Another round of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests has been filled, this time for Moderna’s Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine,” revealing that the mRNA (messenger RNA) shot causes birth defects and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women.
Towards the end of the 699-page document release in the toxicology section, it is stated that mRNA-1273, as the company calls the drug, lead to “significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules.”
“Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%,” the section continues. “Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses.”
While Moderna acknowledges the connection between these changes and its drug, the company claims that the structural changes observed in the bone structure of test rats “do not impact development or function of a developing embryo.”
“Maternal toxicity in the form of clinical observations was observed for 5 days following the last dose ([gestation day] 13), correlating with the most sensitive period for rib development in rats (GDs 14 to 17),” the company says.
All of this directly contradicts the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which in its authorization for “Spikevax,” another name for the Moderna shot, claimed that there was “no vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effect on postnatal development.”
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical executive with 25 years of experience in clinical trials and regulatory approvals, reviewed the documents and discovered the disparity between what Moderna’s clinical trials actually show and what the FDA claims about the drug.
More than half of all federally funded clinical trials are non-compliant with government guidelines
It turns out that the results of many clinical trials are blatantly misinterpreted by government regulators – if they even get submitted to the government for review in the first place.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) says the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is failing to do its job by ensuring that drug and vaccine companies meet the necessary requirements for federally funded trials.
More than half of the 72 trials that were supposed to be submitted and posted to ClinicalTrials.gov in calendar year 2019 and 2020 were either never submitted at all (25) or were submitted late (12).
Further, half were conducted internally while the other half were conducted externally – the external ones having a worse compliance rate than NIH scientists.
Rather than deal appropriately with all this, the NIH “took limited enforcement action when there was noncompliance,” we are told. At the same time, the NIH continued to fund “new research of responsible parties that had not submitted the results of their completed clinical trials.”
What this means is that pertinent information about adverse events is not making its way through the appropriate channels, resulting in the FDA and other agencies issuing false information about questionable drugs and vaccines being “safe and effective.”
According to Stanford University medical professor Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, negative trial results never get published in journals because of this.
“So when the NIH doesn’t follow the rule, essentially, it’s painting an incomplete, biased picture” of how taxpayer money is being spent and what it is supporting, Bhattacharya contends.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also complicit in the racket, having most recently removed information from its website falsely claiming that mRNA spike proteins leave the body after just a few days. It turns out that they persist inside the body for a long time.
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post