Media Responds With Apathy, Disappointment as US-Backed Coup Gov’t Concedes Defeat in Bolivia

Across the spectrum, corporate media has endorsed last year’s rightwing takeover of Bolivia, refusing to label it as a coup. Coverage of Sunday’s historical elections hasn’t been much better.

Former Bolivian President Evo Morales attends a press conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, after general elections in his home country, Monday, Oct. 19. 2020. (AP Photo/Marcos Brindicci)

by Alan Macleod,

Bolivia’s Movement to Socialism (MAS) party is celebrating what appears to be a crushing, landslide victory in Sunday’s elections. Although official vote counting is far from over, exit polls show an overwhelming triumph for the socialists, and a repudiation of the right-wing military government of Jeanine Añez, who has ruled since the coup last November. At the same time, the corporate press appears less than pleased about the return to democracy for the Andean country.

In order to win outright in the first round, the top candidate needs at least 40 percent of the popular vote and a lead of 10 points over their nearest rival, and multiple polls have indicated that the MAS ticket of Luis Arce and David Choquehuanca has won more than 50 percent, and have achieved a lead of over 20 points on their nearest challenger, Carlos Mesa (president between 2003 and 2005) — quite a feat in a five-way election. The MAS is also expected to have won a large majority in the senate.

Añez, who came to power in a coup overthrowing President Evo Morales last November, and whose government has constantly postponed the election throughout the year, knew the game was up and lauded the MAS on their remarkable achievement. “We do not yet have an official count, but from the data we have, Mr. Arce and Mr. Choquehuanca have won the election. I congratulate the winners and ask them to govern with Bolivia and democracy in mind,” she wrote. Añez decided to drop out of the election herself last month in an attempt to boost Mesa’s chances of stopping Arce. However, today Mesa accepted defeat as well. “The result is overwhelming and clear. The difference is wide,” he lamented.


Media disappointment at return of democracy

Across the spectrum, corporate media endorsed the events of November, refusing to label them a coup. The New York Times editorial board claimed that the “increasingly autocratic” tyrant Morales had actually “resigned,” after “protests” over a “highly fishy vote.” The Washington Post did the same. “There can be little doubt who was responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales,” their editorial board wrote, as they expressed their relief that Bolivia was finally in the hands of “more responsible leaders” like Añez, (who, at the time, was giving security forces orders to shoot her opponents in the streets). Despite this, The Wall Street Journal’s board decided the events of November constituted “a democratic outbreak in Bolivia.”

Today, therefore, the corporate press is in a very tough spot, as they have to explain to their readers why the Bolivian people have just handed an overwhelming, landslide victory to a party they have been presenting as an authoritarian dictatorship who were overthrown by popular protests last year.

A number of outlets solved this by simply fastidiously avoiding reporting on the events of November or using the word “coup” to describe them. NPR’s Philip Reeves, for example, claimed Morales “resigned” amid an annulled election after “allegations of fraud,” leading to an “interim government” (Añez’s own public relations-minded phrase for her administration). The word “coup” only appears in the mouth of Morales, someone whose credibility the outlet has spent months undermining. Other organizations like Deutsche Welt and Bloomberg failed to use the word at all in their reporting.

The Associated Press, meanwhile, referenced the coup, but did not use the word, instead describing it as when “police and military leaders suggested he [Morales] leave.” It takes great linguistic skill to refrain from using by far the most appropriate word to describe events in Bolivia for what they are: a coup. Indeed, the linguistic gymnastics necessary to avoid using the word would be genuinely impressive were not an exercise in deceit and manufacturing consent for regime change.

CNN at least included the phrase “claims of a coup,” but presents it beside apparently equally justified “allegations of fraud among contested national elections.” But these two things are nothing like the same. One is a statement of fact while another is a debunked, discredited talking point used to overthrow a legitimate government.

Meanwhile, the BBC’s article on the election had an entire section called “why is the country so divided” which did not mention the massacres, the firesale of the country’s economy, the repression of media or activists, the persecution of the MAS or the U.S. role in overthrowing the elected government. Instead, it presented Morales himself as the prime agent of polarization, a common tactic among media discussing enemy states.

The New York Times also published a long, in-depth article on the election, yet it appeared that the only MAS “supporters” it was willing to quote were ones who constantly badmouthed Morales, the article also suggesting that MAS’ figures might be inflated, despite the fact they have now been accepted by Añez and Mesa as essentially accurate.

As such the corporate press refused to cover the incredible story of nationwide nonviolent resistance to authoritarian rule, forcing a government into accepting its own defeat, reminiscent of Gandhi’s campaign against the British in India.

A year of political turbulence

Last October, Morales won an unprecedented and not uncontentious fourth term. Yet the U.S.-backed opposition refused to accept the results, claiming that they had been rigged. The Organization of American States immediately backed them up, producing a flawed report on election meddling, something that was almost immediately disproven. Nevertheless, the right-wing mobilized and began a widespread campaign of terror, targeting, attacking, and kidnapping MAS politicians. On November 10, police and military commanders joined the coup, demanding Morales resign or else they would take matters into their own hands. Morales decided to flee to Mexico but made clear he was only leaving to prevent a bloodbath.

The military picked Añez, a little known senator from a party who gained only four percent of the public vote, to become president. She immediately granted security forces total pre-immunity for all crimes committed during the “re-establishment of order.” Her new interior minister, Arturo Murillo, oversaw the creation of masked, black-clad paramilitary units specifically aimed at political subversives, foreigners, and human rights groups. Journalists were attacked and, in one case, beaten to death, while foreign and alternative media were shut down completely. Murillo promised to “hunt down” his opponents like dogs. Morales himself was charged with crimes against humanity and faces spending the rest of his life in prison if he returns to his home country. Other MAS leaders on yesterday’s ballot also face long prison terms on dubious charges.

Añez pushed through the privatization of natural resources and state-owned businesses while in office, accepting loans from predatory organizations like the International Monetary Fund. She also reorientated her country’s foreign policy away from an independent path towards one completely in line with U.S. foreign policy aims, pulling out of multiple regional alliances and entering new ones. Under Morales, for example, Bolivia had declared Israel a ‘terrorist state.” Yet less than a month after the coup, Añez and Murillo were inviting IDF troops to the country to train their police forces in dealing with “leftist terrorism.”

The government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has also taken on a decidedly right-wing tone. Cuts to health provisions and the expulsion of hundreds of Cuban doctors (whom the government labeled as “terrorists”) caused the public health system to crash just before the pandemic became worldwide news. As a result, Bolivia has the third-highest COVID-19 death per capita rate in the world, comfortably surpassing the United States in severity. Añez herself contracted the virus in July.

Añez used the intensity of the pandemic as justification to continually suspend the elections she claimed she would hold, calling herself merely an “interim president.” Yet many inside the country felt the coronavirus was being used as an excuse to keep herself in power indefinitely. Throughout the year, Bolivia was engulfed in near continual protests, shutting the country down. As a result, the summer was marked by the rise of the virus and by a weeks-long peaceful general strike calling for elections. Fearing a potential revolution, Añez conceded and agreed to hold them in October.

After months of organized popular struggle in the face of a coup government that had been massacring them, Sunday’s result has been widely interpreted as a repudiation of the coup and a vote for socialism. MintPress’ Ollie Vargas, who has never made a secret of his political persuasions, said in the wake of the results:

On a personal level, I can’t believe this is finally happening, but it’s what we’ve always known. Despite the massacres, despite the persecution, despite U.S. intervention, the MAS is back and even more powerful. They can’t put a lid on the majority of the people.”

Morales celebrated the ascension of his former minister of finance to Bolivia’s top job. “We’ve received our democracy” he declared. “Sisters and brothers: the will of the people has been imposed. There has been a resounding victory for the MAS. Our political movement will have a majority in both houses. We have returned millions, now we are going to restore dignity and freedom to the people,” he added on Twitter.

Arce himself was in an equally joyous mood, telling Vargas last night that, “It seems that a great part of the Bolivian people have recovered their soul.” “I think the Bolivian people want to retake the path we were on,” he added. MAS supporters took to the streets to celebrate their victory, made all the more unlikely given the repression they have been subject to under Añez’s military regime.

Fears of violence and vote rigging against the MAS were rife, especially as the government had blocked foreign election observers from overseeing events, threatening to jail them. On Saturday, Argentinian congressman Federico Fagioli, an official observer representing his government, was arrested by police at El Alto airport. Video of the incident shows Fagioli shouting “I am being kidnapped” as multiple officers pick him up and forcefully carry him away.


What’s Next?

If Añez’s government does indeed step down, it will represent only the second time in Latin American history that a U.S.-backed coup against a progressive administration has been overturned. However, in Venezuela in 2002, the countercoup took less than 48 hours. In Bolivia, people have organized for nearly a year to achieve the same ends, giving the government far more time to embed and establish itself. The Bolivian people have a long history of organized struggle bringing down governments. In the early 2000s, nationwide protests against gas and water privatizations rocked the country, toppling unrepresentative regimes (including that of Mesa’s in 2005), setting the stage for Morales to become the most influential figure in Bolivian politics of the last 15 years.

The first indigenous president in the majority indigenous country’s history, Morales ran on the idea of 21st-century socialism, using his country’s considerable mineral wealth to fund social programs that cut poverty by half and extreme poverty by three-quarters, halving unemployment and increasing the country’s GDP by 50 percent. Yet his nationalization program and his outspoken criticism of capitalism and American imperialism on the world stage made him a prime target for regime change in Washington, who strongly supported the events of November, immediately recognizing and supporting Añez’s legitimacy.

Despite the fact that the MAS’ electoral victory looks certain, it is far from clear what sort of resistance they will face from other sources of power. “The next few days will be key for consolidating democracy in Bolivia. The MAS will need to embrace the patriotic elements within the police and military, to ensure the U.S./Murillo don’t launch a second coup against the majority of Bolivians,” Vargas warned. And how will the MAS deal with the coup plotters themselves, clearly guilty of serious human rights abuses. Are they really in any position to exert authority over the situation?

Of late, wherever there are governments critical of U.S. power (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran, etc.) they are met with crushing sanctions in an attempt to destroy their ability to oppose Washington. Bolivia under Morales had already been labeled by some in the U.S. as a “narco-dictatorship.” If Arce does indeed come to rule his country, will he receive the Nicolas Maduro treatment?

For MAS supporters, however, those are questions for a different day. Today, they are celebrating a stunning and historic victory cheered by progressives the world over but angering Washington and corporate journalists in equal measure.

Feature photo | Former Bolivian President Evo Morales attends a press conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, after general elections in his home country, Oct. 19. 2020. Marcos Brindicci | AP

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Is China WEAPONIZING coronavirus vaccines to cause further pandemic pandemonium?

(Natural News) The World Health Organization (WHO) is proud to announce that communist China has joined its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine initiative aiming for “equitable” global distribution of the jab. Known as the COVAX Facility, the WHO endeavor seeks to avoid the promulgation of “vaccine nationalism,” and instead foster a globalized protocol to get everyone…

Americans of all political stripes unwilling to get jabbed for coronavirus

(Natural News) Getting vaccinated for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is an increasingly unpopular idea in America, where people who land all across the political spectrum are deciding in droves to skip the future jab for their own protection. Tara Granger, a 36-year-old nurse from New York who traditionally supports vaccination, says she has no intention…

Melania Trump used “vitamins and healthy food” to cure coronavirus

(Natural News) Instead of downing a pharmaceutical cocktail of remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone, and an experimental antibody regimen made from Regeneron like her husband did, First Lady Melania Trump decided to take “a more natural route” in treating her Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) positive test result with vitamins and healthy food. Though she did not specify any…

Black business owner threatened for supporting police in Portland

(Natural News) A Black military veteran and cafe owner in Portland said that his business was attacked and threatened by Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters because of his support for law enforcement. This experience, he said, has only strengthened his resolve and solidified his support for President Donald Trump. John Jackson, the owner of…

COVER-UP: FISA intelligence reports from 2016 lack critical data during four-month period immediately following the presidential election

(Natural News) Information on U.S. citizens’ identities targeted for surveillance, specifically from September to December 2016, is missing in intelligence reports released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Data from the four months is vital as it corresponds to extended surveillance efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on President Donald Trump’s campaign…

Study: Massive protostars may be “chemical factories” for essential ingredients to life

(Natural News) A recent study published in the Astrophysical Journal has found large quantities of prebiotic molecules around massive protostars. Using an airborne telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), an international team of researchers detected chemical fingerprints suggesting the presence of these molecules, which are considered essential ingredients to life. “It turns out that these stars are like chemical…

Scientist Attacked for Fluoridation Facts

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, hundreds of studies reveal it’s one of the most harmful public health strategies ever implemented.

Among the many researchers who have published damning fluoride studies is Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada1 who in 2019 received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure.2

That same year, she published research3,4 showing maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy lowered IQ in children. In 2020, Till and her team published another study,5 showing children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.

She’s also listed as a co-author on several other important fluoride studies published in the last five years. Till’s studies are part of hundreds of studies presented as evidence during the landmark fluoridation trial held in federal court in June 2020, reviewed in “Fluoride on Trial,” and are considered some of the strongest evidence against water fluoridation to date.

Now, Till is suddenly facing the same “cancel culture” that so many other researchers have faced when they present evidence that challenges industry propaganda and threatens the continuation of a toxic but profitable practice.

Pro-Fluoride Group Calls for Independent Probe

According to an October 8, 2020, report6 by CTV News, 14 scientists, referring to themselves as an “International Group of Fluoridation Experts,” have written a letter7 to York University’s board of governors, calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science.’” The September 21, 2020, letter reads, in part:8

“… Till’s work continues to have sway in the political and public decision making process because it asserts a ‘possibility’ that water fluoridation is dangerous, however dubious the work’s methodology and conclusions.

That ‘possibility’ frightens some elected officials and administrators. We are advised that several United States boards, which oversee water quality, are currently deciding whether to cease community water fluoridation because of concerns advanced by Dr. Till, her students and associates, including that fluoride harms the developing brain …

Dr. Till’s fluoride research conclusions diverge significantly from current research on the safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) … We believe that some or all of Dr. Christine Till’s fluoride publications might well contain significant error …

Therefore, we are acting on our moral duty to make this belief known by asking you to establish an international, independent, expert committee to determine whether our concerns are justified.”

In response to the accusations, Till told CTV News:9

“Our study underwent extensive scrutiny to meet the scientific standards for publishing in the highest-ranking pediatric journal in the world. Policy makers, health professionals and scientists must have access to all high-quality evidence to make informed decisions. It would be unacceptable to censor scientific results because they do not conform to a certain set of beliefs.”

University Defends Scientific Freedom of Its Faculty

September 29, 2020, York University president Rhonda Lenton issued a public reply10 to the letter, stating:

“Over the past few months, several incidents bearing on the academic freedom of members of the York Community have been brought to my attention.

In each case, individuals and groups external to the University have appealed to senior leadership to intercede against faculty members due to statements made, or research published, in the course of their legitimate scholarly activities.

I believe this presents an important opportunity to restate York’s unequivocal support of academic freedom …

We must always defend the right of students, professors and instructional staff to express their views and conduct free inquiry. It is, however, not required that we agree with the content of that speech.

Free expression, especially on controversial topics, is best regulated by vigorous counterspeech. It is not appropriate for the University to decide which side of a particular issue is correct …

As a leading research university, York remains steadfast in its defense of academic freedom. We will not censure any member of our community for their research or their public statements made in the course of their scholarly work within limits prescribed by law and applicable policies governing the responsible conduct of research.”

Till’s Public Statements Questioned

In addition to questioning Till’s scientific integrity, the group questions the truthfulness of a number of public statements she’s made. That includes the short video featured above, produced by Till and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University11 in Canada.

On a side note, Lanphear is also an invited member of the Council of Fellows of the Collegium Ramazzini12 in Italy, an international scientific academy comprised of physicians and scientists that seeks to increase scientific knowledge of the environmental and occupational causes of disease to protect public health.

The Collegium Ramazzini collaborates with the Ramazzini Institute,13 a nonprofit social cooperative dedicated to independent scientific research into environmental toxins.

You may recall hearing about the Ramazzini Institute in relation to the harms of cellphone radiation — another hotly contested area of research where organizations with vested interests are doing everything they can to smear and dismiss findings showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause physical harm.

Getting back to the video, in it, Till and Lanphear review the history of water fluoridation, research showing fluoride to be toxic to the developing brain, and the implications of an IQ loss of three to five points.

As noted in the video, most people have an IQ score between 85 and 115 points. Only 2.5% of children have an IQ above 130, which is considered gifted. Another 2.5% of children have an IQ below 70, which is considered challenged.

A mere five points drop in IQ, which doesn’t sound like much, actually results in a whopping 57% increase in the number of children who are intellectually and academically challenged, from 6 million to 9.4 million. There’s also a corresponding decrease in those who are gifted, from 6 million down to 2.4 million, and the overall societal impact of this downward slide is tremendous.

“We ask the international, expert, arm’s length committee to consider whether Dr. Till is in a possible conflict of interest as between her duty (to collect and to report research data reliably) and her probable interest (which appears to be to cause and end to community water fluoridation),” the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” write.14

The group also wants the reviewing committee to ascertain whether the video fairly represents Till’s scientific findings, and if not, they call for a “forensic audit into whether public funds meant for research or knowledge translation were used to create the video, and, if so, require those funds to be reimbursed.”15

Why Was Till Singled Out?

For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation, but it raises the question of why she was targeted in the first place.

As it turns out, the attack came on the heels of a lecture she gave in September 2020 at the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) conference, held in Nashville, Tennessee. Till gave her presentation virtually, from Canada.

According to a September 30, 2020, article16 by Canadian journalist Tom Blackwell, presenters at the event included “a who’s who of the anti-vaccination and COVID-19 conspiracy-theory movements.”

Among the presenters17 receiving “top billing” were Andrew Wakefield, producer of the excellent documentary “1986: The Act,” and Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., featured in the highly-censored documentary “Plandemic.” Other criticized presenters included Marc Geier and retired chemistry professor Boyd Haley, both of whom have linked vaccines to autism.

According to Blackwell, “Till said she didn’t learn who else was presenting until organizers sent her an agenda two weeks before the event.” Blackwell also reports that, in an interview, Till:

“… stressed that she accepted no payment from the IAOMT, and does back childhood vaccination of the sort her fellow speakers decry … ‘Just because I speak to an organization does not mean I subscribe to the views of the other speakers … To me the invitation to speak is to present our research findings, make them accessible to this group.’”

Fluoride Research

As detailed in “Fluoride on Trial” (hyperlinked above) and many other articles over the past decade, there’s no shortage of scientific evidence showing water fluoridation causes more harm than good. More than 400 animal and human studies have in fact found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain,18 and have been published in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

The claim that Till’s research conclusions “diverge significantly from current research” therefore doesn’t hold water. What’s more, depositions by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials, which took place in 2018, have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and its effects on the brain. During the fluoride trial against the EPA, which took place in June 2020, Michael Connett, an attorney for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who is leading the lawsuit, asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure.

They produced a single study from 1995, in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats. Ironically, this study actually shows that neonatal fluoride exposure is neurotoxic, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.

So, the only study they could find to support safety is actually showing harm. Aside from the 201919,20 and 202021 studies that Till led, the following also implicate fluoride as a neurotoxin that has no place in communal water supplies:

Bashash 201722,23 Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA, this study followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.

Green 201924 Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.

Riddell 201925 Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.

Malin 201926 Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.

Malin 201927 Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.

Uyghurturk 202028 Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.29,30

As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.31

Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor32 that suppresses thyroid function,33,34,35 and this too can lower IQ in offspring if the mother has underactive thyroid function during pregnancy.

Excessive fluoride exposure also causes dental fluorosis, which in turn increases rates of dental cavities.36,37 This alone should be cause for reconsidering water fluoridation, considering it’s a public health strategy aimed at preventing cavities.

The Fight Against Water Fluoridation Continues

Hopefully, FAN’s legal action against the EPA will result in the elimination of fluoride from U.S. water supplies. We still have a ways to go though. As it stands, the judge in the case has asked FAN to allow the EPA to reassess the evidence before he makes a ruling.

According to the judge, the EPA has used the wrong standard to assess the evidence (which, incidentally, means the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” are likely to have made the same mistake when judging the available research).

The judge also noted, on the record, that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies. If the EPA tries to drag out this process, he is prepared to make a ruling based on the evidence presented.

So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial but, clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to seeing an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals. In the end, researchers like Till may well end up having the last word on the matter.

New Court Created for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,”1 is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended vaccines for children and pregnant women.

The U.S. vaccine industry operates under a liability shield unlike any other in existence. In most cases, if a product injures or kills a person, its manufacturer can be held accountable in a civil court of law. With FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines, however, this is not the case.

In the U.S., there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”

The newly established COVID-19 vaccine court appears largely the same, except instead of focusing on injuries or deaths related to the recommended vaccines for children and pregnant women, it will be centered on those stemming from a new COVID-19 vaccine.

Just for Those Injured or Killed by a COVID ‘Countermeasure’

Journalist Jon Rappoport highlighted the section in the document, which reveals the establishment of the new COVID vaccine court, which includes compensation for covered “countermeasures” for COVID-19, such as a vaccine:2,3

“Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program … Section 319F-4 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered [COVID] Countermeasure [e.g., a vaccine].

Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute. To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires ‘compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.’”

At face value, it sounds reasonable to establish a way for those who are injured by what will inevitably be a fast-tracked experimental vaccine to be compensated. However, not only will the vaccine makers be shielded from what should be their liability, but compensation will likely be difficult to obtain, as it is in the existing vaccine court. Rappoport wrote:4

“A quick piece of important history. In the mid-1980s, vaccine manufacturers were facing a blizzard of law suits from parents of vaccine-injured children. The very nervous manufacturers told the government they were going to get out of the vaccine business. The financial hit was going to be too deep.

The government said WAIT. Meetings were held. A plan was devised. A law was passed exempting the manufacturers from financial liability. Instead, for any of the recommended childhood vaccines, parents had to go to a government court to file a claim for compensation, after their children had been injured or killed by a vaccine.

And the government made this court a VERY tough place to win compensation. That’s the precise model for this new COVID vaccine court. And it’s based on the same unstated confession that existed in the 1980s: there are MANY vaccine injuries.”

Is the Government Expecting Significant Vaccine Injuries?

Is the establishment of a preemptive COVID vaccine court a sign that the federal government foresees many lawsuits related to this fast-tracked vaccine in the near future? Rappoport thinks so. “Bottom line,” he says, “the government expects many COVID vaccine injuries. That’s what they aren’t saying. They’re just preparing. With a new vaccine court. To handle injury and death of children and adults. That should not give you a warm secure feeling. Quite the opposite.”5

You may also be interested in “Operation Warp Speed,”6 which is a partnership among U.S. health organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense (DoD) and others. Its goal is to produce and deliver 300 million doses of “safe and effective vaccines” with the initial doses being rolled out by January 2021.

Operation Warp Speed is part of a broader strategy aimed at accelerating the development, manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, which collectively are known as countermeasures (the same countermeasures referred to in the Federal Register document).7

So far, as part of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has supplied $456 million in funds for Johnson & Johnson’s candidate vaccine and made available up to $483 million for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and up to $1.2 billion available for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine.8

Severe Adverse Events Already Seen With Moderna’s Vaccine

Moderna partnered with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci to create its vaccine. In February 2020, its stock price increased 78.1% when it announced that its messenger RNA vaccine was ready for clinical trials.9 “The company’s CEO has become a new billionaire overnight,” wrote Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

It began human trials of its experimental mRNA vaccine in March 2020, and its stock soared again in May, hitting $29 billion, even though the company currently doesn’t sell any products,10 when it released early results from its Phase 1 study of 45 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 55 — the first released from a study involving human volunteers.

Moderna’s press release11 stated that 25 participants who received two doses of its low or medium dose vaccine had levels of binding antibodies — the type that are used by the immune system to fight the virus but do not prevent viral infections — at levels approximating or exceeding those found in the blood of patients who recovered from COVID-19.12

Data for the more significant neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, was reported for only eight people, with Moderna stating that levels in each of these initial participants met or exceeded antibody levels seen in recovered COVID-19 patients.

Four study subjects experienced a “Grade 3” adverse event, which is described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as “severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; limiting self-care” such as “bathing, dressing and undressing, feeding self, using the toilet, taking medications.”13

During Phase 2 trials, 600 people will receive the vaccine, while the expanded Phase 3 trial began July 27, 202014 — an unprecedented move in terms of typical vaccine development timelines. Signs of trouble continue to mount, including reports that Moderna has no legal rights to a key patent for its vaccine delivery system, and that company executives have been dumping their stocks.

AstraZeneca Halted Vaccine Trials Due to Side Effects

As part of Operation Warp Speed, AstraZeneca agreed to make available at least 300 million doses of their experimental COVID-19 vaccine for the U.S., according to HHS, “with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”15 A large-scale Phase 3 clinical trial began on August 31, 2020, but was temporarily halted September 8 after “a suspected serious and unexpected adverse reaction” in a British participant.16

The participant reportedly suffered from transverse myelitis, which is inflammation of the spinal cord, and related neurological symptoms.17 Transverse myelitis has previously been linked to vaccination.18 By September 15, 2020, AstraZeneca had resumed clinical trials of its COVID-19 vaccine in the U.K.,19 but trials remained on hold in the U.S. as of October 1, where the FDA is investigating the patient’s “unexplained illness.”20

Results from AstraZeneca’s Phase 1 and 2 studies also revealed side effects, including fatigue, headache, malaise, chills and fever, in a significant number of participants:21

“Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported systemic reactions. Fatigue was reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [COVID-19 vaccine] group by 340 (70%) participants without paracetamol and 40 (71%) with paracetamol and in the MenACWY [meningococcal conjugate vaccine, which acted as a control] group by 227 (48%) participants without paracetamol and 26 (46%) with paracetamol, whereas headaches were reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 331 (68%) participants without paracetamol and 34 (61%) with paracetamol and in the MenACWY group by 195 (41%) participants without paracetamol and 21 (37%) participants with paracetamol.

Other systemic adverse reactions were common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group: muscle ache (294 [60%] participants without paracetamol and 27 [48%] with paracetamol), malaise (296 [61%] and 27 [48%]), chills (272 [56%] and 15 [27%]); and feeling feverish (250 [51%] and 20 [36%]).

In the of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, 87 (18%) participants without paracetamol and nine (16%) participants with paracetamol reported a temperature of at least 38°C, and eight (2%) patients without paracetamol had a temperature of at least 39°C.”

The fact that the COVID-19 vaccine was tested against another vaccine instead of a true placebo is also in and of itself problematic, as trying to measure safety of a vaccine against the safety profile of another vaccine that can also cause side effects can yield skewed results.

Vaccine Makers Have Nothing to Lose

The expansion of federal vaccine court to include makers of experimental COVID-19 vaccines allows the irresponsible sale and marketing of vaccines that have been poorly tested and formulated because the manufacturers have no liability and “nothing to lose.” Ruud Dobber, a senior AstraZeneca member, even told Reuters that fast-tracking a COVID-19 vaccine to market necessitates that makers be shielded from liability:22

“This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects. In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest.”

As noted, it’s via the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005, that the U.S. has established the new COVID vaccine court, to secure freedom from liability for manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines. Children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the existing federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

However, this program was gutted by Congressional amendments and by the HHS and Department of Justice under rule making authority within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.

If and when a COVID-19 vaccine is rolled out, even with all the potential pitfalls remaining — for instance, the vaccines are relying on novel mRNA technology that has never been used in vaccines before23 — be aware that the vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental shots, even if they cause serious injury and death. As Rappoport’s tongue-in-cheek statement suggests:24

“‘We know — and don’t ask us how — that millions of you are going to get headaches. To prevent that, we’re going to hit all of you on the head with a very heavy sledgehammer. If, ahem, a few of you happen to sustain an injury or die, we have a court where your relatives can try to get money out of us. By the way, in this court, we’ll do everything we can to deny you money. Good luck.’

Yes, the government knows exactly what’s coming when they approve a COVID vaccine. And now, so do you.”