Many American's are Saying "No Thanks I'll Pass on this Vaccine!"

 

Big

Pharma

Blows Up!

The Forbidden COVID-19 Chronicles
The Makers of COVID-19 Vaccines: Johnson & Johnson
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health

While some people enthusiastically anticipated the release of COVID-19 vaccines, others have a much more cautious view, and a significant percentage of people state that they will not receive ANY COVID-19 vaccines. The new term for people who are concerned about vaccines is "vaccine-hesitant" (medical authorities finally acknowledged that negative name-calling was not helping their cause) and health officials are concerned about this rather large and growing group of people. Why are 35-40% of Americans (depending on the survey cited) refusing to take one of these vaccines? One commonly cited reason is the track record of the vaccine makers.

Take Johnson & Johnson, for example. The company announced that it received Emergency Use Authorization for its single injection COVID-19 vaccine on February 27, 2021. The vaccine was developed by a subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, and is available for individuals age 18 and older.[1]

Both Johnson & Johnson and Janssen have made and distributed drugs and vaccines for a long time in the U.S., and both have paid large fines to state and federal governments. Since 2000, J&J and its subsidiaries have been charged 55 times with criminal or civil crimes and have paid a total of $4,247,381 in fines.[2]

J&J and its subsidiaries paid over $2.2 billion in 2013 in one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in the history of the U.S.[3] Here are just a few of the details (from Department of Justice documents):[4]

J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals marketed Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, for unapproved uses. The company’s drug reps promoted Risperdal to doctors and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients, falsely claiming that the drug was effective for symptoms like anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility, and confusion.

 

Blatantly disregarding the fact that at the time Risperdal was only approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, Janssen created an "ElderCare sales force" to market the drug to prescribers. The company’s business plan stated that its goal was to "[m]aximize and grow Risperdal’s market leadership in geriatrics and long-term care." Written sales aids and promotional materials were developed for reps to use when calling on doctors. The company provided incentives for off-label promotion and based bonuses for its salespeople on total sales of Risperdal in their territories, not just sales for FDA-approved uses. The company also paid kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the drug. Reps told doctors that they would receive generous speaker’s fees if they were prolific prescribers.

 

The company’s illegal practices resulted in the filing of false claims with federal healthcare programs. Additionally, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare, Inc., the largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. These kickbacks were falsely categorized as market share rebates, data-purchase fees, grants, and educational funding. The kickbacks were designed to incentivize Omnicare’s pharmacists to promote Risperdal to nursing home patients.

Janssen was warned by FDA officials on several occasions that claims that Risperdal was safe and effective were misleading. FDA officials told Janssen executives that behavioral problems in elderly dementia patients were usually not due to psychotic disorders and were more likely "appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed…"

 

According to the Justice Department, both J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal increased the risk of stroke in the elderly. The companies manipulated data in order to cover this up. When a J&J study showed that taking Risperdal significantly increased the risk of stroke and other adverse events, Janssen executives combined the data with other studies to make it look like the drug actually lowered the risk

 

A second study confirmed the risk of Risperdal for elderly patients. When it looked like the company was not going to publish the data, a physician involved with the study advised Janssen that "[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed…we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings."

Another complication of Risperdal was increased risk of diabetes. First, the company outright lied, promoting Risperdal as "uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes)." When confronted with research showing that Risperdal increased the risk of diabetes, just like other antipsychotics, the company hired experts to re-analyze the study and to publish articles stating that Risperdal actually lowered the risk of diabetes.

 

The company’s behavior seems particularly egregious since the targeted population for the unlawful prescribing of the drug were some of the most vulnerable people. In addition to elderly nursing home patients, Janssen promoted the drug to children and adults who had developmental disabilities. Records show that both J&J and Janssen executives knew that there were several risks associated with prescribing Risperdal to children. These included the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that stimulates breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, Janssen’s "Key Base Business Goals" included growing and protecting market share for children and adolescents for Risperdal. Reps were instructed to call on psychiatrists and facilities that treated children, and to promote Risperdal as a safe and effective drug for children with attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and autism. The company was warned repeatedly by FDA not to promote the drug for use in children.

It is important to note that there are other side effects of Risperdal that are quite concerning, including tardive dyskinesia, fatigue, drowsiness, fever, weight gain, dry mouth, restlessness, anxiety, insomnia, vomiting, stomach pain, constipation, cough, sore throat, and skin rash.[5]

Drug companies make so much money that multi-billion-dollar fines for criminal behavior are just a cost of doing business. Thus it is not surprising that in 2019, an Oklahoma judge ruled that J&J had intentionally minimized the risks and misrepresented the benefits of opioid drugs. The judge wrote that J&J had used "false, misleading and dangerous marketing campaigns" that "caused exponentially increasing rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and babies born exposed to opioids." The company was ordered to pay the state $572 million.[6]

I’ve presented here just a couple of the episodes in which J&J and/or its subsidiaries were caught committing criminal fraud and engaging in activities that resulted in considerable harm and even death for large numbers of people. The company is a serial offender, yet the federal government continues to allow it to do business in the U.S., and routinely approves new products submitted by the company, such as its new COVID-19 vaccine.

I can’t fathom that anyone who knows about J&J and its prior bad acts would agree to any medical intervention produced and marketed by it. I certainly won’t.

---

[1] https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-authorized-by-u-s-fda-for-emergency-usefirst-single-shot-vaccine-in-fight-against-global-pandemic

[2] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/johnson-and-johnson

[3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

[4] IBID

[5] https://www.rxlist.com/risperdal-side-effects-drug-center.htm

[6] https://www.statnews.com/2019/08/26/oklahoma-judge-finds-johnson-johnson-fueled-opioid-crisis/

Vaccine: twenty countries suspend injections; does that make you "hesitant?"

by Jon Rappoport The Guardian: “Several European countries have halted using the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine…” The Guardian has a brand new definition of “several.” Their own article lists the following nations: Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Cyprus, Sweden.  Bulgaria and Thailand have also stopped the jab. The reason for the “pause?” A “small” number of people have developed blood clots. And now, as I write this, the Wall St. Journal is reporting that European Union medical regulators have decided everything is OK---“the benefits of the shots outweigh the risks.” Standard boilerplate language for: “we don’t have to explain the vaccine injuries or deaths.” If you believe just a few people with blood clots caused 20 countries to stop giving the jabs, I have condos on Mars for sale.  Hidden behind the firewall of the vaccine establishment, MANY people are keeling over. And why wouldn’t they? Governments and pharma companies have rushed a new experimental RNA technology into use, for the first time in history. Prior to the COVID injection, all attempts to force approval of RNA tech had failed; dangerous and deadly over-reaction of the immune system was the reason. Since I seem to be one of the only people saying this, I’ll say it again: Bill Gates, Fauci, and other rabid vaccinators are in love with RNA tech. It allows vaccines to be produced far more quickly, easily, and cheaply. For any purported virus, at the drop of a hat, companies can come up with a vaccine. It doesn’t take four years. It takes three months.  “We just discovered a virus that crossed over from geese. And here’s a new one from Easter bunnies. And another new one just drifted in from Jupiter. We’ll have vaccines ready by Christmas. The seventh mutation of SARS-CoV-2 has its own vaccine as of yesterday. If you want to take the kiddies to Disneyland, find one of those pretty pink vans parked in your town, take the shot and receive your updated Immunity Certificate…” Then there is this: the COVID vaccines manufactured by AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna are completely ineffective at preventing serious illness. BY DESIGN. Months ago, a NY Times piece, by Peter Doshi and Eric Topol, spelled it out. September 22, 2020: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”: “If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?” [Clue: “most mild” means cough, or chills and fever, which cure themselves without the need for a vaccine.] “The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.” “But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.” “According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.” “To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.” The COVID shot: dangerous AND ineffective. Trump’s coronavirus task force knew the truth. Biden’s task force knows the truth. But they don’t care.  The CDC and the WHO know. They don’t care, either. But these authorities are very nervous, because droves of people are avoiding the vaccine. It’s not “hesitancy.”  It’s utter rejection. Sensible rejection. It began soon after the initial rollout of the Pfizer vaccine. NBC News, December 31, 2020: “A large percentage of front-line workers in hospitals and nursing homes have refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine…” “About 50 percent of front-line workers in California’s Riverside County have refused to take the vaccine…” “Anecdotally, an estimated 60 percent of Ohio nursing home employees have refused the vaccine already…” “A survey of 2,053 New York City firefighters found that more than half said they would refuse the Covid-19 vaccine when it became available to them…” And all that was long before 20 countries suspended the injection. I’ll close, for now, with two statements about the role vaccines have played in eliminating deaths from diseases---because true history matters: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this reduction may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition." Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977 [DYI:  Between the aforementioned time periods [1860 to 1965] there was a significant improvement in all aspects of public health infrastructure.  Clean drinking water, modern plumping, sewer systems; garbage collection, vastly improved housing etc. all had a major positive impact upon the lives of average citizens.  Back in 1996 before the CDC was corrupted by big pharma they actually admitted that due to public health measure I just listed the reduction of these diseases was reduced not 90% it is 98%!]      Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.” “Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.” “In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.” (The link to this article posted on my blog is here.) Pam & John Thank You DYI