Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.
Kennedy is part of a political family, being the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. Both were murdered in the 1960s.
Another aspect of testing was equally unsatisfying, Kennedy said. The Moderna vaccine was tested “on 45 people. They had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low growth group of 15 people.”
“In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained. “That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”
In spite of these significant problems,
“they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”
Another problem with the testing of the coronavirus vaccine is that it’s tested not on “typical Americans,” but a carefully selected group of people who don’t suffer from certain conditions.
“They use what they call exclusionary criteria,” Kennedy said. “They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they’re doing to the healthiest people.”
“If you look at their exclusionary idea criteria: You cannot be pregnant, you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can’t suffer asthma, you can’t have diabetes, you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in the family. These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on.”
“What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally Six-Pack and Joe Bag of Donuts who’s 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes.”
Kennedy stressed several times that
“any other medicine … that had that kind of profile in its original phase-one study would be [dead on arrival].”
“No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has,” he reiterated.
During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines “are the only medical product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo,” he explained.
In a study involving placebos, one group of people would be injected with the actual vaccine, while another group would be injected with saline solution, which would not have any effect in preventing a particular disease. The people who are part of the study would then be observed to see if there are any differences between the two groups, both regarding the disease vaccinated against, and side effects.
As these tests are never done on vaccines, “nobody knows the risk profile of any vaccine that is currently on the schedule. And that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it’s causing.
In fact, it should be the opposite, Kennedy said, with vaccines being tested even more thoroughly than any other medication.
“It’s a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick,” he pointed out. “And it’s the only medicine that’s given to healthy people … and particularly to children who have a whole lifetime in front of them. So you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it’s safe.”
“it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars” over the past three decades, “and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court.”
He mentioned another reason not to trust blindly any company currently producing vaccines in the United States. Each one of the four vaccine producers “is a convicted serial felon: Glaxo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Merck.”
“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly.”
“It requires a cognitive dissonance,” Kennedy commented, “for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines.”
While Kennedy is often described as being against vaccines altogether, he stressed that he does not oppose vaccines, as such. He accused his critics of “marginalizing me and silencing me” by misrepresenting his actual position.
In May, Kennedy signed an appeal created by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò aimed at raising public awareness among people, governments, scientists, and the media about the serious dangers to individual freedom caused during the spread of Covid-19.
The appeal raised concern at one point about a COVID-19 vaccination in relation to human freedom.
“We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool.”
The appeal made it clear that for Catholics it is “morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”
Comments on the YouTube video of the debate between Kennedy and Dershowitz indicated, almost unanimously, that Kennedy had won the debate. Dershowitz conceded many points, arguing, however, that from the point of view of constitutional law, the coronavirus vaccine could be made mandatory.
Dershowitz, who has provided legal counsel to and defended people like Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Julian Assange, cited a 1905 Supreme Court ruling as precedent. Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
Kennedy clarified that the state government at the time had offered people to either be vaccinated or pay a five dollar fine. Dershowitz’s argument, however, was that based on constitutional law, including this precedent, “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
“I think there’s a big constitutional chasm between, you know, that remedy, which is paying a fine, and actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them.”
President Trump has already said that the new coronavirus vaccine would not be mandatory, but available for those “who want to get it. Not everyone is going to want to get it.” A LifeSiteNews petition saying no to mandatory vaccinations has garnered more than 650,000 signatures and can still be signed here.
The ethical issue of many vaccines being derived from cell lines of aborted babies was not discussed during the debate.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.