While understanding the seriousness Covid posed to vulnerable populations (such as the elderly) and the desire to quickly develop medical interventions to save lives, the grand jury disagreed with the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s (FDA) assessment that the Covid \u201cemergency\u201d \u201capplied to everyone.\u201d Based upon its assessment of the flagship trial data available at the time, the jury opined that the \u201cEmergency Use Authorization\u201d (EUA) granted to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid shots \u201cshould only have been granted as to the elderly and comorbid populations most at risk from SARS-Co V-2 complications.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA broader authorization might have been appropriate had the flagship trials demonstrated efficacy against transmission, but the FDA did not require them to be designed that way, and neither Moderna nor Pfizer took it upon themselves to build transmission efficacy into their protocols,\u201d the report reads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The jury found an alarming lack of care given to conducting secure flagship trials and research on the Covid shots\u2019 impact on pregnant women. Specifically, the jurors disclosed their belief that expectant mothers were not \u201cwell-served by the United States public health apparatus\u201d and that such \u201ctroubling issues\u201d were not \u201cproperly and meaningfully disclosed and discussed over the last four years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTroubling results that occurred in newly pregnant women in the flagship clinical trials were not contemporaneously disclosed by the FDA, Pfizer or Moderna, nor do they appear to have been meaningfully investigated beyond allowing pregnant women to serve as human guinea pigs based on limited observational data that did not address infant health risks, then using statistically unreliable safety databases like [the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] to \u2018enthusiastically recommend vaccination\u2019 to this vulnerable group,\u201d the report reads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As noted by the jury, the FDA provided \u201cFull Approval\u201d letters to Pfizer and Moderna, granting complete market access for their respective Covid shots. In order to keep their licenses, both companies were required to conduct a series of \u201cinterventional and observational\u201d studies monitoring the \u201csafety and effectiveness\u201d of the jabs after they were released to market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite having received these mandates years ago (Pfizer in August 2021 and Moderna in January 2022), the grand jury found that both companies have failed to complete several of the required studies by deadline and received timeline extensions from federal administrators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThese missed deadlines do not give us confidence,\u201d the grand jury report reads. \u201cEach one represents an opportunity for the FDA and the public to be better informed about the safety of these products that cost billions of taxpayer dollars to develop, manufacture and administer. We recognize that conducting these trials and studies can be challenging work, but we think the money Pfizer and Moderna made [from their Covid shots] should be more than enough to fund and timely administer these tasks as they have been directed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As described in the report, pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies possess postmarketing surveillance databases that collect reports of potential side effects experienced by those who receive their approved vaccines. According to the analysis, after a \u201csafety signal\u201d is \u201cidentified,\u201d the former entities will conduct research using available data and research to determine the validity of the safety signal. If such signals are valid, the companies share their data with the FDA to determine whether it is \u201cconfirmed\u201d or \u201crefuted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the report, \u201cIf a signal is \u2018confirmed,\u2019 the FDA \u2014 in conjunction with the [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] \u2014 must then decide what kind of response is warranted,\u201d with some signals requiring \u201cno more than a published communication or warning about potential risks,\u201d and others requiring \u201cupdates to their physician or patient information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The grand jury noted that while Moderna confirmed five safety signals regarding its Covid shot, \u201cthe public likely does not know \u2026 that Moderna investigated a total of 65 safety signals, \u2018refuting\u2019 60 of them in consultation with the FDA.\u201d A Pfizer representative interviewed by the jury said the company investigated \u201c[a]bout 100 signals\u201d for its shot, which resulted in \u201cvery, very few\u201d being confirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When pressed on if the company made this information available to the public, a Moderna representative told the jury, \u201cNo, it\u2019s irrelevant for them,\u201d and claimed, \u201cthe reason is that, these are issues that are unknown \u2026 [a]nd if we were to advise the public of every theoretical safety concern, I think that would be a disservice to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe emphatically disagree,\u201d the jury wrote. \u201cIn fact, we believe it perfectly illustrates the larger paternalistic attitude on the part of both government health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry towards the public. \u2026 Hiding the details, methodology and results of scores of safety investigations from public view does not build public confidence; it undermines it<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While maintaining that Vaccine-Related Myocarditis and Pericarditis (VRMP) events are \u201cvery rare,\u201d the grand jury disclosed significant findings about such incidents, including the apparent withholding of such information from the American public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While reports of a potential myocarditis signal associated with the Covid shots first began to emerge in Israel in February 2021, the jurors found that \u201ca less-publicized safety signal for myocarditis\u201d regarding the Pfizer and Moderna jabs \u201cappeared after the United States military began vaccinating its servicemembers.\u201d According to the jury, this information \u201cwas not made public until after the VRMP safety signal was confirmed on June 23, 2021\u201d \u2014 despite \u201crepresentatives from Pfizer and Moderna [confirming to the] Grand Jury that several government agencies, including the DOD, were investigating it well before then.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The grand jury highlighted remarks by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who when asked during an April 27, 2021, interview about reports of myocarditis among service members and a possible connection to the Covid shots, claimed, \u201cWe have not seen a signal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The jury noted that despite the director\u2019s statement, \u201ccontemporaneous communications between top CDC officials suggest [the CDC], along with the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna and the DOD were all actively investigating the VRMP safety signal right around the time Director Walensky was saying CDC had not seen one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report later acknowledges that, \u201cFor a sizeable group of healthy young men, there is credible evidence that the risk of side effects from second doses [Pfizer] or [Moderna] always<\/em><\/strong> outweighed their benefits, even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Exclusive: Biden Admin \u2018Ignored\u2019 Vaccine Safety Protocols To Fast-Track Its Covid Shot Mandates<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n5. Myocarditis Cover-Up<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
6. Government Censorship<\/h2>\n\n\n\n