An ongoing court action in the US may see Anthony Fauci and others in the US government forced to give a deposition to defend their actions as part of their COVID19 response strategy. In a highly detailed legal document for the case 'AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS vs. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' numerous major problems with the mainstream narrative on COVID19 are laid out - ranging from faulty diagnostic systems for SARS CoV2 through to the dangers of the experimental shots, risk to children, dangerously incompetent testing of medical treatments and much more.
As my regular readers will understand, there are many serious questions surrounding the details of the data, logic and intentions of those orchestrating the mainstream narrative regarding COVID19 and the actions being taken as a result of them. Numerous highly qualified experts in highly relevant fields have consistently pointed to numerous scientific studies, principles and understandings which show that government and medical policies commonly being used are flawed and unnecessarily add to the risks faced by us all.
Often, the most vulnerable are the ones being hit hardest by the scientific denial and apparent criminality of some of those 'calling the shots' when it comes to policies and controls in place in society. Many people have concluded that they must personally take a stand in whatever way possible to try to bring some sanity and transparency to the situation.
One such group of individuals are the doctors known as America's frontline doctors who brought an extensive legal case against the US government several weeks ago and which, according to court records, is due to see depositions being made by some of the best known names in the COVID response team of the US Government. People such as Anthony Fauci are being deposed to defend their actions in the light of a long list of points of evidence which appear to make them look very dishonest indeed.
Who is bringing the case?
AFD is a group of American Doctors and their founder is Doctor Simone Gold, who is described on their website:
AFLDS founder Simone Gold, MD, JD, FABEM, “the doctor who went viral,” is a board-certified emergency physician and author of the best-selling book “I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture.” She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School to earn her Juris Doctorate degree. Dr. Gold worked in Washington, D.C. for the Surgeon General, as well as for the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
Source: America's Frontline Doctors
The legal case has been brought by a team of at least 8 professional lawyers in the US and has been filed in Alabama with the designation: 2:21-cv-00702.
Overview of the case
In the original Complaint Document, which is 113 pages long, the plaintiffs lay out an extensive set of allegations, including:
- That the emergency use authorisation of the COVID shots is based on fraudulent information.
- That this has potentially been done deliberately in order to bring in Billions in profits for pharmaceutical companies and patent holders.
- That the defendants in US government have many undisclosed conflicts of interest which suggest they are nefariously personally benefiting from their decisions in government.
the Defendants appear to have numerous disclosed and undisclosed conflicts-of-interest that should deeply trouble any reasonable observer concerned about the integrity of the EUA process. For instance, Defendant the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) appears to be a co-creator and co-owner of the intellectual property in the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.”
- The vaccine adverse reporting system in the US shows epic amounts of death that is likely attributed to these experimental COVID shots:
According to data extracted from the Defendants’ Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (“VAERS”), 99% of all deaths attributed to vaccines in the first quarter of 2021 are attributed to the COVID-19 Vaccines, and only 1% are attributed to all other vaccines. The number of vaccine deaths reported in the same period constitutes a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year. The Vaccines appear to be linked to a range of profoundly serious medical complications, among them myocarditis, miscarriage, irregular vaginal bleeding, clotting disorders, strokes, vascular damage and autoimmune disease.
Meanwhile, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen enjoy statutorily conferred immunity from liability for any harm caused by their experimental products.
- The vaccines must be withdrawn immediately due to being unlawful.
The Vaccine EUAs are unlawful on multiple different grounds and must be terminated immediately. First, the Emergency Declaration upon which they are all based was unjustified.
- The PCR testing mechanism used to define the number of COVID19 cases is not fit for purpose and grossly misleading.
Virtually all of the PCR tests were calibrated to produce false positive results, which has enabled the Defendants and their counterparts in state governments to publish daily reports containing seriously inflated COVID-19 “case” and “death” counts that grossly exaggerate the public health threat. Even assuming the accuracy of these counts, we now know that COVID-19 has a fatality rate far below that originally anticipated - 0.2% globally, and 0.03% for persons under the age of 70. According to the CDC, 95% of “COVID-19” deaths involve at least four additional co-morbidities.
- The risks of the shots far outweighs the potential benefit, according to the NIH's own data:
The NIH has published a study that indicates the ARR for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is just 0.7%,
6 and the ARR for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is 1.1%. The benefits of the Vaccines when used to diagnose, prevent or treat COVID-19, do not outweigh the risks of these experimental agents.
- The true nature of the situation is not being communicated to healthcare workers or patients - thus denying the possibility of informed consent:
The DHHS Secretary has failed to meet the “conditions of authorization” mandated by § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A). Healthcare professionals administering the Vaccines and Vaccine subjects alike are being deprived of basic information regarding the nature and limitations of the EUAs, the known risks of the Vaccines and the extent to which they are unknown, available alternative products and their risks and benefits, and the right to refuse the Vaccines. Not only is this information not being presented, it is being actively suppressed.
Dissenting medical opinion is systematically censored. Private sector employers and all levels of government are offering dramatic incentives to accept the Vaccines, and jarring penalties for refusing them. In these conditions, it is not possible for Vaccine subjects to give voluntary informed consent to the Vaccines, and the “warp speed” rollout of these dangerous, untested biological agents to the American population constitutes non-consensual human experimentation in violation of customary
- That the defendants have breached international law on human experimentation
they have violated customary international law by engaging in non-consensual human medical experimentation, and
that they have violated 45 CFR Part 46 by failing to implement protections for human subjects in medical experimentation.
That the true number of deaths from COVID19 and the risk presented by it has been grossly over inflated in a variety of ways.
A whistleblower computer coder with private access to the VAERS database (vaccine injury reporting system) has made a sworn statement that the true number of adverse reactions to the COVID shots has been concealed and is over 45,000 deaths in the US already.
The documentation includes extensive evidence and testimony from a variety of people from across the healthcare industry and also patients who demonstrate the points being made in the case from real world experiences.
The document includes a long list of alleged victims of serious injury as a result of the COVID19 shots. Note: There are thousands of such people easily within rich via internet support groups for victims of COVID19 shot injuries.
A wide variety of the well discussed issues with COVID19 data are highlighted, including that death rates were over inflated by mis-categorising people who were dying due to unrelated reasons as COVID19 deaths. Many of the alleged 'COVID deaths' were actually deaths caused by unrelated co-morbidities.
The issues of Cycle Threshold manipulation with the PCR amplification process used in testing for the presence of SARS CoV2 is addressed in some depth.
They particularly highlight the deception involved (which is often used by the pharmaceutical industry) of promoting the efficacy of the shots using relative benefit figures instead of absolute benefit figures. The absolute benefit figures are FAR less impressive than the figures that are touted in the media, yet they are far more meaningful:
In studying the effectiveness of a medical intervention in randomized controlled trials (often called the gold standard of study design), the most useful way to present results is in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction (“ARR”). ARR compares the
impact of treatment by comparing the outcomes of the treated group and the untreated group. In other words, if 20 out of 100 untreated individuals had a negative outcome, and 10 out of 100 treated individuals had a negative outcome, the ARR would be 10% (20 - 10 = 10). According to a study published by the NIH, the ARR for the Pfizer Vaccine is a mere 0.7%, and the ARR for the Moderna Vaccine is only 1.1%.
They highlight that asymptomatic transmission was disproved by a massive study of millions of people in China, yet the US government insists on designing policies as if asymptomatic transmission exists.
They also highlight that the mRNA technology used in the shots is being mis-sold to the public:
By referring to the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” as “vaccines,” and by allowing others to do the same, the Defendants knowingly seduce and mislead the public, short-circuit independent, critical evaluation and decision-making by the consumers of these products, and vitiate their informed consent. Meanwhile, this novel technology is being deployed in the unsuspecting human population for the first time in history
The testing of the vaccines was grossly insufficient:
All of the stages of testing have been compressed in time, abbreviated in substance, and are overlapping, which dramatically increases the risks of the Vaccines. Plaintiffs’ investigation indicates that Moderna and Pfizer designed their Vaccines in only two days. It appears that pharmaceutical companies did not independently verify the genome sequence that China released on January 11, 2020. It appears that the Vaccines were studied for only 56 days in macaques, and 28 days in mice, and then animal studies were halted. It appears that the pharmaceutical companies discarded their control groups receiving placebos, squandering the opportunity to learn about the rate of long-term complications, how long protection against the disease lasts and how well the Vaccines inhibit transmission. A number of studies were deemed unnecessary and not performed prior to administration in human subjects, including single dose toxicity, toxicokinetic, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, prenatal and postnatal development, offspring, local tolerance, teratogenic and postnatal toxicity and fertility. The American public has not been properly informed of these dramatic departures from the standard testing process,
and the risks they generate.
In summary, the document also addresses:
- Social media censorship of experts.
- The details of the numerous ways that the shots can do serious injury or kill people.
- That the VAERS reporting system for vaccine injuries in the US is not fit for purpose.
- That the Nuremberg Code appears to be being violated.
- That children have been targeted for exploitation and experimentation.
- The risk to pregnant women and unborn children are unknown and people are not being informed.
- Intense psychological manipulation is being used to coerce use of the experimental shots. The strategy resembling closely the kinds of mind control strategies used by the communist Korean military during the Korean war.
- That the defendants have knowingly taken action to suppress alternative therapies.
- That some of the defendants are tied to funding the 'gain of function' research in Wuhan, China that may have caused the SARS CoV2 out break in the first place.
- That most of the defendants have received large grants and payments from the manufacturers of the experimental shots.
The case seeks to get the policies surrounding the use of the shots to be changed and have them withdrawn, among other objections.
We can see from the case records that aMotion for temporary Injunction was filed that sought to stop the use of the shots immediately due to risk of immediate harm to plaintiffs, but this was rejected.
A summons was issued to several high ranking US government agents, including Anthony Fauci:
A lawsuit has been filed against the following federal agencies and officers: XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in his official and personal capacities, DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, in his official and personal capacities, DR. JANET WOODCOCK, Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in her official and personal capacities, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH AND HUMAN SERVICES, the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, and the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGIES AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
The 60 day period that these people have been given to appear before the court appears to expire at the end of August 2021.
We may see soon what outcome all of this yields with regards to their defence!
Related Court Action
Several months ago, in April 2020, senator (and Doctor) Scott Jensen spoke out about the inflated and misleading data on COVID deaths in the US - I covered him in this post at the time.
Dr. Jensen also worked with the same Doctor group that filed this case to try to stop the experimental shots being given to children:
The legal documents for the previous case are here.
Clearly this is a huge case that covers many key points that are complicated. I have personally worked hard in the last few weeks and months to build on my own knowledge of vaccines and immunity that I have built up over 15 years of non professional study of the topic. Despite this, I still would not call myself an absolute expert on the topic. None the less, I do know enough and have seen enough to know that there is a huge amount of denial surrounding the topic of immunity, health and vaccines. Many of the people that the public relies on as being 'experts' are really not expert at all. Their logic has often easily been exposed as lacking, even in court cases which I have monitored previously.
It would not be in any way surprising to me if under examination in court, these people were exposed as being seriously lacking in understanding and possibly entirely criminal in their intentions and actions.
For anyone still reading who is interested in seeing what has happened previously when 'medical experts' and even vaccine inventors have been cross examined in court - I highly suggest watching the following 2 videos. The video of Stanly Plotkin, vaccine inventor, is a whopping 9 HOURS long and I have watched it all. Anyone who watches this will never look the same way at alleged 'experts' again as he repeatedly exposes his complete lack of understanding of the subject that he is alleged to be a world expert in!
Dr Holtrop Testimony, Pediatricians are not "experts" in Vaccine Safety and Efficacy
Stanley Plotkin, Godfather of vaccines, UNDER OATH!
Wishing you well,
Read My User Guide for Hive Here