269 Comments

Effing A, el gato. I have been calling for the repeal of that act along with the following for a while now:

• Bayh-Dole Act

• National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

Yesterday, Jeff Childers proposed:

“We need a federal law removing vaccine injury liability shields.” (https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-and-c-news-friday-october-21-2022/)

I planted this seed at Aaron Siri’s post (https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/we-will-be-challenging-any-states/) yesterday and hope we can focus legislative efforts on protecting the people FROM BigPharma instead of the reverse.

Expand full comment

Get organized. Establish a statewide platform to repeal these egregious protections of big Pharma from accountability!

Hold your legislators responsible.

Nothing else will work.

Expand full comment

Definitely hold your legislators responsible, but this needs to happen at the federal level. Jeff said all it would take is "a one-sentence federal law reversing ALL liability shields and requiring vaccine manufacturers to be liable for injuries caused by their products."

Expand full comment

While Jeffmight be right, the individual state approach doesn’t face a split US Congress which will never override a POTUS veto.

Expand full comment

That is why this needs to be paired with a massive awareness-raising campaign (e.g., #RemoveLiabilityShields) because most people don't even realize the manufacturers have liability shields. Once they understand that and the danger these shields pose to people, they can put pressure on their legislators to pass it, and anyone who opposes it will be stigmatized for supporting corruption over the people. Same goes for Biden—if we can make it clear that a vote against this is a demonstration of fealty to BigPharma over the people, they will hesitate to oppose it.

Expand full comment

they usually only become aware when one of their own gets injured. Like the indian doctor who lost his dad, and only then started reading about the jabs. Or like that poor girl Maggie whose parents thought if something went wrong, they would get all the help in the world, and were left empty handed with a life long needy child

Expand full comment

Amen and Amen!

Expand full comment

Am I missing something here? If a strong Republican Congress and you think they will repeal this law? Didn’t you just say all this Republican vs democrat doesn’t matter, it under the surface where the real sausage is made and big money always wins. This law will never get repealed, never no matter how many parents take to the streets.

Expand full comment

I’m not the one who made that statement, not that I disagree with it or the other points you made.

In this particular election, however, one team winning does actually have the potential to make a pivotal difference—not because of the party itself but because of this:

“If Republicans take the Senate, Ron Johnson will become the chair of the oversight committee that has purview over the FDA and CDC.”

—Toby Rogers (https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/the-iatrogenocide-accelerates)

Ron Johnson is the only senator in the nation who has had the courage to acknowledge the vaxx-injured and -bereaved; give a platform to scientists, physicians, the vaxx-injured, and other individuals of integrity exposing the narrative; and challenge the BigPharma/Big Brother/Big Media complex. A red wave would put him in a position to take on the regulatory enablers of BigPharma and could be just the strategic break we need to beat them.

Expand full comment

I agree this is a pivotal mid-term. I don't know the validity of the assesment of Johnson, but I'll stipulate ;-). This may lead to some probing and perhaps some departures from CIC, FDA and NIH. Perhaps a few sacrifices from the drug industry as tokens. But getting the rest of the GOP to do the right thing is a different order of magnitude of change.

Expand full comment

I think there are too many Republicans with strong funding ties with big pharma for that alone to secure any changes.

Expand full comment

Yes, this needs to be much bigger than one party. Eventually, any politician seen to be defending an industry found guilty of crimes against humanity will mea-culpa themselves into submission to the populace—not because they have suddenly developed a conscience but because it will be an act of self-preservation so as not to be associated with the stench of BigPharma.

Expand full comment

Oh, if only you are right!

Expand full comment

I think all “liability shields”, “exemptions” from laws must be unconstitutional. This is how politicians give themselves power, by granting specials” interests exceptions to the laws they make for us. Equal application of the law, or the law is invalid for all.

Expand full comment

Hi Rob,

It sure looks a lot like corruption, malfeasance, a Faustian trade made for power and wealth.

Could you point out for me the reference to this in the Constitution?

You mentioned equal application of the law, but these exemptions apply to all manufacturers of pharmaceuticals.

Expand full comment

Two different aspects: one is federal (the subject of bad cattitude’s post, whereas the other one is at the state level (my comment above).

Expand full comment

My response higher up to Jim Marlowe.

Expand full comment

If liability shields were removed we would not have ANY vaccines. The industry made it clear to governments that the waiver was needed if government wanted vaccines for vaccine avoidable diseases. Over the years however particularity after H5N1 scare vaccines have become big business due to the discovery of adjuvants and government stockpiling combined with the waiver. Vaccines cheaper to produce but cost more and the biggest gain is in the massive purchases of flu vaccines. This is why vaccine industry putting massive amounts into MRNA for respiratory viruses. The pendulum has swung so far to the side of vaccine makers that our greatest risk is not diseases but endless injections. It is exactly due to the permanent waiver that the number of childhood vaccines has exploded. The holy grail of profits however is the vaccine needed over and over. The flu has been fantastic but the lack of mandates for adults is too great a loss to ignore. Mandated respiratory virus vaccines made with with dirt cheap no more expensive testing MRNA is the future. Public health is important only so far as buy-in is needed. Expect endless propaganda about regularity circulating respiratory viruses.

Expand full comment

“If liability shields were removed we would not have ANY vaccines.”

So it’s a win-win, then! It’s time to stop outsourcing our immunity to the pharmaceutical industry and realize the myth of vaccines “saving” us has been a long-running deception that is only now coming to light as people are finally taking the time to investigate what they unquestioningly took for granted because they had been indoctrinated into faith in that fairy tale from birth.

For starters, see:

• “Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth”

• “Dissolving Illusions” by Suzanne Humphries

• “Unvaccinated” and “Moth in the Iron Lung” by Forrest Maready

Expand full comment

You're doing the hard lifting, MAA!

Expand full comment

Pharma spends three times the amount that the next largest industry (oil or MI, I can't recall) in beltway lobbyists. I am not hopeful that anything ever changes.

Expand full comment

We need to outlaw bribery (oh yeah, it's already illegal, just not enforced) and lobbying.

Expand full comment

I agree about bribery being simultaneously illegal and commonplace; also that this is due to an egregious lack of enforcement (indeed, a lack of paying any attention!).

But outlawing lobbying? That’s just silly.

Expand full comment

Haha, okay, just bribery then ;-)

Expand full comment

Yeah.... let's ask CONgress to outlaw the one thing that make them very, very rich.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Expand full comment

There was a time when politicians shielded the tobacco companies and were afraid to go up against them. Then the truth outed; the corporations were held liable in court; and the public became aware of the mass corruption, injuries, and deaths caused by Big Tobacco.

After that, the politicians leapt to distance themselves from the industry they had previously protected. It was at that point that they became more afraid of the people than the companies that had previously owned them, and they had no other choice but to obey the will of the people.

Expand full comment

Along with repealing the liability shield it is important to get corporate donations out of politics, and to ban politicians going to work for industries after being in Washington. Pharma is rife with people who once worked for the FDA and other agencies. The conflicts of interest have to be addressed.

Expand full comment

forgot the Smith-Mundt modernisation act of 2013, legal lying is never good

Expand full comment

Yessss!!!!!!

Expand full comment

Yes. Absolutely!

This is the ONLY reason for the committee decision to put these products on the childhood vax schedule. It would exonerate the manufacturers from liability for adverse events. Even for adults!

Vote in freedom-lovers. Push them to repeal the bill. Then watch Biden veto it and the Pharma shills fail to override the veto.

Expand full comment
Oct 22, 2022·edited Oct 22, 2022

Yes, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 needs to be repealed. If a bill to repeal it were passed now, or in the next two years, all Biden has to do is veto it. A two-thirds vote of both chambers in Congress would then be required to override the veto. Ain't gonna happen until Biden is replaced with a more amenable President and we have a few more Congress Critters willing to do the right thing. In the meantime, parents just have to say NO!

[As info, I've read that Fauci brokered the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.]

Expand full comment
author

if nothing else, make him do it and defend the choice.

pass state level laws that codify these exemptions and reassert federalist prerogative.

also keep in mind that as bad data keeps coming out, a year from now might be a VERY hard time to defend liability waivers. a biden veto may be harder politically than one might suppose.

Expand full comment

Yes...make him give us the sound bites!! We'll use it like an alligator, eating a chomp at a time!

Expand full comment

Thank you! Would hate to have anyone think I was advising not to try or not to do anything at other levels of government. Many battles before the war is won...

Expand full comment

Do you have a link to Fauci’s brokerage in 1986?

Expand full comment

It's discussed, as I recall, in Kennedy's book The Real Anthiny Fauci

Expand full comment

Thank you, Jaye! I hate it when I can't remember enough to cite a source...

Expand full comment
Oct 22, 2022·edited Oct 22, 2022

I’m in the same boat. : )

Expand full comment

Exactly.

Expand full comment

Next: vote in freedom lovers to your governorships and state legislatures. Insist that they decouple any regulations and laws automatically enforcing CDC recommendations as mandates - prerequisites for children attending school.

Next: revamp the education system.

Expand full comment

Three well-tested vaccines?

Please go deeper. The corruption surrounding those three is evident. And the DTP is the reason the 1986 Act was proposed in the first place. Big Pharma could not sustain a vaccine market when they had to pay out for so many lawsuits.

Expand full comment
author

MMR i discussed here:

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/assessing-the-case-for-childhood

it appears to have excellent risk reward and efficacy.

same for polio (apart from the trash the gates foundation peddles in africa etc)

i must confess to being less familiar with DTP.

do you have some links on that?

Expand full comment

MMR efficacy as far as morbidity may have some merit, but mortality is another story. Measles just isn't a life-threatening disease here in the US, and can be treated with vitamin A to prevent worse outcomes.

Brian Hooker's recorded phone conversation with William Thompson at the CDC revealed that the CDC destroyed data linking the MMR to higher rates of autism in black males. Studies that are touted as proof MMR doesn't cause autism are deeply flawed. One is a study from Denmark that showed lower rates of autism in their data than the national rate. That suggests a problem with the data. One problem I noticed in that study was that at the end of the study period that followed a large cohort of children through several years, a large percentage of the children were younger than the average age at which autism was diagnosed at that time in Denmark.

J.B. Handley's book How to End the Autism Epidemic is an excellent, thoroughly-referenced resource that discusses this topic.

Barbara Loe Fischer is an expert on the DTP issue. Her book DPT: A Shot in the Dark is a good place to look for answers on that topic.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries can clear up any questions on polio. As a nephrologist who started questioning vaccines when the hospital she worked at insisted on giving them to her patients even when she noticed new or worsening kidney problems afterwards, she eventually took a deep dive (almost literally, descending into medical library archives to discover the history of vaccines) and wrote the book Dissolving Illusions.

All three of those books have hundreds of references to support them.

Expand full comment

J.B. Handley did an excellent job documenting the harms and lack of safety (& efficacy) testing for all vaccines on the CDC schedule. I have the book and highly recommend it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Expand full comment

There’s a new book out called “Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth” by an anonymous author that I’ve just heard about and have yet to read, but it looks excellent. It’s reviewed favorably by people like Stephanie Seneff, Meryl Nass, James Lyons-Weiler and Steve Kirsch.

Expand full comment

can confirm that it is excellent. Not an anti-vaxxer, the author, but I am and it confirms me in my stance.

Expand full comment

Yes. An essential primer on vaccine history:

Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions.

An essential reference to 400 peer-reviewed published studies showing hazards and lack of efficacy of all vaccines on the US schedule:

Neil Z Miller, Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies.

Expand full comment

The latter is an urgent must-have for all parents in the US and most countries. Quick reference on hazards of all vaccines on the schedule. It's on Amazon.

Expand full comment

Another issue: I don't think we have ever tested (for safety or efficacy) the same way we treat.

MMR (a three-in-one) and multiple other vaccines are commonly given in the same pediatric visit.

My wife won't even let our dog have two vaccines in one visit. (Except where, as with the MMR, they have been made inseparable.)

Expand full comment

Yes. Apparently no separate legal doses in the US. Wonder how that happened.

Expand full comment

they give dogs the hexavalent, yes six in one.

Expand full comment
Oct 22, 2022·edited Oct 22, 2022

Read A Shot In The Dark.

It refers to the older, whole-cell vaccine, which was more effective in prevention but had more side effects. It is still usedin poorer countries.

Dr. Peter Aaby has written on it. His observations are from his work in Burkina Faso

Expand full comment

Turtles all the way down.

Once you realise that polio probably isn't a viral infection, everything changes.

"Turtles all the way down" is a book BTW, and follow up with "The Moth in the Iron Lung".

You can read part of the polio section online here https://drive.google.com/file/d/14N6IgJDr3A8E7gRL4PdqpQs7ePthfRRB/view

you owe it to yourself to do so.

Expand full comment

Yes. I read this and hoped you’d go deeper. Let’s see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Join us. Some of us feel batshit crazy and would love your take.

Expand full comment

At the time of the 1986 Act, OPV was still given to children in the US. I don't think it was discontinued until the early 2000s. Now, US children are given four doses of IPV. This was a known side effect of OPV since the beginning. In some people, it can reactivate in the gut and enter the water system. Gates did it on the cheap with oral drops instead of injections, so now some countries have wild vaccine-strain polio circulating in the environment. We probably would have experienced a similar outcome but for our more advanced waste management.

DTP was discontinued and replaced with DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis), which is considered to have a lower level of negative side-effects than the original. My own daughter had a 103.5 F after her first dose of DTP.

Expand full comment

Also, most of the vaccines on the schedule do not confer lifetime protection. So, you run the risk of vaccine side effects, often for diseases that are not a real risk in the United States, for a temporary benefit. Sound familiar?

Expand full comment

Have you listened to the 2019 WHO conference on vaccines? Del Bigtree was there and recorded it. I have to admit, listening to the supposed worldwide experts laugh about the side effects and patting themselves on the back for the flood of worldwide vaccines was terrifying. And then actually acknowledging that the front line (doctors) is getting shaky because of questions about adjuvants that they can’t answer. This 1986 act has made it so they don’t have to try for better and less toxic adjuvants, and they simply do not care. The level of aluminum injected into babies is mind blowing.

Expand full comment

Literally, mind blowing!

Expand full comment

jennifer has some very WRONG data on childhood va$$ines.

HPV is being sued for FRAUD!!!

MMR is being sued for FRAUD!!

NOT ONE childhood va$$ine has been tested against a saline placebo, they

are NOT safe or effective!!

STOP THEM ALL!

Expand full comment

YES! This! No true placebo has been used (just another toxinne) and how long after the trials were the trial participants followed? Weeks? Months? Has there been any testing done on multiple jabs given at one time? Why are so many children chronically ill today? Chronic illness in children began rising soon after 1986. 🤨 It’s not about prevention or health, never has been.

Expand full comment

exactly!

Under 38 years of Fauci tyranny,

Chronic childhood illness has gone from 12% to over 50% !

Vax schedule has gone up from 6 to over 72 va$$ines!

STOP THE MADNESS AND LIES UPON LIES UPON LIES.

Expand full comment

72 doses of 19 vaccines, not that that is any better, of course. Stop them all for a century and lets see the results.

Expand full comment

now we need to add the covid yearly vax for kids.

72 + 18 = 90

NINETY!!!

Expand full comment

I'm sure they'll get to the hundred mark soon enough. After all they have over two hundred new vaxxes in the pipeline.

Expand full comment

Anyone know what’s happening with these cases now? The MMR case was filed in 2010. Still dragging on as of 2019.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/

Expand full comment

still being stonewalled by Merck lawyers, ugh

Expand full comment

AMEN. I'm quite sure many people don't even realize that these companies have this liability shield. Every time I mention it to someone they are usually shocked and didn't know. If only we all could have this business model huh? Mandate a product on the people, have government steal money to purchase said product for everyone and laugh all the way to our mansions outside of Seattle.

Expand full comment

Seems to me this would end almost all vaccine uptake. Every parent wises up and films their paediatrician listing the potential side effects, which they won’t do on film, which causes vaccine refusal, which.......on and on. But how many will awaken? Even the grossly injured among us are still in denial. How can this be!?

Expand full comment

You actually don't need to get to a vaccine injury before deciding no more. With our first I read a lot but still allowed veeery spread out schedule and totally skipped some (hep B, rota, varicella, MMR not before 3) and then stopped fully. Second child had absolutely none. Neither child will ever get COVID shots or anything mRNA made (I know their next step will be lookie here, it's all mRNA very safe and effective, speed of light research, testing, safety).

Expand full comment

My son has vaccine injuries, but I didn't recognize them as such until much later after a friend pointed me in the direction of "Healthy People 2020". I read it and thought, "Why in the world would the government have vaccine targets for adults?" Then I started researching and found enough information to convince me to avoid vaccines in the future.

But I was already highly skeptical of pharmaceutical medications. How can people watch those commercials with all the possible side effects and still accept those products?

Expand full comment
founding

We did the same with our twins; limited the amount and spread them out.

My regret is not studying each of them more thoroughly.

Expand full comment

The denial is so strong. I even know someone who recognizes adverse effects in others, but does not connect her own health problems to her shot.

Expand full comment

This law is the worst, the lynchpin for all the other liability protections and perverse incentives, well documented by Katherine Watt in Bailiwick News.

I love that buck-passing diagram.

Two other Substackers I’d like to mention here are realnotrare (accounts of C19 vax injuries with names and pictures), and Karen Kingston who has done groundbreaking research.

Expand full comment

Remember why the 1986 law was passed - we wanted to expand our bio-warfare efforts, so we needed vaccine manufacturers (which are the only loophole on the ban on bio warfare research) & that means we had to buy them off. That is, we had to expand that industry dramatically & quickly, so we had to bribe them w/ lots & lots of things (including immunity). Not sure the DoD will sign off on this, but it should be done. It's time to make bio warfare TRULY illegal, which means we can't keep using vaccines as our loophole. Like I said, treat them like any other product - stop subsidizing their illegal bio warfare efforts.

Expand full comment
author

curious as to where you got that sense.

are there some links or info on that? i have not really looked into why it was passed.

Expand full comment
Oct 22, 2022·edited Oct 22, 2022

Gato, the details are fuzzy in my mind since it happened so long ago, but as I recall one of the issues back then was that the liability exposure was totally out of proportion to the actual harm occasionally caused by the vaccines. Rather than a way to make victims whole, it became a way to make lawyers rich while the victims got peanuts.

I could go for a strict liability regime where the loser in court makes restitution to the victim and pays the court costs. But today's jackpot system that piles triple "punitive damages" on top of the actual harm done and then gives the biggest chunk of the pot to the lawyers, is not only abusive, but it promotes the concentration of the pharma industry into the megacorporations that we all despise because they're the only ones who can afford the armies of lawyers needed to fend off the bureaucrats and the legal mercenaries.

Expand full comment
author

ah.

the 80's was a bit of a heyday for out of control class actions.

Expand full comment

Largely an imaginary problem. Sure, legal expenses are a real problem but you think Big Pharma struggles to pay their legal bills? You think it's even a rounding error on their balance sheets? Nah, it was a cover story.

Expand full comment

The process took place the other way around. Disproportionately large jury damages on top of onerous government regulations, drove smaller pharmaceutical companies out of business or into merging with others to form bigger and bigger companies that could better afford the armies of lawyers needed to navigate the bureaucracy and defend against demagogic lawsuits.

Expand full comment

Indeed, when SCOTUS talked about the issue, they claimed it was the # of lawsuits, not the verdicts, that drove this bill, so which is it? I get the industry propaganda, but where's the proof?

Expand full comment

Proof? What jury verdicts were wrong? Why were they wrong? Every other industry manages to survive w/o this protection; why couldn't these? Oh yeah they were part of the military's illegal biowarfare program, so they were special.

Expand full comment

Can you expand in the triple "punitive damages" - what does that mean in a practical sense?

Expand full comment

The basic idea is that if the jury in a civil case determines that the defendant caused, say, $10 million in damages to the plaintiff, the $10 million gets turned into $30 million as punishment over and above the actual harm caused.

One problem with the way this idea is/was applied, is that (especially in class-action suits as Gato mentioned) the lawyers will get the biggest chunk of the damages amount while the victims get peanuts. You may have seen in the mail those notices of class actions where you can claim your $3.29 check for some deceptive practice by a company.

Another problem was the "deep pockets" concept, where the defendant with the most money got slapped with the biggest proportion of the damages irrespective of the extent of its actual involvement in the issue. You could be 1% responsible for the tort but be forced to pay 95% of the damages awarded.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your clarification!

Expand full comment

RFK jr has spelled this all out. Vaccines are categorized as biologics not pharmaceutical drugs. There is tons of info on his CHD website and on the NVIC site. Barbara loe Fischer has put out a lot of info on the law as well since she was involved in this fight due to her son at this time.

Expand full comment

I spoke w/ the author of the bill that banned bio-warfare; he admitted that vaccines were the only loophole (originally, they did it in good faith, but - you know - government "expanded" the loophole.) Dr. Malone yesterday said that a two-stage bioweapon was our primary response to potential Russian invasion of Europe. When Reagan took over, everyone on both sides figured we'd lose if Russians invaded Europe, so they needed a response quickly & bioweapons was what they chose. So it's multiple pieces of info from people who were there.

Expand full comment

And we will enforce that ban with what? Threats of bio-warfare in response? Nukes?

Oh, and who is the 'we' here?

Expand full comment

We already have a ban - it's federal law & it's a treaty. We enforce it like any other element of international law. We here is the US government. Remember Congress has the authority to define & punish offenses against the laws of nations, it's right there in Article 1 of the Constitution.

In theory, if Canada had bio weapons, our military could & would enforce the law. Canada, of course, would claim it's vaccine research. That's how the system works.

Expand full comment

I can't wait to vote again in a few weeks. I know that Republicans will do the right thing for the American people.

Expand full comment

I and a bunch of my friends donated $19.86 to Rob Johnson’s campaign - I’m not from Wisconsin but I think he’s our only hope of this.

Expand full comment

Yes. He’s one of the good guys. In the state above me. We traveled around southern Wisconsin this week. All signs were in support. I saw 1 for the dem candidate and senate candidate. That was a good sign as it has been mostly red for years and I think there will be even more now. Does his campaign material mention our concerns? Good you donated.

Expand full comment

I’ve heard him talk about it.

Expand full comment

Same

Expand full comment

Ron… Ron Johnson… yep.. the man.

Expand full comment

So great that you donated $19.86 - I see what you did there!!

Expand full comment

Whoa. Hold your horses. I’ve watched them for years. Just the same dance with the devil--a red and blue 2 faced devil that just takes turns leading. Both hurt us but in different ways. Plenty of warmongers and graft takers there too. I’ve gotten lots of state and local fliers from repubs and not one has mentioned ANYTHING about medical liberty. Nor their websites. This is at state and local level where the rubber meets the road but I can have hope.

Expand full comment

That's a false equivalency that overlooks a lot. The Ds have been horrible during the Scamdemic, while the Rs have merely been (CARES ACT) bad.

Who opened the schools?

https://markoshinskie8de.substack.com/p/refusing-to-admit-that-coronamania

Ultimately, the choice is clear. Ds need to be severely punished.

Expand full comment

I totally agree. But being a dem for so long (I think I was more GOP through the years before I was politically active. I’m 74. ) I of course saw GOP laws and behavior that did impact citizens in a harmful way. I now know the dems do as well. I will be voting straight GOP ticket this year. Punishment! And probably in the future. But are they really thinking about this Covid damage? Nobody around here is. And I live in a consistently Red district. Nothing on my GOP congressional candidate’s

fliers say anything about it. Or any others I receive promise anything either. Or websites I have to consider the echo chamber of being on each side now. That has been very illuminating to me. Disturbing as well. I’m a one issue voter now and will give the gop a chance.

Expand full comment

Thank you! As a past life-long Dems, I can totally relate. Although I did switch party registration in order to participate in the primaries.

Bottom line for me is that the Dem party no longer reflects the views of moderate/conservative democrats. I do believe in safe abortions but only during the first trimester, not right before birth. I don't want kiddos indoctrinated in schools re: gender ideologies, race/supremacy, etc. I believe in Parental Rights, and schools should stick to the 3 Rs. That's it. Less govt is what I strive for.

Expand full comment

This is how they get everyone. With the false paradigm of not-so-bad kibbles and bits. A kind of political masochism dashed with Stockholm Syndrome. There are maybe five politicians in the whole country worthy of a handshake and conversation, and not even one of them has called for a total ban on the clot shots. DeSantis yesterday: "You can get it for your kids if you want." The powers that be know the slave mind will always revert to whatever traces of hopeium linger and that's how they keep everyone divided, and enslaved and busily signing petitions that will be ignored.

Expand full comment

Yep. How we got here: the lesser of two evils. Is still evil. Somehow, all this "nuance" never seems to swim right. Just slower to the left. Which, of course, is a death cult.

Expand full comment

Janet- I live in Oregon where the Reps were the ONLY ones walking out of session (to avoid quorum per OR law) to save our Religious exemptions back in 2019. Dems were pushing to eliminate them follow Sen. Pan in California. Right now, I have only seen Reps meet with the rest of us parents at medical freedom rallies where Del Bigtree, Steve Jenkins, Dr. Paul Thomas (pediatrician who got suspended for advocating for Informed Consent), and a few other leaders have shown up. I switched parties this year because of this issue and because of the harms of longest lockdowns and masks ruling by our governor. I know that Reps are not perfect nor do I align with every single issue. But my top priority is keeping my kids (18 & 20) SAFE and free to make informed decisions. I'm voting RED all the way in November and come 2024 until I meet a Dem who's willing to stand up for parental rights and working families.

Expand full comment

Good. I’m so willing to be persuaded. I switched also but watching closely on this issue. It will never happen in my state as democrats have a stranglehold on power. Not getting my votes. But I don’t trust either party. Sorry. Corrupted.

Expand full comment

Dan Bongino rightly says that the republicans aren't the solution to your problems, but the democrats are the cause of them.

Expand full comment

Does he indicate what he thinks is the solution to the problems?

Expand full comment
founding

Really? I've always been an independent but I will be voting R for the foreseeable future.

What the Dems did to children is evil.

If you want to end up in a gulag some day because you had wrong think then by all means continue on with claiming there's no difference.

I understand your sarcasm and I felt exactly the same way until covid. The D's have revealed themselves.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Lost my trust totally 💯 in Dems.

Expand full comment

But I can not forget the Iraq war. That was evil as well. How many children did Bush kill snd maim. Plenty.

Expand full comment
founding

Agree

Expand full comment

<slow clap> This would literally be a single-issue vote for me, because of everything you said.

Expand full comment

Revoking the 1986 Act seems like a good idea, but it isn't--if you understand how the Swamp works. You have to revoke some and leave in the good stuff or we will lose all access to adverse event data on vaccines--Meryl

Here is a comment from my friend Barb Loe Fisher on this:

With repeal of the 1986 Act, VAERS, the VIS, and the requirement that permanent records be kept for all vaccines given, manufacturer’s name and lot number will also be eliminated. When the Act was passed in November 1986, the doctors were still liable for medical malpractice and the companies were still liable for design defect. If Congress had not eliminated medical malpractice cases against negligent doctors and other vaccine providers in 1987, and had not gutted the Act with weakening amendments and allowed DHHS/Justice to gut the law through rule making in the 1990s, and the Supreme Court majority had not ignored the legislative history and eliminated design defect lawsuits in 2011, there would be plenty of lawsuits today against Pfizer and Moderna for design defect and they would be won. If Congress would repeal the Act’s weaking amendments and rule changes; add teeth to the informing and VAERS reporting requirements by applying legal penalties for doctors failing to inform and report; require DHHS to fulfill the Act’s vaccine safety research provisions, and invalidate the Supreme Court’s tragically flawed ruling by reaffirming manufacturer liability for design defect, the spirit and intent of the Act would be affirmed.

However, Congress - red or blue - has always bowed to the industry, which is the biggest lobby on Capitol Hill and in which the majority of the nation’s 401Ks are invested.

People better be careful what they wish for when they do not understand the tort reform landscape - independent of the 1986 Act - that has made suing corporations and doctors almost impossible in the U.S. https://www.nvic.org/law-policy-federal/vaccine-injury-compensation/nvic-position-statement

The way forward is not to take down the only law in the U.S. that acknowledges government licensed and recommended vaccines injure and kill, but to strike down mandatory vaccination laws and free the people from the chemical chains that the Pharma-Government business partnership has put them in.

Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC Co-founder & President

With repeal of the 1986 Act, VAERS, the VIS, and the requirement that permanent records be kept for all vaccines given, manufacturer’s name and lot number will also be eliminated. When the Act was passed in November 1986, the doctors were still liable for medical malpractice and the companies were still liable for design defect. If Congress had not eliminated medical malpractice cases against negligent doctors and other vaccine providers in 1987, and had not gutted the Act with weakening amendments and allowed DHHS/Justice to gut the law through rule making in the 1990s, and the Supreme Court majority had not ignored the legislative history and eliminated design defect lawsuits in 2011, there would be plenty of lawsuits today against Pfizer and Moderna for design defect and they would be won. If Congress would repeal the Act’s weaking amendments and rule changes; add teeth to the informing and VAERS reporting requirements by applying legal penalties for doctors failing to inform and report; require DHHS to fulfill the Act’s vaccine safety research provisions, and invalidate the Supreme Court’s tragically flawed ruling by reaffirming manufacturer liability for design defect, the spirit and intent of the Act would be affirmed.

However, Congress - red or blue - has always bowed to the industry, which is the biggest lobby on Capitol Hill and in which the majority of the nation’s 401Ks are invested.

People better be careful what they wish for when they do not understand the tort reform landscape - independent of the 1986 Act - that has made suing corporations and doctors almost impossible in the U.S. https://www.nvic.org/law-policy-federal/vaccine-injury-compensation/nvic-position-statement

The way forward is not to take down the only law in the U.S. that acknowledges government licensed and recommended vaccines injure and kill, but to strike down mandatory vaccination laws and free the people from the chemical chains that the Pharma-Government business partnership has put them in.

Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC Co-founder & President (National Vaccine Information Center, the oldest vaccine safety organization in the US)

Expand full comment

Thanks for educating us re: the 1986 law. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Barbara Loe Fisher! And also agree that all vaccines should be voluntary and that Informed Consent needs to be provided just like it's done for every other medical treatment/product.

Expand full comment

Gonna disagree whole heartedly on your well tested comment DTP was such a bad vaccine they stopped using it in the states. It was one of the reasons the 86 Act came to be. Read Dr Aaby and Christine Stabel Benz work on how dangerous that Vax was in third work countires...and once again I'd urge u to read Dissolving Illusions and follow that up with the newly released Turtles All the Way Down. Love ur work and ur writing we just don't agree on this topic

Expand full comment

I agree - was the MMR the one that was studied for an entire four days after administration? Hardly a robust followup of adverse reactions.

Expand full comment

That's Hep B...one was studied for 4 days and the other for 5 days

Expand full comment

This should be distilled down to a few paragraphs as a letter to Congressional representatives.

Expand full comment

Again, MMR, DTP and polio were not "well tested vaxxes." They were never tested against saline placebos. They were only tested against other neurotoxin-laden injections. Each has a track-record of unleashing new, virulent viral strains and / or documented damage from the Al and Hg and other toxic substances (formaldehyde, etc.) that they contain.

I wrote about a small fraction of that evidence here:

https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/what-is-in-a-vaccine

Expand full comment
author

i disagree strongly on that.

you're trying establish "harmless" as a standard here as opposed to "large net benefit" which seems an invalid manner to address medical treatment.

all drugs have some potential for ill effect.

this must be weighted against benefit.

chemotherapy is flat out poison, but it saves lives vs cancer.

MMR, like any drug, has side effects.

but on balance, looks like a very positive outcome.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/assessing-the-case-for-childhood

Expand full comment

I find it hard to believe that you have this blind spot.

real comment.

I just can't get where you are coming from.

Expand full comment

Thank you!!! I’m so sick of reading how those are safe. They aren’t.

Expand full comment

There's a second liability shield being thrown up by forcing children to get the vaccine: that of public opinion. We have one party that has forced this on everyone, and already we're seeing the results. I've seen reports of three teenagers with heart attacks in three days: one made it, but two didn't. Suddenly "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome" is everywhere. And for right now, we have a very strong control group. Only 4 % of children have gotten the shot. If the unvaccinated children grow older and don't suffer "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome" then we have a culprit, the vaccine.

People see what they want to see, and if these yahoos can keep playing the "well we can't *really* know it was the vaccine" game, they might stand a chance politically. But once the evidence becomes incontrovertible? They're done. And they will sacrifice the children of the nation to provide them a smokescreen from that moment.

Expand full comment
founding

I agree. This is why changing the "meaning" of language is dangerous, i.e., "anti-vaxxers".

Watch the pressure and marginalization of parents who start questioning the health care establishment if their children should take all of the vaccines. .

Expand full comment

I've read two things and not sure they are true. Maybe a ferocious feline can find the answer.

1) Putting it on the schedule means it isn't an EUA anymore?

2) Pfizer is upping the cost of the jab by 400%?

Expand full comment
author

approving it means it is not EUA anymore.

this is why no actual vials of comirnanty were sold.

putting it on the schedule provides a new liability shield.

Expand full comment

RE: Price Increase

Pfizer says COVID-19 vaccine will cost $110-$130 per dose

https://www.aol.com/pfizer-says-covid-19-vaccine-160157579-213721873.html

Expand full comment

To clarify, the FDA authorizes (EUA) or approves (licenses for sale), and the CDC puts on the schedule.

EUA gives legal distribution without prescription and liability protection for specified uses, no schedule inclusion necessary, but only while emergency declaration is in effect.

After emergency is over the vaccines can only be distributed for “approved” uses with “licensed” labeling (currently: indicated for ages 12 and up only, and no boosters) and liability protection is based on schedule inclusion.

There’s currently a disconnect between the FDA and CDC: Some unapproved uses were put on the schedule, eg doses for under 12. If the emergency declaration expires without any more approvals It will be illegal to market the vaccine for such uses but the manufacturer may still may be shielded from liability if a doctor administers it “off label.”

It does not seem right that the CDC would recommend the use of a drug that is neither approved nor authorized, but that may be what we’re up against if the agencies don’t get their act together.

Expand full comment