Exempting Big Pharma from COVID-19 Vaccines Liability

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, August 03, 2020

House and Senate leaders are discussing whether to include this exemption for COVID-19 vaccines under development in new legislation likely to be passed and signed into law in the coming days.

Most likely, tort liability protection for Big Pharma will be approved.

All vaccines contain harmful to human health toxins — including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, and phenoxyethanol (antifreeze).

Vaccines can be more hazardous than diseases they’re designed to protect against, most people unaware of the risks, establishment media concealing them.

Toxins in vaccines weaken the human immune system, making vaxxed individuals vulnerable to potentially life-threatening illnesses — young children and the elderly most at risk.

In developing vaccines, most clinical trials fail. Years of development precede the production and marketing of new ones.

Despite years of research, no successful coronavirus vaccines were ever developed.

Yet a race is on by drug and biotech companies to develop, produce, and mass-vax millions of people in the coming months against COVID-19.

Last week, Thailand Medical News reported that to date,

“more than 13,782 scientific studies have been published with regards to the COVID-19 disease and the SAR-CoV-2” virus that causes it.

“There are more than 2,472 clinical trials either planned or in progress with regards to COVID-19 disease in terms of repurposed drugs, new pharmaceuticals, supplements, herbal and traditional medicine, antibodies, vaccines, medical devices etc.”

“There are about 126 completed clinical trials to date.”

“There are more than 372 existing drugs being studied for repurposing to treat various aspects of the COVID-19 disease along with 17 new pharmaceutical preparations, 64 phytochemicals from plants and herbs and 38 proteomes.”

“There are more than 148 vaccine candidates in development stages.”

“There are at least…127,000 scientific researchers from around the world from various specialties and fields working on various aspects to find solutions for the COVID-19 disease.”

Rushed development of vaccines amounts to playing Russian roulette with human health.

Instead of protecting the public from health hazards, US ruling authorities, in cahoots with Big Pharma, are promoting use of potentially dangerous vaccines ahead — in lieu of proved effective, widely available, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when used with either azithromycin or doxycycline and zinc. More on this below.

In 2005, the US Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA) became the law of the land.

It “authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration that provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency to entities and individuals.”

It granted Big Pharma tort liability protection for avian influenza vaccines, including from vaccine safety laws enacted by states — at the discretion of HHS.

In 2011, the US Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth ruled in favor of protecting Big Pharma from state tort liability lawsuits that seek damages for injuries or death attributed to use of a vaccine.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Scalia argued that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death.The Great COVID-19 Vaccines to the Rescue Hoax. “Making A Billion Dollars” vs. “Harmful Side Effects”

The majority 6 – 2 ruling held that “a vaccine side effect could always have been avoidable by use of a different vaccine not containing the harmful element.”

Ignored was that ALL vaccines contain harmful to human health substances.

Perhaps one day vaccines will be largely or entirely safe to use as directed, clearly not so now, why Big Phama should be held liable for injury or death from use of their vaccines and other drugs that cause physical harm when used as directed.

The same goes for all products and services sold by companies to consumers or other firms.

COVID-19 vaccine developers want liability protection from products they’ll market in the months ahead.

Note: The highly touted Moderna COVID-19 vaccine induced adverse reactions in over half of clinical trial participants, some cases severe — what’s been unreported by major media.

Other COVID-19 vaccines in development may face similar issues, notably because they’re being rushed to market in the coming months. Consumers beware.

Last week, James Todaro MD quoted former New England Journal of Medicine editor-in-chief Marcia Angel, saying the following:

“Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, (the pharmaceutical) industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.”

Dr. Todaro stressed the following:

“In the history of medicine, no single drug has been so singularly attacked by the media, World Health Organization, government officials and institutional health experts as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ),” adding:

“Approved as a ‘safe and cost-effective’ essential medicine by the WHO, CDC and regulatory authorities across Europe, hydroxychloroquine has been prescribed to millions of patients over the past 65 years.”

“Despite decades of known safety, hydroxychloroquine was labelled ‘dangerous’ and a ‘poisonous substance’ after showing promise as a therapeutic for COVID-19.”

Full-court press negative publicity by the NYT, WaPo, CNN, and other establishment media demeans HCQ, ignoring its effectiveness in treating COVID-19 when properly administered during the disease’s early stage.

Epidemiologist Harvey Risch MD stressed that HCQ was shown to be “highly effective (when) given (to patients) very early in the course of treating” COVID-19 — especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.”

Why is this information being suppressed? Why isn’t the public fully informed?

It’s because of the hugely profitable market potential Big Pharma hopes to cash in on by convincing millions of people to be mass-vaxxed against COVID-19.

Most people are unaware of possible harmful to health side effects they could experience early or much later, including major illnesses.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s Children’s Health Defense.org website (CHD) explained that

“severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS – 2003 was) was a dress rehearsal…for Covid-19 in 2020,” adding:

Research showed that Chloroquine (CQ) and HCQ are prophylactically and therapeutically effective in treating the coronavirus.

“In early April, a survey of US physicians found that two-thirds (65%) would prescribe CQ or HCQ ‘to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member,’ and roughly the same percentage (67%) would take it themselves.”

“In May, the White House doctor confirmed HCQ’s excellent benefit-to-risk ratio.”

“For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines…it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent” protection.”

Instead of advocating for HCQ’s widespread use, the Big Pharma controlled FDA revoked authorization for its use in treating COVID-19.

The nation’s top-ranked Mayo Clinic medical facility falsely claims no effective COVID-19 medications or cures exist.

CHD explained that nations using HCQ have “only one-tenth the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”

As the saying goes, follow the money. A potential bonanza of revenues and profits awaits drug and biotech companies whose COVID-19 vaccines are approved for sale by the FDA in the months ahead.

CQ has been around since 1934, HCQ since the mid-1940s, the latter drug approved by the FDA in 1955 to treat autoimmune-inflammatory conditions.

HCQ especially was shown to be effective prophylactically and therapeutically in treating COVID-19 as explained above.

The CHD reported that through late July,

“65 studies around the world indicated that 100% of the studies that assessed HCQ for Covid-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or early use showed ‘high effectiveness,’ as did 61% of the studies examining HCQ use in later stages of illness.”

When properly used, HCQ can prevent or cure COVID-19 most often.

The alternative is going along with mass-vaxxing, risking potentially hazardous to human health side effects that may include contracting coronavirus disease and/or something more serious.

Note: If HCQ was widely promoted and used by the public, no lockdowns, social distancing, face masks, or other self-protective actions would be needed.

Economic and social life could resume normally without fear of contracting COVID-19.

Responsible government would promote the above, prioritizing public health, safety and welfare.

Not the US, acting in cahoots with Big Pharma’s aim to cash in big from hazardous to human health vaccines when available.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Natural NewsThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2020

Video: Covid-19 and the Censorship of Medical Doctors. LancetGate and the Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 30, 2020

Medical doctors at an event in front of the US Supreme Court are accused of making false statements.  

The video of their press conference was removed by Youtube and Facebook. They are accused by CNN of spreading “fake science”

The doctors put forth Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective Covid-19 cure.

Why were they smeared by CNN? Why were they the object of censorship?   

According to CNN, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is sponsored by “Fake Pharma companies”. What utter nonsense.  The unspoken truth is that the statement of the medical doctors goes against the interests of Big Pharma. 

In this video, Professor Michel Chossudovsky reveals how a peer reviewed report in The Lancet  was used “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19.  It was later revealed that the Lancet HCQ study was based on fake data. The author of the peer reviewed report apologized.

“I’m truly sorry”…  And the report was retracted by The Lancet, which acknowledged that the data was fabricated. The media remained silent on what constitutes “Fake Science”. 

VIDEO

The Lancet article was retracted,

India’s “Playing Hard to Get” with America by Letting the AIIB Fund China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)

The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research, 2020

Related Video

The Hydroxychloroquine Enigma

By David Macailwain

Source

For most people, the outbreak of a new severe respiratory disease in China did not ring alarm bells – at least not ones commensurate with the global catastrophe we are now facing. Unlike those specialists who deal with epidemic diseases, or companies and institutes who study them and research drugs and vaccines, we were not familiar with the intricacies of infection and transmission, antibodies and immunity, nor the contingency plans governments had to deal with such outbreaks.

Being a new strain of Coronavirus not previously “tested” on human populations, even those at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were familiar with these sorts of viruses had much to learn from observing the details of peoples’ symptoms, susceptibility and infectivity, and these early observations were invaluable in guiding other countries’ responses, or should have been.

They were also helpful in enabling us to make judgements on the risk posed by the new disease when it reached our shores – as it inevitably would. Perhaps the simplest and most important feature of this respiratory infection was that it was rarely fatal amongst healthy people under 70, with the majority of deaths – from acute pneumonia – amongst the “old and sick”. It was observed that this age-profile of the virus was very similar to the normal age profile of deaths in the community.

Along with these simple epidemiological observations, there was a focus on treatments that might ameliorate or even cure the infection, and early trials of likely drugs that had been found useful in treating related viral diseases. Several such trials were conducted in China in January and identified a few promising candidates, including Remdesevir and Chloroquine.

When the disease spread to Italy and then to France in February, the world’s most renowned expert on communicable diseases – Professor Didier Raoult – followed up on the Chinese studies with one of his own at his institute in Marseilles. In his career working with various exotic diseases like Ebola in Africa, he already had significant experience with the Malaria drug Hydroxychloroquine, which had been demonstrated effective against Dengue and other dangerous virus diseases.

Raoult’s first study, which trialled Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with and without the antibiotic Azithromycin found that:

Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.

Prof Raoult considered the results sufficiently significant to publish immediately, and advocated for the use of HCQ in new cases of COVID-19 infection – an important point, as it is the effect of HCQ on reducing viral load in the early stages of infection which is most vital. As has been demonstrated by the studies of the drug’s use in hospitalised patients, its use once the infection reaches the lungs may even be dangerous.

From the time when I became aware of Didier Raoult’s research, following a revealing article from Pepe Escobar about the inside workings of the French Health Ministry, I have struggled to understand why there appears to be such a determined campaign against both Prof Raoult and against the use of HCQ to treat CV19 patients. It has been repeatedly noted that the drug has been used for sixty years by millions of people and has few and rare side effects which are well known, while evidence continues to mount for its efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“What’s not to like?” – as they say, and as Donald Trump famously declared back in April. Notably he has now put his money (not much as HCQ is very cheap) where his ample mouth is by taking HCQ as a prophylactic following a case of CV19 in the White House. Contrary to the way it has been portrayed in the media, Trump was hardly alone in advocating for HCQ and making it available.

President Macron visited Prof Raoult’s institute in early April at the same time as French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi made a commitment to supply free millions of doses of the drug globally, despite its apparently conflicting interests in vaccine development and production. Macron’s poorly publicised and ambiguous support for Raoult has recently become rather confusing – but more on that later.

Further reinforcing scepticism about the drug is support and advocacy for Hydroxychloroquine from other notable identities – President Bolsonaro of Brazil and Australian mining magnate Clive Palmer, but saner voices have also spoken out. This contribution from a US senator Ron Johnson, which followed after FDA restrictions on HCQ is worth quoting:

Restricting use to hospitalized patients means loss of the critical early window of opportunity to: (1) prevent the virus attaching to host cells, (2) reduce viral replication that prolongs time of infectivity and spread, (3) reduce the number of hospitalizations and need for intubation and mechanical ventilators, and (4) reduce risk of multi-organ damage and death or permanent lung impairment after recovery.

Echoing Trump’s position on the urgent need to act he added that:

We can’t wait months for a completed RCT (randomised controlled trial) or a vaccine. People are dying every day. Staggering numbers of people have lost jobs, incomes, and ability to live life normally, all of which lead to loss of life that could quickly exceed losses from the virus.

Senator Johnson said this on April 10^th. What has happened since is hard to ascertain and hard to comprehend, with two different narratives and realities operating in parallel. In the Western media bubble, which envelopes its citizens in an impermeable and invisible shield, scientific and health advisors endlessly repeat the mantra that HCQ is a dangerous drug that can cause heart attacks, citing trials that show it has no benefit in treating COVID-19 patients in hospitals. Their message is that we must wait for a vaccine, maintaining restrictive social habits to reduce any chance of catching the infection. That the novel Coronavirus actually causes only a minor infection – or even an unnoticed one – in the vast majority of people, is never stressed or even noted.

In the parallel world –which with the poor majority world apparently includes many Western countries below the radar, HCQ or Chloroquine is being widely used and with significant effects on controlling the severity of disease and its spread, and reducing the pressure on limited hospital services. This parallel world exists alongside its first-world partner in countries like India and Nigeria, where the poor majority cannot afford to “stay at home”, amusing themselves in Zoom meetings with fellow shack-dwellers and ordering in scavenged take-aways their ex-employers have discarded.

The suggestion, implicit in WHO advice and that of Western government scientists, that they should just “hold on” until a vaccine arrives – in six or twelve months, must be regarded with the utmost disbelief and disdain. They have no choice but to continue their lives regardless, putting the risk of falling sick with CV19 alongside mostly far greater threats from disease and disaster. It has already been noticed that the death toll in poorer countries – in Africa particularly – is far lower than in rich ones, likely due in large part to the low average age of populations.

For them there is the prospect that the new disease will spread through the population and bring “herd immunity” without taking many lives. For those of us who are now trapped in a dystopian nightmare world we never chose, at the beck and call of pharmaceutical and security companies linked to governments, this is an enviable prospect.

Three months ago it seemed like an unlikely conspiracy theory – that we could be manipulated into a prison from which the only escape would be vaccination and electronic surveillance. But it is rapidly becoming clear not just that this has happened but that it was the plan, and that a carefully orchestrated series of actions has achieved the desired goal. Piers Robinson has researched the network of groups and individuals who have provided advice to the UK government’s SAGE committee on how to keep citizens in line. Noteworthy are the recommendations from the “SPI-B” group on behavioural techniques. They identify:

“options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures,” which include persuasion, incentivisation and coercion. In the section on persuasion it states that “the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” The document also mentions “using media to increase sense of personal threat.”

The involvement of key figures from Government intelligence agencies and covert disinformation warfare groups like the IfS and Brigade 77 must ring alarm bells to anyone concerned to know whose interests are being favoured by these unprecedented and draconian restrictions on civil liberties.

Given the oddly similar approaches to the Coronavirus threat followed by so many countries, and despite their vastly different circumstances, it appears that the UK model of media-mediated control is being followed elsewhere. Indeed the evidence for such covert activity is considerable here in Australia, based merely on this similarity, because the actual threat from CV19 – which has never been great – is now almost negligible.

So effective has the “hard-hitting emotional messaging” been that many Australians are now so afraid of catching and dying from COVID-19 that they are content to endure huge restrictions on their freedoms and activities until a vaccine arrives sometime next year. Trying to persuade them there is no danger of catching it now, or that there was no real danger from catching it, is nye impossible.

But this has now become the crux of the matter. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that those in power are determined to destroy anything that stands in the way of their plans for global vaccination, surveillance and control, and the huge fortunes to be made by their favoured commercial partners and investors.

How else to explain this? – that the WHO just cancelled support for research around the world into Hydroxychloroquine on the basis of a completely fabricated “research study” published in the Lancet on May 22^nd. That the Guardian now claims that they exposed the flaws in the research, with the WHO cancelling its ban, only adds further suspicion to the affair – the research was already exposed as scientifically and ethically impossible, while the group “Surgisphere” which supposedly collected data from 96,000 patients at 671 hospitals in 6 countries has NO verifiable credentials.

The cancellation and rescinding of WHO’s support for research into HCQ is, like the trials it sponsored, a complete sham. Not only is HCQ, with or without Azithromycin, already well proven to be useful or even critical in controlling the severity of the disease and its spread, but the trials now being set up in the UK and Australia and around the world are designed to fail. This “poor design” is so obvious in the Australian trial that it is simply astonishing that it was approved, if the intent was to test HCQ’s efficacy as stated:

“COVID SHIELD is gold standard in its design as a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind study,” said Professor Pellegrini (of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute).

This may be true, as the trial will be on 2000 volunteer health care workers, half of whom will take Hydroxychloroquine and half a placebo – without knowing which, and for four months, the object being to see if the drug has a protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But because there are only a few cases of active CV19 infection in hospital, and few more likely, most of the volunteers are unlikely to be exposed to the virus. Not only that – because the trial is double blind, all volunteers will be obliged to behave as if they have no protection and so must wear standard protective equipment for the four month period.

At the end of the “trial”, when half of these volunteers will have taken “the possibly dangerous” HCQ every day for four months for no reason, the Institute will be able to declare that there was no difference between HCQ and a placebo, though the result will not be statistically significant because of the low number of infections. (zero presumably)  Then like the Emperor’s new clothes, the “results” will be paraded around as the last word on this controversial drug.

In the meantime we might consider the recent advice of Harvey Risch in the American Journal of Epidemiology that the drug should be used immediately, in combination with Azithromycin, on Outpatients. Or the last word from Professor Raoult, spoken over two months ago following French restrictions on HCQ use to seriously ill patients in hospital:

“When damage to the lungs is too important, and patients arrive for reanimation, they practically do not harbor viruses in their bodies any more. It’s too late to treat them with chloroquine. Are these the only cases – the very serious cases – that will be treated with chloroquine under the new directive by [French Health Minister] Veran?” If so, he added ironically, “then they will be able to say with scientific certainty that chloroquine does not work.”

Afterword:

Professor Raoult has just approached French TV network BFM to record this long and rather fractious interview with two women challenging his research and opinions. For those with reasonable French understanding it is quite fascinating in the insight into the politics of health and research in France.