https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/20/vaccine-children-coronavirus-covid-biden/
The White House on Wednesday announced plans to distribute vaccines to a huge group that has been ineligible so far to receive the coronavirus shots — 28 million children aged 5 to 11. The operation is slated to begin as soon as federal health officials sign off on a reduced dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which the Biden administration anticipates could come as soon as the first week of November.
White House officials said they have already acquired enough doses to vaccinate every child in that age group. They plan to make the specially packaged vaccine available at more than 25,000 pediatricians’ and doctors’ offices, hospitals, pharmacies, community health centers, and school- and community-based clinics. They also will undertake a campaign to educate parents more fully about the vaccines.
That strategy is key to reducing the impact of the virus across the United States, Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease specialist, said at a White House briefing. The delta variant has changed the game, he said, describing a recent study showing children are getting infected and transmitting the virus as readily as adults, even though 50 percent of them are asymptomatic.
“If we can get the overwhelming majority of those 28 million children vaccinated, I think that would play a major role in diminishing the spread of infection in the community,” Fauci said. “That’s one of the reasons why we want to do as best as we can to get those children 5 to 11 vaccinated.”
The rollout will rely on familiar approaches, such as identifying trusted messengers to overcome vaccine hesitancy. But this one will be tailored to children and families, officials said. Among the changes will be a focus on administering the vaccines in small-group settings and the creation of a Parent Leadership Corps of scientists and other experts who are parents themselves, and who will be a resource for other parents.
Wednesday’s announcement comes as the Biden administration has struggled to regain confidence in its planning and coordination in the wake of its mid-August announcement that all Americans would be eligible for booster shots beginning in late September. The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention narrowed the ranks of those eligible for booster shots, sowing confusion among some patients and practitioners.
On Wednesday, members of the White House response team compared their readiness for a pediatric vaccine rollout to what they described as the lack of coordination around the initial vaccine distribution effort last December, rather than as an end-run around federal regulators and health officials.
“I think we learned that lesson from the previous administration,” said Jeff Zients, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.
“Should the FDA and CDC authorize the vaccine, we will be ready to get shots in arms,” Zients said. “Kids have different needs than adults.”
An expert group advising the FDA is scheduled to meet Oct. 26 to hear data about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy and make recommendations to regulators. The FDA will then decide whether to authorize its use. If the FDA gives its assent, a vaccine advisory panel to the CDC is scheduled to meet Nov. 2 and 3 to weigh a recommendation for use. If the CDC director signs off on a recommendation, the vaccine may be administered to kids in early November.
Millions of kids’ coronavirus shots ‘ready’ to go; initial doses to be shared on a population basis
White House officials said they are already hosting “operational readiness calls” with local jurisdictions and others, and stressing the need to distribute the shots to smaller, more intimate settings like doctors’ offices, rather than the mass-vaccination sites opened for adults last spring.
Lee Savio Beers, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a practicing pediatrician, praised the planning for “leaning heavily on the relationship that pediatricians have with families.”
She said the pediatricians’ group has been developing strategies to speak with parents about vaccination, some of them posted online. The group is also figuring out how to work effectively with school and church leaders. “We are thinking about how we leverage their expertise,” she said.
Pediatricians like Reshma Chugani, part of a two-doctor practice in Atlanta, are already making their own preparations.
Chugani said an office manager is already calculating how many 5-to-11-year-olds are among their patients and assuming that as many as a half will be signed up for shots. Given the minimum order of 300 doses, she said the practice may organize a weekend clinic to vaccinate as many children as possible “early on, as there will be initial demand that will then likely taper off.”
That pattern of brisk initial demand followed by slowed interest occurred among adolescents and teens, she noted. “Some families have been eager to vaccinate, while others are reluctant,” Chugani said in an email. “I have had countless conversations daily with parents and patients about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and have had to counter misinformation on a daily basis. I anticipate that I will still be doing this with the younger age group moving forward.”
Other pediatricians are warning patients of limited initial supply. “This immunization will require a particular formulation that will not be available in large quantities immediately,” according to a notice a Boulder, Colo., practice sent to patients. “. . . We will add as many patients as possible to our schedule, but these appointments will be limited and not available until after approval is finalized. We recommend using other vaccination sites to access the vaccine quickly.”
Zients said a total of 15 million doses will be available in the first week after the vaccine is cleared for use. Of those doses, 10 million will be sent to local jurisdictions, 5 million to pharmacies and 265,000 to federal entities, such as the Indian Health Service, according to a CDC planning document sent to local jurisdictions last week, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
The federal government plans to allocate the initial shots according to a formula to ensure equitable distribution based on a state’s population of eligible children, according to state and federal health officials.
This vaccine will be shipped in smaller packages than the adult version — 10-dose vials in cartons of 10 vials each — along with smaller needles that would make more sense for pediatricians and community clinics to use, according to a federal planning guide. Once a vial is opened, doses must be used within six hours, the documents state.
It will be up to state officials to decide how to spread out the initial doses. In Maine, officials are giving priority to providers who plan vaccine clinics in the first week after the vaccine is authorized and recommended, said Nirav Shah, director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Preventiion.
Shah said officials don’t expect all families to rush in for shots the first week. Survey data suggests about 30 to 35 percent of parents will want their children vaccinated immediately, he said.
Jay A. Winsten, director of strategic media initiatives at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that reaching parents who are more hesitant will be the biggest challenge ahead. Public health officials need to break down the science, possibly in question and answer form, for the lay people they need to enlist — and especially for parents who may worry about rare side effects, he said.
“I’m afraid parents will be much more attuned to reacting emotionally to what they hear from others,” Winsten said. “Government scientists should directly confront the vaccine side-effects issue by placing it in proper context.”
Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy acknowledged as much at Wednesday’s briefing, describing plans to launch a public education campaign “that will meet parents where they are.”
“We will work with schools to send letters home to parents, who will convene doctors and health clinics, and support them in delivering vaccinations as soon as they have conversations with families,” Murthy said.
Above all else, he said, the effort would emphasize “reaching parents in their language and through the people they trust.”
Another issue may be the small number of doctors who have enrolled as vaccinators in some parts of the country.
“There are serious concerns that providers are just not signing up,” said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Those worries are more widespread in southeastern states, which have been among the hardest hit in the delta surge, he said.
“Providers cite reasons such as the logistics of obtaining and administering the vaccine.” Some are also “concerned that this may be controversial, and they don’t want to have demonstrations in front of their clinics,” Plescia said.
Definitely not trying to promote Amazon as a source. This is just the first source I found for it.
Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide The inside story of the laptop that exposed the president’s dirtiest secret.
When a drug-addled Hunter Biden abandoned his waterlogged computer at a Mac repair shop in Delaware in the spring of 2019, just six days before his father announced his candidacy for the United States presidency, it became the ticking time bomb in the shadows of Joe Biden’s campaign.
The dirty secrets contained in Hunter’s laptop almost derailed his father’s presidential campaign and ignited one of the greatest media coverups in American history.
This is the unvarnished story of what’s really inside the laptop and what China knows about the Bidens, by the New York Post journalist who brought it into the open.
It exposes the coordinated censorship operation by Big Tech, the media establishment, and former intelligence operatives to stifle the New York Post’s coverage, in a chilling exercise of raw political power three weeks before the 2020 election.
A treasure trove of corporate documents, emails, text messages, photographs, and voice recordings, spanning a decade, the laptop provided the first evidence that President Joe Biden was involved in his son’s ventures in China, Ukraine, and beyond, despite his repeated denials.
This intimate insight into Hunter’s dissolute lifestyle shows he was incapable of holding down a job, let alone being paid tens of millions of dollars in high-powered international business deals by foreign interests, unless he had something else of value to sell—which of course he did. He was the son of the vice president who would go on to become the leader of the free world
https://www.amazon.com/dp/163758105X/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_EK9TFFV2F9D2XQBMQ03K
https://www.foxnews.com/media/watters-world-investigates-nancy-pelosis-315-million-in-assets
Watters questions, explores how Pelosi became so wealthy on a government salary By Joshua Comins | Fox News
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has served in Congress for nearly 34 years and presently presides in a top-tier position as one of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government. Amid a recent flurry of complicated decisions she's had to face as leader of her caucus, Fox News host Jesse Watters launched a "Watters' World" investigation into her financial dealings during her tenure in politics.
Last week, the Speaker was unable to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill as progressives in her own party signaled their disapproval. Watters condemned her policies, saying they're making it "harder and harder for average Americans to accumulate wealth," shackling them with taxes and "destroying the dollar with reckless spending."
The current salary of a Speaker of the House sits in the low six-figures, yet Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress.
So what is her secret, asked Watters: "It appears to be her husband, Paul."
"After they got married, Paul opened up a real estate and venture capital firm. And through his connections, he pushed Nancy into the political world, helping her get elected to Congress in 1987," Watters said.
"The couple has timed the market perfectly over the years," he continued, "while Nancy's been a Washington insider. Real estate, stocks, the Pelosis always know what the right investment is."
The Pelosis own several pieces of real estate including a mansion in Napa Valley valued up to $25 million, a DC waterfront condo worth over $2 million, and a red brick mansion in California's Pacific Heights.
Her husband owns commercial properties in San Francisco "combined, worth up to $50 million," Watters continued.
"In 2018, the Pelosis' wealth has skyrocketed," he said. "That year, her financial disclosure report revealed a net worth of over $114 million. In 2019, Pelosi's assets total up to a whopping $271 million and in 2020, those numbers went up even more to as high as $315 million."
"In 2007, Visa worried the new Democrat Congress would target their swipe fees, costing them billions. So they hired a team of lobbyists who descended on Pelosi," Watters added. "Visa's CEO personally met with her. She got donations from them. One of his advisers left and became a visa lobbyist himself."
"Suddenly, Paul Pelosi got a phone call from his broker. He was in luck," Watters continued. "Paul was offered a prescreened invite to get in early on Visa's $18 billion IPO. Did Nancy and her husband hesitate? No, they bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of Visa stock. But it gets better. While Pelosi was speaker, bills that would have hurt Visa's stock price were blocked in the House. Visa shares going up over 200 percent during the time, making the Pelosis a fortune on paper."
"In January, the Pelosis got a million dollars worth of Tesla stock right before Joe Biden announced electric car incentives in June. The Pelosi family cashed in big time just before Congress was set to pounce on Big Tech. Mr. Pelosi exercised options on Google's parent company, Alphabet, making an easy $5.3 million."
Watters provided another instance where the Pelosis cashed in.
"In March, Paul Pelosi exercised $2 million worth of Microsoft options, just two weeks before the tech giant got a $22 billion contract to equip the US Army with high tech headsets," he said.
"The Pelosis have never been indicted for insider trading, but her marriage investments and access, combined with extremely fortunate timing, have created a lot of suspicions. All we're doing is following the money, and there sure is a lot of it," Watters concluded.
Just putting it out there.
When seconds before in the same report, they played avideo from someone in the classroom showing the shooter in a knockdown drag out fight with another student. He was pissed.
How stupid do thru think we are?
OCTOBER 4, 2021 By Eddie Scarry
It was apparently big news to some that Facebook is a content sewer turning young girls into emotionally crippled messes. But the most important revelation in that much-discussed Wall Street Journal series is that Facebook is filled with people who see it as their mission to protect their users from themselves.
In other words, they see it as their job to manipulate you — deceive you, even — for your own good.
Frances Haugen came forward over the weekend as the primary source of the Journal’s reporting, providing the paper with scores of Facebook company documents that she scooped up during the two years she worked there. Her job was to create systems that would weed out content that she and others determined to be “harmful.”
It sounds like a worthy endeavor, but it’s when Haugen starts sharing her more personal outlook that it becomes clear just how creepy she actually is.
When she left Facebook earlier this year, she wrote a note to her colleagues that said, “I don’t hate Facebook. I love Facebook. I want to save it.”
By “save it,” Haugen actually means purge it of all of the things she disagrees with, including, as she said Sunday on ’60 Minutes,’ “angry, hateful, polarizing content.”
If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention, you know that when someone working in the national news media or Big Tech deems a piece of information or an opinion “hateful” or “polarizing,” they mean: anything skeptical of COVID vaccines; anything critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci; anything in support of Donald Trump; and anything that contradicts the preferred narratives of The New York Times and CNN.
The whole reason Haugen even got involved with Facebook and the job she was hired to do was because, she said, “Someone I was incredibly close to, who was really important to me, I lost them to misinformation on the internet, and I never want anyone to feel the pain that I felt.”
That roughly translates to: Haugen’s male friend posted something negative about the Black Lives Matter riots. (She actually said that he had been “making crazy claims about George Soros running the world economy,” which, as far as “misinformation” goes, is about 1 billion percent less harmful than anything we were told by actual news organizations related to Trump and Russia.)
The word “misinformation” is always a tell that the person who says it is up to no good. It means she wants to be in charge of who gets to speak and what we’re supposed to believe.
What you’ve seen with your own eyes is “misinformation” if it’s something that upset the right people at Facebook.
The Journal said Haugen was “dismayed” earlier this year that Facebook had “played down its connection” to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, because there had been “widespread internal concern that its platforms were enabling dangerous social movements.”
This is in itself misinformation. Reuters reported in August that the FBI had found the events of that day were “not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump.”
There were no “movements,” least of all dangerous ones that used Facebook to organize. Haugen is simply relying on her own biases to determine what the reality is, even if it’s not based on actual evidence.
This is not who you want making decisions about what’s “harmful” and “dangerous.”
People like Haugen aren’t saving anything. People like Haugen are creepy. They’re the problem.
For those trying to follow the science and the law, it's been impossible to ascertain a modicum of consistency in the government's COVID response. However, when you follow the money, everything officials are doing (as well as what they are not doing) makes perfect sense.
The same government that has the power to use COVID to shut down our lives and our breathing also has the power to determine to which pharmaceutical company it will send billions of taxpayer dollars, a decision that is governed 100% by money and politics, not by sound medicine. We already understand why the vaccine companies have been funding a war against cheap, effective therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but many have wondered why Merck would oppose a drug that the company itself has made for many years.
On Feb. 4, Merck came out with a shocking statement warning against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID. The statement claimed there was "no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies" and that there was "a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."
This was quite a bizarre assertion given that 59 studies, including 30 randomized controlled trials, have shown the drug to be extremely effective at all stages of the virus. The statement regarding safety concerns was even more ludicrous given that nearly 4 billion doses of this drug have been dispensed for parasitic ailments, it won the Nobel prize, and it is listed among the WHO's most essential drugs. There is no logical reason why someone would somehow begin experiencing dangerous side effects if he happens to use ivermectin for COVID instead of for scabies or river blindness.
Nonetheless, Merck's statement served as a strong blow to the use of ivermectin, because Merck was a large dispenser of this drug. After all, why would the company dump on its own drug?
Well, now we have an answer. On June 9, Merck announced that it had entered into a procurement agreement. Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government. Molnupiravir is a new drug Merck is currently evaluating in a Phase 3 clinical trials to serve as the wonder drug to treat COVID. The estimated cost of the drug per treatment is $700!
So now we can understand why the company would swap out its own drug that has already been proven safe and effective for something new and experimental. Without the government sending a penny to Merck, I can buy a lifesaving dose of ivermectin for just $26 through GoodRX.
Well, that's if the pharmacy would actually dispense it to me and a doctor would prescribe it to me. We can now understand why Big Pharma has colluded with big government to pressure doctors and pharmacists away from prescribing and dispensing ivermectin. This historic business deal would be moot.
Also, let us not forget that expedited approval of experimental new drugs runs into the same problem as the experimental vaccines. Approval for "Emergency Use Authorization" can be granted by the FDA only if there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating" a disease. That's why already-approved drugs like ivermectin have to vanish from discussion. Can you imagine how much ivermectin the feds could have dispensed for a fraction of the cost of expensive experimental drugs and mRNA shots?
What is particularly disturbing is that it appears that molnupiravir contains some of the same molecular qualities as ivermectin, which makes you wonder if Merck knows that ivermectin is effective and just sought a more expensive drug that could be marketed as exclusive and new for COVID, thereby justifying another budget blowout by Washington policymakers.
One of several antiviral qualities to ivermectin is that it disrupts viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzymes. Two Italian doctors in a study published in Nature described the process as follows:
The RdRP residing in nsp12 is the centerpiece of the coronavirus replication and transcription complex and has been suggested as a promising drug target as it is a crucial enzyme in the virus life cycle both for replication of the viral genome but also for transcription of subgenomic mRNAs (sgRNAs) [34]. Ivermectin binds to the viral rdrp and disrupts it. The highly efficient binding of ivermectin to nsp14 confirms its role in inhibiting viral replication and assembly. It is well known that nsp14 is essential in transcription and replication.
Dr. Pierre Kory, the president of Frontline Covid19 Critical Care Alliance and one of the most prominent advocates of ivermectin, believes that the new drug developed by Merck acts in a similar way.
Merck’s new drug shares molecular similarities to #Ivermectin. And why wouldn’t it? IVM is in a COVID-19 superstar… https://t.co/8IP8xyQJ7g — Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care (@Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care) 1623756897.0
Dr. Syed Mobeen, who hosts a daily medical show and often hosts Dr. Kory for discussions about COVID treatment, told me that "it seems that molnupiravir is a copy of one of Ivermectin's mechanisms."
"This mechanism is to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 virus' RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme," said Dr. Mobeen, who runs a medical education center. "Copying this mechanism will give Merck a way to earn from an existing cheap drug's action by relabeling it; however, I believe that molnupiravir will continue to be less effective as studies show that ivermectin has more mechanisms to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 replication and spread. Hence, ivermectin will continue to be a superior choice over molnupirivir or other RdRp disrupters."
Aside from disrupting the viral RdRp, ivermectin supporters believe the cheap drug inhibits the spike protein from binding to the ACE2 enzyme and disrupts the importin alpha and beta.
Merck has yet to explain why its new drug would be more cost effective and score better in a risk-benefit analysis than ivermectin. Just over the weekend, a Cochrane-standard (the highest level review) meta-analysis of ivermectin against COVID-19 by Bryant-Lawrie, which has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, concluded that the "apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
Thus, with a non-invasive, cheap, and safe drug that doesn't require one to lock down or wear a mask, we could largely solve the problem. Why would the medical establishment not take yes for an answer? As the study concludes:
Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO "Essential Medicine" already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.
Now we know, in the case of Merck, there are 1.2 billion reasons why not. For some of the larger special interests, that number is exponentially higher and is all backed by the Fed's printing press and guaranteed by the media they have paid and influenced. Welcome to science and medicine.
His site A) promotes his book, Deconstructing a Paradigm: A Treatise for the Unbelievable, B) includes links to several NWO docs (links below), and C) includes his videos and blogs which are of course banned in the usual places.
https://kopfw9233.wixsite.com/deconstruct
NWO Documents
This page contains a number of documents, many of which demonstrate the intentions of the global elite including the depopulation strategy outlined in the NSSM 200 and World Population Plan of Action, the plan for a global viral outbreak outlined in various curiously-timed documents, and the intention to declare all dissidents agents of terror and erect camps to detain them.
NSSM: 200
NSSM-200.pdf (nssm200.com)
The National Security Study Memorandum, otherwise known as the Kissinger Report, is the United States’ response to the UN’s World Population Plan of Action and demonstrates America’s solidarity with the depopulation agenda. It began as a classified document but was later declassified and became available to the public. The premise is that there are too many people, especially in the less developed countries, which is a threat to our national security. The document discusses using food scarcity as a weapon and exploiting the resources of other countries.
You may notice themes emerge that are similar to those in the UN’s World Population Plan of Action: Indoctrinating women into believing that motherhood is oppressive, indoctrinating people into believing large families are bad, using propaganda, environmentalism, and promoting abortion.
They hide their genocidal agenda amidst a flurry of data while they take extra precaution to “avoid any appearance of coercion” and appear benevolent. Why would a philanthropic movement need to make efforts to appear as though they are good actors? Evil loves to announce that it is good, but true goodness is self-evident and requires no fanfare.
World Population Plan of Action
The title speaks for itself. This is a document created by the United Nations arguing that there are too many people on the planet and that something needs to be done about it. Please pardon the notes and highlighting.
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
Rockefeller-Foundation-2010-Scenarios-for-the-Future-of-Technology-and-International-Development.pdf (truthcomestolight.com)
This 2010 Rockefeller document is composed as though it only hypothetically explores the future development of technology through the lens of 4 scenarios each of varying levels of authoritarian control and public compliance, though there are some noteworthy parallels to our current circumstances that have inspired others to believe that perhaps this was more of a plan than a mere thought exercise, thought the authors are sure to mention that it is not. "Lock Step" is the first scenario discussed in which there emerges a devastating viral pandemic. "Hack Attack" is another of their scenarios. It addresses the dangers of cyber attacks, echoing the modern day warnings of World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab and the recent (as of this writing) Cyber Polygon exercise.
Agenda 2030
21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf (un.org)
This is the United Nations' 70th General Assembly which, as the subheading reads, seeks to transform the world by the year 2030. This reads like other UN documents, dressed up in philanthropic motivations like empowering women, though those familiar with the UN's agenda will see that they care very little about actually empowering women, and only promote the cause for purposes of depopulation. To sum up the agenda, these elites seek to exert global control over a number of things, taking control of the earth's resources, limiting what is allowed to be owned and consumed, and enforcing restrictions under the guise of climate change. As stated, they wish to free the world from the "tyranny of poverty" and heal the planet. A reading of the UN's World Population Plan of Action will reveal that they correlate "healing the earth" and "ending poverty" with depopulation. Of course poverty cannot exist where there are no people. Problem solve
All children 12 and older in Los Angeles public schools must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January to enter campus under an order approved Thursday by the Board of Education, the first such mandate among the nation’s largest school systems and a decision that triggered immediate pushback.
The requirement cements the standing of the L.A. Unified School District as an early adopter of COVID-19 school safety measures that are wide-reaching and aggressive. The nation’s second-largest school system has moved faster and more comprehensively than most others in testing all students and employees for coronavirus infection every week, requiring masks indoors and outdoors and ordering employees to get vaccinated.
L.A. schools Interim Supt. Megan K. Reilly said the student mandate was the next logical step to keep children, staff and community members safer from a COVID-19 pandemic that still poses significant risks.
“We’ve always approached safety with a multilayered approach: masks, air filtration and coronavirus screening,” Reilly told The Times. “But we are seeing without a doubt that the vaccines are one of the clearest pathways to protecting individuals from getting severe sickness as well as for mitigating transmission of the COVID virus. It is one of the best preventive measures that we have at our disposal to create a safe environment at schools.”
New York City’s school system, the largest in the nation, so far has ordered athletes in high-contact sports to begin the vaccination process before competition starts. New York City and Chicago, the nation’s third-largest district, are among a growing number of school systems that have enacted mandates for employees.
The L.A. district action “could provide the model for a comprehensive school response to COVID mitigation, so that schools can move on to student academic and mental health recovery plans,” said Odis Johnson Jr., executive director of the Center for Safe and Healthy Schools at the Johns Hopkins University School of Education. “Mandatory vaccination mandates move us forward toward finally addressing students’ developmental, social and academic well-being.”
One vaccine, made by Pfizer, has received full approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for people 16 and older. Those who are 12 to 15 can be inoculated under a federal emergency use authorization. L.A. Unified is not waiting for full vaccine approval for those 12 to 15 — although that approval by the FDA is widely expected in the coming weeks. And President Biden on Thursday pledged to expedite approval of the vaccine for younger children.
Reilly estimated that about 225,000 students in grades six through 12 would fall under the policy. District officials estimate that roughly 80,000 students are not yet vaccinated. Also affected would be about 17,000 students in independent charter schools that use L.A. Unified campuses.
Students who are not vaccinated by the deadline will not be allowed on campus, she said. The alternative for them would be to enter remote learning through independent study, a program that was overwhelmed at the start of the school year when more than 10,000 students signed up.
Under the district’s mandate, the first students affected would be those involved in any school-sponsored extracurricular activity, including sports, drama, chorus and band. Those students who are 12 or older must receive a first vaccine dose no later than Oct. 3 and a second dose no later than Oct. 31.
All students 12 and older would have to receive a first dose no later than Nov. 21 and a second dose no later than Dec. 19. The final day of classes before winter break is Dec. 17.
Students return to class on Jan. 11. By Jan. 10, proof of vaccination would have to be “uploaded and approved in LAUSD’s Daily Pass program” except for those students with approved exemptions, the proposal says.
Daily Pass allows a student onto campus and tracks weekly coronavirus test results. Parents and students also use the pass to self-report whether a student has symptoms.
Vaccine exemptions can be requested for documented medical reasons, but not based on religious or personal beliefs, according to L.A. Unified.
The resolution also stipulates that younger students would have to receive their first vaccine dose no later than 30 days after their 12th birthday and their second dose no later than eight weeks after that birthday.
Demonstrators opposed to masking and mandatory vaccination for students gather outside the Los Angeles Unified School District headquarters as board members voted that all children 12 and older in Los Angeles public schools must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January to enter campus.(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) Even though the meeting was called with one-day’s notice, about 100 protesters, including some who are not district parents, had enough time to assemble outside the district’s headquarters, just west of downtown.
Bridgett Bradley, a parent of three, wore a shirt that read “Babies Lives Matter.” Others carried signs reading “Children Are Not Guinea Pigs,” “COVID Testing Is a Scam,” “The Vax Equals Racism” and “Save Our Children.”
Bradley said she would rather home-school her 14-year-old and 9-year-old than have the eldest vaccinated. “Who knows, they might try to put it in babies,” she said of the vaccine.
Before the meeting, officials allowed public comment by phone from only seven speakers, saying the format of the meeting allowed them to limit the number of comments.
“As parents we have a lot of concerns about this vaccine,” said Diana Guillen, a leader with a district parent advisory committee, who addressed the board in Spanish. “This vaccine is experimental... This decision should be made by parents, not by you.”
Another parent asked the board: “Can we sue the district if our child has secondary side effects that are negative?”
The speakers also included state Senator Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat who’s also a pediatrician.
“Children are accounting for more than 26% of reported cases,” Pan said. “In taking this step, which is grounded in science, LAUSD is leading the way in putting the heath of children first. ... The vaccines are safe and effective.”
A major local pediatricians group also endorsed the decision.
In her separate news briefing Thursday, Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer thanked LAUSD officials “for really elevating the importance of using vaccinations as one of the most powerful tools” saying the move will “add another layer of protection” at schools.
Neither the county nor state has taken a position on whether school districts should mandate vaccines.
District officials, experts and attorneys said that litigation was likely.
“I expect that there will be numerous legal challenges to the vaccine mandate for children in LAUSD and other districts,” said Scott Davison, an attorney representing Let Them Breathe, an organization with active litigation against the state over the school mask mandate as well as guidelines for quarantines and coronavirus testing.
Davison asserted that the coronavirus vaccine was more akin in effectiveness to the flu vaccine, which is not typically required at schools. The required polio vaccination, in contrast, has a lengthy track record of successfully preventing a disease that seriously afflicted children.
“We know vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease,” Davison said. “The question for the [COVID] vaccines will be whether they are needed in a population like children who are already at incredibly low risk.”
Johnson of Johns Hopkins said case law “is on the side of LAUSD’s vaccination mandate. Supreme Court rulings have not only upheld vaccination requirements for public school attendance, they have also permitted municipal systems to require proof of vaccination.”
Prior to the vote, the district’s medical director, Dr. Smita Malhotra, presented evidence in support of the policy, concluding that it would likely prevent the hospitalization of more than 100 children.
In citing the importance of acting now, the resolution states that the school system plays a fundamental role in efforts “to safeguard the educational, health and safety needs of Los Angeles Unified’s students and community as a whole within its geographic boundaries.”
School board President Kelly Gonez called vaccines “the strongest tool in our toolbox.”
Officials expect most families to be supportive.
Parent Ariel Harman-Holmes said she was “thrilled” at the news.
Although she acknowledged having many complaints about L.A. Unified, “they’re doing an admirable job of curtailing COVID spread. ... This mandate is a wonderful example for other school districts of how to protect our school communities."
Biden aides set up a ‘wall’ to shield him from unscripted events, book claims
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-aides-wall-shield-unscripted-events-book-claims
Top White House aides set up a "wall" to shield President Biden from unscripted events and long interviews amid fears of the president’s testiness and habit of mangling statements, according to a new book.
"Peril" by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa cited a number of incidents from the gaffe-prone president in the early days of his administration, including a back-and-forth with a CNN reporter for which he later apologized.
"That side of Biden -- his tendency to at times be testy or mangle statements -- was still with him and now part of his presidency," the book says.
In turn, a number of Biden aides told the reporters that Chief of Staff Ronald Klain and then-White House advisor Anita Dunn worked to prevent such incidents by keeping him away from "unscripted events or long interviews."
"They called the effect ‘the wall,’ a cocooning of the president," they wrote.
The book says that the White House had to go into damage control mode after Biden announced he had struck a major bipartisan infrastructure deal, but then said it was contingent on a more liberal spending package being passed.
It reportedly surprised Democrats, who saw them as separate, and angered Republicans who were unhappy about the caveat. It led to officials working the phones to repair the damage, and Biden issuing a lengthy statement to clarify his position.
The book contains a number of revelations, in particular its reporting about how General Mark Milley was in communication with the Chinese to reassure them about fears of an attack during the chaos surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
I know this has been discussed before but has anyone really looked at the exclusion criteria for the Pfizer vax studies? If you have/had any of these, youy ate effed from participating in the study - which we all know is what's happening with the current vaccines. Link at end of post.
Exclusion Criteria:
Other medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation/behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk of study participation or, in the investigator's judgment, make the participant inappropriate for the study.
Phases 1 and 2 only: Known infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or hepatitis B virus (HBV).
History of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine and/or severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of the study intervention(s).
Receipt of medications intended to prevent COVID 19. (This is important. Medications INTENDED to prevent COVID, i.e.; HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamins D, C, Zinc, etc)
Previous clinical (based on COVID-19 symptoms/signs alone, if a SARS-CoV-2 NAAT result was not available) or microbiological (based on COVID-19 symptoms/signs and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT result) diagnosis of COVID 19
Phase 1 only: Individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, including those with any of the following risk factors:
Hypertension
Diabetes mellitus
Chronic pulmonary disease
Asthma
Current vaping or smoking
History of chronic smoking within the prior year
BMI >30 kg/m2
Anticipating the need for immunosuppressive treatment within the next 6 months
Phase 1 only: Individuals currently working in occupations with high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (eg, healthcare worker, emergency response personnel). Immunocompromised individuals with known or suspected immunodeficiency, as determined by history and/or laboratory/physical examination.
Phase 1 only: Individuals with a history of autoimmune disease or an active autoimmune disease requiring therapeutic intervention.
Bleeding diathesis or condition associated with prolonged bleeding that would, in the opinion of the investigator, contraindicate intramuscular injection.
Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.
