sexta-feira, 24 de maio de 2024

Video images: Strange formations and artificial life in vaccinated blood

 

 

Claudio Fabián Guevara
January 25, 2024

“2024 will be the year of madness,” predicts Dr. Wilfredo Ramón Baltasar Stokes.

This Guatemalan surgeon, a member of the Gallery of Illustrious Guatemalans, from the beginning of the pandemic differentiated himself from other colleagues, those who were critical of the pandemic operation but limited in their general vision of it. Stokes joined all of the dots from the beginning: the inoculation programme behind the pandemic setup, the interaction of the elements injected with electromagnetic frequencies, the 2030 Agenda and depopulation as a background political objective. He confronted the alliance of doctors that declared an international medical crisis, and declared: “It is not a medical crisis: it is a genocide.”

Three years after the start of the pandemic, the facts seem to be proving Wilfredo Stokes right. In his office in Guatemala, and with the collaboration of colleagues from different countries, he is investigating a possible treatment for the condition of those inoculated with the Covid "vaccines", and explores the evolution of the blood of those inoculated, a fundamental factor to analyze their health condition.

Artificial life in the blood of the vaccinated

In an interview with Diario de Vallarta & Nayarit, Dr. Stokes reports that in the blood analysis of his vaccinated patients he has found “artificial life, extremely complex organisms, self-assembling structures, eggs in a gel environment that allows them to grow.” ”.

These organisms grow, move and become more complex structures. Strokes suggests that we still do not know how many elements were introduced into the Covid injections, nor what they can transform into when combined with each other.

 
Image gallery: Structures found in the blood of Covid vaccinated. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of Dr. Wilfredo Stokes


These elements create groups of grouped red blood cells in the blood, stacked together, called Rouleaux's phenomenon. This disturbance in the blood of vaccinated people has been observed by many researchers. Stokes points out that the Rouleaux phenomenon in many people grows until they become true conglomerates, in clusters of increasingly larger size.

There are also sets of points that are speculated to act as receivers or antennas. Stokes points out that many of these foreign elements settle in the tissues. Graphene, specifically, binds to the neurological system.

Video: More than the Rouleaux phenomenon 

“Some have mutated and are creating an alternative path”

“There are people who have only 1 to 2 percent normal blood. "They couldn't be alive," says Stokes. “If they are, we have to deduce that they have mutated and are creating an alternative path of life.”

For Stokes, the phenomenon of magnetism in vaccinated people should be an alarm signal that even many resistance doctors ignore. He also criticizes that “those vaccinated are tortured: in hospitals they are not given adequate care and instead they are swabbed, thereby further contaminating their bodies.”

Throughout the interview, Wilfredo Stokes also gives his opinion on the great debate among resistance groups around the content of Covid injections. On the one hand, those who denounce graphene oxide; on the other, those who believe in mRNA technology and the Spike protein. His verdict is final: “The charlatans are falling this year.”

Video: Wilfredo Stokes interviewed by Claudio Fabian Guevara 

 

Source: https://diariodevallarta.com/imagenes-videos-extranas-formaciones-y-vida-artificial-en-la-sangre-de-los-vacunados/

quarta-feira, 22 de maio de 2024

FLASHBACK: Graphene oxide as a key to enter the brain (2017)

 


 

"A nanomaterial made from carbon could facilitate the delivery of drugs to the central nervous system" 


Ricardo Aguiar
June 2017

It’s not easy to get medicine into the brain. The blood vessels that irrigate the central nervous system are covered with a special structure composed of three types of cells that act together as a very selective filter. Called the hematoencephalic, or blood-brain barrier, this structure only allows some compounds necessary for proper brain functioning to pass through, such as nutrients, hormones and gases. This selectiveness protects the central nervous system from toxic molecules found in the blood; however, it also prevents medications consumed orally or injected into the bloodstream from reaching the brain, even when this is necessary. At the University of Campinas (Unicamp), a group led by biologist Maria Alice da Cruz-Höfling is currently testing the possibility of using reduced graphene oxide, a nanostructured compound formed by carbon atoms, to open the barrier and enable certain medications to reach the brain with fewer side effects that those caused by the compounds currently in use.

Initial tests with reduced graphene oxide have been promising. Experiments conducted with cells and with laboratory animals indicate that it temporarily opens the barrier and is apparently not toxic to the organism, at the doses evaluated. “We work with this compound because nanomaterials in the graphene family showed the potential to interact with the nervous system, since graphene is an excellent conductor of electricity, and nerve cells communicate through electrical impulses,” explains pharmacist and biochemist Monique Mendonça, a post-doctoral researcher at the Unicamp Institute of Biology and the first author of the articles that described these results, published in 2015 and 2016 in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology and in Molecular Pharmaceutics.

Composed of a single layer of carbon atoms organized into regular hexagons, graphene is 200 times more resistant than steel, and is one of the best electrical conductors known. However, pure graphene has limited biological uses, since it is not very soluble in water. On the other hand, reduced graphene oxide can be diluted in water and maintains similar electrical properties to those of graphene.

Mendonça learned about reduced graphene oxide in 2013, in a conversation with researchers at the Nanoengineering and Diamond Laboratory of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (FEEC) at Unicamp, and decided to evaluate its potential to cross through the barrier. “We adapted the production process for this material to synthesize it without the need for intermediary chemical processes, and increased its purity to around 99%,” says researcher Helder Ceragioli, of the FEEC. The production methods described in the scientific literature normally leave behind impurities (iron, tungsten or nickel atoms), which can be toxic. According to the theoretical predictions, the purer the reduced graphene oxide, the lower the risk of causing damage to living tissue.

In these experiments, Mendonça injected reduced graphene oxide into the bloodstream of rats, and using techniques that allow the compound to be tracked in the organism, and observed that an hour later it had already penetrated into brain structures such as the hippocampus and thalamus. Since she detected a reduction in the level of the proteins that hold together the cells that line the blood vessels, she concluded that reduced graphene oxide had opened the barrier by creating space between the cells that make it up. Mendonça also noted that a few hours after the compound is injected, the barrier closed again. The group from Unicamp is currently investigating possible biochemical mechanisms that are activated in the cells to open the barrier.

Preserved neurons

Seven days after application, most of the compound had already been eliminated from the organism, suggesting that it does not tend to accumulate and become toxic to cells. Other exams found that the neurons in the treated rodents did not die, and that brain morphology remained intact. This material also did not cause any harm to blood cells or to organs such as the liver and kidneys. Moreover, reduced graphene oxide seems to offer advantages over compounds such as mannitol, used by doctors to open the blood-brain barrier.

“Reduced graphene oxide is potentially safer than mannitol, which alters the flow of liquids in the central nervous system and can leave neurons susceptible to damage, besides harming kidney function,” comments physician Licio Velloso, a professor at the Unicamp School of Medical Sciences (FCM). Velloso is currently investigating alterations in organisms that change the permeability of the barrier; he considers reduced graphene oxide to be a promising candidate for this function. “Nevertheless,” he points out, “the pharmacological use of nanoparticles is still in the initial phase, and more studies are needed to determine whether they cause any long-term side effects.”

“The results obtained so far indicate that reduced graphene oxide has the potential to carry medication to the brain or to penetrate the barrier and allow other substances to transport the medications there,” says Cruz-Höfling, who began to investigate ways to penetrate the blood-brain barrier 20 years ago, when she studied the effect of the venom of spiders of the genus Phoneutria, called armed spiders. “Since people bitten by these spiders showed neurotoxic symptoms, I assumed that the venom could cross through the barrier,” she recalls. Later she noted that low doses opened the barrier in rats. Given the difficulty in isolating the compound in the venom that is responsible for this effect, Cruz-Höfling began to test other compounds.

In spite of the encouraging results, it is still early to say whether reduced graphene oxide will be able to be used in clinical practice. First it must be determined whether it is safe for human use, and whether it actually enables other compounds to reach the brain more effectively.

 

Project
Graphene oxide and the central nervous system: Evaluation of effects on blood brain barrier and nanotoxicological profile (No. 12/24782-5); Grant Mechanism Doctoral Research Grant; Principal Investigator  Maria Alice da Cruz Höfling (Unicamp); Grant Recipient Monique Culturato Padilha Mendonça; Investment R$135,835.83 and R$31,276.24 (BEPE).

Scientific Articles
MENDONÇA, M. C. P. et al. PEGylation of reduced graphene oxide induces toxicity in cells of the blood-brain barrier: An in Vitro and in Vivo Study. Molecular Pharmaceutics. V. 13 (11). 18 Oct. 2016.
MENDONÇA, M. C. P. et al. Reduced graphene oxide: Nanotoxicological profile in rats. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. V. 14 (53). 24 Jun. 2016.
MENDONÇA, M. C. P. et al. Reduced graphene oxide induces transient blood-brain barrier opening: An in vivo study. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. V. 13 (78). 30 Oct. 2015.
DE PAULA LE SUEUR, L. et al. Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier and neuropathological changes induced by Phoneutria nigriventer spider venom. Acta Neuropathologica. V. 105 (2), p. 125-34. Feb. 2003.

 

Source:  https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/es/una-llave-para-entrar-al-cerebro/

Elon Musk, with his company Neuralink, has implanted the first brain chip in a human being

 

 

kontrainfo
Originall published January 29th, 2024

The billionaire founder of Neuralink announced today in a post on his social network

“The first human received a @Neuralink implant yesterday and is recovering well. “Initial results show promising neuron spike detection,” said Elon Musk.

After receiving authorization from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Neuralink managed to insert the chip into a person with a confidential identity. It should be noted that Musk had been carrying out this type of experiments on animals, specifically on pigs, and insisted on the FDA for the aforementioned authorization to experiment on human beings.

The experimental surgery, which involves installing a small microchip in the top layer of the person's skull (a “robot called “R1” is responsible for performing the “ultra delicate” procedure of suturing the electrified wires of the implant), aims provide a series of “scientific and health benefits”, in addition to studying “the ability to measure brain activity and give people with physical or mental disabilities new capabilities.”

The chips that Neuralink manufactures and implants in skulls can read and analyse people's neural activity and transmit the data to a computer or mobile device/cell phone.

Prior to Musk's announcement about the “transplant,” the US Department of Transportation fined Neuralink $2,480 for “violating hazardous materials regulations.” After inspecting facilities in Texas and California, inspectors discovered that the company does not have a permit to transport hazardous materials that could cause a person's death.

The monkeys found with infections and brain inflammation after receiving the Neuralink chip, so they were euthanized. Because of this, four congressmen accused Elon Musk of fraud before the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Even so, given the news of the complaint about the experiments on monkeys, a Bloomberg report states that there are already thousands of people applying to receive the chip. The neurotechnology company began volunteer registration in September and expects to perform 11 surgeries on human patients in 2024. It will subsequently scale the procedures until it surpasses the mark of 22,204 operations in 2030.

Source: https://noticiasholisticas.com.ar/elon-musk-desde-su-empresa-neuralink-ha-implantado-el-primer-chip-cerebral-en-un-ser-humano/

sábado, 18 de maio de 2024

Red Alert: WHO Pandemic “Treaty” Is Now an “Agreement”

 


Jon Rappoport
May 15th

I’ll give you the bottom line. A TREATY needs the signature of the US President plus a 2/3 vote of approval in the Senate.

An AGREEMENT only needs the President’s signature, and America is committed to go along with the document.

I’ve been communicating with a media person at the World Health Organization (WHO). It took several exchanges to clarify what’s going on here.

What we’ve been told is the WHO Pandemic Treaty is actually labeled an Agreement.

This is dire.

When Biden signs it, American sovereignty is suddenly placed under the WHO.

The WHO can declare a global health emergency whenever they want to, for any reason, and all the rules and restrictions they lay down can be invoked. Here in America.

For instance, lockdowns, mandated vaccines.

America is suddenly a colony of the World Health Organization.

No date has been set for WHO submitting the Agreement to the US and other countries, but it could be soon.

A sword is hanging over our heads.

We need massive refusal, despite Biden imminently signing our sovereignty away.

We need Senators rebelling in large numbers.

We need state governors pledging to ignore all WHO dictates.

We need the American people refusing to go along with the WHO.

Here is the document the WHO media person sent me, showing that this so-called Treaty is actually an Agreement.

 


Screenshot from this document

Here is the article I published recently that goes into depth on Treaty vs. Agreement. It explains that these international agreements are illegitimate and should never be honored. They’re unconstitutional, and have always been a con and hustle designed to inflate the power of the President and the Executive Branch.

Get the word out, far and wide.

We’re being taken for a ride.

A bad nightmare ride.

P.S. Having read the WHO document I linked to above, my impression is this: the WHO Agreement is designed for “collective unity” among member nations.

It’s similar to the early stages of the European Union, whose message was, “We’re all in this together.” But gradually, the consensus approach vanished, and the EU emerged as a super-government.

In this case, the WHO wants “input” on pandemic measures from all member nations. The WHO even insists that the sovereignty of each nation will never be disturbed and encroached upon by the Pandemic Agreement.

BUT the goal is making the WHO the leader of the pack.

The WHO will say it’s acting and running the show on behalf of its members, but that façade will vanish in due time.

The WHO will turn into a global health government, issuing orders and driving tyranny…

In the same way that US health agencies—the FDA, the CDC, the EPA—design sets of regulations that impose de facto laws no legislators have ever voted on.

WATCH OUT.

We’re frogs in the pot, and the heat is on.


Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/red-alert-who-pandemic-treaty-agreement/5857247

sexta-feira, 17 de maio de 2024

Is Marcionism anti-Semitism?

 


Laurent Guyenot
April 17th, 2024

Thanks to the vigilance of the E&R editorial staff, I learned of this exchange between Bernard Henri Lévy and Haziza Frédéric which took place a few days ago on Radio J:
 

     – BHL: …this old right-wing anti-Semitism of the Marcionite tradition, that is to say the vengeful Jews, the god of revenge and death, and so on...

     – Haziza: That's Soral!

What BHL calls the “Marcionite tradition” is the radical criticism of the God of Israel, or what I call anti-Yahwism. There is no direct historical link between modern anti-Yahwism, born in the 19th century, and Marcionism of the 2nd century, about which little is known. But Marcion is the tutelary figure of anti-Yahwism because he saw the god of Israel as an evil god, the mortal enemy and not the father of Christ.

We can therefore guess that behind BHL's remark lies the plan to outlaw anti-Yahwism by defining it as a disguised form of anti-Semitism.

For rhetorical purposes, BHL classifies Marcionism as “right-wing anti-Semitism.” Is this correct ? No. The German intellectual who introduced Yahweh into the debate on the “Jewish question”, and who can therefore be considered the pioneer of modern anti-Yahwism, is Bruno Bauer, of whom I have already spoken in a recent article ( section entitled “Bauer, Marx and the Nietzschean moment”). Bauer was an influential figure among the "Young Hegelians", also called "Left Hegelians". Well versed in the historical criticism of the Bible that appeared during his time in Germany, he published in 1842, at the age of 33, two essays on “the Jewish question”, arguing that it boils down to the biblical question. Because Bauer discovers the essence of Jewishness in the jealous, angry and genocidal god that Jews have always worshiped.

It was in response to Bauer that Karl Marx, his young collaborator at the Rheinische Zeitung, wrote two brief essays titled On The Jewish Question. The very explicit aim of these essays was to dissolve the Jewish question into the economic question, by reducing Jewishness to the bourgeois spirit, i.e. the love of money. These are Marx's first notable articles, and although they somewhat embarrass Marxists, they can legitimately be considered the underground foundations of Marx's entire later ideological enterprise. And we can therefore say that Marxism served to nip in the bud the intellectual movement which, without it, would perhaps have been called Bauerism.

That BHL attacks Marcionism, and that Haziza immediately sticks this label on Alain Soral, really says a lot. It tells us that anti-Yahwism hits the mark, hits the nail on the head. Anti-Yahwism attacks the God of Israel, that is to say the essence of Israel. It is, therefore, the only ultimate and definitive criticism of Israel.

Its disadvantage is that it irritates Catholics. But given that criticism of Israel is, in my eyes, the priority cause and that anti-Yahwism seems to me to be a much more effective means for this than Christianity (with its thesis of the “chosen but fallen people”), I will continue to do anti-Yahwism as best I can, at least until the day when anti-Yahwism is condemned by law. The risk of being (as an avowed anti-Yahwist) treated as an anti-Semite, does not worry me too much. In 2018, I was suspended from my position as an English teacher in National Education following a report from my rectorate, the conclusion of which was as follows:

     “It appears from the study of Laurent Guyénot's work [that] his output is strongly marked ideologically. Laurent Guyénot is and claims to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, a Soralian and therefore a denialist and that he constitutes, in fact, a serious danger to the integrity of the students entrusted to him since he disseminates his propaganda material in his classes.

I am immune to all this.

Anti-Yahwism is not only the sole radical criticism (which attacks the root, radix) of Israel. It is also the only benevolent criticism, because it aims to free the Jews from the influence of the sociopathic god who terrorises them.
 
Anti-Yahwism to the aid of the Jews

In a recent article, “Yahweh, the terrorist god,” I recalled that Yahweh wants to spread the terror of Israel among the goyim (Deuteronomy 2:25). But before terrorising the goyim, Yahweh terrorises the Israelites themselves:

     “And if in spite of this you do not listen to me and oppose me, I will oppose you with fury, I will punish you sevenfold for your sins. You will eat the flesh of your sons and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your sanctuaries, I will destroy your incense altars, I will heap your corpses on the corpses of your idols and I will cast you out. […] I will draw a sword against you to make your land a desert and your cities a ruin. (Leviticus 26:27-32)

The obedience that Yahweh demands always concerns separation from the goyim, and above all the absolute commandment of the strictest endogamy.

     “If your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, your son or your daughter, or the wife who rests on your bosom, or your closest friend, secretly tries to seduce you by saying: 'Let us go and serve 'other gods' […], you shall stone him to death, because he has sought to lead you astray from Yahweh your god […]. All Israel, upon hearing this, will be seized with fear and will cease from practicing this evil among you.”  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Yahweh's reign of terror rests on the sacrifice of assimilationist Jews. In the Book of Numbers, Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, scandalised by the sight of an Israelite married to a Midianite woman, “seized a spear, followed the Israelite into the alcove, and there he pierced them both , the Israelite and the woman, right in the belly” (rabbinic tradition specifies that the spear passed through them both during mating). Yahweh congratulates Phinehas for having “the same jealousy as I” and, as a reward, gives him “for himself and for his descendants after him, […] the priesthood forever” (Numbers 25:11-13). Let us meditate on this fact that, according to the Bible, the priesthood is given to the line of Aaron (the Kohenim) as a reward for the double murder, by impalement, of an assimilationist Israelite and his non-Jewish wife.

What these episodes emphasise is that the authority of Yahweh and his representative elites (they are one and the same thing) is based on the violence and terror exercised against the Israelites themselves. Jews who socialise with their non-Jewish neighbors, who eat with them and even marry with them, are, according to biblical ideology, traitors to Yahweh and to their race, who bring down on their community the wrath of Yahweh and deserve to be eliminated without mercy. Their extermination pleases Yahweh and regenerates the people.

Levitical Tyranny

Who is this elite who speaks in the name of Yahweh to keep the Israelite people in terror and obedience? These are the Levites. The Levites are the guardians of the worship of Yahweh. According to the Bible, they do not have a territory like the other tribes, but live scattered in cities, supported by tithes and exercising religious, administrative and political power over all the Israelites. In a recent book (The Exodus, HarperOne, 2017), biblical scholar Richard Elliott Friedman developed an interesting and convincing theory on the origin of the Levites [1].

Friedman takes up an already well-known and widely accepted theory, according to which the Levites do not initially designate a tribe, and that their eponymous ancestor (Levi) is a secondary invention. Friedman then points out that, of all the Israelite protagonists in biblical history, only the Levites have Egyptian names (Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Phinehas, etc.). Furthermore, among the oldest sources of the Bible, only the texts produced by the Levites mention the Exodus, and show a certain knowledge of Egypt. From these and many other clues, Friedman concludes that the Levites constitute a group from Egypt. The lack of archaeological trace of the Exodus is explained by this hypothesis that only the Levites experienced the exodus from Egypt to Canaan via Midian, while the Israelite tribes are indigenous to Palestine (which archaeologists tend to also believe).

It was the Levites who introduced the cult of Yahweh among the Israelites, who knew the supreme god, called simply El, or “God” (sometimes Elohim, or “the gods”). The fusion between El (God) and Yahweh (the god of Israel), with immeasurable consequences, is scripted in the priestly story (source E) of the revelation of Sinai, when the Creator, who until then had only been designated El or Elohim, reveals his true name to Moses.

The Levites are the masters of religious power. But in certain episodes mentioned above, they appear as Moses' bodyguard and police, quick to massacre his enemies. They constitute the dominant caste who control both priestly power and military power (soft and hard power).

The sources indicate, according to Friedman, that it was the Levites who introduced into Israel the obligation of circumcision of infants on the eighth day. I presented, in an article entitled "The Bleeder of the Foreskins", the demonstration that this rite came to replace a previous practice of the sacrifice of the first born on the eighth day, the trace of which remains in Exodus 22:28-29, Ezekiel 20:25-26 and Jeremiah 7:30-31. These sacrifices were made in the name of Yahweh and in his sanctuary (Leviticus 20:2-5), the god Molek or Melek spoken of in certain passages being originally only an attribute of Yahweh, which means " king” and is applied more than fifty times to Yahweh.

Circumcision on the eighth day is a traumatic rite that imprints in every Jewish boy the subconscious terror of Yahweh-Melek. Seen in this light, the metaphor of “circumcision of the heart” (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6) takes on a particular meaning. It is by circumcision that Yahweh, the god of terror, holds the Jews.

In conclusion to all this, we understand that anti-Yahwism is not, cannot be, anti-Semitism; on the contrary, it is a radical philosemitism.

 


Notes

[1] Friedman has been an influential author since his book Who wrote the Bible?, published in 1987.  I happen to have had this book translated for Exergue, a label I created, then sold in 2002 to Guy Trédaniel, who has since published almost anything under this label.

Source: https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Le-Marcionisme-est-il-un-antisemitisme-75468.html

One Video Lists Many Fertility Damaging Properties Of Ivermectin: What Can We Conclude?


 

I Believe It Is Curative, (Antiparasitic,) AND Destructive To Fertility

This video lists scientific papers detailing the anti-fertility effects of Ivermectin in animals:

 


We don’t know his name, and he takes a contemptuous tone, (about “truthers,” and “Conservatives,” who “fell for” Ivermectin,) but the matter is on the table.

Is Ivermectin, as some voices have been saying, for some times, a dangerous insecticide and “poison?”

Paradox?

I believe both are true: Ivermectin stopped death (“saved lives”) and Ivermectin had severe adverse effects on fertility. That is what all the available evidence says to me.

“Tim Truth” compares Ivermectin enthusiasts to Jim Jones devotees. (!)

Think about spirit and frequency, always.

Remember what I always ask: What is the spirit behind? You just listen to the voice, and feel it.

The spirit behind revealing that certain rock star anti-parastics in the post Covid era are “poisons” and “insecticides” is generally intellectually contemptuous and superior. I know it well.

It can also be “correct.”

What I think is: We’re human beings, and we sought many ways to stay alive, keep our loved ones alive, in a time of great terror and stress, and Ivermectin came up as one of the tools, and by way of this, we also got serious about de-worming.

We’re not “idiots,” or cult followers. But it may be better to return to the tried and true—the pine tree.

Turpentine Oil (Pine Tree Oil) For Parasites and Candida (Many Years Before Ivermectin Became An Issue)

I started understanding the role of anti-parasitics when I discovered Dr. Jennifer Daniels work on turpentine/sugar about 10 year ago. It made a profound difference to my fatigue syndrome/mystery condition at that time. This person, Sun Fruit Dan, has done more work on turpentine protocols than anybody I know. He’s very direct, kind and helpful. In this video he describes how important it is to take activated charcoal when you do turps. [In the first video linked, he talks about turpentine crossing the blood brain barrier.]

Here’s a short clip of Dr. Daniels describing why the pursuit of happiness determines disease outcome:

 


Source:  https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/one-video-lists-many-fertility-damaging

Woman Injured by AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine During Clinical Trial Sues for Breach of Contract

 


Brianne Dressen alleges that under her contract with AstraZeneca, the vaccine maker promised to pay medical expenses for trial participants if the company’s COVID-19 vaccine injured them.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
May 14, 2024

Brianne Dressen, who since 2021 has advocated on behalf of vaccine injury victims, filed suit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah seeking compensation for injuries and disability she alleges resulted from the vaccine.

Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), AstraZeneca and other COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries related to the vaccines.

However, Dressen’s lawsuit — which also names the Salt Lake City-based clinical trial site consolidator Velocity Clinical Research — contends AstraZeneca can be sued for breach of contract.

According to the lawsuit, the company agreed to cover the medical costs for any vaccine-related injuries under a contract between AstraZeneca and clinical trial participants.

Dressen alleges that in her case, the cost of her injuries and disability amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Dressen, who was 39 when she was vaccinated, was previously a preschool teacher but is now unable to work.

Within hours of getting her first dose, Dressen experienced tingling in her right arm — a neurological condition known as paresthesia — and blurred vision and vomiting.

In the weeks that followed, her condition worsened, with the paresthesia spreading to her legs, resulting in disability and a diagnosis in 2021 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of post-vaccine neuropathy.

The lawsuit seeks “all available damages, both economic and non-economic.”

Attorney Michael Connett of law firm Siri & Glimstad LLP, who is representing Dressen in her lawsuit, told The Defender, “As far as we know, this is the first case in the U.S. where a pharmaceutical company is being held financially responsible for the harms caused by the COVID vaccine.”

Dressen told The Defender that her breach of contract claim “is another first for the United States, as PREP Act protections have been completely impenetrable.”

Dressen, founder of React19, a nonprofit advocating for vaccine injury victims, said she hopes the lawsuit will provide “accountability for my individual case but also bolsters a pathway forward for my injured colleagues both in the U.S. and abroad — namely, each and every plaintiff in the U.K. seeking restitution from AstraZeneca.”

Dressen cited an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the U.K. against AstraZeneca by people alleging they were injured by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and by the relatives of 12 people who died after getting the shot.

In documents AstraZeneca submitted to the U.K. High Court last month as part of that case, the company admitted that its COVID-19 vaccine “can, in very rare cases, cause TTS” — vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which causes the body to produce life-threatening blood clots.

Dressen’s lawsuit comes just days after AstraZeneca announced the withdrawal of its COVID-19 vaccine globally — though the company said it based its decision on the “surplus of available updated vaccines,” leading to reduced demand for its vaccine.

The U.S. never granted emergency use authorization for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, citing safety concerns.

However, the vaccine generated over $5.8 billion in sales globally, with the help of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funded and promoted the vaccine in other countriesSeveral countries later stopped administering the AstraZeneca vaccine due to safety concerns.

Connett said AstraZeneca’s decision to withdraw the vaccine “really doesn’t have a bearing” on Dressen’s lawsuit.

Ray Flores, a health freedom rights attorney unconnected to the lawsuit, agreed because “the complaint is not based on product liability.”

Flores said:

“Around the country, COVID-19 vaccine injury cases that alleged negligence, battery of a minor, fraud or emotional distress have all been unsuccessful due to the PREP Act — while cases that allege negligence not involving a countermeasure have generally been successful.

What makes this case unique is that it alleges a breach of a written contract. For a court to allow liability protection here would really stretch the extent of the law. But on the other hand, it would unequivocally etch the stench of the PREP Act in Americans’ minds — but my ‘money’ in this case is on the plaintiff.”

AstraZeneca induced people to join trials by promising to pay for injuries

According to Connett, AstraZeneca induced people to join its clinical trial by promising to pay the medical expenses for any injuries that resulted from its COVID-19 vaccine.

“This inducement, this promise, became a contractual obligation the moment study subjects rolled up their sleeve and let the company inject the experimental vaccine into their arm,” he said.

Just because a company is making the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t give that company a license “to make false promises to induce people to enter its clinical trial,” he said. “The bonanza of immunity that the PREP Act provides does not go so far as to shield a vaccine maker from its own contractual obligations.”

Flores said that if AstraZeneca “never intended to honor its promise to insure Dressen … it would not only be a breach of contract but would rise to the level of fraud.”

“When a vaccine injury lawsuit highlights a defendant’s inhumanity, it is always highly persuasive,” Flores said. “In this case, an absurd $1,243.30 settlement offer after reneging on its written promise to insure when there are evidently millions of dollars in damages and unspeakable suffering is just that.”

Connett said any other individual injured by the AstraZeneca vaccine “has the legal right to recover the full costs of the injury,” but advised that “The time to take legal action, however, may be limited, so acting expeditiously will be important.”

‘Completely hollowed-out version of who I once was’

The lawsuit described the timeline of Dressen’s symptoms following vaccination, with paresthesia spreading to her right shoulder and left arm and later to her legs. Within weeks, she lost 20 pounds as a result of frequent vomiting, while she also developed light sensitivity and became “acutely sensitive to sound.”

Dressen said her heart rate also would randomly spike, leading to shortness of breath and feelings of fainting. She described her experience in the lawsuit as feeling like a “completely hollowed-out version of who I once was.”

Before her Nov. 4, 2020, vaccination, Dressen filled out consent forms stating the company would “cover the costs” — including, but not limited to, medical bills — if she experienced a “research injury.”

Those forms, Dressen said, claimed the study doctor would provide treatment or referral in the event of injury, noting that the study sponsor had the necessary insurance.

“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,” the contract stated, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit notes that two days after Dressen signed the consent form, AstraZeneca amended the form to state that its vaccine may cause “neurological disorders” such as “demyelinating disease,” which could “cause substantial disability” or death “if not treated promptly.”

Dressen received multiple diagnoses indicating her symptoms were related to her vaccination. Her husband eventually reached out to the NIH, which invited her to visit its Bethesda, Maryland, campus “for extensive testing and treatment,” as part of a study the agency was conducting at the time involving people injured by COVID-19 vaccines.

As a result of those tests, NIH neurologists concluded that Dressen had sustained post-vaccine neuropathy, which had caused “dysautonomia” and “chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.”

“The limited safety data that AstraZeneca has released to the public shows that other clinical trial participants who received the company’s COVID vaccine suffered a higher incidence of nervous system disorders, including various types of demyelinating diseases, where the myelin sheaths that protect the nerve cells are stripped away,” Connett said.

AstraZeneca ‘were nowhere to be found’

According to the lawsuit, Dressen’s medical costs are prohibitive. One medication alone costs $432,000 a year, “although her insurance company has been able to negotiate this down (at least for now) to $119,000 per year,” she said.

But despite these high costs and Dressen’s ongoing disability, which makes her “unable to drive more than a few blocks at a time” and limits her parenting ability, the lawsuit states that AstraZeneca offered her only $1,243.30 in total compensation.

“When they needed me, I was there, I cooperated. When I needed them, they were nowhere to be found,” Dressen said in the lawsuit. “I called the test clinic early on with tears running down my face, begging them to help me. They said the drug company would call back any day now. Nightmarish days turned into weeks, and those nightmarish weeks turned into months, and now years. That call never came.”

In July 2021, Dressen’s injuries led her to contact Dr. Anthony Fauci directly to request help, according to documents recently obtained by Children’s Health Defense in a lawsuit against the NIH.

In that email, Dressen said she had been contacting federal health agencies for months with “No substantiative [sic] response.”

Dressen said Fauci never responded to her message.

Calling her lawsuit a “David v. Goliath type case,” Dressen told The Defender her “heart has and always will be with the injured community.” She said, “Every single American injured by a pharmaceutical product deserves their day in court.”

***

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”