FDA says the quiet part out loud: Vaccines don't have to prevent infection or transmission to be approved.

There were two reasons - and two reasons ONLY - why parents for nearly 200 years have been told they need to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases.

1- To prevent infection with a particular microorganism that particular vaccine targeted'; and

2- To prevent the vaccinated person from spreading the same organism to others.

Both of these assertions have been known to be untrue for nearly 100 years since Dr Merrill Chase showed that antibodies are not a correlate of immunity. But be that as it may, at least we were given some reason for why you would want to bring your child to the doctor to subject them to an injection.

Now, we find out that the authorities have become so arrogant, their abuse of power so blatant, they are no longer even pretending to cover up the lack of efficacy of vaccines.

Citizen’s Petition

On January 23, 2023, A group called Coalition Advocating for Adequately Labeled Medicines (CAALM) filed a citizen’s petition with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) making various requests regarding labelling of the manufacturers of the experimental COVID jabs. You can read the original petition at this link.

In its response to the group which can be read here, Peter Marks, responding on behalf of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, denied all requests but one (relating to the bivalent jab) and stated that:

“It is important to note that FDA’s authorization and licensure standards for vaccines do not require demonstration of the prevention of infection or transmission,”

So, if they are not meant to prevent infection or transmission of the target antigen, what is their purpose exactly?

We know that all vaccines carry with them the risk of lifelong disability and chronic illness. We know that all vaccines can cause brain damage, seizures and other neurological complications. We know that all vaccines can cause death.

But we have been told for decades that the benefits of vaccination outweigh any of these risks.

Those benefits have always been based on the prevention of infection with or transmission of the underlying virus or bacteria.

If these things have been licensed without evidence of prevention of infection or transmission - then why have we been advised to take them? Is the only benefit of vaccination a financial one for the vaccine ‘sponsors’ (the drug companies that produce them), their shareholders, the medical community and the media/government officials who profit from their largesse?

It is time to ask some hard questions

Everything the FDA in the United States has done; every item of information they had access to, has also been shared with their partners overseas including our own Therapeutic Goods Administration. This is not guesswork - this is a fact.

So, our regulators including those recently retired rats who have abandoned ship thinking it might protect them (Murphy, Skerritt, Hunt et al) were well aware that prevention of infection and transmission was not a metric used in the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) or provisional approval of these jabs.

Despite this knowledge, they openly lied to the public, stating that those who got the jabs were less likely to be infected (at one point, we were told that protection was 100%) and more infectious than their unvaccinated peers. These lies were used to allow mandating the injection of these experimental poisons into all Australians 6 months or age and up.

What should the punishment be for those committing these crimes against the Australian public? When did ‘public health’ become synonymous with genocide?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this revelation. Please feel free to share them in the comments below.

Informed Choice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.