TUCSON, Arizona (LifeSiteNews) – Following the recent decision of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to give its approval to the Pfizer-developed COVID-19 vaccine, doctors and medical experts from the Truth for Health Foundation convened to warn the public against the dangers of the shots that the FDA is not publishing.
The third meeting in the “Stop the Shot” series, broadcast on LifeSiteNews August 26, brought together experts from around the world to discuss the safety record of the newly approved Pfizer vaccine, as well as its market competitors, with the purpose of forming “a citizens’ safety review board on the COVID vaccine.”
“We are stepping up to serve the public,” Truth for Health president and CEO Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D., said, “because the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA have failed to evaluate updated safety information that has been coming to light since these experimental shots were launched.”
Vliet added that these bodies “have failed to report to the public accurate information about medical risks and complications, and the rising deaths that have occurred since the experimental COVID shots were launched.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, M.D., is the chief medical adviser to the Truth for Health Foundation as well as a cardiologist, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine. Appearing at the conference, McCullough criticized the FDA and CDC for failing to produce an adequate safety review of the COVID jabs they have sponsored and that subsequently have been mandated by “40 percent of the top five hundred companies.”
“Americans have questions,” he said, which is why the Truth for Health Foundation is setting up its own “citizens’ safety review board.”
The renowned physician explained that he has chaired over 24 data safety monitoring boards for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), “big pharmaceutical and device committees, and multiple different divisions of federal agencies.” With his experience on these health product safety boards, coupled with the latest data showing Pfizer’s jab to have a 42 percent efficacy level, McCullough noted that “at this point in time, the lead vaccine that’s up for full approval has failed.”
Accordingly, “Americans have been asked on faith to sign up and take one of these vaccines with no information, with a minimal informed consent,” correlating with over 500,000 vaccine injuries, the doctor said.
“These injuries fall into very serious categories,” he continued. “Over 12,000 certified deaths by the CDC, over 200,000 composite deaths, hospitalizations, urgent care visits, and office visits. A staggering number of myocardial infarctions, strokes, and over 4,000 cases of myocarditis, a heart inflammation in young individuals. Permanent damage to the neurologic systems, hematologic systems, immunologic systems.”
“As we sit here today, there is no product in human history that has ever created such a swathe of injuries to the public that’s been asked to participate in taking one of these vaccines,” he said.
McCullough has also produced a study into the safety data of the mRNA jabs as used in pregnant women, concluding that the data was “inadequate.” As a result, McCullough determined that “they should not be used in pregnancy.”
During clinical trials “the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, as well as AstraZeneca, all agreed that pregnant women and women of childbearing age … should under no circumstances receive the vaccine in the clinical trials program.”
“Nothing’s changed from the registrational trials to the public program,” McCullough explained.
“The minimum standard for safety is two years of observational data and then … only through years of history of acceptance do we allow the inactivated flu, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis ever to be given to a pregnant woman. We only give the safest of all products tested over many, many years” to pregnant women.
Although two years is the minimum standard for vaccine safety to be observed, the mRNA jabs, classified as “gene transfer technologies” by McCullough, are required to undergo a five-year observational period, he stated. “Under no circumstances should we allow a genetic product that that has not even achieved two years of standard vaccine observation, let alone the five years required for gene transfer technologies” to be administered to pregnant women.
The reports that are currently available and demonstrate hundreds of thousands of injuries, including many thousands of deaths, are only the “tip of the iceberg,” McCullough added.
In fact, a U.K. “evidence-based consulting group,” McCullough noted, has evaluated the Yellow Card reporting system, wherein vaccine injuries are recorded in Britain, with their advisers putting in “a formal recommendation to the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] to close the program, given that the risks far outweigh the benefits and the vaccines are not suitable for human use.”
Dr. Robert Malone, M.D., the inventor of the mRNA technology found in Pfizer’s jab, weighed in to explain his view that the FDA has been “failing to exercise its normal policies and procedures and [is] basically employing shortcuts to try … to specifically achieve a political objective” by approving the Pfizer shot.
“This is as much a political statement as it is a regulatory statement,” Malone continued, adding that the regulatory bodies are already acknowledging the safety risks involved with taking the shots and the myriad adverse effects associated with them. For instance, “the CDC itself is now acknowledging that … the incidence of the cardiac toxicities associated with this vaccine may be two and a half times, or more, greater than what they had previously assessed.”
Given the contradiction between acknowledged safety concerns and the FDA statement giving full approval to the Pfizer jab, Malone said that “the gentlest way I could express this is that it’s a misrepresentation. Some people might use stronger language, like it’s a lie, but it certainly appears to be as much a political statement as it is a regulatory statement.”
“My overall sense of the document, given the many studies that are being required concerning both safety and efficacy to be performed in the post marketing environment, clearly demonstrates that this is being rushed out and that they for some reason feel the need to bypass normal safety evaluation,” Malone continued.
“There’s no question in my mind that there are multiple controversies currently concerning the data itself, the nature of the adverse events and the various analyses that have been bypassed in bringing this product forward to this point for the US population,” he concluded.
The Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., joined Malone in criticizing the FDA’s decision to grant its approval to Pfizer for the manufacture of its COVID-19 shot.
“I think this day may live in infamy,” Orient said, “if they’re saying that there are no concerns raised, either they are just plain lying or they are just not paying attention.”
“The FDA has approved this vaccine many months before even the scheduled trials were supposed to be finished,” the AAPS director explained, adding that the trials were “not supposed to be done before the end of 2022.”
“They had no hearings. They had no potential for public input. There have been no explanations given or any evidence that they have investigated at least 12,000 deaths that followed soon after the vaccine, or the many other consequences leading to disability, leading to myocarditis, into blood clots, or leading to paralysis,” Orient continued. “Even though there are FDA warnings about some of these conditions, it’s not in the package insert yet and I think very few patients have been lining up to get their emergency vaccinations have been told about this possibility.”
Vliet confirmed that most of her patients were also not told about the dangerous adverse effects associated with taking the jabs.
Orient further warned that myocarditis poses a particularly troubling case for young people who take the jabs, stating that “we do not know how many how many people, especially young men, have a subclinical case of it. They don’t have symptoms enough … So they’re not getting tests like cardiac enzymes or an ultrasound.”
“How many people have a condition that needs this kind of treatment?” Orient asked. “They don’t know about their heart muscle suddenly being damaged and replaced with fibrous tissue, maybe in two years they’re going to have heart failure.”
Orient voiced her concern that “our promising athletes, our firefighters, our soldiers, people who might have need for strenuous exercise, maybe just have the silent damage.”
Vliet added that myocarditis is not normally a problem seen in young people, but that it occurs more commonly “very late in life.”
“We need to understand, too, that the five-year survival rate for heart failure is 50 percent. That’s worse than a lot of cancers. And we’re not screening for this after we do the vaccines,” Orient lamented.
Despite being a rare condition among vaccinated individuals, “I think it’s just outrageous that, once having seen a case, you do not go back and look,” Orient said, again criticizing the FDA’s safety assessment of the drugs.
Regarding young people, who are the least likely to be damaged by the virus and who survive infection with COVID with over 99 percent success, Orient suggested that they should think carefully about taking “a one in a million chance of having their heart destroyed or damaged to receive a vaccine for a condition that they would almost certainly survive.”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.