From LifeSiteNews
By John-Michael Dumais, The Advocate
At a Senate hearing on July 11, former CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “toxic” and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause in gain-of-function research.
Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines at a U.S. Senate hearing on July 11, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandatory.
Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.
The late admission of vaccine injuries highlights the failure of public health agencies and the medical system to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients around the world.
“It’s important that the truth be told now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “The adverse effects were and continue to be hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”
Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “the greatest threat to our country’s national security” and called for gain-of-function research to be halted pending further debate.
The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the lab leak theory about the origins of COVID-19 and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.
The mRNA vaccine “should have been open to personal choice”
During the hearing, Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about the safety of the mRNA vaccine.
“I think one of the biggest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should never have been mandatory. They should have been open to personal choice.”
Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”
He noted that in his own medical practice he does not administer mRNA vaccines and prefers “dead protein vaccines.”
Redfield’s remarks stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted the adoption of the mRNA vaccine as safe and effective.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting troubling data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing more than 37,000 deaths reported after COVID-19 vaccination, 24 percent of which occurred within two days of the shot.
Redfield acknowledged that “there was not adequate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts “not to report on side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.”
‘The FDA should publish all safety data’
Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s handling of vaccine safety information.
“The FDA should release all the safety data that they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to learn that they were planning to withhold it until 2026. That really creates a sense of complete lack of confidence in our public health agencies with regard to vaccination.”
Johnson echoed these concerns and expressed frustration at the lack of follow-up by health agencies and the committee itself.
“I’m not getting the cooperation of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigation to issue subpoenas to obtain this,” Johnson said, referring to unpublished data and documents.
The senator showed a chart comparing adverse event reports for several drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, with those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these treatments — COVID-19 vaccines show significantly higher numbers — prompted Johnson’s call for greater transparency.
“As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there is much more that is being hidden,” Johnson said. “The public has a right to know. We pay these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.”
Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, saying that withholding information is “counterproductive.”
Redfield doubts that research (on gain of function) can bring any benefit
Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause in gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly.
“I’m not aware of any vaccines or advanced therapies that have been developed as a result of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I think there needs to be a very aggressive debate about whether there is any benefit to that research.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seized on this point and introduced his High-Risk Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding of high-risk life sciences research.
“If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it could have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement.
Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D. of MIT, inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing the CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns.
Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment in which his team, with FBI approval, successfully ordered DNA fragments from the 1918 flu virus from 36 of 38 suppliers.
“Everything we and the companies did was completely legal,” Esvelt said, highlighting the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has called for regulation from Congress.”
The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses in favor of stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting that such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security.
Redfield reaffirms COVID lab leak theory
The hearing reignited the debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in the lab leak theory.
“Based on my initial analysis, I believed then, and continue to believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and a subsequent lab leak,” Redfield said.
The claim sparked a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, former chief of staff to then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab leak theory.
“His office, Dr. (Anthony) Fauci and others actively tried to censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this article was the center of, and now everyone is saying, ‘Well, we weren’t sure at the time.’”
Hawley referenced the 2020 “Proximate Origin” paper that argued against the lab leak hypothesis.
Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions: “I don’t think there was any censorship, sir.” He argued that discussions about the origin of the virus are part of normal scientific discourse.
However, Redfield criticized the lack of thorough research into natural origin and lab leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this did not happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there is no significant evidence to support a natural origin.
The former CDC director also revealed that he was not made aware of troubling biodistribution studies of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials.
“Biosecurity is the greatest threat to our country’s national security”
Redfield stressed the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense.
“In 2024 and 2025, biosecurity will be the greatest threat to our country’s national security,” Redfield said. “You have to think about it the same way you thought about the edge of nuclear power in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.”
He called for a response proportional to the threat and suggested the creation of a dedicated agency within the US Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns.
“We have a $900 billion Department of Defense to deal with the threat from China, North Korea and Russia,” Redfield said. “We really don’t have any systematic agencies or private sector contractor networks to help us with the biosecurity threat.”
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) echoed this sentiment: “In my humble opinion, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger problem than the military threat posed to us by China.”
Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for greater oversight and recommended “an independent authority to consolidate security functions into a single entity with a dedicated mission.”
The hearing also touched on the possibility of future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warnings about the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu.
At the conclusion of the hearing, senators from both parties expressed concern about the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk investigations.
Paul summed up the sentiment: “We cannot sit back and do nothing. We must demand accountability, fight for transparency, and ensure that the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.”
This article was originally published by The Defender, the news and opinion website of Children’s Health Defense, under the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or making a donation to Children’s Health Defense.
Related
