccine, saying it was best to "review the matter" once they have been adjudicated.

He also cited information from a researcher at the University of British Columbia.

Smith said he discussed it with his children and showed them a 20-minute video on the topic, andhis daughter told him she didn't want to get the vaccine.

Draper said her daughter told her the videos her father showed her were "very scary."

The mother said she later watched the videos and described them as inappropriate for children, making reference to death and suicide.

She said her daughter told her that Smith said "she would die if she got the vaccine."

Draper went on to say that her daughter told her that she wanted to get the vaccine and that their family doctor said there was no medical reason for her not to.

Justice Catherine Murray dismissed Smith's application, noting that his "wait and see" approach to the U.S. lawsuits was not in the children's best interests, adding that "lawsuits are not medical information."

She also said she put no weight on the "information" from the UBC researcher.

In making her decision, Draper relied on publications that "make clear that health authorities/ experts in Canada favour the HPV vaccine," according to the judgment.

Murray said she found Draper's evidence more compelling.

"I accept the advice of the health authorities in Canada who are entrusted with protecting public health that it is in the best interests of the children to get the HPV vaccination. I am further satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to get the vaccination at the age when it is most effective, as determined by Ms. Draper."

Murray ordered that Draper "has sole decision-making authority regarding any and all decisions relating to the HPV vaccination and/or treatment."

Smith is not allowed to discuss or allow any third party to discuss the HPV vaccine or HPV generally with the children. This includes not showing them anything on social media regarding HPV or the HPV vaccine.

"I am concerned about Mr. Smith showing the children disturbing videos and telling them that the vaccine will kill them in an effort to indoctrinate them into his way of thinking," Murray wrote.

Read more:

Judge rules against dad trying to stop child's HPV vaccination - CBC.ca

Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - June 25, 2024) - Defence Therapeutics Inc. (CSE: DTC) (FSE: DTC) (OTCQB: DTCFF) ("Defence" or the "Company"), a Canadian biopharmaceutical company developing novel immune-oncology vaccines and drug delivery technologies, is pleased to announce that its second-generation ARM-X anti-cancer vaccine is therapeutically effective against pre-established ovarian cancer (ID8 model) when combined with the anti-PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibitor.

Figure 1

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/8000/214171_cc2e2f8084a9e943_002full.jpg

Using Defence's Accum platform, the Company previously demonstrated that AccuTOX treatment of MSCs results in the induction of antigen cross-presentation capacity (ARM-X cells), which can mount potent anti-tumoral responses in animal pre-clinical models. This was previously achieved using various cancer models including solid T-cell lymphoma, melanoma and pancreatic cancer. Defence just completed an additional study where animals with pre-established ovarian cancer responded to a combination therapy including ARM-X and anti-PD-1. The latter group prolonged animal survival beyond 80 days post-vaccination, and it led to a complete response in almost all treated animals as shown in Figure 1.

"This is the 4th cancer model that we efficiently targeted using our ARM-X antic-cancer vaccine. The purpose of testing our vaccine in various models is to highlight how ARM-X can be adapted to the needs of any patient, no matter the type of cancer, given that we have access to a tumor biopsy," says Mr. Sebastien Plouffe, Chief Executive Officer of Defence Therapeutics.

One of the major advantages of Defence's ARM-X vaccine is the need of lower antigen amounts to manufacture the vaccine. This is important as it avoids the need of a big tumor sample in the vaccine generation. Defence is currently testing its ARM-X vaccine on colon as an additional indication. These results will set the target indication for the Phase I-IIa trials, and it also shows how versatile and adaptable can the ARM-X anti-cancer vaccine be.

About Defence:Defence Therapeutics is a publicly-traded clinical-stage biotechnology company working on engineering the next generation vaccines and ADC products using its proprietary platform. The core of Defence Therapeutics platform is the ACCUM technology, which enables precision delivery of vaccine antigens or ADCs in their intact form to target cells. As a result, increased efficacy and potency can be reached against catastrophic illness such as cancer and infectious diseases.

Story continues

For further information: Sebastien Plouffe, President, CEO and Director P: (514) 947-2272 Splouffe@defencetherapeutics.com http://www.defencetherapeutics.com https://www.linkedin.com/company/defence-therapeutics

Cautionary Statement Regarding "Forward-Looking" Information

This release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, that address events or developments that the Company expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words "expects", "plans", "anticipates", "believes", "intends", "estimates", "projects", "potential" and similar expressions, or that events or conditions "will", "would", "may", "could" or "should" occur. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include regulatory actions, market prices, and continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company's management on the date the statements are made. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.

Neither the CSE nor its market regulator, as that term is defined in the policies of the CSE, accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/214171

The rest is here:

Defence's ARM-X Anti-Cancer Vaccine Inhibits Growth of Pre-Established Ovarian Cancer Resulting in Complete ... - Yahoo Finance

Donald Trump and his campaign are at odds over what he believes about school vaccination policies.

The former president has frequently said he will cut off federal funding for any school that mandates vaccinations. His campaign said in March that the policy would apply only to mandatory coronavirus vaccinations, but Trump has repeatedly declaimed against vaccine mandates without mentioning covid. I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate, he said at a May rally. He said it again this month.

The campaigns instinct to backtrack is sound. If voters were to take Trump at his repeated word, this reckless policy could become a serious political vulnerability.

Every state in the country, along with D.C., requires childhood vaccinations as a condition of schooling. Most colleges have vaccination requirements, too, and Trump has sometimes included them in his promise to withhold federal dollars. The possible outcomes of Trumps stated policy, then, would range from a radical reduction in federal support for K-12 and higher education to major changes in the policies of governments and educational institutions throughout the country.

And those changes would be senseless. We can debate how many and which vaccinations should be required, or the proper extent of religious exemptions. But the basic case for vaccine mandates is obvious: Its about stopping contagions.

The Supreme Court explained this rationale with respect to smallpox in 1905: Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. Thats why, when Trump was president, he ditched his earlier crackpottery about the supposed link between vaccination and autism and, instead, urged Americans to get inoculated against measles.

The saving grace of Trumps proposal is that it probably would not happen. Executive branch attorneys, in administrations of both parties, are creative in finding new powers hidden in old statutes for their bosses. But even top-notch lawyers are not going to find a way for presidents to make unilateral decisions about the vaccination policies of states and private institutions. While his campaign has talked about strengthening the presidents power to ignore Congress on spending questions, the courts seem unlikely to go along.

Trump is not shy about making unkeepable promises at his rallies, such as his pledge to grant police immunity from prosecution for allegations of misconduct. His vaccine policy might be another of these.

But Democrats are under no obligation to minimize the threat of Trumps stated policy. They would be within their rights to say that its what he wants to do and blast him for it. If they decide to do so, they would have several lines of attack at hand.

One would be to highlight the impact on public health. Many suburban parents who are unhappy with President Biden because of inflation also make sure their kids are up to date on their shots and would rather not have an outbreak of meningitis on their schools campuses.

The prospect of funding cuts for education might also repel some swing voters. Even before he made his vaccine comments, Trump was promising to abolish the Education Department, as he did in the 2016 campaign. That would not be as consequential as it sounds, since ending the department as Republican legislators have often proposed over the years would not terminate the programs it oversees. But the idea is politically risky enough that many Republicans have backed away from it. The GOP platform has not explicitly called for it since 1996.

Abolishing the agency didnt really become an issue when Trump advocated it in 2016 because Hillary Clinton was denouncing him on so many other grounds. But removing federal funding from schools would be a more disruptive change than getting rid of the department. Most parents remain satisfied with their local school suburban parents have often invested serious money to live near good schools, since that is the form of school choice most widely practiced in the United States and are wary of threats to it.

One can only speculate why Trump is taking this politically risky position. Maybe he thinks he needs to make up ground among vaccine opponents who are disappointed by his record as president, when he sped up the production of coronavirus vaccines. Maybe he just likes having another surefire applause line at his rallies. Whatever his motive, though, he has made a mistake. Democrats will make their own if they dont make him pay for it.

More here:

Opinion | Trumps school vaccine policy could mean trouble in the election - The Washington Post

After losing round one of its respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine bout with GSK, Pfizer is rallying. And what better way to do it than to win a major contract in your rivals home country?

The U.K. government has selected Pfizer to supply 5 million doses of its RSV shot Abrysvo over the next two years. The notice was posted earlier this month on the U.K. government's "Find a Tender" website, with the contract value withheld so as not to prejudice the legitimate commercial interest of the supplier, it explained.

On Monday morning, the U.K. introduced its RSV immunization program, with instructions on how patients can receive their shots of Abrysvo. The vaccine is expected to become available in early August, the U.K. said.

Its a big win for the U.S. company which has been playing catch-up against its rival since GSK became the first drugmaker to score an FDA approval in the indication in May of last year for its shot Arexvy. Four weeks later, Pfizer gained its nod.

The head-start gave GSK a key edge in commercializing its shot last year as it reported revenue of Arexvy at 1.238 billion pounds ($1.5 billion), compared to $890 million for Abrysvo, with most of the sales for both companies coming in the U.S.

In the fourth quarter of last year, however, Pfizer showed its was making progress as its sales of Abrysvo increased sequentially from $375 million to $515 million. The boost was aided by an FDA approval of Abrysvo in August to vaccinate pregnant mothers.

Arexvys approval was limited to adults ages 60 and older before it was expanded earlier this month to at-risk adults ages 50 and older.

In July of last year, Sanofi and AstraZenecascoreda green light for Beyfortus to protect babies up to 24 months of age.

In the U.S., Pfizer lists Abrysvos price at $280 per shot compared to $295 for Arexvy.

The performance of the vaccines is comparable. In year one, while Arexvy has shown 94% effectiveness at protecting against severe disease, Abrysvo's trial result came in at 89%.

Go here to see the original:

UK selects Pfizer over GSK to supply RSV vaccines for 2 years - FiercePharma

The state of Kansas filed an explosive consumer-protection lawsuit against Pfizer last week full of accusations that the pharmaceutical giant misled the public on the safety and efficacy of its Covid-19 vaccine.

Kansas is accusing Pfizer of knowingly misleading the public about the adverse effects of its coronavirus vaccine and manipulating its vaccine-safety trials in violation of state consumer-protection law and previous consent judgements. The lawsuit cites interviews, press releases, internal documents, scientific research, government research, news reporting, and other sources of information to back up its incendiary claims.

Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public, the lawsuit asserts.

Pfizers government contract appears to have given the company influence over Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures and contained confidentiality agreements with the U.S. government. Kansas alleges the confidentiality agreements allowed the company to hide material facts and mislead consumers.

Kansass lawsuit alleges Pfizer intentionally destroyed the control group in its coronavirus vaccine trial by giving participants access to the coronavirus vaccine, citing a New England Journal of Medicine paper and an FDA memo. By destroying the control group, Kansass lawsuit asserts that the safety of Pfizers vaccine cannot be fairly evaluated by comparing the vaccinated group to an unvaccinated group.

Likewise, Kansas is claiming Pfizer intentionally delayed the release of data from its vaccine trials, citing two articles in the British Medical Journal about scientists waiting for Pfizer and Moderna to turn over patient-level data. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Pfizer only tested healthy patients during its vaccine trials, a departure from standard protocol Pfizer allegedly failed to disclose.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourlas media interviews and the companys press releases touting the vaccine and its safety are featured prominently throughout the lawsuit as evidence Pfizer supposedly misled Kansans.

The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency in America, a watchdog organization, filed a FOIA request with the Food and Drug Administration and eventually obtained information related to Pfizers coronavirus vaccine, according to the lawsuit.

As part of its FOIA lawsuit, the group obtained an internal Pfizer database of adverse events not disclosed to the public, with more incidents than the publicly available VAERS reporting system. Pfizers internal database reported 158,893 adverse events and 1,223 fatalities from the millions of individuals who took the Pfizer vaccine as of February 2021.

The lawsuit further accuses Pfizer of publicly insisting that the vaccine posed little to no risk to pregnant women while in possession of data proving otherwise. A study Pfizer commissioned on rats concluded there were no adverse effects on weight, food consumption, the injection site, or mating. But, the study found that the rat fetuses suffered malformations, rats had issues getting pregnant, and failed to implant embryos, the lawsuit asserts. The rat study was only made publicly available thanks to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency in America.

The information that I find especially troubling that Pfizer didnt share was the information about the effect of Pfizers covid-19 vaccine on pregnant women, Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach told National Review in an interview, citing the rat study and other information contained in the lawsuit.

I think that information needed to be presented to any pregnant woman who was even thinking of taking the Pfizer vaccine.

Moreover, the lawsuit cites Pfizer data showing tens of thousands of women had menstrual issues linked to its coronavirus vaccine, as of spring 2022.

Myocarditis is another adverse effect the lawsuit explores in detail, citing U.S. military cases and an FDA advisory issued in 2021 that call into question Bourlas statement in January 2023 denying any safety signals concerning potential adverse effects caused by Pfizers coronavirus vaccine.

Myocarditis occurs when the middle layer of the hearts wall becomes inflamed, weakening the heart and potentially leading to heart failure.

While some studies suggest elevated levels of myocarditis among the vaccinated, an analysis of nearly 43 million people published in 2022 found the risk of contracting myocarditis is notably higher from coronavirus than from the vaccines. Symptoms of myocarditis overlap with Covid-19, making it difficult to diagnose, according to a paper published last year.

The lawsuit cites additional evidence of increased myocarditis cases in adolescent males, including an internal document from February 2022 allegedly showing Pfizer was aware of the correlation between vaccination and myocarditis. The company began disclosing the myocarditis risks in press releases about the vaccine as early as November 2021, according to an Agence France-Presse fact-check.

Kansas similarly accuses Pfizer of misleading its consumers about the vaccines effectiveness by comparing public statements in early 2021 touting its strength six months after its administered, despite allegedly possessing data showing efficacy waned over time. A Pfizer preprint study found the coronavirus vaccine was 96.2 percent effective at preventing coronavirus two months after the second dosage and 83.7 percent six months later.

The lawsuit goes on to accuse Pfizer of misrepresenting the vaccines ability to halt coronavirus transmission by presenting contrasting statements from Bourla and other company executives.

They had extraordinary success marketing their vaccine in the state of Kansas and more generally across the globe, and I think that had consumers had this information, many of them might have made a different choice, Kobach added.

The [Kansas] Consumer Protection Act is all about preventing companies from misleading or deceiving consumers.

Pfizer told NR it will be responding shortly and scoffed at the claims in Kansass lawsuit.

We are proud to have developed the COVID-19 vaccine in record time in the midst of a global pandemic and saved countless lives. The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based. The Company believes that the states case has no merit and will respond to the suit in due course, Pifzer said in a statement.

Pfizer is deeply committed to the well-being of the patients it serves and has no higher priority than ensuring the safety and effectiveness of its treatments and vaccines. Since its initial authorization by FDA in December 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been administered to more than 1.5 billion people, demonstrated a favorable safety profile in all age groups, and helped protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

Scientific research has shown the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to be an effective deterrent against serious coronavirus symptoms, helping save potentially millions of lives because of its rapid development.

Kansass lawsuit seems to portray Pfizers government contract and exorbitant vaccine profits as unjustified because of their alleged misrepresentations, although the federal government, under both Trump and Biden, actively sought and incentivized the cooperation of pharmaceutical companies to develop and distribute the coronavirus vaccines.

The side effects described throughout Kansass lawsuit appear to be rare and not representative of a vast majority of vaccine cases. However, the actions from public-health officials have weakened public trust in the scientific community, leading to increased interest in the apparent issues some people have had with the coronavirus vaccines.

Former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted school closures throughout the coronavirus pandemic lasted too long, and when pressed on child-masking guidelines during his congressional testimony earlier this year, could not cite any evidence justifying the policy. His old boss, former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins, similarly admitted earlier this year that no evidence existed to support the six-feet social distancing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control, as NR first reported.

Congressional investigators continue to probe the federal governments handling of the pandemic.

Read more:

Kansas Files Explosive Lawsuit Accusing Pfizer of Misleading the Public on Covid-Vaccine Risks - National Review

ABUJA, Nigeria -- Yunusa Bawa spends a lot of time talking about the vaccine for the human papillomavirus that is responsible for nearly all cases of cervical cancer. But on most days, only two or three people allow their daughters to be vaccinated in the rural part of Nigeria where he works.

The challenge in Sabo community, on the outskirts of the capital of Abuja, is the unfounded rumor that the HPV vaccine will later keep young girls from giving birth.

The rumor is too much, said Bawa, 42.

As more African countries strive to administer more HPV vaccines, Bawa and other health workers tackle challenges that slow progress, particularly misinformation about the vaccine. The World Health Organization's Africa office estimates that about 25% of the population still has doubts about it reflecting concerns seen in some other parts of the world in early campaigns for the vaccine.

A common sexually transmitted virus, HPV can cause cervical cancer, certain other cancers and genital warts. In most cases, the virus doesnt cause any problems, but some infections persist and eventually lead to cancer.

Across Africa, an average of 190 women died daily from cervical cancer in 2020, accounting for 23% of the deaths globally and making it the leading cancer killer among women in the WHO Africa region of 47 countries. Eighteen of the 20 countries with the highest rate of cervical cancer cases in the world are in Africa. Yet the region's HPV vaccination rate has been low.

More than half of Africa's 54 nations 28 have introduced the vaccine in their immunization programs, but only five have reached the 90% coverage that the continent hopes to achieve by 2030. Across the region, 33% of young girls have been vaccinated with HPV.

It's a stark contrast to most European countries, where both girls and boys have been receiving HPV shots.

Part of why Africa has a high burden of cervical cancer is because of limited access to screening for women, said Emily Kobayashi, head of the HPV Program at the vaccines alliance Gavi.

The elimination strategy is a long game ... but we know that vaccination is the strongest pillar and one of the easiest to implement, Kobayashi said.

But it is one thing to introduce the vaccine, but if the vaccine remains in the fridge, it doesnt prevent cervical cancer, said Charles Shey Wiysonge, head of the vaccine-preventable diseases program in the WHOs Africa region. He said information must be provided by people who are trusted, people who are close to the communities."

There is a long history of vaccine hesitancy in many African countries that is sometimes linked to a lack of trust in government, as one study published in the Nature science journal in May found, giving room for conspiracy theories and misinformation from social media influencers and religious leaders.

In Zimbabwe, where cervical cancer is the most frequent cancer among women, a group of mostly women known as Village Health Workers have been trained to raise awareness about cervical cancer and the HPV vaccine in rural areas. But they fight a high level of hesitancy among religious sects that discourage followers from modern medicines, asking them to rely instead on prayers and anointed water and stones.

The women who eventually agree to be screened for cervical cancer do so in secret, said Zanele Ndlovu, one of the health workers on the outskirts of Bulawayo city.

For a deeply religious country like Zimbabwe, the spiritual leaders have so much influence that a lot of our time is taken trying to educate people about the safety of vaccines, or that they are not ungodly, Ndlovu said.

There are also success stories in Africa where authorities have achieved up to a 90% vaccination rate. One example is Ethiopia, which relies heavily on religious leaders, teachers and hotline workers.

In Rwanda, the first African country to implement a national HPV vaccination program in 2011, the coverage rate has reached 90%. Hesitancy is less of an issue due to vigorous awareness work that has relied on school-based campaigns and community outreach programs, said Dr. Theoneste Maniragaba, director of the cancer program at Rwanda Biomedical Center.

Mozambique has deployed school-based programs, a door-to-door approach and mobile outreach for girls in hard-to-reach areas that has helped it reach 80% coverage rate with the first of two doses. In Tanzania, where the HPV vaccine has been in use since at least 2018, authorities in April launched a campaign to target over 5 million girls and further raise coverage, which has reached 79% of girls with the first dose.

One of Africas largest HPV vaccination drives targeting girls recently kicked off in Nigeria, which has procured nearly 15 million doses with the help of the U.N. childrens agency. It will target girls aged 914 with single doses that the WHO's African immunization advisory group has said is as effective as the regular two doses.

One challenge is explaining the HPV vaccination to girls ahead of the onset of sexual activity, especially in conservative societies, said Dr. Aisha Mustapha, a gynecologist in northern Kaduna state.

Mustapha has been successfully treated for cervical cancer. She said the experience helps in her meetings with religious leaders and in community outreach programs in Kaduna, where she leads the Medical Women Association of Nigeria.

They try to make the girls feel comfortable and understand why the vaccine is important, she said. That sometimes requires comic books and lots of singing.

The (cervical) cancer is no respecter of any identity, she said. The vaccine is available, it is free, it is safe and effective.

___

Associated Press writers Farai Mutsaka in Harare, Zimbabwe, and Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press receives financial support for global health and development coverage in Africa from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Read the original here:

More African nations focus on HPV vaccination against cervical cancer, but hesitancy remains - ABC News