Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 13, 2022 - Epoch Times

22:35

FDA Suddenly Removes Data on Moderna Vaccine Approval Which Showed 2.6x Heart Inflammation

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is your daily Fox Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
	And now let's begin today's discussion by talking about Moderna.
	Now, to start with, you are likely already aware that for the last several months now, the Pfizer vaccine was the only one that was fully approved by the FDA. However, what you're likely not aware of, because it happened without much fanfare, was that about three days ago, the FDA actually approved the Moderna vaccine as well.
	And as is the growing trend within the agency, they did so without convening their expert vaccine advisory panel.
	They circumvented the panel and got the vaccine approved without them.
	However, for the last few days, if you were so lucky enough to have noticed it, over on the FDA website, they had a document posted which explained exactly why they approved the Moderna's vaccine.
	Specifically, this document was called the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action, and it provided details on how the federal regulators reached their approval decision.
	It basically explained their rationale.
	And included inside of the body of this FDA document were references to an unpublished analysis which found that the rates of post-vaccination heart inflammation, meaning the heart inflammation that a person gets after a two-dose regimen of the vaccine, were higher than any other agency had reported previously.
	Now, what happened was that one of our journalists here at the Epoch Times, he was lucky enough to have found this document over on the FDA's website.
	He reviewed it, and then, since he wanted to understand exactly what this document was specifically referencing, he sent questions over to an FDA spokesperson about it.
	And wouldn't you believe it, right after he sent in those questions, the document disappeared from the FDA's website.
	That's right.
	Shortly after he sent in an inquiry, the FDA removed the document, which explained their decision to approve the Moderna vaccine from their very own website.
	Then, earlier today, which is on Thursday, the spokesperson for the FDA, they finally got back to us, acknowledging that the document was in fact taken down.
	Here's what they wrote to us via email.
	We are aware of the issue and hope to have the document reposted as soon as possible.
	Now, our reporter, who by the way is named Zach Stiber, he did not think that that was enough of an answer, and so he picked up the phone and was eventually able to reach the FDA spokesperson in order to get more details about what is actually happening.
	And here's what the FDA spokesperson said over the phone.
	I reached out to the website people.
	I don't really have any more information to tell you.
	Perhaps if we're lucky enough, we can get these Moderna documents within the next 75 years, just like the Pfizer approval documents that we have been waiting for but are being fought over in court.
	Regardless, let's discuss what this document actually said.
	This document, which again was deleted on the FDA website, made a reference to a meta-analysis which examined the data sets of four different healthcare databases.
	And based on that data, it estimated that among males aged 18 to 25, the rate of myocarditis following two shots of Moderna's vaccine was 148 cases per million people vaccinated, which is significantly higher than other government estimates.
	For instance, if you look at the analysis that was conducted by the CDC, which compiled the reports of adverse vaccine reactions, We're good to go.
	However, again, according to this now-deleted data that was over on the FDA's website, they cited a much higher number.
	According to that document, which again, you can no longer find, the real instance of myocarditis among these young males who receive two doses of the vaccine is 2.6 times higher than what the CDC says, and it is supposedly 148 cases per million people.
	Now again, that document is no longer available on their website.
	However, as we are waiting for the FDA to actually get back to us with either rationale or with a document, we here at the Epoch Times, we also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for both the document that was deleted, as well as the several unpublished analyses that were being referenced within it.
	And so I will let you know right away when we obtain this information or we hear back from the spokesperson of the FDA. However, we did get a chance to speak with Ms.
	Barbara Fisher, who is the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, which is a nonprofit that advocates for informed consent.
	And after we explained to her the situation that we find ourselves in, well, here's what she wrote back to us in an email.
	The public has the right to review the evidence the FDA is using to license new mRNA vaccines as safe and effective.
	Lack of transparency only fosters distrust in government agencies that are charged with protecting the public health.
	The FDA should immediately release all information related to the incidence of myocarditis and other serious adverse events following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations, whether that information has been provided to the agency by vaccine manufacturers, or discovered through in-house analysis of additional data collected by federal officials.
	Now, as for the next step in this authorization process, now that the FDA has given their stamp of approval, the next step is that this Friday, meaning tomorrow, the CDC's advisory panel on vaccination, they will get together, meet, and go through the data for themselves.
	And once they do, perhaps we will actually find out more about this particular study that's referenced in the FDA's approval, which again at this moment appears to be hidden from the public like you and me.
	Until then, if you'd like to hear more about this case, including the information that we were able to glean before this document was actually deleted, I'll throw all that into the description box below this video for you to check out.
	And all I ask in return is that you take a super quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
	Let's move on over and talk about lockdowns, or more specifically, the efficacy of the lockdowns.
	According to an analysis, which was just published by researchers over at Johns Hopkins University, they found that the lockdowns, which were implemented by governments around the entire world, had little to no effect on COVID mortality.
	Let me just repeat that.
	This analysis here from Johns Hopkins University, it found that the global lockdowns, which brought the world economy to a standstill and ruined countless businesses in the process, it had little to no effect on the COVID death rate.
	Now, this study, it actually selected 24 different scientific papers to review, and after going through all of them, these researchers concluded that the lockdowns in Europe, as well as the ones in the United States, they lowered the COVID mortality rate by about 0.2% on average, which, as the researchers noted, is within the margin of error, meaning that their conclusion is essentially that the lockdowns had somewhere between no effect to 0.02% of an effect at lowering the rate of COVID mortality.
	Here's specifically what the researchers wrote, quote, While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.
	In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.
	And what's interesting is that out of all the lockdown measures that they actually analyzed, including things like mask mandates, business closures, as well as travel bans, the researchers found that the closure of what they called non-essential businesses appeared to actually be the most effective.
	According to this study, the closure of, again, non-essential businesses reduced the COVID mortality by about 10.6% on average.
	However, once the researchers actually dug into the data a bit more, they found that this was largely due to the closure of bars as well as nightclubs.
	Here's specifically what they wrote.
	Only business closure consistently shows evidence of a negative relationship with COVID-19 mortality, but the variation in the estimated effect is large.
	Three studies find little to no effect, and three find large effects.
	Two of the larger effects are related to closing bars and restaurants.
	Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
	However, if you have been following this story of lockdowns over the past, let's say, two years, you know that this study directly flies in the face of the narrative that's being pushed by the establishment media outlets.
	And so, by and large, they did not cover it.
	And in fact, it even seems that the university itself has suppressed these findings.
	That's because just yesterday you had a professor of surgery from Johns Hopkins University have an interview over on Fox News.
	The professor's name, by the way, is Dr.
	Martin Macari, and he put the university on blast.
	Here's specifically what he said, quote, Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study.
	And if you look at the media coverage, it's one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it.
	And according to this professor, he says that the reason that this study is essentially being suppressed and hidden is that, quote, people may already have their own narrative written about the effectiveness of lockdowns.
	However, the professor went on to note that when you dig into the study, you find that the number of lives that have been saved because of the lockdowns are infinitesimal compared to the number of lives that have been lost due to things like missed cancer diagnoses as well as missed cancer treatments alone.
	Here's what he said, quote,"...it was 124,000 excess deaths in year one.
	So over two years, it was about a quarter million people who died.
	I think the public is hungry for honesty and basic humility from public health officials." And it looks like there's a good chance that that is the road we're going to go down because a recent study, a recent poll rather, found that 70% of Americans are saying that it's time to just accept COVID, accept the fact that it's going to be with us long term and just to get on with our lives.
	I guess throughout the rest of the year, throughout 2022, we'll just have to wait and see how this ultimately all plays out.
	Maybe you will have another truck or convoy descend upon Washington, D.C. and force the hands of the politicians.
	Only time will tell whether that actually happens, although it does look like it's beginning to materialize.
	Again, only time will tell what will actually happen with all these lockdown policies, these mask mandates, these business closures.
	However, studies like this are at least a step in the right direction to figuring out what the truth is, whether these policies actually work or not.
	Until then, let's head back to the studio.
	If you'd like to read more about this study from Johns Hopkins University, I'll throw the link to it into the description box below this video for you to check out.
	And again, all ask in return is that you take a super quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
	And now, let's move on over and discuss a topic that almost no one talks about.
	And that is how American policies, and more specifically the actions of Joe Biden over the past 10 years or so, have led to massive corruption over in Guatemala, which then subsequently has been fueling the migrant crisis right here on the U.S. southern border.
	What happened was...
	Sorry.
	What's this?
	Well, that's a great question, Roman.
	And it is today's sponsor, which is an awesome messaging and email service provider called Secure.
	And it's awesome if you're the type of person that actually cares about their privacy.
	Because, I mean, it's no big secret that these big tech companies are mining and remining our data all the time.
	In fact, in the year 2020, it was found that over 155 million Americans, likely including you and me, have suffered some form of data breach.
	And by the way, that's only what's publicly known.
	However, what's happened in the past?
	Well, that can stay in the past because with Secure, Your data and your messages can remain private.
	And that's because Secure has all of their data centers located over in Switzerland rather than in the US or in China.
	And the reason that's so important is that Switzerland has some of the strictest data privacy laws in the entire world, and they are not subject to the intrusive cloud act.
	And if you want to know what the cloud act is, head on over to secure.com and watch their video on the homepage or on the video tutorials page, which is under their support section.
	Now, the thing that I personally love the most about the Secure app Is the privacy aspect of it.
	They don't mine my data.
	They don't mine my phone number.
	They don't mine the phone numbers or data of my friends and family who I chat with.
	But best of all is that if your friends and family don't actually use the secure app themselves, it doesn't matter.
	Because the way that it works is that when you use their secure send email technology, all of your emails and your messages route to Switzerland, and then the recipient can reply using their secure reply technology.
	And so everything remains private no matter what.
	And the same actually goes for their messaging app as well.
	And they're always coming up with new features.
	In fact, the most recent one they told me about, they sent me an email here, was that they're coming up with a new feature called text to chat by invite.
	So they're an innovative company and they really do care about your privacy.
	And so what they're doing doesn't work with your existing big tech email account.
	So check them out.
	You can head on over to secure.com.
	I'll throw the link into the description box below.
	And when you use promo code Roman, you can get 25% off.
	And the rates are not even that expensive to start with, by the way.
	It's only $5 for the messenger and $10 for the email and messenger combo.
	And they even offer a seven-day free trial.
	So head on over to their website.
	Again, it'll be linked in the description box below.
	Use promo code Roman to save some money.
	And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
	And now, let's shift gears just a little bit.
	While I was down in Texas, I had the unique opportunity to sit down and speak with Mr.
	Stephen Hecht, who is the editor-at-large over at the Impunity Observer, and we discussed how American policies have led to massive corruption over in Guatemala, which then subsequently fueled the migrant crisis that we're seeing play out at the U.S. southern border.
	Take a listen.
	So you actually live in Guatemala.
	I do.
	So can you give us, and our Vice President recently visited Guatemala on her trip to South America, right?
	That's correct.
	To Central America.
	Can you please give us a little bit of an insight into how she is doing as the border security czar?
	In my opinion, Kamala Harris was named for that position to distract From the fact that the Biden administration is pulling migrants from all over the world through Mexico and into the United States.
	So they claim that Kamala Harris is going to mitigate the circumstances that promote irregular migration.
	And that's her job.
	She's doing exactly the opposite.
	Precisely the opposite.
	The way she does that is, Joe Biden, when he was Vice President, he was tasked by Barack Obama as the point man for what they call the Northern Triangle, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
	Guatemala is the key because it has a 595-mile border with Mexico.
	Mexico is a failed state.
	Once you get inside Mexico, the cartels control.
	You're as good as inside the United States.
	So that border is wide open.
	The reason the border is wide open, and it's the only land route from South and Central America to the United States, you must pass through Guatemala.
	So the border is wide open because there's no state presence.
	And there's no state presence because the government supports the Fidel Castro-supported guerrillas.
	The criminal prosecution and the judiciary don't do their job.
	They were taken over by the U.S. Embassy under Joe Biden as vice president.
	They kept working the same exact way under Donald Trump, betraying Donald Trump.
	And now that Biden is occupying the White House, he has the same team back with him in the National Security Council that he had advising him as vice president.
	And so they are in the process of trying to consolidate themselves, which they have a big problem.
	After Biden took over Guatemala's high court and its criminal prosecution, that was for five years because the high court term is for five years.
	When that five years was over, which was April, a few months ago, Guatemalan said, we don't want that anymore.
	And the U.S. Embassy was pressuring them, like they always do, to appoint the judges and prosecutors that they want.
	And they're openly criminal.
	I mean, these people have public criminal records.
	This is who the United States supports.
	So Biden and his people...
	So now that the embassy has lost control of Guatemala's high court, they have to take the lead themselves.
	So they just came out a week ago with a list on July 1st, they came out with a list of 20 Guatemalans that they Claimed are promoting corruption and impeding the judicial system.
	Well, it's exactly the opposite.
	The State Department's list, and on that list they have people that do nothing except use the courts and use the media to inform the public of what they would like to say.
	In other words, freedom of speech.
	So the State Department is cutting them off.
	They're actually defaming these people without any due process.
	Because that's the only way that they have to intimidate Guatemalans into appointing their people.
	At the meantime that Kamala Harris visited Guatemala, saw a lot of signs.
	Trump won.
	Go home.
	Don't impose criminals on us.
	These were all signs that were shown on TV around the world at that time.
	And so Harris said that she was going to work with the private sector.
	Well, they created a new private sector organization.
	But it says all the things that they wanted to say.
	It's a sham organization to try to pretend that they're actually doing something, but they're not.
	And they know perfectly well that their judges and their prosecutors have long criminal records, and those people are going to continue to shut down businesses, if they can, if Guatemala lets them, shut down businesses, Increase violence, and that pushes more people.
	They are purposely pushing people to the United States.
	Not what they say they're doing.
	They're doing the exact, precise opposite of what they claim they're doing.
	Well, I guess I have two follow-up questions to that.
	One is, you described what they're doing.
	How could they possibly be in a position of power enough to do that in Guatemala?
	What's the carrot and stick situation there?
	The United States has a huge amount of power.
	This is the number one trading partner of Guatemala.
	The United States has all kinds of programs and lots of money.
	And they used the money Biden used, he leveraged, he tried to get a billion dollars a year, but they made it $750 million a year for five years for what they called the Alliance for Prosperity.
	And that's how he managed to take over Guatemala's high court back in 2016.
	And so now they're doing the same thing again.
	They have AID. AID doesn't aid anything that helps promote investment or promote opportunity and employment.
	They promote organizations that are collectivists.
	That's one of my articles in the Epoch Times from 2018.
	It's been going on for a long time.
	And they're going to do exactly the same thing again.
	And so their power is trade and money.
	And of course media.
	And what would be the benefit of them pushing more people out of Guatemala?
	Well, two questions.
	One is, what is the supposed benefit of them pushing people from Guatemala to come to America?
	One.
	And two, how do you know it's not an effect, but potentially an unintended effect that's occurring?
	Well, it would seem like an unintended effect.
	And, you know, look, I can't be inside their head.
	Let me put it to you this way.
	Whatever they're intending, You can debate it.
	But the result is very clear.
	So if you think it's unintentional, you have to assume that they don't look at the results of what they're doing.
	I mean, if you have a court that shuts down businesses, a high court judge that rules on a case that she's a party to...
	That's public document.
	That's easy to prove.
	How can they not know that?
	And this woman, this judge, was a few weeks ago in the White House with Kamala Harris being praised as a judge fighting impunity, fighting corruption.
	Fighting for the rule of law.
	There were two other former prosecutor generals at that same meeting in the White House, and they have a long record of criminal behavior.
	I mean, you don't have to debate it.
	You take one document, and that document proves criminal behavior, and these are the people that they're pushing.
	How can they not know it?
	And people like me write about it.
	They can't ignore everybody.
	I'm not the only one.
	So how is it possible that these people could have good intentions and not recognize that the results are exactly the opposite?
	Now, in terms of intention, it seems to me, and I've written this and I've said it publicly, I believe that they want to flood the United States with illegal immigrants that they...
	What's your take on Kamala Harris' statement, you know, don't come, don't come, when she was there?
	She can't possibly believe that.
	She's saying don't come.
	But look, there are more cell phones in Guatemala than there are people.
	They all have smartphones.
	And there are about three million or so Guatemalans living in the United States.
	And there are all the Salvadorans and the Hondurans, all these people, they're communicating all the time.
	So when they get to the United States, and they see that they get in, and they get put on buses to the cities where they want to go, and the United States government pays for it and gives them money, everybody there knows it.
	So what's the difference that Kamala Harris is saying, don't come?
	Don't come and take this free money?
	Now it's worth noting that that was not the full interview.
	If you'd like to check out the interview in its entirety, as well as a plethora of other phenomenal content, you can do so over on Epic TV, which is our awesome no censorship video platform.
	And I'd also like to note that on Monday, we'll be publishing an exclusive interview between Kash Patel and President Donald Trump over on Epic TV.
	Here's a trailer for that interview.
	This coming Monday, I'm going to be sitting down with my former boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in Mar-a-Lago.
	You do not want to miss it.
	Stay tuned on Cassius Corner.
	So if you'd like to check out all that phenomenal content, you can do so over on Epic TV. I'll throw a link to it.
	It'll be right there at the very top of the description box.
	I hope you click on it.
	I hope you check it out.
	I hope you subscribe.
	And I hope that you join us on this journey of exploring this beautiful, beautiful world through honest journalism that is based in truth and tradition.
	Now lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
	Subscribe to this YouTube channel if you haven't already in order to get this type of honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while YouTube still allows it.
	Also, if you have a Telegram account, consider following us at FactsMatter underscore Roman.
	We'll publish links to all of our videos there, so if anything ever does happen here on YouTube, you can follow us in Telegram.
	And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epoch Times.

▲