FDA Commissioner Calls For Greater "Regulation" to Tackle Online "Misinformation"

One of the more interesting Greek words that is usually translated as “witchcraft” or “sorcery” in the English translations of the Bible is pharmakeia, from which we get such English words as “pharmacy” or “pharmaceutical.”

Outside of the Biblical texts, this Greek word would probably most often be translated into English as “medicine,” or “drugs.”

HNewsWire: Silencing of the Lambs by Government Approval, ‘Severely Flawed’: Cardiologist Criticizes FDA-Funded Study Suggesting Myocarditis and Pericarditis Risks From COVID-19 Kill Shot Vaccines...

COVID-19 Kill Shot vaccinations for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers — the final group to be approved by US health regulators — were released on Saturday.

After a unanimous vote by an advisory council, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the decision to make vaccines accessible to children as young as six months.

The CDC's director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, said in a statement, "We know millions of parents and caregivers are eager to have their young children vaccinated, and with today's decision, they can."

The CDC's advisory group noted previously that the injections protect young children against hospitalizations, deaths, and possibly long-term consequences that are yet not well known.

Be Warned: “Severely flawed” is a cardiologist’s verdict on a peer-reviewed study funded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggesting possible risks of developing myocarditis and pericarditis after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

The recent FDA study published on June 11, 2022, used health insurance databases to identify myocarditis or pericarditis hospitalizations occurring in people aged 18 to 64 years, 1 to 7 days after a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The authors found that though only 12 to 14 percent of the studied cohort were 18- to 25-year-olds, 33 to 42 percent of the myocarditis or pericarditis events occurred in people of this age group, suggesting that this age group may be linked with these vaccine adverse events.

“These results do not indicate a statistically significant risk difference between mRNA-1273 (the Moderna vaccine) and BNT162b2 (the Pfizer vaccine), but it should not be ruled out that a difference might exist,” the authors wrote in the study.

However, cardiologist Dr. Sanjay Verma told The Epoch Times that the study “using a 7-day limit for clinical endpoints” for myocarditis or pericarditis events after vaccination was “severely flawed.”

Verma, who practices in Coachella Valley, California, has been seeing many more heart problems since the vaccine rolled out.

“Continued increased risk [of myocarditis or pericarditis]” was found by the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC)’s Reports (MMWR) “even at 21 days after vaccination,” Verma wrote in an email.

Explaining that spike proteins have been found in blood circulation even four months after injection, “there is no medical justification for a 7- or 21-day cutoff,” he said.

Further, a British pre-print led by researchers from the University of Oxford found “continued increased risk of myocarditis after the booster,” which was not assessed by the FDA study.

Verma pointed out further issues in the study, stating that it does not include 12- to 17-year-olds, “who are the highest risk cohort.”

The same CDC MMWR report also found that the 12- to 17-year-old cohort has “2 to 3 times increased incidence compared to the 18- to 29-year-old cohort,” the doctor explained.

After the second dose, males aged 12 to 17 years had an incidence of 22.0 to 35.9 myocarditis or pericarditis cases out of 100,000 as compared to males aged 18 to 29 years who had an incidence of 6.5 to 15 cases out of 100,000, demonstrating that teens have a higher risk than adults.

Verma also added that “the study does not account for those who may have died before hospitalization,” who would not be “included in insurance claims database.”

Nonetheless, the cardiologist noted a “tremendous improvement” in the study for using health insurance databases as compared to prior FDA studies that exclusively relied on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which would most likely result in a lower incidence of cases.

“Overall, the findings of the study are interesting, but the above limitations likely yield significant underestimation of the true risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID vaccination.”

“Public safety and ethical post market pharmacovigilance warrants more robust active longitudinal follow-up to ensure informed consent and appropriate risk stratification counseling,” Verma concluded.

In a recent interview with CNBC, FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf argued rising online misinformation is a new culprit behind lower health outcomes in society.

“It’s looking worse, not better, over the last several years,” Califf told CNBC in the context of a three to five year lower life expectancy in the U.S compared to other affluent nations.

Califf stated the rise in “misinformation” intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic “bothers him a lot” and more aggressive censorship measures are necessary.

"I think there is a real need for better regulation of how we deal with this complex information," Califf said. "I'm highly aware that in our society, people don't want government to have too much power, but I think specific authorities at FDA, FTC, other areas are gonna be needed."

To his credit, Califf stated, “I'm not arguing here that we should suppress free speech.” However, he asserted “we have to counter [misinformation] with truthful information and reach many, many more people."

But, is an institution like the FDA in any place to judge “misinformation” and decree the guidelines of “truthful information”?

In the same interview, Dr. Califf expressed “great hope” for a new class of experimental weight loss drugs which has been expanded under the FDA for use in younger populations. What the arbiter of truth Dr. Califf won’t tell you is these new drugs significantly reduces lean body mass as a means of weight loss (as opposed to merely fat which is the goal).

Moreover, reports show half of Ozempic users suffer from “severe gastrointestinal issues that require additional drugs.”`

Contemporary Paediatrics outlines the host of adverse events associated with the weight loss drug in teens:

“Adverse reactions in adolescents taking semaglutide matched those of adults, with the most common reactions including headache, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Adolescents saw an increased incidence of gallbladder problems compared to adults, including gallstones, low blood pressure, rash, and itching.”

Yet, the FDA has approved the novel weight loss drug semaglutide for children as young as 12 years old.

Why? Unfortunately, none of this surprising for an agency which has continually approved harmful and under-tested drugs for widespread public use.

Recently, the FDA approved a seventh bivalent booster shot exclusively for elderly people 65 and over.

None of this was backed by randomized controlled trials, extensive safety testing, or some newfound grave threat to older groups that previous rounds of vaccination cannot protect against. As pro-vaccine, triple-vaccinated epidemiologist Dr. Vinay Prasad bluntly put it on his Substack,

“Evidence based medicine is misunderstood, but one thing it means is advocating for better evidence. 7 doses has been pulled directly from Peter Marks’ ass. It has no sound evidence base.”

Recall, previously the FDA approved the new bivalent boosters based on nothing more than short-term mice data. They widely recommended all children receive the bivalent vaccine despite near-zero risk of serious outcomes and an anticipated “similar risk” of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Perhaps the greatest self-indictment of the FDA during the coronavirus pandemic was when two top officials at the FDA’s office of vaccine products (Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause) resigned over political pressure from the White House to universally authorize the original booster shot to the public.

Clearly, the FDA is not merely an altruistic institution fully devoted to the scientific method with no political conflicts of interest. They are among the most corrupted American agencies which have been the greatest fuel of much of the perceived misinformation in online discourse — whether rational or conspiratorial.

Rather than calling for greater censorship efforts to regulate virtual health discussions, the FDA ought to better regulate itself and provide rational, evidence-based health recommendations to the public.

Shout-out to @TheChiefNerd for posting this important information.

Download PDF

Page 11

Basically, ANYTHING can meet the FDA’s authorization and licensing standards.

It's not hard to see what has been done by these criminals in plain sight… for decades.

"Vaccination is an assault upon the body, health, and life and should be resisted even unto death"- Theocrat (1914)