On Tuesday, the United States government’s Food and Drug Administration asked states to temporarily halt the giving of Johnson & Johnson’s experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, pointing to the developing of blood clots in people who have received the shots as the justification for halting.
For more information about the blood clots and other issues related to the Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine, check out the Tuesday article “5 Reasons Johnson & Johnson Is Having A Very Bad Month” by Megan Redshaw at the Children’s Health Defense website.
One thing that is odd is that the Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine shots have been subjected to this temporary halt, but shots of the experimental vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have not. Many reports of injury and death after Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech experimental vaccine shots, from the early days onward, have come in as well. Could the different regulatory outcomes be because the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots use mRNA technology and are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term while the Johnson & Johnson shot is more in line with the traditional vaccines approach? Are we seeing regulatory favoritism for the new mRNA shots?
Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.