Wednesday, November 17, 2021

My testimony to New Hampshire's Education Committee on 11/16/21 re: an amendment to a bill that would ban Covid vaccine mandates everywhere in the state

I'd guess 500 people came out to support this amendment, while I counted 14 sitting in the masked section of the room who spoke against.

My personal favorite quote came from someone who told the committee, "New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die." If you won't follow it, send it to DeSantis in Florida!"  They said it in a much snappier way.

My favorite from my testimony, which had to be reduced to 3 minutes at the last moment, was me saying, right before I was cut off, that three major US cities were vaccinating children without parental permission.  The audible gasp in the room was LOUD.

Here is what I wrote:

Boris Johnson recently said, QUOTE " [The vaccine] doesn't protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn't protect you from passing it on."

CDC Director Walensky said QUOTE " The vaccines no longer prevent transmission."

In a high quality study of all VA beneficiaries just published in Science, by September the J and J vaccine was only 13% effective against infection, the Pfizer 43% and the Moderna 58%.

In a new University of California study in over 500 vaxxed and unvaxxed people who tested positive for COVID, the amounts of virus in saliva were the same. They could transmit the infection to others, equally. 

The UK's top vaccine expert, Sir Andrew Pollard, said in August, regarding Covid vaccines, QUOTE:  "Herd immunity is not a possibility." "We need to focus about how do we prevent dying or going to hospital"

Please understand this since we cannot achieve herd immunity with our vaccines, the inevitable result is that practically everyone will eventually get the disease.  Vaccines cannot achieve safe schools and workplaces, because the vaccinated can still transmit, even when asymptomatic.

While public health leaders are hoping that frequent boosters will kick the can down the road, there is no reason to think boosters will prevent transmission, when the initial series didn't. 

Instead, it is crucial that we immediately focus on preventing severe disease and death-- and early treatment can do this. It saves hospitalizations and lives.  This is great news.  Why doesn't everyone know it?

Because, had the benefit of existing drugs been acknowledged, there could have been no Emergency Use Authorizations issued for vaccines, remdesivir, or monoclonal antibodies --all of which are multibillion dollar, patented products.  QUOTING FDA: "For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product."

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were approved, adequate and available--and cheap. Thus they had to be suppressed.

Many drugs and supplements have efficacy against COVID.  I created a handout of treatments for you.  Please do not allow therapies for Covid to be restricted.  Don't allow doctors and pharmacists to be persecuted for providing these critical medications.

Few people are aware that in a Senate hearing on May 11 Senator Richard Burr asked Dr. Fauci, Dr. Peter Marks of FDA and Dr. Walensky, the CDC Director, what percentage of the employees in their agencies were vaccinated.  None provided a number.  Fauci and Marks guessed that a bit over half were vaccinated. 

What did thousands of scientists in the NIH, FDA and CDC know that you didn't know?

  • ·  They knew about sky high rates of myocarditis in young men, which had been discussed in the Israeli media in April, but was not disclosed in the US until June. 

  • ·   They knew that deaths after vaccination were extremely high--much higher than reported for any other vaccine, ever.  CDC says that VAERS (its vaccine adverse event reporting system) received over 9,000 reports of US deaths related to Covid vaccines, but claims they are rare. RARE? Record-setting deaths have also been reported in the UK and Europe after COVID vaccinations.

There have been more deaths reported to VAERS for Covid vaccines in 10 months than were reported for every vaccine used in the US over 30 years Let me repeat that. If you add together every report of a vaccine-associated death that has ever been reported to VAERS for 30 years, for all vaccines, the total is less than the deaths reported for COVID vaccines.  Half the deaths occurred within 48 hours of a vaccination.  And although CDC has not investigated them all, it still claims that QUOTE" A review of available clinical information... has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines." But they haven't linked the deaths to anything else, either.

Let me talk about kids.  CDC estimates that 147 million Americans have already had Covid-- and that at least half of our kids are already immune.  But FDA and CDC have not seen fit to allow Americans to use any available test:  not PCR, not antibody, not T cell nor any combination of tests to prove immunity. Yet FDA accepts antibody tests as evidence of immunity in Covid vaccine clinical trials. Why the double standard?  It seems the reason to deny natural immunity is to force everyone to be vaccinated, whether they need it or not.

If the vaccines were safe, this policy would be less egregious.  But they aren't safe.  The younger you are, the greater is the risk of myocarditis.  Reported myocarditis rates in 12-17 year old males after vaccination are 100 times higher than for men over 65. One study showed that teenage boys are 3-6 times as likely to be hospitalized for a post-vaccine case of myocarditis as for a case of COVID.

Myocarditis is a serious side effect, which can cause sudden arrhythmic death.  After 3 months, 25% of kids with myocarditis have still not recovered. No one knows how common this side effect will be in the 5-11 year olds, since it was not reported in Pfizer's trial, which lasted only an average of 17 days after full vaccination for half the child subjects.

Dr. Eric Rubin, the New England Journal editor, said at FDA's 5-11 year old vaccine advisory meeting, QUOTE "We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. " FDA knows our children are the guinea pigs, and now you do too.

Did you know that in Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco children as young as 12 are being vaccinated without parental consent or notice?  JAMA Pediatrics published an article last month calling for states to amend the law to allow children to consent for themselves.  Will New Hampshire support this attack on parental authority?

All pediatric COVID vaccines are used under EUAs.  These remove manufacturer liability from the vaccines, unless willful misconduct can be proved.  Under the PREP Act, a finding of Willful misconduct requires that the manufacturer knew there was a problem with their vaccines, but sold them anyway.

The unforeseen consequence of the PREP Act is that it gives manufacturers a huge incentive to perform the most minimal testing of their products--because if they did not know there was a problem, they cannot be sued for misconduct. Why are we allowing experimental products that have been inadequately tested, are dangerous in older children, and were produced by a manufacturer who can't be sued, to be injected into our children 

But these facts have been obscured by a smokescreen of fatuous "safe and effective" claims made by financially conflicted organizations.  Did they tell you that if your child is injured, you are unlikely to collect a penny?  Did they tell you that the compensation program for EUA injuries has not compensated a single Covid drug or vaccine injury--despite a one year statute of limitations?

Under US law, you have the right to refuse EUAs And you must be informed of all that is known and unknown about risks and benefits But neither of these two requirements are being followed.

Since the pandemic, the rule of law has been tossed aside.  I urge you to learn about the law governing use of EUA products, so I have provided you the relevant section of US Code:   

Let me conclude by saying that given the loose regulatory milieu we are in, Covid vaccines will probably be licensed for everyone soon.  That imprimatur will not brush away their serious problems.  Please prevent mandates of these extremely questionable products.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before your committee.


Anonymous said...

An excellent summary. Every bit as good as Dr Youngblood's (cited in one of your recent posts). Thank you very much for putting it together and stating it all on the public record. Excellent work!

Anonymous said...


FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year '2076' to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data!

The fed gov’t shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its safety/efficacy. Who does the gov't work for?

Anonymous said...

CDC Admits Crushing Rights of Naturally Immune Without Proof They Transmit the Virus.
After formal demand, the CDC concedes it does not have proof of a single instance of a naturally immune individual spreading the virus.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Peter McCullough Sues Medical Journal.

According to McCullough, the journal, “Elsevier,” originally published the study, but scrubbed it just days before the FDA met to discuss approval for the injections to 5-11 year olds.

“This is an overt act of censorship,” he said. “We will be launching a full scale lawsuit against Elsevier, and its going to be for breach of contract.”

But why did they hide the papers from the public and the scientific community?

'Dr. McCullough pointed out that these studies prove that the jabs cause 'severe injury' to 'children and people' of nearly every age group.'

“The most notable finding is that this myocarditis heart inflammation that occurs typically on the second shot after either Pfizer or Moderna, it is explosive and it happens within a few days of the second shot.”

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"According to McCullough, the journal, “Elsevier,” ..."

Elsevier is a publishing company. They publish many journals in many different fields. Please, folks, check your facts before posting something online, lest we all be labelled cranks.

As for a breach-of-contract suit against Elsevier, when an author submits a paper to a medical journal, copyright is transferred from the author(s) to the publisher once the paper has gone through the peer-review process and has been accepted for publication. The publisher is then free to do whatever they want with it.

A defamation suit may have more legs in this instance, where the paper was retracted by the journal without explanation. There is a cloud hanging over the research and the researchers as long as the retraction stands, and particularly when the reasons for the retraction are not provided and the authors' responses are not available to the public. It makes the authors look shady, and for that I think there could be legal remedy.