San Juan Basin Public Health and FDA publish misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines

San Juan Basin Public Public Health (SJBPH) department and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on numerous websites and media platforms in La Plata County.

Most striking was the misinformation through acts of omission about the potential adverse events from taking any of the COVID-19 vaccines. I’m talking about the missing VAERS data and personal accounts of blood clotting, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bells Palsy, spontaneous abortions, premature babies and more.

Also of concern is the misinformation about the vaccine injury medical bill coverage. SJBPH falsely claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program (CICP). So far, no claims for compensation have been honored.

Misinformation about the FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccine and its availability in La Plata County was also published and disseminated by SJBPH. Comirnaty in its legal and literal distinction is not currently available in La Plata County.

To add to the misinformation, SJBPH discredited natural immunity, as well, on their website, for those who have obtained COVID-19 antibodies after being infected.

Over time, this misinformation can lead the general public to believe that the jabs are safer than they really are. The falsehoods can also lead people to believe that medical-bill coverage is available to those injured by the EUA jabs when it is not.

Vaccine clinic employee provides questionable data on blood clot risks

A vaccine handler named Kendra at the La Plata County Fairgrounds COVID-19 vaccine clinic said that blood clotting disorders associated with all COVID-19 vaccines came primarily from the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots.

“That was primarily in the population of women of child-bearing age,” Kendra said.

Is this true, you may ask?

To the contrary, what Kendra said about blood clots primarily effecting child-bearing women was false. First-hand accounts from COVID-19 vaccine victims, as well as data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) appear to refute her claim.

Only one type of blood-clotting event, known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome had only occurred in women who had only taken the Janssen jab, according to VAERS data. The 5 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome in VAERS were only among females vaccinated with Janssen jabs. Outcomes included death, life threatening events and hospitalizations.

Even though SJBPH and corporate mainstream media has tried its hardest to censor out the voices of COVID-19 vaccine victims, their stories are still being told.

For instance, many victims or their doctors are submitting reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the official data hub where these adverse events can and should be reported.

In VAERS, a number of blood clotting disorders are reported as strokes.

A stroke, as defined by the American Stoke Association is:

“A stroke occurs when a blood vessel that carries oxygen and nutrients to the brain is either blocked by a clot or bursts (or ruptures). When that happens, part of the brain cannot get the blood (and oxygen) it needs, so it and brain cells die.”

Specific to pulmonary embolisms, VAERS had reported 7,288 cases among both sexes who had taken any of the three available COVID-19 jabs. The cases ranged from death, hospitalization, permanent injury, ER visits, congenital anomaly/birth defect to office visits.

As for deep vein thrombosis, 4,553 cases were reported among both sexes who had taken any three of the available COVID-19 jabs. The cases ranged from death, hospitalization, permanent injury, ER visits, life threatening events, congenital anomaly/birth defects or office visits.

Similarly, VAERS data show 40 cases of thrombotic strokes among men and women who had taken any of the three shots. The cases ranged from life threatening, permanent disability, hospitalized, ER room or office visits.

An alarming 213,472 embolic strokes from COVID-19 vaccines were reported to VAERS. Too many embolic strokes were documented in VAERS for the system to produce a chart.

Another blood clotting injury called transient ischaemic attacks was reported 1,361 times for men and women who had taken any three of the jabs. Again, cases ranged from death, life threatening, permanent disability, hospitalization, congenital anomaly/birth defect, ER room visits and office visits.

Additionally, 936 ischaemic strokes were reported to VAERS among both sexes who had taken any three of the jabs. Again, cases ranged from death, life threatening, permanent disability, hospitalization, congenital anomaly/birth defect, ER room visits and office visits.

Also, 70 brain stem strokes were reported to VAERS among both shots, in both genders. The cases ranged from death, permanent disability, life-threatening events, hospitalization, ER room visits and office visits.

Of all the possible side effects that Kendra explained, there were several that she did not disclose.

Why didn’t she mention Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, spontaneous abortions or even death? These other adverse events have been documented on Telegram, Facebook, TikTok, Gofundme, local obituaries, Instagram, VAERS and occasionally on a local news television broadcast station.

Misinformation about Pfizer Comirnaty published on multiple media platforms by SJBPH

Most publicly, was the misinformation that appeared in Pandora radio advertisements, and provided by public information officer Chandler Griffin.

The Pfizer BioNTech Emergency-Use-Authorized COVID-19 vaccine has been inaccurately portrayed by public health officials as being interchangeable with the FDA-Approved Comirnaty vaccine, even though a federal district court judge said has said that they are legally distinct from eachother.

As such, the two vaccines are legally different, even though the FDA concedes that they are not, the judge wrote.

“FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval,” Judge Winsor wrote (page 15).

It is unclear exactly how else the EUA Pfizer BioNTech vaccine and the BLA Comirnaty are legally distinct from eachother. For the EUA Pfizer BioNTech, its victims of adverse events have so far been unable to file successful claims for compensation.

A review of the wording of the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program (CICP), suggests that the manufacturers of both Pfizer BioNTech and the Comirnaty vaccines are shielded from civil suit liability from injured people. However, a look at another FDA-Approved drug called the H1N1 Vaccine shows that the CICP (the government program) has compensated $6 million dollars worth of claims to those injured by the H1N1 Vaccine.

While the judge did not discount that Pfizer BioNTech and Comirnaty are medically interchangeable, the judge did acknowledge that the two had different excipients.

“The plaintiffs question whether the two products are, in fact, chemically identical. See, e.g., ECF No. 45 at 16:17-19. Indeed, the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action lists a redacted excipient for BLA-approved Comirnaty that does not appear on the ingredient list in the EUA letter. Compare ECF No. 1-5 at 9 (listing 11 components, including .450 ml per vial of a redacted excipient), with ECF No. 1- 6 at 7 (listing 10 components, all of which also appear on the Summary Basis list). Excipients are “inactive” ingredients like “coatings, binders, and capsules,” but they sometimes “may affect the safety and effectiveness of drug products.” United States v. Generix Drug Corp., 460 U.S. 453, 454-55 (1983). In Generix, the Supreme Court held that two products with the same active ingredients were nonetheless not the same “drug” under the FDCA where the district court had found that their different excipients created a reasonable possibility that the unlicensed drug was “less safe and effective” than the licensed one. Id. at 455-57. But the Court expressly declined to decide “whether two demonstrably bioequivalent products, containing the same ingredients but different excipients, might under some circumstances be the same ‘drug.’” Id. at 461. Because an excipient is, by definition, an inactive ingredient— and because the plaintiffs haven’t shown a “reasonable possibility” that excluding .450 ml of the redacted excipient from a vial of the EUA vaccine makes it any “less safe and effective” than Comirnaty, Generix, 460 U.S. at 455—I do not discount the FDA’s conclusion that the two vaccines are medically interchangeable. See ECF No. 1-6 at 3 n.8; ECF No. 31-13 at ¶¶ 7-9. Of course, that does not mean the two vaccines are legally indistinguishable—the FDA concedes they are not. See ECF No. 1-6 at 3 n.8. Still, EUA-labeled vials that Pfizer and the FDA “consider[] BLA compliant,” ECF No. 1-5 at 28, presumably must include the redacted excipient to meet Comirnaty’s licensing requirements. Cf. ECF No. 1-4 at 4 (“You must submit information to your BLA for our review and written approval under 21 C.F.R. 601.12 for any changes in . . . the manufacturing [of Comirnaty].” (emphasis added)).”

Mixed messaging about Pfizer vaccine from San Juan Basin Public Health officials

I got two different answers from two different San Juan Basin Public Health officials about the availability of the Biologics License Application FDA-Approved Comirnaty vaccine.

First, the COVID-19 Public Information Officer Chandler Griffin gave me the official narrative that’s widely disseminated.

“The FDA-Approved Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccines are widely available in La Plata County,” Griffin said. “Many of the local providers listed on this page have supply of the Pfizer available (checking with them in advance is recommended). Also, eligible folks can access Pfizer through any of the clinics listed in this platform and marked as Pfizer. Scrolling through the pages at the bottom navigates for upcoming dates and planned clinics. Comirnaty is the “brand name” for the FDA-Approved Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.”

More recently, an employee of Jogan Health named Kendra said that their vaccine clinic had not received any Comirnaty yet. They would not receive any Comirnaty until they ran out of their existing supply of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Also, she said that they did not have any package inserts for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine at the clinic, as they left them at their permanent office in Bodo.

Misinformation about Pfizer vaccine on San Juan Basin Public Health’s web page

Multiple pieces of false information can be found on the current and previous versions of the San Juan Basin Public Health COVID-19 web page.

Under the “Frequently Asked Questions” accordion drop down panel, false information appears under the heading titled, “will the vaccine have any effect on fertility?”

In response, the answer states that the COVID vaccine has no impact on fertility, and it poses no risk for pregnant people.

Likewise, the FDA also said that the vaccine has no impact on fertility in its Q&A for Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA web page.

To add further confusion, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment also published written claims that contradict reports of spontaneous abortion.

“There is now more evidence than ever to show that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant people. The vaccines help keep you from getting sick. They won’t harm your baby,” said the CDPHE.

“There is currently no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination causes any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine, including COVID-19 vaccines. People who have received COVID-19 vaccines have gone on to get pregnant and have healthy babies,” said the CDPHE.

Specifically what’s false about this information is that Pfizer’s own Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports lists the following pregnancy complications:

• Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23),
  outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with
  intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1
  each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were
  reported for each twin, and both were counted).

Ask yourself: how can there be no impact on fertility or risk to pregnant people when one of the manufacturers says that spontaneous abortion, premature birth and neonatal death have occurred post authorization?

Moreover, the claims of San Juan Basin Public Health, the FDA and the CDPHE about the jabs being safe for pregnant people seem to contradict data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Specific to Colorado, 44 spontaneous abortions and 4 premature babies were reported from women following their inoculations.

Adding to the data from VAERS are first-hand accounts of miscarriages from people who previously took a COVID-19 jab.

San Juan Basin Public Health misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine injury medical bill coverage

Misinformation is again stated under the last heading title of the “Frequently Asked Questions” accordion drop down panel on their COVID-19 vaccines web page. The headine asks, “What if I am injured by the vaccine? Will I have to pay my own medical bills?”

In response, the bullet below it says,

“In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the CICP to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration of COVID-19 vaccines.”

To the contrary, the CICP has failed to compensate any claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

“As of October 1, 2021, the CICP has not compensated any COVID-19 countermeasures claims,” said the web page for Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) Data. “Three COVID-19 countermeasures have been denied compensation because the standard of proof for causation was not met and/or a covered injury was not sustained. One COVID-19 claim has been determined eligible for compensation and is pending a review of eligible expenses”

Also, the Congressional Research Service acknowledged that nobody has been compensated for COVID-19 vaccine injury claims.

“In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, HRSA has received a larger number of CICP claims than it has
received historically. As of September 1, 2021, CICP has received 2,392 claims alleging injury or death
relating to COVID-19 countermeasures, of which 1,031 claims (43%) relate to COVID-19 vaccines.
CICP has not yet compensated any claims relating to COVID-19 countermeasures; it has denied three
claims because the standard of proof for causation was not met and/or a covered injury was not sustained.
The remainder of the COVID-19 countermeasure claims (2,389 or 99.9%) are in review or pending CICP
review,” the CRS publication said.

Unfortunately, the health department is misleading people about the liability protections coverage for people who are interested in taking the jab.

Natural immunity discredited by vaccine immunity proponent San Juan Basin Public Health

Another point of misinformation under the “Frequently Asked Questions” accordion drop down panel appears. Under the heading titled, “If I already had COVID-19 and recovered, do I still need to get vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine” it says,

“There is mounting evidence that people who are fully immunized benefit from more protection than those who have been infected with COVID-19. According to one study, unvaccinated individuals who have previously contracted COVID-19 are more than twice as likely to contract the virus again as fully vaccinated individuals.”

To the contrary, having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine, according to an Israeli study published at Science.org.

Furthermore, three Pfizer officials said that antibodies lead to equal, if not better, protection against the virus compared to the vaccine, according to a Project Veritas investigation.

Misleading statement about milder form of COVID-19 post vaccination

San Juan Basin Public Health Department’s web page about vaccinations FAILS to mention anything about break through infections where people get sick with COVID-19 and die right after receiving the jab(s).

Instead, what the page says under the “Frequently Asked Questions” accordion drop-down menu is something misleading. It misleads the reader into thinking that the jab itself doesn’t give people a viral infection capable of killing the patient.

It says,

“it is possible that someone who has been vaccinated against COVID-19 may still have a mild or asymptomatic infection or spread the virus to others.”

At worst, someone could get a mild or asymptomatic infection, the statement misleads one to believe.

Adam Howell is a writer who believes in free press and the importance of the constitution. He can be reached by clicking on this link to the contact page.