A medical watchdog group has obtained emails indicating that officials from the left-wing Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and pharmaceutical giant BioNTech were interested in collaborating on COVID-19 shots since before the national “pandemic” was formally declared, intensifying concerns about public health officials allowing business considerations influence sound medicine.
The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), which for years has been reviewing NIH documents periodically released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit it brought in 2020, reports that the latest batch includes a February 2, 2020, email from a Gates Foundation official introducing former NIH Vaccine Research Center (VRC) Deputy Director Dr. Barney Graham and BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin to one another “regarding 2019-nCoV.”
“Thank you for your interest in our antigen design effort for CoV vaccines,” Graham replied, quickly scheduling a phone call, resulting in BioNTech reporting its “vaccine efforts are well under way” and its readiness to discuss a “corresponding license agreement” just three weeks later.
The Gates Foundation purchased $55 million worth of BioNTech stocks in September 2019 (one of multiple heavy investments in COVID shot manufacturers), and at the time of the February 2 email, the first confirmed American COVID infection was just 13 days old, and the global pandemic would not be declared for another month.
On March 13 of 2020, Graham forwarded on to the head of his department an email from a market research company asking for help “understand[ing] the market sentiment of the vaccines industry towards COVID-19 vaccines” during a stock downturn. Graham asked, “I never answer inquiries like this, but do you think it might be appropriate for people like us to speak to the investor world and try to calm things down?”
“Both these incidences show how the NIH acts just like a for-profit corporation with a vested interest in forming partnerships and worrying about financial markets—perhaps because the agency and many of its employees stand to profit from the success of the vaccines they develop, just like Graham did from the Moderna vaccine,” ICAN says.
BioNTech would go on to collaborate with Pfizer on a COVID-19 shot based on mRNA technology. A large body of evidence backs up concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech jab, as well as Moderna’s mRNA shot and Johnson & Johnson’s viral vector shot, all of which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative (the J&J vaccine has not been offered in the United States since its supply ran out last year).
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs, and offered several theories for a causal link.
Yet so far, Big Pharma has largely escaped accountability thanks to both the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration invoked the act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”
Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explains, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those “countermeasures” are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from them, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”
All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who just won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the injections for which he has long taken credit.
Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the jabs, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”