Lawsuits Filed by America’s Frontline Doctors Blow Lid Off CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Scam

America’s Frontline Doctors have filed a series of lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The latest was an injunction filed on July 19, 2021.

Please keep in mind that America’s Frontline Doctors are not against vaccinations. They are only against the COVID-19 vaccines

AFLDS suit seeks to immediately revoke emergency COVID vaccine use based on disturbing new mortality data

July 25, 2021 by Edward Hendrie

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) yesterday filed a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the experimental COVID-19 injections for three groups of Americans.

The three groups mentioned in the July 19th filing are 1) those 18 years old and younger, 2) all who have recovered from COVID-19, and 3) every American who has not given informed consent for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Manufacturing a Fake COVID-19 Threat

The plaintiffs allege that they have proof that there never was a COVID public health emergency.

As Plaintiffs allege in detail and will show at trial with expert medical and scientific evidence, including the Defendants’ own data and studies, there is not now, and there never has been, a bona fide “public health emergency” due to the SARS-Cov-2 virus or the disease COVID-19.

Inflating COVID-19 Deaths By Rigging PCR Tests

The plaintiffs further allege that the CDC rigged the PCR tests to inflate the numbers of COVID-19 deaths. “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.”

The testing for COVID-19 is based upon the PCR test which has been established to create approximately 80-90% false-positive results.

Hiding Ineffectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines

The CDC rigged the PCR tests to between 35 and 45 cycles so that they would more likely show the presence of COVID-19, when in fact, there is no COVID-19 infection. But when that same PCR test was being used to test persons who had been vaccinated, the CDC dialed the cycle rate down to no more than 28 cycles. The CDC did not want it to be known that the COVID-19 vaccine is ineffective. When that scam did not work, the CDC just announced that they would no longer report post-vaccination COVID-19 cases. The plaintiffs alleged:

There is, however, one GLARING exception to this standard. THE CDC HAS STATED THAT ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN VACCINATED, AND THEN AFTER VACCINATION THAT PERSON TESTS POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 USING A PCR TEST, THE CDC WILL ONLY “COUNT” THE POSITIVE RESULT AT 28 CYCLES OR LESS! Why the difference? More recently, the CDC has announced it will no longer compile and report data showing the total number of vaccinated who subsequently contract COVID-19: “[We are] transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected.” There appears to be an agenda to protect the myths about the vaccine, rather than to protect the public.

Obvious and Deliberate COVID-19 Statistical Deception by the CDC

Pushing the Lie of Asymptomatic COVID-19 Spread

The plaintiffs explain:

Secondly, it appears that these Defendants either did lie about asymptomatic spread, or were simply wrong about the science. The theory of asymptomatic transmission – used as the justification for the lockdown and masking of the healthy – was based solely upon mathematical modeling. This theory had no actual study participants, and no peer review. The authors made the unfounded assumption that asymptomatic persons were “75% as infectious” as symptomatic persons. But in the real world, healthy false positives turned out to be merely healthy, and were never shown to be “asymptomatic” carriers of anything. Studies have shown that PCR test-positive asymptomatic individuals do not induce clinical COVID-19 disease, not even in a family member with whom they share a home and extended proximity. An enormous study of nearly ten million people in Wuhan, China showed that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others. Since asymptomatic individuals do not spread COVID-19, they do not need to be vaccinated.

COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Prevent Spread So Why Get It?

The CDC and the vaccine manufacturers are on record admitting that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Indeed, prior to the EUA authorization by the FDA of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine the Daily Mail reported that on or before December 4, 2020, “Pfizer CEO [Albert Bourla] admits he is ‘not certain’ their COVID-19 shot will prevent vaccinated people from spreading the virus.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks is on record saying that the Moderna vaccine can prevent someone from getting sick from COVID-19 but that there is no evidence that it can prevent someone receiving the vaccine from carrying the vaccine and infecting others. Prior to the FDA issuance of the EUA for the Moderna vaccine, on or before November 23, 2020, Zaks stated: “our results show that this vaccine can prevent you from being sick, it can prevent you from being severely sick. They do not show that it prevents you from potentially carrying this virus transiently and infecting others.”

The predictions of Moderna and Pfizer have proven correct. A very high percentage of new COVID-19 cases are from vaccinated persons. Britain’s Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance claimed that he mistakenly said that 60% of people being admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are fully vaccinated. He later clarified that he meant to say that 60% of those admitted for COVID-19 to the hospital are unvaccinated. Please don’t miss the significance of that admission. It means that the England health authorities admit that 40% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are from fully vaccinated persons. The plaintiffs make a common-sense observation:

Further, the logic for the COVD-19 vaccines breaks down when one considers the Defendants’ theory of asymptomatic spread. For over a year now, these Defendants and state-level public health authorities have told the American public that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread by people who have none of the symptoms of COVID-19. If that is the case, then a vaccine that merely reduces symptoms yields no benefits -the virus spreads anyway. If that is not the case, and asymptomatic spread is not real, then asymptomatic individuals do not need to be vaccinated with a vaccine that neither prevents infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor prevents its transmission.

How Moderna Rigged Its COVID-19 Vaccine Trials To Falsely Show Effectiveness

CDC Says Vaccines Are Ineffective in Stopping Infection and Spread of COVID-19

Killing Study Patients to Hide Effective Alternatives

The Vaccine manufacturers could not obtain the Emergency Use Authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine if there was an effective alternative treatment. So, they had to rig false studies to purport that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was not an effective alternative treatment. The plaintiffs stated:

The highly publicized attacks on early treatments seem to be done in bad faith in many instances. For example, one study on HCQ overdosed study participants with 2.5x lethal amounts of the drug and then reported the deaths as though they were not a result of the 2.5x lethal overdose. The 27 physician-scientist authors of the study were civilly indicted and criminally investigated and still JAMA did not retract the article.

Doctors Poisoned Test Patients to Falsely Show that Hydroxychloroquine Is Not Safe and Effective

AMA Requires Doctors to Push COVID-19 Vaccines

On November of 2020, a special meeting of the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, was held where they updated a previously published Ethics Opinion in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics as opinion 8.7, “Routine Universal Immunization of Physicians.” The plaintiffs explain how the AMA opinion now makes it an ethical obligation of all doctors to encourage patients to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine.

In this updated opinion, the astonishing position was taken that not only do physicians have an ethical and moral obligation to inject themselves with the experimental COVID-19 vaccination, but they also have an ethical duty to encourage their patients to get injected with the experimental COVID-19 vaccination. The ethics opinion repeatedly uses the phrase “safe and effective” as a descriptor for the experimental COVID-19 vaccination. The AMA’s ethics opinion goes on to state that institutions may have a responsibility to require immunization of all staff!

Media Censorship

The plaintiffs explain the media censorship:

Collusion to Censor: The Associated Press, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, The New York Times all participate in the “Trusted News Initiative” which has agreed to not allow any news critical of the shots.

Self Dissemination of Vaccines is a Thing

The plaintiffs allege that the vaccine manufacturers are aware of, but have not publicized, the risk to unvaccinated people being infected with the COVID-19 mRNA by close contact with vaccinated persons.

Page 67 of the Pfizer EUA application70 describes the possibility of exposure of unvaccinated, by the vaccinated, through inhalation or skin contact.

“Self-disseminating vaccines” is not a science fiction concept, rather it has been a research subject for years if not decades. The reportable safety event from the Pfizer application suggests that this type of vaccine is now a reality. Self-disseminating vaccines are the most literal of violation of informed consent imaginable, and any expansion of the EUA to children under the age of 16 puts unvaccinated children at risk without meeting the informed consent requirements of either 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb–3 or 45 C.F.R. Part 46.

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccines to Other Vaccines

The plaintiffs reveal the comparative dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example:

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.

Based only upon the numbers reported to VAERS, these vaccines should have been pulled off the market almost immediately. “A typical new drug at about five deaths, unexplained death, we get a black-box warning, your listeners would see it on TV, saying it may cause death. And then at about 50 deaths it’s pulled off the market.” In 1976 during the Swine Flu pandemic, the USA attempted to vaccinate 55 million Americans but when the shot caused 25 deaths, the program was pulled. The flu shot causes 20-30 deaths a year out of 195 million and there are now over 4,000 deaths out of about 100 million COVID-19 shots.

Underreporting COVID -19 Vaccine Injuries

The plaintiffs point out that:

A 2011 report by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for DHHS stated that fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events are reported to Defendants [on VAERS]: “[F]ewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

To illustrate, while the CDC claims that “Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United Statesbased on events reported to VAERS,” a recent study by Mass General Brigham found “severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations.” This is 50 to 120 times more cases than reported by VAERS and the CDC, meaning that only between 0.8% and 2% of all anaphylaxis cases are being reported by the Defendants. The underreporting is inexplicable, since it is mandatory for healthcare professionals to report this reaction to the Vaccines, and the reactions typically occur within 30 minutes of vaccination.

New Study Confirms the VAERS System is Only Reporting Approximately 1% of Anaphylaxis from COVID-19 Vaccines

Hiding COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

The most astounding revelation from America’s Frontline Doctors in their lawsuit is that the CDC is concealing the actual deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines. They explain that “[t]he Defendants have created a new reporting system dedicated to the Vaccines parallel to VAERS, and Plaintiffs have been unable to obtain any information from this system. V-Safe.” According to a whistle-blower the actual deaths are not approximately 10,000, as reported in VERS, but instead, more than 55,000. The America’s Frontline Doctors’ report:

A knowledgeable AFLDS source inside the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that deaths occurring within 72 hours of COVID-19 shot injection are significantly underreported in the publicly-available VAERS database maintained by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). “This is shocking,” the source said, “and informed consent, which is required under the law, is impossible when safety data is so misleading.” As of July 9th, reported deaths in VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 were within 72 hours of vaccination. The CDC source has provided a sworn statement that the actual number of deaths are conservatively five times higher, meaning that as of publication, we are approaching at least 55,000 vaccine-related deaths.

Communist Brainwashing Tactics

In the pleadings, America’s Frontline Doctors exposes the Orwellian tactics of the governments of the world to coerce the population to get vaccinated. The complaint states:

The idea of using fear to manipulate the public is not new, and is a strategy frequently deployed in public health. In June 2020, three American public health professionals, concerned about the psychological effects of the continued use of fear-based appeals to the public in order to motivate compliance with extreme COVID-19 countermeasures, authored a piece for the journal Health Education and Behavior calling for an end to the fear-mongering. In doing so, they acknowledged that fear has become an accepted public health strategy, and that it is being deployed aggressively in the United States in response to COVID-19:

“… behavior change can result by increasing people’s perceived severity and perceived susceptibility of a health issue through heightened risk appraisal coupled by raising their self-efficacy and response-efficacyabout a behavioral solution. In this model, fear is used as the trigger to increase perceived susceptibility and severity.”

In 1956, Dr. Alfred Biderman, a research social psychologist employed by the U.S. Air Force, published his study on techniques employed by communist captors to induce individual compliance from Air Force prisoners of war during the Korean War. The study was at the time and to some extent remains the core source for capture resistance training for the armed forces.

The chart below compares the techniques used by North Korean communists with the fear-based messaging and COVID-19 countermeasures to which the American population has been subjected over the last year.

19 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All