Sunday, October 24, 2021

COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed/ Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/covid-vaccine-injury-claims-mount-recourse-is-lacking-those-harmed-2021-10-19/

(Reuters) - As the Biden administration puts the final touches on an emergency COVID-19 vaccine mandate for companies with 100 or more employees, a crucial piece seems to be missing for the unlucky few who experience serious side effects: meaningful legal recourse.

More than 1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal, which to date has decided only two such cases, one involving swelling of the tongue and throat following the jab, the other alleging long-lasting, severe shoulder pain.

In both instances, the government, which requires claimants to prove their injuries are “the direct result” of a COVID-19 vaccine, denied compensation.

It’s a steep burden of proof. Lawyers tell me the vaccine is so new that there’s virtually no definitive research on injury causation to cite.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of all litigants under what's known as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program have not succeeded. According to program data, 29 claims have been paid for injuries stemming from other vaccines since the tribunal’s inception in 2010. (Ten additional claims won approval but no compensation.) The other 455 claims – 92% – were denied or otherwise deemed ineligible for review...

Not a single COVID vaccine injury claim has been paid by the program, and the statute of limitations for filing claims is a miserable one year. So how do you get the evidence to prove your claim when it does not yet exist? 

White House ready to ship out 15 million child size COVID vaccine doses the week the vaccines are authorized by FDA and blessed by CDC

Kids 5-11 will be receiving their COVID vaccinations in the pediatricians' offices, from people they trust, according to the White House.

Does anyone else think it is fishy how at the beginning of the roll out, you had to go to huge vaccine centers to get your shot, where no one could actually explain things to you?  It was claimed this was because special extra cold freezers were needed. I'm not sure why you needed a stadium for special freezers--Because Science, I guess.  I now suspect it was so your trusted primary care doctor had no opportunity to tell you about potential risks and unknowns.

It seems those special freezers are no longer an issue...

Now the issue is making sure those trusted sources have the info Mr. Transparent Himself Fauci wants them to convey. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/politics/white-house-covid-vaccines-for-children-rollout/index.html

"Murthy said that ensuring that parents had the answers to their questions was "really important," and so they have been working hard with doctors, nurses, teachers, parents and other community organizations to make sure that people can get the answers to their questions from trusted sources.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said getting kids vaccinated can help ensure the safety of their entire family during an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "Prime Time" Wednesday evening. Fauci recognized "parents have valid questions that need to be answered" about vaccinating their children.

"It's up to us to be very transparent with them, and to give them the correct answers to the questions they ask," he continued. "I think if we do that, I hope that the vast majority of parents will realize the real benefit for the children to get vaccinated."'

 Benefit to Pfizer?  Fauci?  Klaus Schwab?


Recovered immunity is weak "Because science"/CDC

"Because science" is new slang terminology that refers to bogus explanations or justifications for why things are done a certain way during the pandemic.

I have come to love the term because it encapsulates the contempt for the public evidenced by officials who usually know little about science but regurgitate "the science" to justify some unjustifiable policy.

Aaro Siri, a wonderful attorney, has challenged US health agencies on many of their illogical and often illegal pandemic policies.

He just posted the exchange he has had with CDC over its refusal to acknowledge the presence of immunity to COVID in the recovered.

While the whole document is interesting, the very end contains some of CDC's "because science" answers.

Let me explain what CDC has been doing over the past year:  whenever there is strong evidence that shows a CDC claim or policy is dead wrong, CDC's "scientists" conduct a bogus study which can involve cherrypicking endpoints, choosing specially selected time periods, and a variety of other shenanigans to produce "evdience" that calls into question the real science.  They have done this with masks, lockdowns, recovered immunity, and vaccines for children, that I can recall off the bat.  I worked with a group of scientists who tried to reproduce the CDC's calculations.  But we couldn't, because even though the CDC "scientists" were friendly and seemingly open, they never would provide enough information on their data set and their algorithm(s) for us to check their work.  Clearly that was CDC policy, even though it flies in the face of standard ICMJE medical publication standards.

And that is what they did in this case.  Despite mountains of evidence regarding the strength of recovered immunity, CDC just cited its own bogus study, while leaving the door open in case "the science" changed in the future.  Where is the shame?

And, the agencies don't mind dragging litigation on forever, since it is your money that is paying for it.

The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children/ WSJ

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868

The agency overcounts Covid hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient.

Henry Cantlin,12, gets a Covid-19 vaccine in Philadelphia, May 14.

A tremendous number of government and private policies affecting kids are based on one number: 335. That is how many children under 18 have died with a Covid diagnosis code in their record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet the CDC, which has 21,000 employees, hasn’t researched each death to find out whether Covid caused it or if it involved a pre-existing medical condition.

Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15. I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.

My research team at Johns Hopkins worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia. If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses. The National Education Association has been debating whether to urge schools to require vaccination before returning to school in person. How can they or anyone debate the issue without the right data?

Meanwhile, we’ve already seen inflated Covid death numbers in the U.S. revised downward. Last month Alameda County, Calif., reduced its Covid death toll by 25% after state public-health officials insisted that deaths be attributed to Covid only if the virus was a direct or contributing factor.

Organizations and politicians who are eager to get every living American vaccinated are following the CDC without understanding the limitations of the methodology. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claimed that vaccinating a million adolescent kids would prevent 200 hospitalizations and one death over four months. But the agency’s Covid adolescent hospitalization report, like its death count, doesn’t distinguish on the website whether a child is hospitalized for Covid or with Covid. The subsequent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of that analysis revealed that 45.7% “were hospitalized for reasons that might not have been primarily related” to Covid-19.

Hospitals routinely test patients being admitted for other complaints even if there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid. An asymptomatic child who tests positive after being injured in a bicycle accident would be counted as a “Covid hospitalization.”

The CDC may also be undercapturing data on vaccine complications. The CDC’s risk-benefit analysis for vaccinating all children used rates of complications extrapolated from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database, known as Vaers, which contains raw, self-reported data that is unverified and likely underreports adverse events. The CDC or the Food and Drug Administration should expeditiously assign doctors to research each of the thousands of vaccine complications reported to Vaers.

Authorities should also consider whether a single-vaccine dose is a safer option for healthy kids. Researchers at Tel Aviv University reported that a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine was 100% effective against infection in kids 12 to 15. Not only has the CDC refused to examine the possibility of a one-dose regimen for minors; Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff told me he was kicked off the advisory committee working group on Covid-vaccine safety after he expressed a dissenting opinion.

The CDC’s poor performance isn’t limited to kids or vaccine safety. Early in the pandemic the CDC left us all flying blind by not reporting the medical conditions of those who died of Covid. Collecting this information early would have made it easier to protect nursing-home residents and patients with renal failure or diabetes. It took until March 2021 for the CDC to report that 78% of Covid hospitalizations were among overweight or obese patients.

Most striking, the CDC has never systematically collected and reported the No. 1 leading indicator of the pandemic—daily new hospitalizations for Covid sickness. Instead, the CDC offers the lagging indicator of hospitalization for anyone who tests positive for Covid.

The CDC data on natural-immunity rates is similarly disappointing. The CDC reports this measure in fragments on their website, but it’s outdated and some states are listed as having “no data available.” The low priority given to this indicator is consistent with how public-health officials have played down and ignored natural immunity in their drive to get everyone vaccinated.

Given the tremendous resources of the CDC and FDA, which together employ 39,000, these agencies ought to be able to report the statistics needed to make informed policy decisions. If the data are incomplete or flawed, so too will be the decisions derived from them. The vaccine’s benefits may outweigh its risks for healthy kids, but the government shouldn’t try to push that conclusion based on faulty data.

Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School. He is author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care—and How to Fix It.”

Dear Pfizer… Leave our Kids alone/ The Expose

 https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/24/dear-pfizer-leave-our-kids-alone/

Pfizer plans to go to the FDA to get authorization for vaccination of 5 to 12 year old children based on a study they claim to have completed. The Biden administration is on board. 

This is absolutely reckless, dangerous based on lack of safety data and poor research methodology, and without any scientific basis.

Are children at risk for Covid-19 that would warrant a vaccine? What does the evidence show? 



By Paul Elias Alexander, PhD
Canadian health researcher and a former
Trump administration official at the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services during the COVID-19 pandemic


The infection mortality rate (IFR) is roughly similar (or likely lower once all infection data are collected) to seasonal influenza. Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis identified 36 studies (43 estimates) along with an additional 7 preliminary national estimates (50 pieces of data) and concluded that among people <70 years old across the world, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with a median of 0.05% across the different global locations (with a corrected median of 0.04%). Survival for those under 70 years is 99.5% (Ioannidis update). Moreover, with a focus on children, “The estimated IFR is close to zero for children and young adults.” The global data is unequivocal that “deaths from Covid are incredibly rare” in children.

The published evidence is conclusive that the risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19 in children is almost nil (statistical zero) and this evidence has accumulated for well over a year now; in fact we knew this for over 18 months. It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading to adults as seen in household transmission studies, or of taking it home or becoming ill, or dying, and this is settled scientific global evidence. Children are less at risk of developing severe illness courses, and also are far less susceptible and likely to spread and drive SARS-CoV-2 (references 1234). This implies that any mass injection/inoculation or even clinical trials on children with such near zero risk of spread and illness/death is contraindicated, unethical, and potentially associated with significant harm.

The risk-benefit discussion for children with these Covid-19 injections is a very different one than that for adults. The fact is that this is a completely novel and experimental injection therapy with no medium or long-term safety data (or even definitive effectiveness data). If we move forward with the vaccination of our children without the proper safety testing, then we will present them with potentially catastrophic risk, including deaths in some.

A team of Johns Hopkins researchers recently reported that when they looked at a group of about 48,000 children in the US infected with the virus, they found no (zero) Covid deaths among the healthy kids. Dr. Makary indicated that his team “worked with the non-profit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020…after studying comprehensive data on thousands of children, the team “found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.”

With this background, we knew of the very low risk to children in the first place, but wanted scientific documentation (molecular/biological) of why this low risk existed, to help support our argument against these injections in our children. The evidence presented below (including on the risk of the injection itself) may help explain why children are not candidates for the Covid vaccines (here and here) and may well be (are) immune and can be considered “fully vaccinated.”

The key arguments are:

1.) The virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited (less) expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways); this partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill; the biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children as reported eloquently by Patel and Bunyavanich. By bypassing this natural protection (limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid, this could release vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG), and generated spike into the circulation that could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g. hereherehereherehere).

2) Recent research (August 2021) by Loske deepens our understanding of this natural type biological/molecular protection even further by showing that pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection…resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.”

3) When one is vaccinated or gets infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution, and clonal evolution of B cells which is key to encoding humoral immune memory. There is recent research evidence by Yang published in Science (May 2021) that blood examined from children retrieved prior to Covid-19 pandemic have memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2, suggestive of the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses (coronaviruses). This is supported by Mateus et al. who reported on T cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection). 

4) Weisberg and Farber et al. suggest (and building on research work by Kumar and Faber) that the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. They argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses.

5) Risk: There is an emerging discussion that with approximately 570 Covid injection deaths registered in VAERS in children, and the CDC reporting approximately 350 deaths in children since the inception of the emergency (Feb/March 2020), then the vaccine is killing more children than the virus/disease itself (Steve Kirsh, personal communication, September 2nd 2021).

What can be concluded? Pulling these emerging research findings together strengthens the case that children are not candidates for the Covid vaccines and are to be considered already “fully and completely Covid-vaccinated.” Furthermore, as lucidly outlined by Whelan, it is potentially disastrous to children if we move forward with vaccines without proper study of the possible harms to them. Vaccine developers failed to conduct the proper safety studies and for the duration that would unravel any harms. 

Regulators: please slow down and demand safety testing, no matter how long it takes. Conduct proper risk-benefit analyses and see that the injections are contraindicated in children. Particular care is needed with regard to the potential widespread injection of children before there are any real data on the safety or effectiveness of these injections.

There is very little risk and no data or evidence or science to justify any of the Covid-19 injections in children. Under no circumstance should we expose the risk of the injections to children, and to consider putting risk on children so as to protect adults is perverse and reckless and very dangerous. There is no safety data. The focus rather has to be on early treatment and testing (sero antibody or T cell) to establish who is a credible candidate for these injections if properly ethically informed and consented, for it is very dangerous to layer inoculation on top of existing Covid-recovered, naturally acquired immunity (no benefit and only potential harm/adverse effects) (hereherehereherehere, and here). 

We must establish who is Covid-recovered, which is natural immunity, as this is a critical piece of the puzzle before any injection. Additionally, if public health agency leaders Fauci, Walensky, and Collins continue to demand that our children be vaccinated, then they must remove liability protection for all who benefit from it.

What does all of this mean? A biological and molecular (as well as epidemiological) argument was presented that shows children are already ‘vaccinated.’ Pfizer and all Covid vaccine developers (including Walensky of the CDC, Fauci of NIAID, and Francis Collins of the NIH) must step away from our children and only discuss this if they remove liability protection from the table. 

If they have no risk on the table, then we cannot take this chance as parents. Something then is not entirely proper about these vaccines in our children. If children are at such low risk, then it should be a problem for these officials and vaccine developers to remove their protection. With such low risk in children and no opportunity for benefit and just costs in terms of possible harms, then these vaccines are a ‘no go’ for our children.  

I believe we, the people, are living now in a version of an abusive relationship with our government. Words I do not use lightly or to cause offence.

https://www.gbnews.uk/shows/neil-oliver-we-are-not-stupid-and-we-must-not-let-the-government-treat-us-as-though-we-are/146544

PUBLISHED 

I watch world leaders speaking on TV, and I listen to and read the news, and I wonder how stupid they all think we are.

Take our own prime minister Boris Johnson. He was on Sky News this week and acknowledged that while the vaccine, offers a level of "protection against illness and death" it "doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on“

Surely that sentence right there means vaccine passports would be meaningless and pointless. Even if the day comes when every single person in the UK – from newborn babies upwards – has received the vaccines – the virus, assuming our prime minister’s statement is to be trusted, will continue to be spread among the population. Knowing that someone has been vaccinated will make no difference to whether or not you might catch Covid from them – or whether you might pass Covid on.

The inference to be drawn from Mr Johnson’s words is that the virus will continue to pass between vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. It may reasonably be inferred, therefore, that continued talk of vaccine passports is not about controlling the spread of the virus – rather it must be about controlling the movement of people seeking only to go about their law-abiding business.

You can’t go to a large event in Scotland without a vaccine passport – but 30,000 VIPs and hangers on at the upcoming Climate Conference in Glasgow face no such restriction.

I ask again – how stupid do they think we are? Mr Johnson went straight on from that significant sentence to urging everyone to go and get their booster shots – which is to say, a third dose of one of the vaccines.

The Sun newspaper carried a frontpage headline that read: “Perfect Shot Third dose of Pfizer Covid jab gives almost total immunity, scientists reveal.”

Really? So three times is the charm?

If I was as stupid as they seem to think I am, I wouldn’t notice that Big Media and Big Pharma, are largely owned by vast asset management firms Black Rock and Vanguard. But I’m not that stupid, and I have noticed.

Let’s remember that the vaccines we are talking about here, in the context of boosters, are the same vaccines they have always been, just being offered for the third time.


I have to ask myself whether sources of news are aware that since the advent of that thing called The Internet we have been able to roam the world in search of news in other countries.

Israel is one of the most enthusiastically vaccinated nations on the planet. The government there has already administered millions of third doses of the Pfizer vaccine to its population. And yet scientists and health professionals there are making plans to administer a fourth dose. That’s a fourth dose of the same vaccine.In light of us being able to read about plans for a fourth dose of Pfizer in Israel, why should or would we trust the suggestion that a third dose of that same vaccine, administered here in the UK rather than in Israel, would offer, “almost total immunity?”

Much of the legacy media is already drooling at the prospect of the reintroduction of restrictions to our lives. Masks, social distancing and working from home are hotly anticipated by many journalists, like early presents from Santa.

Once again, the Sword of Damocles is dangled over our heads. Health Secretary Sajid Javid made plain that either the third dose of vaccines is taken up in vast numbers, or some of us shall require another slap. If not enough get vaccinated, it is more likely restrictions will be reintroduced in England, he said.

It was only relatively recently that I learned our leaders have, since 2010, been making use of something called a behavioural insights team. Known unofficially as the Nudge Unit, it openly – and without causing our leaders the merest blush of shame – seeks to influence public thinking and decision making in order to improve compliance with government policy.

A Nudge Unit. Psychology, Marketing and Social Engineering are all exploited by the Nudge Unit. We are not alone in being nudged. All around the world there are other governments with nudge units – in North America, Asia, throughout Europe and Australasia – teams of psychologist and other specialists, expert in nudging – open brackets, frightening, close brackets – unsuspecting populations of law-abiding citizens into doing what the governments want. I ask myself if our leaders even like us.

I have said before on this channel that I believe we, the people, are living now in a version of an abusive relationship with our government. Words I do not use lightly or to cause offence.

Behavioural Insights Team … Nudge Unit … if your partner was using mind games and other psychological tricks to make you do what he or she wanted, always with the undisguised threat of unhappy consequences should you fail to comply or submit to those wants, you’d be right in thinking you were in an abusive relationship with that person.

Here’s the thing for me: For months, years now, I’ve been fighting to stay afloat in an ocean of numbers and statistics. They fly in the air like bullets and shells from all sides. It’s been like standing in no man’s land in the middle of an endless battle. I have mostly stopped reading the numbers and simply remind myself that this all began with three weeks to flatten the curve and yet now we face hobbled lives for ever more.

So, in no particular order, I no longer trust the political class, scientists, medical professionals, the judiciary, the media and others besides.

For me now this is about nothing less than morality, right and wrong. Governments make laws. But just because a government makes something law, does not necessarily make that law moral, which is to say right. History is littered with the consequences of immoral laws passed in all sorts of places.

I say a government that uses a Nudge Unit to manipulate, via social engineering and psychological techniques, the behaviour of the people it has been elected to serve – not to rule, remember, but to serve – is immoral. Millions of people in this country have been hurt too badly by what has unfolded here since the spring of 2020. Millions of people have been driven – metaphorically if not literally – to their knees by lockdown and the rest. The health outcomes of millions, the future prospects of generations, have been compromised, far too many beyond repair.

We are not stupid. We have, however, been too trusting. More than anything else, this is now about our freedom as human beings. But, if we do submit to any more erosion of our civil liberties then we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is our country and the government are our servants, paid for by us. And I tell you now that I won’t submit to immoral laws. Submitting to the law means less to me – a lot less – than being guided by my morals, by that which I know to be right, and not wrong.

Abraham Lincoln said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”

We have not been a nation of cowardly men or women. We are not stupid either. We must not let them treat us as though we are.

Saturday, October 23, 2021

AHS extends vaccination deadline for staff. Alberta Canada Health Department with over 100,000 staff rolls back deadline. Remain Firm!

https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/10/breaking-ahs-extends-vaccination-deadline-for-staff/

Alberta Health Services is pushing back its vaccination deadline for its 108,000 staff until November 30.

The AHS originally set October 31 as the deadline for staff to be double-vaxxed or face discipline, including being placed on unpaid leave.

“We stand by the mandatory immunization policy and it will be fully implemented,” said AHS president and CEO, Dr. Verna Yiu...


Friday, October 22, 2021

CDC director: U.S. may change definition of "fully vaccinated" as boosters roll out

https://www.axios.com/cdc-fully-covid-vaccinated-definition-update-5c2312d9-64f4-4bb7-a289-04c00889a573.html

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Friday the U.S. "may need to update" its definition for what it means to have full vaccination against COVID.

The big picture: The CDC and the FDA have officially approved boosters with every authorized vaccine in the U.S. for people who meet specific requirements. Walensky explained that since not everyone is eligible for a booster, the definition has not been changed "yet."

Currently, the CDC's definition is the following: "Fully vaccinated persons are those who are ≥14 days post-completion of the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine."

What they're saying: "We have not yet changed the definition of 'fully vaccinated.' We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of 'fully vaccinated' in the future," Walensky said during a press briefing.

She also encouraged those eligible to get boosters: "If you're eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster," she said.

15 minute radio interview I did today with a local station on COVID vaccines

The clinical trial placebo subjects were all offered real vaccinations at a mean of 2 months into the trials.  (Somehow I said six, duh.) Pfizer said about 98% of the placebo subjects were then vaccinated.

https://www.wvomfm.com/episode/ghrt-rewind-10-22-dr-meryl-nass-1600/

Thursday, October 21, 2021

I and many others suggested in the first half of 2020 that it was likely SARS-CoV-2 was created as a chimera of bat viruses and passaged in humanized mice. Seems like we were right

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/01/nih-bat-coronavirus-grant-ecohealth-alliance/

NIH BAT CORONAVIRUS GRANT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATE

The unusual timing of a bat coronavirus grant report suggests that an earlier version may have been revised.

The annual report described the group’s work from June 2017 to May 2018, which involved creating new viruses using different parts of existing bat coronaviruses and inserting them into humanized mice in a lab in Wuhan, China. The work was overseen by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci.

Neither the NIH nor the EcoHealth Alliance offered an explanation for the date of the report or responded to questions from The Intercept about whether another version of the report had been submitted on time and, if so, in what ways that version may have been altered.

The Intercept is seeking any missing progress reports, among other documents, through ongoing litigation against the NIH.

The agency has been criticized for withholding information that might relate to the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, which is now responsible for more than 4.5 million deaths around the world...