Madison Area Lyme Support Group

In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines injured 6.6 million people, disabled 1.36 million people, caused more than 300,000 excess deaths and cost the economy an estimated $147 billion in damage — in 2022 alone — according to a new analysis by Humanity Projects, a wing of Portugal-based research firm Phinance Technologies.

The researchers behind “The Vaccine Damage Project,” released this month, said they sought to “estimate the human cost,” including “deaths caused or hastened by the vaccines,” as well as “the impact on the overall economy of each aspect of the vaccine damage.”

Phinance Technologies was founded by former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd, along with Yuri Nunes, Ph.D., and Carlos Alegria, Ph.D.

Dowd, who came out as a whistleblower against the COVID-19 shots and Big Pharma corruption, is the author of “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022.”

According to the project’s authors:

“Each aspect of the vaccine damage investigation will have economic agents that will benefit and others that will suffer. For instance, it seems obvious that mortuary companies would benefit from excess mortality and life insurers will be harmed. This will lead to a reallocation of resources and re-pricing of risk by the different economic agents.

“A broader approach is to estimate the impact on the overall economy of each aspect of the vaccine damage. A drop in the number of working-age individuals would lead to a drop in GDP. We believe this impact is negligible for now.

“A greater impact will likely arise from an increase in disabilities in the labour force in the medium to long term.”

Human cost: excess deaths, disabilities, work absences

Utilizing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and other official government sources, Humanity Projects split the impact of the COVID-19 vaccines into four categories of human cost: no effect/asymptomatic, injuries (mild to moderate), disabilities (severe injury) and death.

According to the project’s findings, approximately 81% of the population falls into the “no effect or asymptomatic” group, which “comprises those individuals who did not experience adverse events following the COVID-19 inoculations.” However, the project notes that the actual size of this group cannot be known with certainty.

The researchers noted that the four categories “are not static and could interact with each other,” including “individuals who had no visible effects after vaccination but nonetheless could still be impacted.”

A substantial portion of the population — 18% — falls into the mild-to-moderate injury category. This category refers to those “who experienced mild to moderate adverse effects after vaccination” that “could be temporary in nature, or long-term or even permanent,” leading to “lower productivity at work.”

Using the “excess rate of related adverse events in vaccinated individuals (23.90%) obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-safe database, versus the placebo baseline (5.98%) in the Pfizer clinical trial,” the researchers concluded, “the pool of possibly injured individuals due to the vaccine is about 18% of the population.”

General findings for this category include a 50% increase in lost work time between 2019 and 2022, a 28.6% increase in absence rates — an 11 standard deviation variation from 2019 — and an estimated 26.6 million Americans affected.

Approximately 1% (0.93%) of the population fell into the “disabilities-severe outcome” category. This figure refers to the “estimated pool of the Civilian Labor force aged 16-64 that were disabled since 2021.”

The team drew from previous research it conducted on disability claims in the U.S. labor force, and from “the excess rate of Serious and Severe Adverse Events in vaccinated individuals versus the placebo baseline in the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials,” the rise in disabilities at the population level in the U.S., and the hospitalization rate as derived from the V-safe database.

In all, the researchers found a 24.6% rise in disabilities since 2021, affecting an estimated 1.36 million individuals.

As of November 2022, statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis showed the number of disabled individuals in the U.S. ranged between 29.974 million in April 2016 and 30.612 million in April 2017 — compared to 5.811 million in October 2015 and 6.335 million in June 2017.

However, by October 2021, these figures increased to 31.195 million and 6.987 million, respectively. And by October 2022, the figures were 32.819 million and 7.797 million.

The fourth category, referring to those who died, affected an estimated 0.05% to 0.1% of the population ages 25-64, according to the researchers.

“This group of individuals died as a consequence of mortality,” the group said, noting that “from the summer of 2021, with the introduction of mass vaccination, with the rise in natural immunity by exposure to the virus, and the emergence of milder and more contagious virus strains … it is difficult to argue that COVID-19 had a significant role in excess mortality.”

In all, the researchers found 23% excess mortality and an estimated 310,000 excess deaths at the population level in this age group in 2021 and 2022.

On Feb. 24, Sweden, a country that eschewed lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates and strict COVID-19 countermeasures, reported its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

Economic impact exceeded $147 billion — just in 2022

The other component of the Humanity Projects’ research focused on the economic impact of the COVID-19 vaccines by estimating “the direct economic cost from the mass COVID-19 inoculations on individuals.”

According to the researchers, they drew from gross domestic income data obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and applied those figures to the data from their human costs analysis, including statistics on excess deaths, disabilities and lost work time.

They then estimated economic costs for each of their four categories of individuals.

In looking at the mild-to-moderate injury category, the researchers used “the absolute excess lost worktime rates in 2022 … to estimate the economic cost in terms of lost productivity.”

Applying those figures to gross domestic income statistics, they found that the direct economic cost from the increase in lost work time rates is $89.9 billion.

In the severe injury (disabilities) category, the researchers found an 0.93% absolute rise in disabilities since 2021 for the 16- to 64-year-old civilian labor force. Applying that data to gross domestic income figures, they found a $52.2 billion direct economic cost resulting from the rise in disabilities.

The researchers noted that “this cost is expected to be ongoing in the coming years, as these individuals are likely to have a permanent disability.”

Finally, the researchers found an 0.05% average yearly absolute rise in excess deaths since 2021 for the 25- to 64-year-old population, resulting in a direct economic cost of $5.6 billion, when calculated against gross domestic income data.

In all, this results in a total economic cost of $147.8 billion dollars just for 2022 alone. According to the researchers, “Milder damage is associated with larger economic cost, as it affects a larger portion of the population.”

In a tweet, Dowd also noted that these figures represent just “what we can measure” at present, and do not include knock-on effects such as workers who continue to be employed but are operating at a lower productivity level.

“We need to monitor the longer-term impact of the vaccine damage as they amount to an important economic impact,” the researchers concluded, adding:

“Individuals with mild injuries from the inoculations could, over time, develop severe injuries to the extent of being disabled, or an extreme outcome such as death.”

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked President Biden’s executive order mandating federal workers nationwide get vaccinated against COVID-19.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reverses an April 2022 ruling by a three-judge panel, from the same court, which upheld the federal mandate.

Thursday’s decision keeps a preliminary injunction — issued in January 2022 by a Texas judge — in place while the case is litigated.

The decision was made in an en banc hearing, meaning the full 16-judge court ruled on the case, rather than a panel of judges selected from the bench. A 10-judge majority ruled to uphold the injunction.

Feds for Medical Freedom, the plaintiffs in the case, said in a press statement:

“Our members have always argued that federal law does not permit the federal government to force federal workers — or any law-abiding citizen — to inject their bodies with something against their will. …

“It was incredibly vindicating to hear the court echo those arguments and to draw clear limits around federal authority as it relates to forced vaccinations and medical freedoms.”

Marcus Thornton, president and co-founder of the group told The Defender:

“This is a huge win but we’re just getting warmed up. We demand accountability. We need a bureaucracy reflective of our nation’s political diversity — which serves the whole country, and not just one party. We must ensure this never happens again — not to us, and not to future generations.

“There is so much more at stake than a question of vaccines. This fight is about the survival of the country and the ideals established by our founding fathers.”

Thornton said that since Feds for Medical Freedom was founded, the group has been “censored, shadow-banned, de-platformed too many times to count.”

He credited Thursday’s win to “the bravery and tenacity of those who were willing to put their careers on the line to defend our freedoms.”

The White House, which continues to defend the mandate, citing the high compliance rate among the federal workforce, issued a statement Friday saying that “Vaccination remains one of the most important tools to protect people from serious illness and hospitalizations” against COVID-19, The Associated Press reported.

Executive order was contentious from the start

Biden introduced Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, requiring more than 3.5 million federal executive branch workers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination unless they secured approved medical or religious exemptions.

Those who didn’t comply were threatened with disciplinary action, including termination.

In December 2021, Feds for Medical Freedom, a nonprofit representing more than 8,500 federal employees who don’t want the vaccine, sued the Biden administration and several federal agencies.

Other parties to the lawsuit include AFGE Local 918, a union representing employees in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service and several other individuals and federal contractors.

The groups sought to block two COVID-19 vaccine mandates: one covering federal employees and the other for federal contractors. They also asked for injunctions against both orders.

The court declined to enjoin the contractor mandate because it was already under a nationwide injunction.

Lawyers representing the Biden administration argued the Constitution gives the president, as head of the federal workforce, the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation, and that therefore mandating vaccination was under the president’s authority.

The plaintiffs disagreed, countering that such action oversteps a president’s powers, The Defender reported.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, in Jan. 2022, issued an injunction blocking the federal mandate. Judge Brown ruled that the Biden administration did not have the authority to impose the mandate.

At that time, the administration said nearly 98% of federal employees had been vaccinated against COVID-19, the AP reported.

From there, the case moved to the 5th Circuit.

In February 2022, a 5th Circuit panel of judges declined to block Brown’s ruling and instead asked both parties to file arguments to the court in March.

The majority ruling by a three-judge panel in April reinstated the mandate, determining that the court did not have the jurisdiction to rule in the case.

The panel ordered the district court to dismiss the case, arguing that under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the plaintiffs should have filed their complaints elsewhere, such as in administrative venues like the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In June 2022, the federal appeals court agreed to reconsider its decision to reinstate the mandate and scheduled the en banc oral arguments, leading to Thursday’s ruling.

Biden administration exceeded its authority, judges rule

The 16-judge appeals court ruled on Thursday that the court does in fact have jurisdiction over the case.

The judges said the Civil Service Reform Act did not apply in this case because the workers were challenging the mandates on the grounds that the administration exceeded its authority.

Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated to the court by then-President Donald Trump, wrote the 10-member majority opinion.

Oldham and the majority said that federal law does not apply to “private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace.”

They added:

“The fact that the President ordered employees to make medical decisions outside of the workplace — and to live with those irrevocable decisions even after they leave the federal workforce — bolsters plaintiffs’ argument that the mandate is not a ‘working condition.’”

Judge Stephen Higginson, a nominee of President Barack Obama, wrote the main dissenting opinion.

“For the wrong reasons, our court correctly concludes that we do have jurisdiction,” Higginson wrote.

“But contrary to a dozen federal courts — and having left a government motion to stay the district court’s injunction pending for more than a year — our court still refuses to say why the President does not have the power to regulate workplace safety for his employees.”

In the next district court arguments, Oldham wrote:

“The plaintiffs will have to prove that whatever injunction they request is broad enough to protect against their proven injuries and no broader.

“And the Government will have another chance to show that any permanent injunction should be narrower than the preliminary one.

“And both sides will have to grapple with the White House’s announcement that the COVID emergency will finally end on May 11, 2023.”

The government may also have to contend with more lawsuits. Feds for Medical Freedom said it intends to file new suits in federal court “for violations of our members’ rights, including under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the U.S. Constitution. We will be fighting for justice for those whom the vaccine has injured.”

The group added:

“As this decision makes clear today, many in the government overstepped their legal bounds, and we are going to hold them accountable.”