Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (“ADE”) occurs when SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, created by a Vaccine, instead of protecting the vaccinated person, cause a more severe or lethal case of the COVID-19 disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild.9
The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage. It may only be seen after months or years of use in populations around the world.
This paradoxical reaction has been seen in other vaccines and animal trials. One well-documented example is with the Dengue fever vaccine, which resulted in avoidable deaths.
Dengue fever has caused 100-400 million infections, 500,000 hospitalizations, and a 2.5% fatality rate annually worldwide. It is a leading cause of death in children in Asian and Latin American countries. Despite over 50 years of active research, a Dengue vaccine still has not gained widespread approval in large part due to the phenomenon of ADE. Vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pharmaceutical spent 20 years and nearly $2 billion to develop the Dengue vaccine and published their results in the New England Journal of Medicine, which was quickly endorsed by
the World Health Organization.
Vigilant scientists clearly warned about the danger from ADE, which the Philippines ignored when it administered the vaccine to hundreds of thousands of children in 2016. Later, when these children were exposed in the wild, many became severely ill and 600 children died.
The former head of the Dengue department of the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) was indicted in 2019 by the Philippines Department of Justice for “reckless imprudence resulting [in] homicide,” because he “facilitated, with undue haste,”
Dengvaxia’s approval and its rollout among Philippine schoolchildren.10
ADE has been observed in the coronavirus setting. The original SARS-CoV-1 caused an epidemic in 2003. This virus is a coronavirus that is reported to be 78% similar to the current SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the disease COVID-19.
Scientists attempted to create a vaccine.
Of approximately 35 vaccine candidates, the best four were trialed in ferrets. The vaccines appeared to work in the ferrets. However, when those vaccinated ferrets were challenged by SARS-CoV-1 in the wild, they became very ill and died due to what we would term a sudden severe cytokine storm. The reputed journals Science, Nature, and Journal of Infectious Diseases have all documented ADE risks in relation to the development of experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
The application filed by Dr. Yeadon with the European Medicines Agency on December 1, 2020, also mentioned the risk from ADE. ADE is discovered during long-term animal studies, to which the Vaccines have not been subjected.
Effect on the Young
The Vaccines are more deadly or harmful to the young than the virus, and that is excluding the unknown future effects on fertility, clotting, and autoimmune disease.
Those under the age of 18 face statistically zero chance of death from SARS-CoV-2 according to data published by the CDC, but there are reports of heart inflammation — both myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
— in young men, and at least one documented fatal heart attack of a healthy 15-year old boy in Colorado two days after receiving the Pfizer Vaccine.8
The CDC has admitted that “[s]ince April 2021, increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in
adolescents and young adults.
More Virulent Strains
Scientists are concerned that universal inoculation may create more virulent strains. This has been observed with Marek’s Disease in chickens.11 A large number of chickens not at risk of death were vaccinated, and now all chickens must be vaccinated or they will die from a virus that was nonlethal prior to widespread vaccination. The current policy to pursue universal vaccination regardless of risk may exert the same evolutionary pressure toward more highly virulent strains.
Presently, the vaccinated are permitted to donate their spike protein-laden blood into the blood supply, which projects all of the risks discussed supra onto the general population of unvaccinated blood donees.
Scientists and healthcare professionals all over the world are sounding the alarm and frantically appealing to the FDA to halt the Vaccines. They have made innumerable public statements.
Fifty-seven top scientists and doctors from Central and South America are calling for an immediate end to all Vaccine COVID-19 programs. Other physician-scientist groups have made similar calls, among them: Canadian Physicians, Israeli People’s Committee, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, World Doctors Alliance, Doctors 4 Covid Ethics, and Plaintiff America’s Frontline Doctors.
These are healthcare professionals in the field who are seeing the catastrophic and deadly results of the rushed Vaccines, and reputed professors of science and medicine, including the physician with the greatest number of COVID-19 scientific citations worldwide. They accuse the government of deviating from long-standing policy to protect the public. In the past, government has halted vaccine trials based on a tiny fraction — far less than
1% — of the number of unexplained deaths already recorded.
The scientists all agree that the spike protein (produced by the Vaccines) causes disease even without the virus, which has motivated them to lend their imprimatur to, and risk their reputation and standing on, these public objections.
There are numerous alternative safe and effective treatments for COVID-19.
These alternatives are supported by over 300 studies, including randomized controlled studies. Tens of thousands of physicians have publicly attested, and many have testified under oath, as to the safety and efficacy of the alternatives.
Globally and in the United States, treatments such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Dexamethasone, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies, Vitamin D, Zinc, Azithromycin, Hydroxychloroquine, Colchicine and Remdesivir are being used
to great effect, and they are far safer than the COVID-19 Vaccines.12
Doctors from the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health and the Saint Barnabas Medical Center have published an Observational Study on 255 Mechanically
Ventilated COVID Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic, which states: “Causal modeling establishes that weight-adjusted HCQ [Hydroxychloroquine] and AZM [Azithromycin] therapy improves survival by over 100%.”13
12 Numerous studies can be reviewed here: https://c19early.com (last visited June 7, 2021).
Observational studies in Delhi and Mexico City show dramatic reductions in COVID-19 case and death counts following the mass distribution of Ivermectin. These results align with those of a study in Argentina, in which 800 healthcare professionals received Ivermectin, while another 400 did not. Of the 800, not a single person contracted COVID-19, while more than half
of the control group did contract it.
Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung specialist who has treated more COVID-19 patients than most doctors, representing a group of some of the most highly published physicians in the world, with over 2,000 peer-reviewed publications among them, testified before the U.S. Senate in December 2020.14 He testified that based on 9 months of review of scientific data from 30 studies, Ivermectin obliterates transmission of the SARS-CoV2 virus and is a powerful prophylactic (if you take it, you will not contract COVID-19). Four large randomized controlled trials totaling over 1500 patients demonstrate that Ivermectin is safe
and effective as a prophylaxis.
In early outpatient treatment, three randomized controlled trials and multiple observational studies show that Ivermectin reduces the need for hospitalization and death in statistically significant numbers. In inpatient treatment, four randomized controlled trials show that Ivermectin prevents death in a statistically significant, large magnitude.
Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for its impacts on global health.
Inexplicably, the Defendants never formed or assigned a task force to research and review existing alternatives for preventing and treating COVID-19. Instead, the Defendants and others set about censoring both concerns about the Vaccines, and information about safe and effective alternatives.
The Vaccines are Not Approved by the FDA, but Merely Authorized for Emergency Use
Defendants have failed to educate the American public that the FDA has not actually “approved” the Vaccines, and that the DHHS Secretary has not in fact determined that the
Vaccines are “safe and effective,” and on the contrary has merely determined, in accordance with the proverbial “weasel language” of the EUA statute, that “it is reasonable to believe” that the Vaccines “may be” effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Instead of being so educated, the public is barraged with unqualified “safe and effective” messaging from all levels of federal and state government, the private sector and the media. They hear from no higher
authority than the President himself that: “The bottom line is this: I promise you they are safe.
They are safe. And even more importantly, they’re extremely effective. If you’re vaccinated, you are protected.”
The public is also unaware of the serious financial conflicts-of-interest that burden Dr. Fauci, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee which advises and consults Defendants with respect to
the Vaccine EUAs, as outlined in the Complaint (ECF 10, ¶¶ 250-256). Without the information regarding conflicts of interest, the public cannot assess for themselves the reliability and objectivity of the analysis underpinning the EUAs.
The Significant Known and Potential Risks of the Vaccines
Perhaps the first step in understanding the potential risks of the Vaccines is to understand exactly what they are, and what they are not. The CDC defines a “vaccine” as: “A product that
stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
The CDC defines “immunity” as:
“Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
However, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” do not meet the CDC’s own definitions. They do not stimulate the body to produce immunity from a disease. They are a synthetic fragment of nucleic acid embedded in a fat carrier that is introduced into human cells, not for the purpose of inducing immunity from infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and not to block further transmission of the virus, but in order to lessen the symptoms of COVID-19.
No published, peer-reviewed studies prove that the “PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” confer immunity or stop transmission.
Further, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” are not “vaccines” within the common, lay understanding of the public. Since vaccines were first discovered in 1796 by Dr. Edward Jenner, who used cowpox to inoculate humans against smallpox, and called the process “vaccination” (from the Latin term vaca for cow), the public has had an entrenched understanding that a vaccine is a microorganism, either alive but weakened, or dead, that is introduced into the human body in order to trigger the production of antibodies that confer immunity from the targeted disease, and also prevent its transmission to
others. The public is accustomed to these traditional vaccines and understands them.
* The public is fundamentally uninformed about the gene therapy technology behind the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Referring to the “mRNA technology” in its Vaccine, Moderna admits the “novel and unprecedented nature of this new class of medicines” in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Further, it admits that the FDA classes its Vaccine as a form of “gene therapy.” No dead or attenuated virus is used in the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Rather, instructions, via a piece of lab-created genetic code (the mRNA) are injected into your body that tell your body how to make a certain “spike protein” that is purportedly useful in attacking the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
By referring to the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID19 Vaccine” as “vaccines,” and by allowing others to do the same, the Defendants knowingly seduce and mislead the public, short-circuit independent, critical evaluation and decision-making by the consumers of these products, and vitiate their informed consent to this novel technology which is being deployed in the unsuspecting human population for the first time in history.
Meanwhile, the federal government is orchestrating a nationwide media campaign funded with $1 billion — not to ensure that the Defendants meet their statutory disclosure obligations, but solely to promote the purported benefits of the Vaccines.
Global Media Capture
Simultaneously, the Associated Press, Agence France Press, British Broadcasting Corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The
Hindu Times, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post and The New York Times all participate in the “Trusted News Initiative” which has agreed to not allow any news critical of the Vaccines.
Individual physicians are being censored on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok), the modern day “public square.” Plaintiff AFLDS has recorded innumerable instances of social media deleting scientific content posted by AFLDS members that runs counter to the prevailing Vaccine narrative, and then banning them from the platform altogether as users. Facebook has blocked the streaming of entire events at which AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold has been an invited guest, prior to her uttering a word.
Other doctors have been banned for posting or tweeting screenshots of government database VAERS.
The censorship also extends to medical journals. In an unprecedented move, the four founding topic editors for the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal all resigned together due to their collective inability to publish peer-reviewed scientific data on various drugs for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.
Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, a cardiology physician, former France Health Minister, 2017 candidate for Director of the WHO and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, described the censorship in chilling detail:
The Lancet boss said, “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently, methodologically perfect but in reality, which manage to conclude what they want to conclude.” … one of the greatest subjects never anyone could have believed …
I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too.
He even said it was “criminal” — the word was used by him. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID-19, in reality, there are people … us.