Health Viewpoints

Will Lawsuits Bring an End to COVID Vaccines?

Save
Mariusz Szczygiel/Shutterstock
Updated:
0:00

The rollout of COVID-19 jabs in December 2020 sealed the title as the “No. 1 Cause of Death and Disability Worldwide,” even though it’s been building for years. The net effect of the pharmaceutical industry on society the last few decades has been negative. There’s no one watching out for the patient—not even doctors or health institutions.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Drug companies have a legal responsibility to provide profits for their shareholders. They do not have a legal responsibility to give patients the best and safest treatment. But the biggest scandal is that those with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity—academic institutions, doctors, medical journals—also collude with industry for financial gain.
  • Five hundred Australians have joined a class action lawsuit against the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), arguing the agency did not fulfill its duty to properly regulate the vaccines, which resulted in considerable harm to Australians.
  • Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination are invited to register for this class action.
  • A similar class action is taking place in the UK, where attorneys representing approximately 75 people injured by AstraZeneca’s shot, and family members of those killed by it, are suing the drug company.
  • There’s now overwhelming evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots were a disaster from the start and that regulatory agencies knew it but went ahead anyway. Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, is trying to rewrite history by giving provably false testimony before Congress.

In the video above, Joe Rogan interviews cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra about Big Pharma’s control over research. What many don’t realize is that researchers who do peer-review of drug company-sponsored trials do not get access to the raw data. All they get is the drug company’s analysis of that data, which leaves the door wide open for manipulation and obfuscation.

As noted by Malhotra, “It’s not scientific, it’s not ethical ... and it’s not democratic.” Most doctors, unless they’re involved in the peer review process, are not even aware of this, which is why they rarely ever question published science. Yet data analyses by Stanford professor Dr. John Ionnidis show that “the greater the financial interest in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Malhotra says.

No One Protects Patients Anymore

So, is the drug industry all about satisfying shareholders and increasing profits by any means, with no real regard for public health? Rogan wonders. Basically yes. As noted by Malhotra, drug companies have a legal responsibility to provide profits for their shareholders. They do not have a legal responsibility to give patients the best and safest treatment.

But the biggest scandal here, Malhotra says, is that “those with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity—academic institutions, doctors, medical journals—collude with industry for financial gain.” I would add that our regulatory agencies are also “on the take.” They’ve all been captured by industry, which leaves patients with no one to protect them from Big Pharma’s malfeasance.

Malhotra goes on to discuss Dr. Robert Hare, a forensic psychologist who developed the original DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual] criteria for psychopathy, and how Hare noted that the way drug companies conduct business, as legal entities, fulfill the definition of psychopath: “callous unconcern for the feelings of others, incapacity to experience guilt, deceitfulness and conning others for profit.”

Between 2003 and 2016, drug companies paid fines totaling $33 billion. Many of these cases involved the illegal marketing of drugs, scientific fraud, hiding data on harms, and the suppression of negative results. These fines never curtailed the behavior, however, because the fines were a drop in the bucket compared to the profits they made on these drugs. The fines were just considered the cost of doing business.

What Is the Net Effect of Pharmaceutical Drugs?

While the drug industry has created crucial life-saving drugs, the big question we need to ask is “What is the net effect of them?” Malhotra says. He points out that, in the United States, of the 667 drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2008, 75 percent were copies of old ones.

Off-patent drugs were repatented after minor tweaks to the formulations, thereby boosting profits from already existing drugs. Of those, only 11 percent were found to have a clinical benefit over the previous drug.

Similarly, in France, of the nearly 1,000 drugs approved between 2000 and 2011, most were copies and, importantly, 15 percent of the reformulations were found to be MORE harmful than the predecessor, whereas only 8 percent had clinical benefit over the previous drugs. So, what does this tell us?

It tells us that “the overall net effect of the drug industry on society in the last few decades [has been] a negative one,” Malhotra says. Of course, when it comes to dangerous drugs, nothing can match the COVID-19 jabs, rolled out in December 2020. Add them into the equation, and the drug industry becomes the No. 1 cause of death and disability worldwide, hands down.

Australians File Class Action Lawsuit

For the past three years, I and many others have been shouting warnings from the rooftops to little avail—our voices drowned out in a sea of corrupt “fact” checkers. Now, however, the ramifications of this mass experiment are becoming so glaringly obvious, legal experts are starting to take note and to file lawsuits.

As reported by Spectator Australia at the end of April 2023, 500 Australians have joined a class action lawsuit filed by Brisbane lawyer Natalie Strijland:1
“All have suffered serious or life-threatening events or are the relatives of those who have died following COVID vaccination. Many have been left with significant disabilities. As the news filters out about the class action, the first of its kind in Australia, more people are joining each day.
“Dr. Melissa McCann, who instigated the action, is crowdfunding to assist with legal and travel costs. Any compensation awarded will be shared entirely by the injured and the bereaved.
“The applicants will argue that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not fulfil its duty to properly regulate the vaccines which resulted in considerable harm to Australians.
“The respondents are the Australian government, the Department of Health and Aged Care Secretary, Dr. Brendan Murphy, who announced in early April that he will retire in July, and the former head of the TGA [Therapeutic Goods Administration] Adjunct Professor John Skerritt who just retired from the public service in mid-April.”
Strijland told news.com.au:2
“[The class] action arises upon the basis that the government did not truly establish that the vaccines were indeed safe or effective for use by the Australian public, and the claim now proceeds upon the basis that the government in fact acted negligently in approving the vaccines and also by failing to withdraw them after approval based upon the known evidence.
“Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination are invited to step forward and register for this class action.”

AstraZeneca Sued in UK

A similar class action is taking place in the U.K., where attorneys representing people injured by AstraZeneca’s shot, and family members of those killed by it, are suing the drug company.

Among the plaintiffs in this suit is the husband of BBC North radio broadcaster Lisa Shaw,3 who died from vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia one week after her AstraZeneca jab. She was 44.
The wife of psychologist Stephen Wright, a National Health Service (NHS) employee who died 10 days after his first dose in January 2021, is also suing.4 Wright was 32. As reported by The BMJ on March 28:5
“Lawyers have sent the company pre-action protocol letters, the first step in a legal claim on behalf of around 75 claimants. Some have lost relatives and some have survived with catastrophic injuries following blood clots ...
“[In] 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency confirmed a possible link between the vaccine, known as Vaxzevria, and a rare condition involving blood clots along with abnormally low platelet levels. Those taking legal action have been diagnosed with vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
“The claimants are pursuing a two pronged strategy: taking legal action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 as well as claiming payment under the government run Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. The scheme ... is limited to £120 000 per claim and applicants must prove severe disablement ... Those taking action under the Consumer Protection Act must show that the vaccine was not as safe as the public were entitled to expect.
“Peter Todd, a consultant solicitor with Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, one of two lawyers handling claims, told The BMJ that the complications included stroke, heart failure, and leg amputations. He said the technology involved in the AstraZeneca vaccine was ‘risky.’
“Even though the legal claim is against AstraZeneca, the UK taxpayer will have to pay any compensation awarded, under a legal indemnity that the government gave the company early in the pandemic ...
“Damages for individuals in the court action could be in the millions. [Sarah] Moore [attorney with Hausfeld law firm] added, ‘We’ve been trying to get the government to reform their statutory scheme. We didn’t want to litigate but the government has forced us into a corner. The only way these families can get compensation is to fight the battle they didn’t want to fight.’”

CDC Director Tries to Rewrite History

There’s now overwhelming evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots were a disaster from the start and that regulatory agencies knew it but went ahead anyway.
Apparently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky believes the best way to deal with the agency’s clear culpability in widespread death and disability is to rewrite history and double down on provable falsehoods. As reported by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, April 20:6,7
“This week, CDC director Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations ... But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony.
“Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC,8 in which she unequivocally said that ‘vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick’ was accurate. ‘At the time it was [accurate]’ Walensky replied confidently.
“She then proceeded to explain, ‘We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus’ and that ‘all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.’ However, there was no such evidence at the time ...
“Walensky should have known that when mRNA vaccines were first authorised in 2020, the FDA listed critical ‘gaps’ in the knowledge base.9 One of them was the vaccine’s unknown effectiveness against viral transmission.
“Also, in Pfizer’s10 and Moderna’s11 original pivotal trials, there were 8 and 11 people respectively, who developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine group, proving the vaccines never had absolute effectiveness, like Walensky had claimed.”
What’s more, as detailed in “‘Speed of Science’—A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare,” in early October 2022, during a COVID-19 hearing in the European Parliament, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market ... and we had to do everything at risk.”
As the head of the CDC, how could Walensky be unaware that the COVID-19 shot had NEVER been tested for transmission? And how could she, at any point, claim that it would stop transmission when that was never tested? Clearly, Walensky is trying to invent science that never existed.

Walensky Falsely Claims Mask Review Was Retracted

Even more egregiously, Walensky falsely claimed12 that part of the 2023 Cochrane review13 and meta-analysis of the available evidence on face masks for prevention of respiratory infections had been retracted. According to this review, the use of face masks in the community “probably makes little to no difference” in preventing viral transmission.

“I think it’s notable, that the editor-in-chief of Cochrane actually said that the summary of that review was ... [stumble] ... he retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate,” Walensky told Congress.

However, neither the summary nor the review was ever retracted. Nor has any of the language in the summary been altered. So, what the heck is Walensky even talking about? Demasi suspects Walensky may have repeated a falsehood previously published by The New York Times.14,15 This wouldn’t surprise me, seeing how this isn’t the first time Walensky has relied on mainstream propaganda rather than scientific data when making public statements. As reported by Demasi:
“In response to Walensky’s comments, Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane study said, ‘Walensky is plain wrong. There has been no retraction of anything. It’s worth reiterating that we are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review and we will not change our review on the basis of what the media wants or what Walensky says’ ...
“[Professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine Jay] Bhattacharya was also stunned by Walensky’s comments. ‘It’s irresponsible for her to claim that the Cochrane review [summary] was retracted when it was not. It damages her credibility and harms the scientific process, which requires public officials to be honest about scientific results,’ he said.”

CDC Artificially Inflated COVID Deaths

In other news relating to CDC malfeasance, the agency also inflated the number of COVID-19 deaths, as Dr. Scott Jensen told Dr. Jordan Peterson in an April interview. As explained by Jensen, March 24, 2020, the CDC changed how death certificates were recorded for COVID-19.

“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death,” the notice said.16 It’s important to note that this change was exclusively for COVID-19. In all other instances, contributing conditions are listed in the Contributing Causes box.
Why would the CDC do this? Jensen suspected the CDC wanted people to be afraid of COVID-19 and needed statistics to support their claims that COVID-19 was a lethal infection. But these data are completely misleading. If someone is dying from cancer and tests positive for COVID-19, cancer should be listed as the cause of death and COVID-19 should be listed as a contributing factor, not THE cause of death, because they died with COVID-19 (assuming it wasn’t a false positive), not from it.

DHHS Incentivized Misdiagnosing COVID-19

But it didn’t end there. Two days later, on March 26, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also issued massive financial incentive—$100 billion, to be exact—to diagnose patients with COVID-19.17
Fortunately for doctors and hospitals, it was really easy to cash in on this because the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the World Health Organization also set such high cycle thresholds for the PCR test that about 90 percent of the tests came out as false positives. I reviewed this in “Bombshell Admission—The COVID Tests Don’t Work.”
According to a Harvard Medical School study, analyses of the blood oxygen levels of nearly 50,000 hospital patients across the U.S. suggest 48 percent of all hospitalized “COVID patients” in 2021 were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.18
That means the number of “hospitalized COVID cases” was exaggerated by some 96 percent. In short, we had a “casedemic,” and an artificially created one at that. As suggested by Peterson, bureaucracy was weaponized to facilitate tyranny. And that’s where we’re still at today.

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations in the United States are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.

Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies and medical trade associations, and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.

We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children, and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.

Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.
NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate—or expand—your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center, at www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:
  • NVIC.org: This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law, and ethics in the United States on more than 2,000 web pages.
  • NVICAdvocacy.org: This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
  • TheVaccineReaction.org: This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health, and autonomy.”
  • MedAlerts.org:This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.

Find a Doctor Who Will Listen and Care

If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion, and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government-recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.

Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID-19 shots.

There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.

Originally published May 16, 2023, on Mercola.com

◇ References:

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Joseph Mercola
Author
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
Related Topics