(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 57 pages of heavily redacted records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that show, just two days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, a discussion between U.S. and UK health regulators regarding the COVID shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”
Judicial Watch obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against HHS (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-00660)) after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is an agency of HHS, failed to respond to an August 30, 2021, FOIA request for:
All emails sent to and from members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee regarding adverse events, deaths and/or injuries caused by investigatory vaccines for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 currently produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and/or Johnson & Johnson.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is the U.S. Government’s central advisory body, along with Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), advising whether to approve COVID vaccines.
A lengthy, heavily redacted December 2020 email exchange shows U.S. and UK health officials placing a heavy emphasis on their “mutual confidentiality agreement” in a discussion regarding “anaphylactoid reactions” to the COVID vaccine.
The exchange is initiated by Jonathan Mogford, policy director of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and is sent to Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock as well as Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The subject line and body of the email are fully redacted under FOIA Exemption B3 (relating to statutory prohibitions).
As background, Mogford includes information on “two cases of anaphylactoid reactions in individuals with a strong past history of allergic reactions….” Marks replies to Mogford: “It would be very helpful if our Office of Vaccines could receive additional details [redacted] from MHRA [UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] under the terms of our mutual confidentiality agreement.” Mogford later replies, “… attached are [redacted] hope that’s helpful in the meantime. If I can just remind – information shared under our confidentiality agreement.”
Marion Gruber, head of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR), then replies to Mogford, “Thank you so much for this information. Our emails crossed. If possible, would be available for a t-con [teleconference] today?” The exchange concludes with OVRR Deputy Director Phil Krause advising UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency official Jamie Convisser, “Your summary is correct. I’m cc:ing Amanda Cohn at CDC who can provide the most up-to-date details about [redacted]. Obviously, [redacted], not all of this is public so please hold these details confidential.” Cohn then replies to Mogford, and includes an attachment titled “Anaphylaxis CLARK Dec 19 2020 Final”. She writes, “I am adding my colleagues Tom Clark and Stacey Martin, we are happy to share more information with you. Attached are slides that were presented at a public meeting on Saturday. [Redacted].”
The FDA issued its Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for individuals 16 years of age and older on December 11, 2020.
On May 14, 2021, the CDC’s Dr. Amanda Cohn emailed Office of Vaccines Research and Review Director Marion Gruber and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks with the subject line “Coadministration of COVID-19 Vaccines with Other Vaccines During Pregnancy.”…
READ MORE: Judicial Watch: Records Show U.S. and UK ‘Confidentiality Agreement’ Tied to Vaccine Adverse Events | Judicial Watch
Martin comments:
Revealed among other horrors within these redacted documents:
HHS records regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine.
Someone will rot in hell for this. If they aren’t brought to justice in this life, I believe in an eternity and in eternal punishment for the unrepentant.
SEE ALSO:
And yet NZMOH has this advice;
Which says:
c) There is insufficient data on the safety profile for booster doses in pregnant people
https://www.health.govt.nz/
By “pregnant people” they mean biological females one assumes. Or maybe not.
And then unbelievably goes on to recommend:
e) Boosters can be offered to pregnant people who completed their primary vaccination course more than 6 months prior. Those approaching the full-term of their pregnancy 6
https://www.health.govt.nz/
months after completing their primary course can choose to receive their booster after the baby is born if preferred.
WHAT?! There is “insufficient data” but they suggest boosters “can be offered to pregnant people”? IS THIS HOW SCIENCE AND HEALTHCARE WORKS? “We don’t know how safe this is but we’re offering it to you anyhow”. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE LUNATICS??
One way or another, judgement day is coming.
Get your copy from our Online Store or your local book and magazine retailer
Australian Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
New Zealand Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
As censorship heats up and free thought becomes an increasingly rare commodity, we appeal to our readers to support our efforts to reach people with information now being censored elsewhere. In the last few years, Uncensored has itself been censored, removed from the shelves of two of our biggest NZ retailers – Countdown Supermarkets and Whitcoulls Bookstores – accounting for 74% of our total NZ sales.
You can help keep the Free Press alive by subscribing and/or gifting a subscription to your friends and relatives.
