The number of deaths occurring within 72 hours of COVID 19 immunization is allegedly underreported in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s database, according to an America’s Front Line Doctors (AFLDS) federal lawsuit against the U.S. government.
“It is important to note that the Vaccines were only shown to reduce symptoms – not block transmission,” wrote a coalition of attorneys in a July 17 lawsuit filed on behalf of AFLDS. “For over a year now, these Defendants and state-level public health authorities have told the American public that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread by people who have none of the symptoms of COVID-19, therefore Americans must mask themselves, and submit to innumerable lockdowns and restrictions, even though they are not manifestly sick. If that is the case, and these officials were not lying to the public, and asymptomatic spread is real, then what is the benefit of a vaccine that merely reduces symptoms?”
But Rolling Hills Estates attorney Jeff Lewis says even a credible whistleblower from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) isn’t enough to overcome the barriers it takes to win the lawsuit that AFLDS has filed against defendant Xavier Becerra, U.S Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Prior to being appointed HHS Secretary by President Joe Biden, Becerra was the California Attorney General.
“Historically, courts have been most deferential to the government in areas of regulation of health, and especially in a pandemic, whether it's the Spanish flu or COVID,” Lewis told the Southern California Record. “So, the people filing this lawsuit have a huge uphill battle to overcome the state's compelling interest in protecting health and welfare.”
AFLDS is attempting to use immediate injunctive relief to stop the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccines. The informant quoted in the AFLDS brief, who remains unidentified, is a computer programmer who has developed more than 100 distinct healthcare fraud detection algorithms and allegedly has access to CMS data.
“Plaintiffs here are seeking first and foremost the revocation or termination of the declared emergency and existing Vaccine EUAs, and not for anti-competitive purposes, but in order to respond to unlawful agency action driven by financial conflicts of interest, political pressure and fear, the substantial risk of widespread personal injury and death, and constitutional infractions,” the complaint states.
But Lewis predicts the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed.
“Just to get an injunction, you’ve got to show a likelihood that you will win the lawsuit and that the world would be better a place than if you withheld the injunction,” Lewis said.
“Can you imagine being the judge that orders the government not to do these vaccines and being responsible for the health implications of that order? The plaintiffs would also have to show that they have more than a 50% chance of winning the lawsuit, which at the very beginning stage of a lawsuit is very hard to show.”
The lawsuit asserts that it is intended to protect children and teens under 18 years of age, Americans who have not yet been informed of vaccination risk, and everyone who has already recovered from COVID-19.
“If I were going to file a lawsuit like this, I would have been narrow and focused on federal employees, for example, who are required to get vaccinated now,” Lewis said. “I would not have been so broad because the more narrow you are, the less likely you are to sound like a conspiracy theorist.”
The plaintiffs further allege that informed consent, which is required under law, is impossible when safety data is misleading.
“The issuance of the Vaccine EUAs represents the “consummation of the decision-making process” with respect to whether or not EUAs will be granted, and also gave rise to “‘direct and appreciable legal consequences’” since millions of people have been injected with these experimental Vaccines while their manufacturers have made billions of dollars in revenues under an immunity shield,” the brief argues.
However, one of the problems that the plaintiff-physicians are likely to face, according to Lewis, is that courts presume the government knows best about health.
“We don't know the long-term effects of these vaccines,” he added. “It's always a cost-benefit analysis when you put a needle in your arm. It is an experiment. The plaintiffs are not wrong about that but the obvious and severe consequences of not vaccinating are pretty clear. I've got three teenage kids and I got them all vaccinated. They are 14, 15, and 17 years old.”