Breaking Down "The Memo"

In an age of pharma-funded disinformation, it's important to set straight the facts. The *real* facts...

I had a little fun earlier, showcasing some of the most senseless, histrionic reactions from supposedly real people across the internet to Dr. Vinay Prasad’s controversial memo.

But that was easy.

After all, it doesn’t take much to highlight the knee-jerk reactions of the uninformed masses. What takes some effort is actually maintaining objectivity and rationally analyzing what’s really going on here.

So, where else to start but with the memo itself?

First off, there is the man behind the memo and media frenzy, Dr. Vinayak K. Prasad.

If you didn’t know, Dr. Prasad has served as director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), a branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), since May of this year.

Before that, he was a highly respected researcher and hematologist-oncologist (i.e., a blood and cancer specialist).

You might also be interested to know that he’s authored two very interesting non-fiction books, of which many of you would approve. One deals more broadly with the issue of ending ‘medical reversal,’ whereby clinical practices are demonstrated to be ineffective or inferior and thereby replaced with better practices.

His second book, Malignant, goes along the same vein, dealing with the minutiae of the cancer industry, specifically those policies that push marginal and unproven therapies to the market.

chemo, anyone?

---

---

But let’s get back to the memo.

Dr. Prasad addresses the memo to his team at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), drawing from “career staff” at the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance (OBPV) who found that “at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”

Vinay states that these findings are related to the injections because they represent a “likely/probable/possible attribution made by staff.” Furthermore, he is quick to point out that the 10 figure - which we all know is laughably low - is “certainly an underestimate due to underreporting, and inherent bias in attribution.”

Dr. Prasad goes on to cite how much more dangerous these injections are to the young heart than the elderly heart, which is something most of us have known for a long time now.

Vinay even cites a “widely discussed, peer-reviewed paper in 2022” that he, the FDA Commissioner, and others co-authored, showing how harmful the jabs were to young, healthy individuals.

The FDA and CDC at the time, Vinay implies, seemed to do everything not to address this.

Following a 2025 summer investigation, Dr. Prasad asked that the Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance (OBPV) take an honest look at VAERS data. In this case, specifically those reports of children who had died after receiving COVID-19 injections.

Which led Dr. Prasad to an important question we can all now answer with utmost confidence:

While Vinay does not answer that question directly, his measured response as a clinician in a position of great power is somewhat telling…

“The available randomized data in children is deeply limited, and broadly negative for symptomatic infection, as discussed in prior ad-coms. Furthermore, COVID-19 was never highly lethal for children, and now MIS-c has decreased drastically, and the harms, to kids, are comparable to many respiratory viruses for which we do not provide annual immunization.

Comparing the number of kids who died from COVID against these deaths would be a flawed comparison. We do not know how many fewer kids would have died had they been vaccinated, and we do not know how many more kids died from taking vaccines than has been voluntarily reported. Instead, the truth is we do not know if we saved lives on balance.”

Dr. Prasad also addresses another key issue that many people have referenced as evidence that his memo is malarkey.

Think about it. How many times do people screech about VAERS being unreliable, that any slovenly Joe or Jane can just throw up unsubstantiated reports that mean nothing?

In reality, this argument is littered with holes.

As Vinay points out, VAERS is passively reported. You have to be motivated, and in many cases, the reporting individual is a doctor. The submission process is actually quite tedious - contrary to common belief - with many non-doctors giving up before completing all the forms.

Dr. Prasad also addresses the common argument by pro-jabbers that myocarditis following ‘the virus’ is more prevalent than myocarditis after the injections. In short, he concludes that there is no definitive answer.

“No amount of Covid vaccines stops a person from getting Covid, so the risk is not virus vs vaccine. It is vaccine + virus vs virus alone. I am not aware of any analysis that does this right, and we have performed an empirical review of this fact.”

Vinay is also quite pragmatic about the motivations of the vaccine producers. While he and his cohort will never come out and admit it’s all a Sickness-for-Business model, he at least has no qualms about singling out the unique profit drivers.

Of course, not everything about Dr. Prasad is encouraging. Like many in his circle, he’s willing to criticize the C-19 injections while still praising “vaccines” in general.

“I have no doubt that MMR vaccines do provide third-party benefits when administered to high enough fractions of society.”

If that’s not problematic enough, he even thinks that some of the C-19 injections offered benefits, again, with “no doubt”:

“I suspect the answer is cultural and systemic. I have no doubt that many vaccines have saved millions of lives globally, and many have benefits that far exceed risks, but vaccines are like any other medical product. The right drug given to the right patient at the right time is great, but the same drug can be inappropriately given, causing harm. The same is true for vaccines. The US government’s coercive and unethical Covid-19 vaccine mandates in young people may have been harmful. In contrast, there is no doubt that an elderly, un-immune American benefited from Doses 1 and 2 in 2020. The people who might have benefited most from vaccination were those too old to be affected by workplace mandates—another Biden administration blunder.”

That said, he does envision “a path forward,” most notably aimed at protecting pregnant women and demanding crucial, pre-market randomized trials.

Dr. Prasad states that so-called vaccines “will be treated like all other medication classes,” with a particular focus “on understanding the benefits and harms of giving multiple vaccines at the same time.”

He is particularly critical of the annual flu injection schedule, calling it an “evidence-based catastrophe of low-quality evidence, poor surrogate assays, and uncertain vaccine effectiveness measured in case-control studies with poor methods.”

So take that for what it is.

Will we see the kind of results we want? Will meaningful changes in practice and policy actually transpire? Will the general public become aware and shift its overall stance on these absolutely life-vital issues?

Or, will Big Pharma do what it has always done, find a way to coerce and control, offering up a sacrificial lamb while secretly force-feeding us 3D-printed meat?

Whatever’s brewing behind the scenes, it’s time we bring it to light. Feet to the fire, back to the wall, illusory shadows no more.

---

---

---