Posted on 05/22/2021 10:13:37 AM PDT by Mount Athos
With a ‘12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines’ and ‘statistically zero risk’ of children dying from COVID-19, plaintiffs argue there is no justification for such injections.
The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and is directed against Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It consists of numerous plaintiffs representing various interests and backgrounds, including “physicians and the parents of minor children who are alarmed about offering children experimental products that have not undergone long term animal or safety studies.”
“We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action,” stated Dr. Angelina Farella, AFLDS Pediatric Medical Director. “The Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects and the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids.”
“Our children should never be the experiment,” she continued. “No additional authorizations or mandates should be granted. We want to preserve the previously established safety standards.”
Dr. Farella also cited statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which confirms “children are at statistically zero risk for COVID-19, making expansion of the EUA for younger children medically unnecessary.”
The plaintiffs thus argue that “the defendants can make no science-based argument that preserving the status quo will create any hardship for them or for the public.”
As a matter of law, the petitioners contend that “the statistics alone make it impossible for the government to satisfy the balancing test required by federal statute (§ 360bbb–3(c)(2)(B)) as a condition to issuing EUAs for these experimental vaccines.”
As the motion itself reads, “EUA requires that an intervention address a serious or life- threatening condition, and for known and potential benefits of the intervention to be balanced against the known and potential harms.” Yet, the plaintiffs assert, “[t]here is not even a pretense of a factual basis that COVID-19 represents a serious or life-threatening condition for children under 16, since the CDC acknowledges they face 0% risk of mortality from COVID-19 statistically.”
Therefore, according to attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., “[t]here is no public interest in subjecting children to an inoculation program, in order to protect them from a disease that simply does not threaten them.” Further, “since the DHHS Secretary has failed to make even the minimum statutory disclosures regarding risks and alternative treatments,” informed consent is not even possible for parents, while children are inherently incapable of such consent.
Statistics included by the plaintiffs to support their arguments include the following:
Under the age of 20, the survivability rate for COVID-19 is 99.997 percent.
More than 4,000 deaths that have been tied to the administering of COVID-19 vaccines in the last four months, as opposed to 1,500 total in the previous ten years for all vaccines.
Prior experimental vaccine rollout was stopped by the government when there were 25 unexplained deaths (deemed too high).
Researchers are concerned that spike proteins from the vaccines cause disease even without the virus, cross the blood-brain barrier, and could increase auto-immune disorders.
“I’ve done my research and know that there is essentially zero percent risk for young people dying of COVID-19 and fiercely oppose the use of an untested product that has not been fully approved for use in healthy children,” said plaintiff Matt Schweder, a parent of minor children.
“I am very concerned about the way the EUAs have been handled and I don’t believe particularly young people should be pressured by the government to start taking a vaccine like this where there are so many unknowns,” he concluded.
The plaintiffs affirm in the motion that their arguments will make clear to the court, “based on the law and well-founded scientific evidence, that: the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and pushing these injections on the American people.”
Tear down the unconstitutional portion of the federal government!!!!!
We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action,” stated Dr. Angelina Farella, AFLDS Pediatric Medical Director......
I wonder how long it will be before some “expert” here dredges up some obscure factoid on Dr. Farella in order to discredit the article.
Source : https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3961456/posts
Dr. Angelina Farwereouttahere...
Nothing else she's said has been credible, so why should we assume this is? For example, she previously claimed they were doing animal trials and then stopped when all of the animals died. That is simply not a factual statement. The animals did not die, nor were the trials halted.
That's not quite as bad some of the other "expert physicians" that have been cited here as authoritative by the anti-vaxxers - including one that denies the existence of any and all diseases caused by germs and also denies the existence of appendicitis saying all cases of this are just constipation.
“The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipient. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts,” the press release says. “The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (‘disease causing’) just like the full virus.”
We are approaching levels of lunacy that are off the charts here.
Which part did you disagree with?
I wonder how long it will be before some “expert” here dredges up some obscure factoid on Dr. Farella in order to discredit the article.....
Not very....
The only thing not conclusively demonstrated is the abilioty to shed spike protein.
Everything is is reasonable.
The average mammalian cell has ~10 million ribosomes; each one can crank about 6 amino acids/sec of a protein being built. Since the spike protein is (IIRC) 1273 amino acids long, that’s just over 4 min / spike protein / ribosome.
15 spikes/hour/ribosome or 96 spikes/day/ribosome.
And the estimated lifetime of the mRNA within a cell is a day or two.
On the order of 200 spikes/ribosome x 3 of mRNA’s in a jab (100 billion or so, IIRC) x number of ribosomes involved...trillions is reasonable.
Oxford University Press just published an article where Harvard researchers found spike proteins in the blood of jab receipients a day after the jab.
And Mouse studies showed mRNA from the jab showed up all through the body (even crossing the blood-brain barrier) within 24 hours.
It’s now well established that spike proteins cause a multiple of problems in the body even without live virus.
So the only thing not yet demonstrated is the sheddding; but it is not automatically far-fetched.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.