An effort to Educate Massachusetts State Reps hamstrung by biased reporting
An effort to Educate Massachusetts State Reps hamstrung by biased reporting
I spoke at the MA State House last week on behalf of Health Rights Massachusetts. Here's what happened...
Last week I was asked to join my colleague, John Beaudoin Sr., to give a brief presentation to MA state Representatives to support two proposed bills proposed by Health Rights MA. The bills are written to protect the constitutional rights of any MA resident, independent of their choice to take or refuse a medical treatment, Covid-19 vaccines or otherwise:
No person shall be compelled to acquiesce to medical treatments or procedures, collection of specimens, or sharing of personal data or medical information. A person’s fundamental rights including privacy, travel, and speech afforded under the United States Constitution shall not be infringed upon to impede the making of decisions for themselves or for their dependents, including, but not limited to, decisions about health and medical care, including complementary and alternative healthcare services, education, employment, travel, and lifestyle preferences.
No employer shall decline to hire, or terminate the employment of, a person solely on the basis of the person’s choice to engage or not engage with a medical treatment or procedure. A person whose rights have been violated by this act may bring action for (i) an injunction against any further violation; (ii) appropriate affirmative relief, including, but not limited to, admission or reinstatement of employment with back pay plus 10 percent interest; and (iii) any other relief necessary to ensure compliance with this Act.
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the commonwealth shall not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of entry to the Commonwealth.
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the commonwealth and all of its agencies, authorities and political subdivisions shall not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of entry to a public building.
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, no public or private elementary school, secondary school, high school, charter school, college, university or other post-secondary institution of higher education shall require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of enrollment, access to campus or attendance in in-person classes.
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the commonwealth shall not require any private business to require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of entry to the business, or access to employment by such business.
No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by themselves or another, require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of entry to a place of public accommodation, resort or amusement.
Of 160 State Representatives total only one attended our presentation. A handful of other Reps sent interns to take notes.
Beaudoin and I were given 15 minutes each to offer what we thought was the most compelling arguments around the uncertainty of the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. If there was significant uncertainty, how could they be mandated?
So much to say, so little time!
I used the first few minutes to explain what “Vaccine Efficacy” meant and how the public was misled about what this term signifies. From the reaction of the sparse audience, it seemed that they were stunned that 90% efficacy could be claimed even though the risk of getting Severe Covid-19 was less than 1 in 2200 if unvaccinated.
I then dissected the data from the Pfizer/BioNTech published trial results which clearly shows that VE after dose 2 was anywhere between -152% to 99.5% using a 95% confidence interval. In other words, not only was the benefit of the vaccine NOT statistically significant, the best data we have (a large, randomized, placebo control double blind study with matched cohorts) indicate that the shots may have significant negative efficacy.
Moreover, Pfizer’s own results indicate that for every case of Severe Covid-19 the vaccine prevented, 15 Serious Adverse Events would result.
I then explained what I believe to be the most damning evidence of fraud in the trial: 250 more vaccinated participants were dropped from the trial within seven days of getting their second dose compared to those who got the placebo.
The odds that this could happen through coincidence is less than 1 in 100,000. Pfizer’s investigators were not asked to explain what happened to these people. Neither were they asked why it happened again one year later in their pediatric trial.
Is this evidence that the trial was fraudulent? Yes.
Is this proof that our regulatory agencies are not doing their job? Yes.
Did the trial predict that massive casualties would result from mass vaccination? Almost certainly.
But if that were the case, why haven’t we been seeing them? Well, we have. As of the end of April, 2023, nearly 300,000 Serious Adverse Events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Why has the CDC chosen to ignore these reports?
If that weren’t enough, interim results demonstrated that more people died if vaccinated. Deaths from cardiac arrest were four times higher if a participant got the experimental shot. Could this really be happening?
Big Points from John Beaudoin, Sr.
Beaudoin then took over and hit the major points from his analysis of over 400,000 official death certificates from our state of MA. The results were unmistakable and stunning:
Excess deaths during 2020 occurred during a brief period from March to July 2020.
These deaths occurred mainly in the elderly.
The cause of death, based on ICD-10 codes, was largely due to pulmonary complications, something we would expect from a respiratory borne illness.
From July 2020 to January 2021, there were no more deaths in our state than would be expected, despite the fact that we were in a pandemic emergency.
Then, in early 2021, excess deaths began to climb again. This time it was in younger age groups and they were dying of cardiac and clotting issues.
There has been an “epidemic” of Acute Renal Failure that began with the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine campaign that has yet to be acknowledged.
There are incidences of vaccine-mediated deaths that have been fraudulently recorded as Covid-19 fatalities. The extent of this phenomenon is yet to be determined.
We were seeing exactly what the trial predicted in our state of MA. The shots provided little to no benefit in exchange for significant risk of increased mortality.
Beaudoin’s analysis was summarized on the Children’s Health Defense’s publication, The Defender, last year. He writes the substack “Coquin de Chien”. A more detailed description can be found in his stack article:
On what basis could anyone ethically override an individual’s personal choice with so much uncertainty in official data?? I thought we hit it out of the park. Or so I thought…
Issues with the coverage
That afternoon their internal news reporting (State House News Service) ran this story, “Vaccine Skeptics Hold Court in House Lounge”:
As they lobby for bills that would prohibit employers from hiring or firing based on vaccination status and ban certain proof-of-vaccination requirements, a group of COVID-19 vaccine skeptics brought guest speakers into the State House Tuesday, including one who alleged "fraud" had been injected into a major vaccine trial.
“I disagree with the FDA and the CDC. I don’t think that these products are safe and effective. Nor do I believe that they have been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy, “ Dr. Madhava Setty, an anesthesiologist, said at the lunchtime briefing in the House of Representatives Members’ Lounge.
The CDC advises that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” serious health problems occur after vaccination in “rare cases”, and the benefits of vaccination “outweigh the known and potential risks.”
As the COVID-19 state of emergency was lifted last week, the leader of the state Department of Public Health, Dr. Robbie Goldstein, cautioned the public: “This is not the end of the pandemic. This is not the end of COVID.”
Tuesday’s State House gathering featured speaker John Beaudoin Sr., a local electrical engineer, who showed his personal research showed him that “as a pandemic, COVID was nine weeks in MA, that’s it.” He added that “nobody could say differently”.
Beaudoin, who filed lawsuits over the Baker administration’s face mask mandate and seeking to access medical records from across the state, presented his own analysis of death certificate data from the past few years…
It was disappointing to see so few legislators in the audience but the manner in which our presentation was conveyed to the rest of the legislature left a lot to be desired.
Why call us “Vaccine Skeptics” in the title? We only presented data on the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccine”, a product that would not have met the CDC’s definition just a few years ago. Labeling someone a vaccine skeptic relegates them to the realm of pseudoscience and misinformation.
The reporter accurately quoted me. That was the first sentence out of my mouth. Why not at least mention that I backed up my position citing only peer-reviewed, published data, briefing documents between Pfizer and the FDA and official CDC slides from advisory panel meetings to support my position? Who is being pseudoscientific, the CDC or I?
Was it really necessary to remind the MA state representatives what the CDC has been advising the public for the last thirty months?
The reporter ignored perhaps the most compelling part of Beaudoin’s story. He believed in the Covid-19 vaccine initially. His teenage son thought it was a scam orchestrated in part by the media. If the integrity of the media was in question, where else could he go to convince his son of the truth? The only way to prove his son wrong was to go the source: official death certificates from our state. Beaudoin was stunned by what he found.
Dr. Goldstein, the commissioner of the MA DPH, has held this position for less than six weeks. He thinks we are still in a pandemic though the three year long state of emergency has been lifted. How would Goldstein respond to this slide from Beaudoin’s research?
Official Death Certificates from Goldstein’s own state show that excess deaths were limited to just nine weeks, just as Beaudoin stated. Perhaps our new Commissioner of Public Health would be curious to know what his state’s residents have been perishing from recently…
Thanks for posting this article, Dr. Setty.
I can't say I was disappointed because I expected that turnout.
I was pulled into presentations via zoom to staffers of US House Members and a Senator over a few meetings. Notice the word, "staffers." Kids in their 20's showed up. That's it.
In NH, the House Members are very available to talk to and they set meetings and make proposals to solve issues. I very much appreciate the system in NH. They have 400 House members for such a small state and the get paid $100 per year plus expenses. Amazing. Real civic duty volunteerism.
Thanks for such a great job last week. You made it easy for me to come after you. Dovetails very nicely.
This is so incredibly disappointing. It’s disturbing how little interest those in power seek the truth. We elect people we honestly do not know, and this is the result: forcing we the people to take a medical intervention that’s not needed, doesn’t work, and is potentially harmful. Thank you for your efforts.