HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report



The Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly preparing to scrap its recommendation that pregnant women and kids get the COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals said to be familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that the announcement is imminent and will coincide with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention kicking off a new vaccine approval framework.

While the relevant agencies apparently did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment, U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary provided a fairly strong indication this week that the change was coming.

Makary told Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk that he would "love to see the evidence to show that giving young, healthy children another COVID-19 shot — you know, a sixth COVID booster — would help them, but that evidence does not exist, and so we're not going to rubber-stamp things at the FDA."

"I don't think you're going to see a push at the CDC to be pushing COVID shots in young, healthy children," continued Makary, adding that he expected an announcement on that front in the coming weeks.

Sources told the Journal that it would only be a matter of days.

At the time of publication, the CDC was still recommending that everyone ages 6 months and older get a COVID-19 vaccine.

'Connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths.'

The agency states on its website that getting the shot is especially important for individuals who have survived this long without one, geriatrics, pregnant women, those planning to conceive, and breastfeeding mothers. The agency urges parents to get their children 6 months to 4 years of age loaded up with two doses of the Moderna vaccine or three doses of the Pfizer vaccine if they were starting fresh.

As of April 26, 14.4% of pregnant women had received a 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine and 13% of children 6 months to 17 years of age were up to date, CDC data shows.

RELATED: Jab first, ask questions never: Vaccine truths your doctor won't tell you

 EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The CDC stuck with its recommendations until now despite credible warnings from Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo and other experts; troubling scientific studies demonstrating the vaccines were not as safe and effective as advertised; glaring evidence that kids and teens were at low risk for COVID and could go without; and damning state-leveled allegations that one of the primary vaccine manufacturers sat on evidence that its COVID-19 vaccine "was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths."

Just last month, a preprint study backed by the Florida Department of Health suggested that adults in the Sunshine State who received the Pfizer vaccine had "significantly higher risk of 12-month all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality" than those who received the Moderna shot.

A study conducted by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the CDC and the HHS — and published last year in the journal Vaccine detailed troubling links between the AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines and medical conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain and spinal cord inflammation, Bell's palsy, and convulsions.

Another peer-reviewed study published last year in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety indicated that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

"COVID-19 vaccines induce an uncontrolled expression of potentially lethal SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells, have a close temporal relationship of events, and are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical and peer-reviewed data supporting the conclusion that COVID-19 vaccines are deterministic for myocarditis, including fatal cases," said the study.

'The current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits.'

Texas cardiologist Peter McCullough, a leading critic of the vaccines, said in a statement Thursday, "Two presidents, three HHS Secretaries, three FDA Commissioners, and nearly five years into the disastrous COVID-19 vaccine debacle, women and children receive long overdue yet welcome news. After record vaccine injuries, disabilities, and death, America is wondering will any of these leaders be held accountable?"

Dropping the recommendations appears to be a half measure, given that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. previously fought to revoke authorization of COVID-19 vaccines altogether.

RELATED: Mandates, masks, and mayhem: Never again!

 Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In a petition he filed with the FDA on May 16, 2021, Kennedy said the agency should revoke all emergency use authorizations and refrain from approving future EUAs for any COVID vaccine for all demographic groups "because the current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits, and because existing, approved drugs provide highly effective prophylaxis and treatment against COVID, mooting the EUAs."

Kennedy noted further that the agency should specifically spare children and pregnant women from the novel vaccines.

Kennedy's warnings and requests evidently fell on deaf ears.

In its final weeks, the Biden HHS extended liability protection to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and administrators through Dec. 31, 2029, precluding vaccine recipients who reportedly end up injured or their surviving family members from holding those responsible to account. This was the latest of several such extensions.

The reports of the HHS dropping the vaccine recommendations and other moves made in recent months by the Trump administration have elements of the medical establishment clutching pearls.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told the New York Times, "I think that we are in the midst of watching the vaccine infrastructure being torn down bit by bit."

"I think everything is a target," said Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University College of Public Health.

"Overturning the recommendation means that insurance companies will no longer have to cover these vaccines," Dorit Reiss, a law professor at UC Law San Francisco, complained to the health publication Stat.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump reinstating thousands of US service members discharged for refusing COVID shot



President Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order Monday reinstating thousands of American service members who were discharged for refusing experimental COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Doing so will amount to another promise kept by the Republican, who stated in August, "I will rehire every patriot that was fired with an apology and backpay. They will get their backpay and an apology from our government."

Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo on Aug. 24, 2021, both declaring that "mandatory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 is necessary to protect the Force" and characterizing the novel vaccines as safe and effective.

The Biden administration's vaccine mandate for U.S. service members was ultimately rescinded in January 2023 as the result of a Republican-backed requirement added to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. However, during the 16 months the mandate was in effect, roughly 17,000 service members refused to take the vaccine.

While around 1,200 troops were reportedly able to secure exemptions, Pentagon records indicated that 3,717 Marines, 1,816 soldiers, and 2,064 sailors were discharged for refusing the vaccine that had left some of their compatriots with health complications such as myocarditis or, in the case of former National Guard specialist Karoline Stancik, three heart attacks and a stroke.

'They will be apologized to.'

A White House official confirmed to the New York Post that Trump's executive order will cover active-duty or reserve service members who were discharged for refusing the vaccine between 2021 and 2023. Over 8,000 service members are expected to be restored to their previous rank and provided both backpay and full benefits.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pledged during his confirmation hearing earlier this month to reinstate and reimburse troops ousted for refusing an "experimental vaccine" as Trump had promised.

"Tens of thousands of service members were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine," said Hegseth. "They will be apologized to. They will be reinstated, reinstituted with pay and rank."

The Military Times indicated that rectifying the Biden administration's error might prove costly as backpay alone might run upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevertheless, it will make whole those who were kicked to the curb for questioning a vaccine shown in some cases to cause significant harm.

A study published January 2024 in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety indicated that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

A study conducted by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the HHS — and published last year in the journal Vaccine detailed unsettling links between the AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines and medical conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain and spinal cord inflammation, Bell's palsy, and convulsions.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a retired U.S. Army Ranger, celebrated Trump's decision to reinstate the troops, telling "Fox & Friends" that it is a "great day for patriots, a great day for our service members, my brothers and sisters in arms."

"Let's not forget," said Mast, "it wasn't just the military. It was other government agencies as well, where they were essentially washing [out] conservatives that were raising their hand, saying, 'I don't want to take this vaccine.'"

"They were washing them out of government, washing them out of West Point and Naval Academy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine academies, washing them out from being on the next promotion boards for first sergeants, sergeants, majors, or officers, and they were creating a system where the ones that were going to be giving promotion to the next classes of individuals were all going to be those that didn't say, 'No, I'm not a conservative, and you know, I'm OK with everything that you're doing right now,'" said Mast. "That's what was taking place."

While the reinstatement might be greatly welcomed by some troops, there may be others who have no interest in returning. After all, within eight months of the repeal of the vaccine mandate, only 43 of the over 8,000 service members given the boot decided to rejoin.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Utah mom left 'disabled' after COVID-19 vaccine trial launches first US lawsuit against AstraZeneca



Prior to the pandemic, Brianne Dressen of Salt Lake City was living the active life she always wanted. She went rock climbing with her husband, a chemist for the U.S. Army; ferried her two children to and from soccer games and piano practices; and taught preschool.

Everything came to a screeching halt in November 2020 — not as a result of the union-driven school closures, the lockdowns, or the outcome of the election, but with her participation in an AstraZeneca vaccine trial.

"I walked into the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy."

The experimental vaccine allegedly left the 42-year-old Utah mother with a debilitating injury.

Dressen cannot bring a product liability action against the company on account of the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. She can, however, possibly ding the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant for breach of contract, which is exactly what she aims to do.

Dressen filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah Monday alleging that she developed a debilitating neurological condition as a result of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and that the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant failed to cover the cost of her medical care as promised.

When presented with Dressen's complaint, Daniel Horowitz, the host of "Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz" on the Blaze Podcast Network and author of "Rise of the Fourth Reich: Confronting COVID Fascism with a New Nuremberg Trial So This Never Happens Again," told Blaze News, "It is shocking how we now have thousands of academic and case studies of injuries affecting every organ system, yet victims remain alone with little legal recourse for compensation."

"We have VAERS, V-Safe, documents from the vaccine manufacturers, and European Medicines Agency reporting, all showing catastrophic levels of injury, yet there is no critical mass of a political movement in any country at this point to repeal unbridled indemnity of these criminal enterprises," continued Horowitz. "It's also peculiar how AstraZeneca was taken off the market, but the mRNA shots, which are even worse, remain funded and promoted by government."

Background

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was a viral-vector vaccine developed in collaboration with Oxford University and produced for various companies by the Serum Institute of India.

While 32,000 Americans like Dressen participated in vaccine trials in the homeland and the Biden administration agreed to share up to 60 million doses with other nations, the AstraZeneca vaccine was never rolled out in the United States. It was, however, administered billions of times worldwide.

It quickly became clear that the vaccine was not as "safe and effective" as health authorities throughout the Anglosphere had guaranteed. After all, there were numerous reports of otherwise healthy recipients experiencing abnormal bleeding, low blood platelets, blood clots, and even dying.

German and Nordic researchers determined that some recipients were developing a clotting disorder called "vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia," which produced antibodies that activated platelets and led to clots.

Despite a growing number of likely victims, AstraZeneca suggested there was "no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country."

The company's claims have aged like milk.

Last year, Jamie Scott, a father of two left with a permanent clot-related brain injury, filed suit against the company. His complaint was followed by dozens more and ultimately a class-action lawsuit.

Several months after Scott sued AstraZeneca, the company admitted in a February court document that "it is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause [thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome]. The causal mechanism is not known."

The following month, the company withdrew its "marketing authorization" in the European Union. That application went into effect last week. The Telegraph reported that AstraZeneca is expected to remove the vaccine from all other markets where it was approved.

'Hollowed out'

Dressen's lawsuit, reportedly the first to be launched stateside against AstraZeneca, claims the company offered various written promises to participants in its vaccine trial, including financial reimbursement for each completed visit to the test clinic for various procedures; financial reimbursement for each completed phone call linked to the study; and compensation for study-related injuries.

"At the moment the substance entered Bri's blood, a solemn contract had been formed."

"Defendants defined 'research injuries' as '[i]njuries that have been caused by the vaccine, tests or procedures,'" said the lawsuit. "Defendants promised that 'Sponsor will pay the costs of medical treatment for research injuries, provided that the costs are reasonable, and you did not cause the injury yourself.'"

"At the moment the substance entered Bri's blood, a solemn contract had been formed," said the complaint. "Her performance was complete and Defendants' promises were irrevocable."

When things went south, the lawsuit claims the company effectively left Dressen hanging.

"I was a completely hollowed out version of who I once was."

Within an hour of receiving the shot, Dressen claims she experienced tingling in her arm. The paraesthesia apparently was not temporary or localized. It soon spread to her other arm.

"That evening other progressively worrying symptoms emerged: blurred vision, double vision, headache, sound sensitivity, a loud ringing in the ears (tinnitus), nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills," said the lawsuit.

In the weeks that followed, a prickling sensation reportedly spread to Dressen's legs. She indicated she lost 20 pounds from constant vomiting while this and her other symptoms worsened.

"I walked in to the clinic fine, and walked out the beginning of a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy," recalled Dressen. "My little girl's voice was too painful for my ears. My little boy's hand was too painful for touch. There was no break, no reprieve, no escape. No answers, no help, only questions, and fear of what was overtaking my body more and more each day as new symptoms piled on."

"I was a completely hollowed out version of who I once was," added Dressen.

In June 2021, a team of neurologists from the National Institute of Health reportedly diagnosed Dressen as having "Post Vaccine Neuropathy."

According to the lawsuit, Dressen is still "disabled" three years later; "a shadow of her former self: unable to work, unable to do any athletic activity, unable to parent the way she had, and unable to drive more than a few blocks at a time."

Dressen told the Telegraph that the worse part is that her children, now aged nine and 11, can't remember the kind of person their mother was before the injury.

"It really sucks. The worse part, the biggest punishment of all of this, is the impact on my kids," said Dressen.

Painful and costly

Dressen's lawsuit claims that AstraZeneca ignored multiple requests for support until finally coughing up a meager $1,243.30, "a minuscule fraction of the medical bills and lost wages, among other financial costs, that Bri had incurred and will continue to incur."

After all, Dressen's biweekly medication supposedly ran her $3,500 per session. One of her current medications would cost her over $430,000 a year. With the help of insurance, she is presently paying roughly $119,000.

"The way we have been and continue to be treated is simply appalling."

In order to access the $1,243.30, Dressen would have to release AstraZeneca of further responsibility for her care.

"The way we have been and continue to be treated is simply appalling," Brian Dressen, the plaintiff's husband, is quoted as saying in the complaint.

The Telegraph reported that Utah law enables complainants who sue for breach of contract to claim for damages and costs resulting from the alleged breach. While Dressen is not suing for a specific amount, she could possibly have AstraZeneca on the hook, not only for her legal and medical bills, but for additional damages — including for lost income and emotional distress.

A spokeswoman for the company told the Telegraph that AstraZeneca would not comment on ongoing litigation. She did, however, say, "Patient safety is our highest priority. From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects."

 

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AstraZeneca is withdrawing its vaccine globally after admitting it can cause potentially deadly blood clots



British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is taking its COVID-19 vaccine off the market worldwide.

While the move follows hard on the heels of the company's admission that its shot can cause potentially deadly blood clots and in the face of a class-action lawsuit brought by apparent victims and deceased victims' families, AstraZeneca has attributed the withdrawal to commercial considerations.

Background

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was a viral-vector vaccine developed in collaboration with Oxford University and produced for various companies by the Serum Institute of India. It relied upon a modified version of a chimpanzee adenovirus and was sold under various brand names, including Vaxzevria and Covishield.

Blaze News previously reported that the shot was approved for use in the U.K. in December 2020 and later approved by the World Health Organization. While never approved for rollout in the U.S., the Biden administration agreed to share up to 60 million doses with other nations.

Within a year of approval, the vaccine had been injected over 2.5 billion times worldwide.

The vaccine was not only touted by then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson as a "triumph for British science" but passed off as "safe and effective" by the mainstream media and various so-called experts on both sides of the Atlantic.

Some unfortunate members of the British public and others around the world similarly cajoled into getting the vaccine were soon left with a firsthand understanding that the so-called experts were dead wrong.

Doctors started noticing in 2021 that otherwise healthy people were ending up with grievous injuries or even dying after receiving the AstaZeneca shot. Facing mounting evidence of a link between the vaccine and adverse side effects, various countries temporarily took the shot off the market, citing reports of abnormal bleeding, low blood platelets, blood clots, and sudden deaths.

German and Nordic researchers determined that some vaccine recipients were developing a clotting disorder called "vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia," which generated antibodies that activated platelets and led to clots. Researchers indicated that the odds of the vaccine harming recipients was one in 100,000 — a higher likelihood than the vaccine actually keeping patients under 30 out of the hospital with COVID.

The Telegraph reported that among the hundreds of suspected thrombo-embolic events documented among British AstraZeneca patients, at least seven were ultimately fatal for victims in the 18-29 age cohort; 10 were fatal for victims ages 30-39; 17 were fatal for victims ages 40-49; 21 were fatal for victims ages 50-59; 11 were fatal for victims ages 60-69; seven were fatal for victims ages 70-79; and four were fatal for those 80 and over.

Legal action and admission

Jamie Scott, a father of two who was left with a permanent clot-related brain injury following his AstraZeneca vaccination in April 2021, sued the company last year. His effort to hold the pharmaceutical giant accountable set off an avalanche of similar complaints.

In the months since, over 50 other alleged vaccine victims have joined a class-action lawsuit against the company.

The Telegraph reported that the company told Scott's lawyers last year it did "not accept that [thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome] is caused by the vaccine at a generic level."

However, AstraZeneca admitted in a February court document that "it is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS. The causal mechanism is not known."

According to the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, "very rare" side effects are those that occur in less than one in 10,000 cases, reported the Independent.

This admission was a big deal granted the company had repeatedly denied causation over the years.

For instance, in a March 14, 2021, statement, AstraZeneca claimed that a careful review showed "no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country."

Withdrawal

According to the Telegraph, AstraZeneca voluntarily withdrew its "marketing authorization" in the European Union on March 5, just weeks after filing court documents containing its blood-clot admission. This withdrawal application went into effect on Tuesday.

"This decision to withdraw marketing authorization, ending the usage of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the EU, will be welcomed," said a lawyer for the alleged victims of the vaccine, now engaged in a class-action lawsuit against the company.

The company, which did over $12 billion in product sales in Q1 2024, is expected to follow suit in other markets around the globe where its vaccine was approved.

The reason provided for the withdrawal is that the vaccine has been made redundant by other "updated vaccines."

AstraZeneca reportedly said in a statement, "We are incredibly proud of the role Vaxzevria played in ending the global pandemic. According to independent estimates, over 6.5 million lives were saved in the first year of use alone and over three billion doses were supplied globally."

"Our efforts have been recognized by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic," continued the statement. "As multiple, variant Covid-19 vaccines have since been developed, there is a surplus of available updated vaccines. This has led to a decline in demand for Vaxzevria, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied. AstraZeneca has therefore taken the decision to initiate withdrawal of the marketing authorizations for Vaxzevria within Europe."

"We will now work with regulators and our partners to align on a clear path forward to conclude this chapter and significant contribution to the Covid-19 pandemic," added the company.

Sarah Moore, a partner with the law firm representing the group action, told the Telegraph, "To those who we represent, all of whom have suffered bereavement or serious injury as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine, this decision to withdraw marketing authorization, ending the usage of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the EU, will be welcomed."

Moore suggested further that the withdrawal will be viewed as a "decision linked with AstraZeneca's recent admission that the vaccine can cause TTS, and the fact that regulators across the world suspended or stopped usage of the vaccine following concerns regarding TTS."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!